Hacker News Reader

Comment by malermeister | Hacker News Reader

Here's Žižek commenting better than I could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo

>I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.

In other words, what you think of as moderate and not ideological is a result of your ideology itself.

For a more thorough, very academic examination of ideology, I can recommend the book The Sublime Object of Ideology.

View on HN

"Moderate" doesn't mean "agreeable", it means "opposed to radical/extreme change". These beliefs are moderate by definition, it's not tautological or subjective.

The definition of moderate itself is ideological.

In Saudi Arabia, death penalty for homosexuals would be considered moderate. They would consider your attitude toward free speech around the prophet radical.

What you consider moderate is always a result of your ideology. There is no objective moderate, there is only moderate within your ideology.

That's exactly what ideology is: It determines what you perceive as "normal" or "moderate".

You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is relative, not ideological. It's just like the definition of "median", my height might be close to the median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian context. This doesn't imply that the definition of "median" is ideological.

It’s absolutely relative. But what’s the dimension we’re measuring this relativity on? I’d say it’s ideology.

Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread questions that), but the OP's claim is that the definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological question. It's a bit meta.

Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what?

Relative to your ideology.

You'd be tall in Nigeria relative to the median height.

You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.

> Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? Relative to your ideology.

Incorrect, not relative to one’s ideology, but relative to the implicit political context (such as “US politics” or “Saudi politics”. If it were relative to each person’s own ideology, then everyone would identify as a moderate: “My ideology is moderate relative to my ideology”.

> You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.

This is correct, but it contradicts your earlier claim that the definition of “moderate” is itself ideological. It’s contextual but not ideological.

"Implicit political context" is just a very roundabout way of saying "prevalent ideology".

The ideology is the context.

Yes, I was being precise. “Moderate” is relative to “the prevalent ideology” (although it’s not conventionally thought of as a single ideology, hence my phrasing). The point is that the definition isn’t an ideological matter.

Zizek, as usual, is saying something facile but with flowery language to make it seem insightful, but the idea that in order to understand his culture a man must leave it and view it from the outside, the same idea Zizek is sharing here (amid sniffs) is an idea that goes back at least as far as Buddhism, as it is present in the story of the youth of the Buddha.

Zizek is very ironically an ideologue himself (a "Hegelian" in his words) and as such his version of the story only contains half the lesson -- that culture, which he calls ideology because he seemingly refuses to truly understand what ideology is, lest admit he is an ideologue, can blind members of that culture to certain things, but without addressing that culture and ideology have positive aspects as well.

The man is a neverending font of faux insight and obscurantism posturing as wisdom and this quote is no different from any other.

I think you thoroughly misunderstood his point. His point is that everything is ideology and that it's inescapable, that obviously includes him. Everyone is an ideologue if you will, some just think their ideology isn't ideology.

(and it seems that includes you based on how you contrasted "status quo" and "ideology" in the other comment, as if the status quo were somehow unideological)

But you're missing the point of everyone who is saying "Twitter Inc is too ideological". The point isn't "Twitter should abstain from ideology" as though that's possible in a strict philosophical sense, the point is that they don't need to suffocate users with their ideology. Twitter Inc can remain devoutly woke without spamming user feeds with woke propo.

Invariably, topics involving "ideology" are a trap for pedants. They think they're going to get a good "gotcha!" in, but they find themselves hoisted on their own petards.

But that in itself would also be an ideological act. As we've just established, there's no "non-ideological".

People who want Twitter to be non-ideological in reality just want it to represent some other ideology instead, they don't get to hide behind some veil of neutrality.

Your point is that people who want Twitter to be neutral are ideological, because being pro-neutrality is itself an ideology? Even taking that as a given, they could still absolutely hide behind a veil of neutrality- they support neutrality, they're the people they invented the veil for.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Yes, pushing one’s ideology on people is technically an ideological concern as is the preference not to. But most of us find the latter more agreeable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com