Slavoj iek plagarized a white supremacist.

[Mouthwash]

Zizek fans, a pair of spectacles: http://www.critical-theory.com/slavoj-zizek-accused-of-plagiarizing-white-supremacist-magazine/

Slavoj Zizek, Slovenian critical theorists extraordinaire, has drawn the ire of academics after a blogger alleged that he had plagiarized from a white supremacist magazine. It all started when Steve Sailer was intrigued by a particularly lucid portion of a 2006 article entitled “A Plea for a Return Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua).” Soon after, this blog posted a side-by-side of the Slavoj Zizek excerpt in question next to a book review by Stanley Hornbeck.

The text in question is a review of a Kevin Macdonald book entitled “The Culture of Critique.” That book, which analyzes Jewish culture, drew predictable attention from anti-Semitic and racist groups, including the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine. Stanley Hornbeck wrote the article in question for American Renaissance in 1999.

Of course, that raises the question: Why is Zizek reading the American Renaissance?

Defenders of Zizek have cited his prolific output as a possible cause for this careless mistake. Others have suggested that when two sources paraphrase the same book, it becomes likely that two authors can accidentally generate the same content.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not this hipster idiot again...

He gives 'philosophy' an even worse name than what it has by now. Just make Slavoj go away, pls. Maybe have him fall to the ground and then auto-generate his various hand ticks, so that he can crawl back to Ljubljana as some kind of insect.

 

[Tahuti]

The text in question is a review of a Kevin Macdonald book entitled “The Culture of Critique.” That book, which analyzes Jewish culture, drew predictable attention from anti-Semitic and racist groups, including the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine.

Do note that while Amren is white supremacist and racial separatist, it is also philosemitic and considers Jews to be white, at least ever since under Jared Taylor. I doubt it was a positive review, given that Kevin Macdonald is a noted antisemite.

 

[Masada]

Zizek's defense:

With regard to the recent accusations about my plagiarism, here is what happened. When I was writing the text on Derrida which contains the problematic passages, a friend told me about Kevin Macdonald’s theories, and I asked him to send me a brief resume. The friend send [sic] it to me, assuring me that I can use it freely since it merely resumes another’s line of thought. Consequently, I did just that – and I sincerely apologize for not knowing that my friend’s resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck’s review of Macdonald’s book. (These passages are also taken over in Part III, Chapter 1, of my book The Parallax View.) As any reader can quickly establish, the problematic passages are purely informative, a report on another’s theory for which I have no affinity whatsoever; all I do after this brief resume is quickly dismissing Macdonald’s theory as a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason. In no way can I thus be accused of plagiarizing another’s line of thought, of »stealing ideas.« I nonetheless deeply regret the incident.

So, in short, Žižek plagarised a piece of work from a friend that was itself plagarized from a Nazi. It's still plagarism, I think? (Although that might on reflection not be the case depending on the academic code of conduct in force).

More seriously, I wonder if the plagarism or not-plagarism was picked up because the sentences in question are actually readable?

 

[Kyriakos]

Zizek's defense:



So, in short, Žižek plagarised a piece of work from a friend that was itself plagarized from a Nazi. It's still plagarism, I think? (Although that might on reflection not be the case depending on the academic code of conduct in force).

More seriously, I wonder if the plagarism or not-plagarism was picked up because the sentences in question are actually readable?

I like one of the comments in that url:

The problem with apologies like his is that they seem fair, while it is often overlooked that they are actually inadequate. Notice the assumption that it is okay to copy text from a friend when it is assumed the friend wrote it. He could've also apologized for taking his friends text without the slightest reference to his friend or even a mention that he did not write it himself. He could've also apologized for misleading the reader into thinking he wrote it himself. He could've also apologized for pretending to have read a book which he hadn't. Is this how he does research? In my eyes this is very foul play in the academic field, and a simple oopsie daisy "for not knowing that my friend’s resume was largely borrowed from Stanley Hornbeck’s review" just doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Especially the part where he explains that it isn't all that bad since the stolen passages were "purely informative" shows a sincere lack of any sense of accountability. Would it have been too much to ask to put a simple "(My Friend, p. xx)" after these paragraphs, if not knowing they were largely borrowed was his only mistake? This is dirty, very dirty.

Sums it very well. Even if Zizek did what he claims he did, he still did something not even an undergraduate is allowed to. At best it is very sloppy (and misleading) work.

*

As for your question: it is highly probable indeed that his plagiarised sentences are infinitely more readable than his own stuff, due to the latter being drooling verbalism.

