In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.
Chief Justice Roberts’s reply is something that only someone with immense privilege can say:
To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to “wish away, rather than confront” racial inequality… People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.
This is the more sophisticated form of the dudebro argument that tries to place everything on a theoretical level, denies personal experience, and ignore the real-world impacts on people. I’m surprised his next argument wasn’t to accuse Sotomayor of a logical fallacy.
I love Jacobin, but this is an awful article.
One, it doesn’t actually engage with the new biography of Paul de Man. Second, the author spends very little time actually reflecting upon de Man and more upon how she didn’t like the climate of Johns Hopkins. Third, it’s a pitiful attack on deconstruction that mainly tries to work by saying “Hey, de Man was an awful person and Derrida was once snotty to me in a class, so therefore deconstruction is useless.” Fourth, criticizing deconstruction as obscurantist or difficult to understand is a lazy critique. She gestures at an argument that deconstruction is a tool for professors maintain radical cred while not being involved in any kind of struggle, but doesn’t actually develop it as a critique. Fifth, this kind of “critique” is symptomatic of how way too many Marxists read “postmodern” texts (whatever postmodern means). It’s an uncharitable and boring style of reading that doesn’t try to actually engage with what the thinkers are doings.
Paul de Man is still an awful person though and I think there could be a good debate about the relationship between his personal life and theory, but this article has nothing to contribute to that.
There’s something definitely cringeworthy (if not infuriating) about his new book being this at the same time he’s celebrating the “democratic” plight of white supr. fascists: amazon.com/Zizeks-…
Maybe he’ll stop writing now that there’s literally a book full of his jokes because that’s all he’s written for the past few years: the same book with the same offensive jokes.
First as Tragedy and then as Farce applies equally as well to his career.
Site note: he just wrote an editorial piece more or less offering implicit support for Ukrainian fascists.
There’s a really good article out there waiting to be written about what it says about the current world situation that Zizek is considered the most popular leftist outside of Chomsky.
It doesn’t say something good; I’ll say that much.
I can hate on most popular authors for being way overrated and a product of the high-school reading industrial complex (a phrase I really hope catches on), but Vonnegut is one I legitimately like.
Any one read Did Someone Say Totalitarianism? by Zizek? I’m thinking about picking it up because of the Verso sale and wanted some feedback. The topic is interesting and something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately.
Thank God Andrew Sullivan is out there saying the need of the workplace to function is more important than calling out bigotry. Because if he wasn’t out there protecting capitalism, who would?
God, Salon is just having an awful day. Crappy articles about race and Heartbleed.
Joan Walsh arguing that because Colbert is damaging to Bill O’Reilly, it’s okay he makes racist jokes and minorities should get over it. Yeah, you may be offended, but hey, at least it’s not as bad the GOP.
It bewilders me that Walsh thinks this is a good argument.