but hes right about a lot of things. kind of sad that this 72 year old is one of the most influential intellectual on the left today
edit: I think this post was taken in the wrong way. You should read Zizek, he does have good ideas. I call him a "grifter" not to shut down his ideas, but rather as an acknowledgement of his limitations.
you can talk about how he regurgitates the same ideas constantly, or critique some of his contrarian takes, but they are rather trivial and he's frankly a good intellectual by all means. most importantly, he's not interested in doing a revolution. he is content with writing books, giving lectures, etc. he has no political project that is actionable. of course, its totally understandable for a 72 year old to be in such a state.
is this supposed to be ironic?
it is true
the most aggravating thing is that he's very open about grifting, he himself said he's writing the same book for the past 20 years
sorry dude but this is a stupid take. He's a grifter because isn't launching a revolution? what the fuck are you doing then?
that's not what I said. I think you guys are taking "grifter" too seriously of an accusation. I'm simply saying that he does what he does not because of his commitment to a communist revolution, but rather to make a living and maintain his reputation. basically all academics are grifters in this sense. it doesn't mean that their ideas are inherently invalid, it is just a limitation to be acknowledged when engaging with them.
Not really a grift. At least, not on the level of Andrew Wakefield or Alex Jones; he has some interesting things to say, but as with many intellectuals (and artists, for that matter) he is only capable of talking about the same few things, because that's all he really knows.
Not that I know what those things are, because I've never read any of his books, but still