Oh wow we hit the ground RUNNING with the beginning of this story I’m locked tf in

”One of the neighborhood leaders of the S.A. in Berlin was Horst Wessel… He was murdered by some Communists in February 1930… thanks to Dr Goebbels’ skillful propaganda, [Horst Wessel] became one of the great hero legends of the movement, hailed as a pure idealist who had given his life for the cause.”

Literally the only thing on my mind after Charlie Kirk was killed was thinking about Horst Wessel and how they turned him into a martyr for the Nazi cause. Not even two weeks later, Stephen Miller got on stage and spoke in an eerily similar tone to one of Joseph Goebbels’ famous speeches titled ”The Storm Is Coming” at Charlie’s memorial.

It’s impossible to express how important it is for anyone living in the USA to familiarize yourself with this history, because we are living it.

”… I find this demand (defaulting to people using they vs he/she pronouns when you don’t know them) problematic because it elevates exception into universality, into a universal standard: we are all “they,” and “he” or “she” becomes one of its subspecies.”

This is where he gives the game away. The pronoun “they” is not exception it is consideration. Much like him referring to previously using hyperboles like “I’m so happy, you could kill me — but don’t literally pull a knife on me!” defaulting to using “they” when you do not know someone’s pronouns does not literally mean you are denoting them as nonbinary.

Even before his much decried Wokeism taking hold on society, this was not an uncommon practice!! I get philosophy is supposed to be abstract, but I really don’t understand the angle of him constantly bringing this specific discussion to the forefront several times throughout a book supposedly focused on theology.

”But is something structurally homologous not happening also in the pseudo-Leftist cancel culture?”

”… you argue for diversity and inclusion, but you do it by excluding all of those who do not fully subscribe to your own definition of diversity and inclusion — so all you do is permanently excluding [sic] people and stances.”

Bro this is the third time he’s brought this up in this book and I’m not even halfway finished. His point is talking about a “no-debate-stance” with regards to cancel culture. Yeah man, at a technical level you’re not wrong but your framing of this is clearly as a negative.

If you make a big stink about someone’s pronouns instead of just accepting how people what to be perceived there’s nothing to debate. You’re just being an asshole, contrarian, bigot, or all of the above. There’s no deeper meaning or truth to be found.

You’re trying to apply sociological norms through a philosophical lens. Language and identity is an ever shifting presence, exemplified in the fact he has no problem using “made up” terms and hyper-niche concepts in this very book. I don’t understand how someone who can be so eloquent (in a way only Zizek can be) and a leftist can also be this fucking hard headed.

(It’s because he’s almost 80)