• Brak [they/them, e/em/eir]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    is trying to explain something he doesn’t really understand

    Y’know that right there might be the problem.

    Wonder if somebody had a take on talking authoritatively about topics you don’t understand?

    :mao-wave:

    OH WOW IF IT ISN’T MAO

    I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK

    Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

    It won' t do!

    It won't do!

    You must investigate!

    You must not talk nonsense!

    -Mao, Oppose Book Worship

    I’m riffing here. Zizek is gonna be a mixed bag and someone who generally has a good batting average can also just have a dogshit for brains take on a topic.

    • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      I mean, yeah. That's exactly his biggest problem, and a pretty significant portion of people's. He talks about things he doesn't understand, that are out of the scope of who he is and what he does. But don't we all, from time to time? It's something a lot of people need to work on.

        • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It's usually better for sure, since it's a tighter group of people with a more focused scope, so we're interacting with others who know a lot about the subject matter, and thus we're less likely to need/want to speak about something we don't know about, since someone else is going to be there to say what actually should be said.