Tag: metoo movement

Slavoj Žižek Fails to Fully Understand Hierarchies

Daniel Szewc | Poland

One must understand the realities of Eastern Europe from 1945-1989 to understand Slavoj Žižek’s mentality. His embracement of the Marxist way of being is completely the result of his comparatively strong societal position in Slovenia before the fall of the Eastern Block. This was exemplified by the fact that this hierarchal position, created on the basis of being closer to the Marxist view of a perfected human than the average man, got even stronger after the acceptance of capitalism in his native country (for all intents and purposes, Slavoj Žižek is a celebrity in Slovenia). Of course, this brought to his subconscious the notion that being closer to Marx makes you a more efficient human in general, whilst in reality, it was just the manifestation of parts of the old, synthetic establishment, Žižek included, surviving into the new era, and adapting to the new circumstances.

As for his support of leftism, contrasted by his dislike of societal decay, it is comparable to liking uranium, yet disliking the particles that it emits. No matter how hard you try to keep society stable, without the philosophical absolute, you are unable to do so.

The Maintenence of the Hierarchy

Any hierarchy without an unreachable entity, whether it be a value or a being, that cannot be toppled from the bottom is doomed to fluctuate drastically, as well as to crash in a time proportionately short to the number of active members in the said structure. For example, the morally unthinkable happened in France, the regicide of the revolution, and the hierarchy’s immovable peak was shattered.

Soon after, the bloodshed flooded over to the initial instigators of the crime, causing the whole megastructure to topple. In the end, a new hierarchy arose, with Napoleon rising to its peak. He was able to justify his role sufficiently enough not to be toppled by power-hungry contestants for his position only because of his idealization and even stronger emancipation of the traditional role of emperor.

For such processes to not happen, equality, not hierarchy, would have to dominate throughout life forms- something that is mathematically ridiculous. To assume that the total sum capability of creatures as complex as us to have equal chances at maintaining our positions at a zero level hierarchy is simply improbable. Too many variables influence our lives on the daily for this to happen naturally, and for any individual even remotely knowledgeable about cybernetics, it is obvious that no circuit can encompass a circuit equally or more complicated than themselves, therefore the human mind may never manage to understand it’s own secrets (…and variables that make us so different in outcome).

Of course, #MeToo became dominated by empty media icons, because it’s the natural consequence of having a promiscuous society, something one can earn money off, and human nature. The last of the three implies inequality in intelligence and ability, whilst the first is implied by leftism. You cannot have all three and not get the result that #MeToo got.

In general, however, I personally like Žižek’s look on Buddhism, as well as I think that his views on love can be put to good use by any thoughtful person on any side of the political arena. Alas, 90%+ of what he says is based on some ridiculous imaginary plasticity of the human condition. For example, Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, if anyone, knows the most about empirically proving the aforementioned rationalist perspective of it being improbable.

Who will win the debate between the two? Well, the better question is whether the side that in fact loses will be able to comprehend it’s fallibility, or will it stay in its shell of Marxist presumptions.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Following the Gillette Ad, Get Politics Out of Advertising

Jack Parkos | United States

Whether or not you agree with the message of Gillette’s recent ad, it is clear that it is risky for any corporation to get political. Without a doubt, it can have great blowback. Gillette’s new ad is receiving both love and hate and the divide here is clear. In fact, the YouTube video is receiving a great deal of criticism from people. Many are calling to boycott the company.

Indeed, this ad makes some highly questionable claims. However, the main focus of this article is not to criticize the claims made by Gillette. Instead, it will discuss political marketing and how it is bad for the consumer and producer.

It does not take a marketing expert to know that you don’t alienate half of your customers. But when a company gets into politics, they almost inevitably do this. One should not receive cultural and political lectures when simply trying to purchase a razor.

Why Critics Dislike the Gillette Ad

First of all, some believe the ad has stereotyped men as misogynistic. They also believe it has used the leftist talking point of “toxic masculinity”. Critics have noted that the ad implies that fathers (a large consumer of razors) are currently failing to raise their sons to respect women. The left associates that the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in the court of law is somehow promoting this behavior. Many believe that this is an insult to their top consumer. Gillette has claimed that this isn’t the point of the ad. Nonetheless, it comes across as such to many people.

The ad was trying to say that the good men should stand up to the “toxic men”, which of course is true. But critics of the Gillette ad state how good men already do that. They also suggest that to imply they don’t simply because they believe in due process is insulting to many.

Whether you agree with the ads or the criticism is irrelevant to why politics should not be in marketing, however.

Keeping Marketing Out of Politics

What place does a corporation have in this matter, anyway? Gillette is using a cultural movement to sell razors. The product has nothing to do with any political issue. They are simply trying to make themselves seem morally superior. Is it not toxic behavior to use a sensitive topic just to sell more razors?

It is not just Gillette that is the issue. Nike did this with Kaepernick. Countless other examples exist. Many people simply want to watch a game or even a commercial and get a break from politics. People just want to buy products without having to take a stand. All these ads do, though, is divide an already divided country. This ad is just another battle in the culture war. Why must everything be political?

Whether left, right, liberal, conservative, or anything else, the marketing industry should steer clear of political issues. Their job is to provide a good or service, not give lectures. Issues such as #MeToo are critical to talk about, but a Gillette ad is not the proper setting.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Why the #MeToo Movement is a Sham

By Austin Anderholt | USA

In recent weeks, feminists, other leftists, and other general Americans have been praising “#MeToo” movement, the two-word hashtag to help demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual violence against women in America. The movement has disguised itself as “showing empathy and solidarity with sexually mistreated women” when in reality it is a cancerous plague of media sensation and mob rule.

A few weeks ago, Babe.net released a story about a woman with the pseudonym Grace, who felt she was sexually mistreated by actor, Aziz Ansari. His crime? Absolutely nothing. In some points of the article, Grace seems to be annoyed that she didn’t get to “choose her wine”, or that Mr. Ansari ignored her “cues that she was uncomfortable.”

Obviously, the definition of “consent” has changed over the years. It used to be, that if someone willingly goes to your house after a date, willingly has sex with you, that was “consent”. Now, someone can have sex they don’t like, wait for a month, and say they “felt violated”. This new age process where you can just publicly accuse anyone you don’t like of rape and ruin their lives without due process with one simple hashtag is disgusting.

In American law, according to the sixth amendment, the suspect of a case must face the supposed victim. With the outbreak of this #metoo disease, anyone (including the “Grace” character mentioned above) can just anonymously say that they were violated and not have to face the criticism and public eye that their supposed violators have to go through.

The single thing that disgusts me the most about the #MeToo movement is that people think that the media, or someone on social media is now the arbiter or sexual assault and rape cases. We no longer live in an “innocent until proven guilty” society. We live in the “If you don’t believe the victim you’re a sexist!” If someone simply SAYS they were sexually violated, then we have feminists with torches and pitchforks destroying the lives and reputations of illegally innocent people. This is absolutely disgusting.

The third and final reason that makes the “MeToo” movement so repulsive is that it is again not about “equality and voice” for women at all. I can point you out so many examples of a woman doing something that would land any man in prison or be detrimental to their career. For example, if a woman gave a man an unwanted hug, kiss, or any other similar touching, a judge would simply laugh at him if he tried going to court.

In conclusion, the #MeToo movement is an anti-male attack disguised as an egalitarian message. Do not be fooled.