Jacob Joesph Angelo Richardson, born April 15th, 1993.
Dedicated to: politics, literature, music, film, philosophy, culture and science.
I write and concern myself with my species.
Individualist, humanist, internationalist, atheist, existentialist, socialist. Ask me questions. Think for yourself and question every answer.
Random post
Follow @jjarichardson
Blog
Last.fm
StumbleUpon
Rate Your Music
YouTube
(via lastmutations)
(via looking-awry)
he had a really good poignant reason and everything
ehhhhhhh
well he didn’t really actually like it he was just doing that thing where he says something that seems weird and then dissects it and you realize he didn’t mean it and here’s what he meant which is that ironic funny self-critique of problematic ideology still propagates that ideology. That’s what I got from it but I barely understand his fuckin voice.
i get it it’s mostly that it’s a weird concept to associate with slavoj zizek and with kung fu panda where postmodern, self-aware pulpy TV (and TVTropes to go with it) have been so strong in our culture
also i’m not sure what to make of him ironically liking a movie which ironically rejects things and in so doing upholding them
I don’t think he likes it ironically at all, I think he genuinely likes it… have to say I really enjoyed the several pages of “Living in the End Times” devoted to Kung Fu Panda… he describes it as an exposition of the Lacanian objet petit a and he’s totally right, the film’s full of it: “the legend of a legendary warrior” “the special ingredient of my soup with special ingredient” “I’ve only seen paintings of this painting”, the dragon scroll with nothing on it… I know he probably looks for Lacan in everything but in King Fu Panda it’s absolutely there… I was actually writing an essay about the ‘object cause of desire’ in film when I read it and it totally helped me.
Zizek’s politics are shitty but I could read him talking about movies all day long.
His small son subjects him to terrible mass-market films constantly, so engaging in academic Lacanian/Marxist psychoanalysis of them probably keeps him sane.
(Source: anarcheluxemburg)
Further, though, the TOMS campaign — like the million shirts — misses the fundamental point that not having a pair of shoes (or a shirt, christmas toy, etc.) is not a problem about not having shoes. It’s a problem of poverty. Shoelessness, such as it is, is a symptom of a much bigger and more complex problem. And while donating a pair of shoes helps shoelessness, it does not help poverty.
Things like jobs help poverty. Jobs making things like shoes, for example. But TOMS doesn’t make its shoes in Africa, it makes them in China where it’s presumably cheaper to make two pairs of shoes and give one away than it is to get people in a needier community to make one pair of shoes.
The result of this setup, as Zizek explains most succinctly, is that on a big-picture level, TOMS (and other buy-my-product-and-donate companies) are busy building the exploitative global structure that produces economic inequality, while on the other hand pretending that supporting them actually does something to fix it.
It doesn’t. It just gives people shoes.
"Slavoj Žižek, DemocracyNow! (via cuntymint)
once again Slavoj Zizek, known to “hate” on Foucault, says a thing that Foucault said in the early 80’s (except about Iran)
(via resmc)
(via lastmutations)
(via looking-awry)
Further, though, the TOMS campaign — like the million shirts — misses the fundamental point that not having a pair of shoes (or a shirt, christmas toy, etc.) is not a problem about not having shoes. It’s a problem of poverty. Shoelessness, such as it is, is a symptom of a much bigger and more complex problem. And while donating a pair of shoes helps shoelessness, it does not help poverty.
Things like jobs help poverty. Jobs making things like shoes, for example. But TOMS doesn’t make its shoes in Africa, it makes them in China where it’s presumably cheaper to make two pairs of shoes and give one away than it is to get people in a needier community to make one pair of shoes.
The result of this setup, as Zizek explains most succinctly, is that on a big-picture level, TOMS (and other buy-my-product-and-donate companies) are busy building the exploitative global structure that produces economic inequality, while on the other hand pretending that supporting them actually does something to fix it.
It doesn’t. It just gives people shoes.
"Slavoj Žižek, DemocracyNow! (via cuntymint)
once again Slavoj Zizek, known to “hate” on Foucault, says a thing that Foucault said in the early 80’s (except about Iran)
(via resmc)