 

[amadeus]

Defenders of Zizek have cited his prolific output as a possible cause for this careless mistake. Others have suggested that when two sources paraphrase the same book, it becomes likely that two authors can accidentally generate the same content.

Defenders of Zizek have also cited his quirky name and the fact that he's a commie misanthrope.

 

[dutchfire]

Zizek's defense:



So, in short, Žižek plagarised a piece of work from a friend that was itself plagarized from a Nazi. It's still plagarism, I think? (Although that might on reflection not be the case depending on the academic code of conduct in force).

More seriously, I wonder if the plagarism or not-plagarism was picked up because the sentences in question are actually readable?

When I was writing the text on Derrida which contains the problematic passages, a friend told me about Kevin Macdonald’s theories, and I asked him to send me a brief resume. --- all I do after this brief resume is quickly dismissing Macdonald’s theory as a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.

"I didn't read this guys work, but that doesn't stop me from dismissing his ideas."

 

[Wrymouth3]

Wait, he's actually trying to defend and justify what he did by plagarizing a noted scumbag? I don't know, but Zizek should be pretty ashamed of himself to even stoop lower than what he has before this whole incident. Does Zizek even READ the stuff that he has written and published? Has Zizek ever read A BOOK in his life (wouldn't suprise me if he hasn't)? This clearly blatant case of copy and paste by him, or whatever person he has conned into working for him.

 

[JollyRoger]

Maybe he can become a speechwriter for Rand Paul.

 

[Masada]

Wait, he's actually trying to defend and justify what he did by plagarizing a noted scumbag?

Naw dawg. He's saying his friend plagiarized the scumbag and he in turn plagiarized his friend.

 

[Tahuti]

Naw dawg. He's saying his friend plagiarized the scumbag and he in turn plagiarized his friend.

His friend probably was a political centrist, that would explain why he could plagiarise from a far-right figure and then be plagiarised by a far-left one!

 

[Mouthwash]

His friend probably was a political centrist, that would explain why he could plagiarise from a far-right figure and then be plagiarised by a far-left one!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

EDIT: I just noticed that the top advertisement reads "don't get caught plagiarizing!" It's for Grammarly.com. Would that have anything to do with the thread title?

 

[Masada]

His friend probably was a political centrist, that would explain why he could plagiarise from a far-right figure and then be plagiarised by a far-left one!

It's rather more likely that his fried just read the review and copy-pasted it.

 

[Tahuti]

It's rather more likely that his fried just read the review and copy-pasted it.

Hence my earlier comment about American Rennaissance not being antisemitic.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

EDIT: I just noticed that the top advertisement reads "don't get caught plagiarizing!" It's for Grammarly.com. Would that have anything to do with the thread title?

I find it unconvincing. I see the similarities between Communists and Fascists, though I would consider them Left and Centrist respectively. The Right is by definition is by definition anti-populist and opposed to rationalism for its own sake. Communism is highly rationalistic, as is Libertarianism, though unlike Libertarianism Populist. Fascism is anti-rationalist though populist. The right would be in the anti-rationalist, anti-populist edge. So Left-Right is a linear scale, with Communism on the Left, Fascism and Libertarianism on the centre (though for different reasons) and Aristocracy and Monarchy on the Right. Most of today's political systems are on located on the Left or on the centre.

 

[Domen]

Is American Renaissance really Anti-Semitic ???

It seems to me that it is not Anti-Semitic currently. But it is Anti-Mexican and Anti-Immigration, etc.:

Spoiler :

They even have some Rabbis in their ranks, and they mock Anti-Semites:


Link to video.

Anti-Mexican / Hispanic:


Link to video.

Anti-Immigration, etc.:


Link to video.

They could be Anti-Semitic in the past, in times when only "Anglo-Saxon Protestants" were considered "true Whites".

 

[Mouthwash]

Link to video.

 

[Tahuti]

Is American Renaissance really Anti-Semitic ???

It isn't anti-semitic at all. It is racial separatist and White nationalist, though it considers Jews to be whites, though it is true the bulk of its membership are WASPs.

 

[plarq]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

EDIT: I just noticed that the top advertisement reads "don't get caught plagiarizing!" It's for Grammarly.com. Would that have anything to do with the thread title?

Horseshoe theory exaggerates the similarities between radical groups, it is more or less a "unified front" thing for fringe groups to seek for support against majority tyranny.

 

[Kyriakos]

Google came up with a page of wiki quotes by the great philosopher ( ) Zizek: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Slavoj_Žižek

And, as expected, it is all drool and platitude, and reveals he has read next to nothing- or is even worse-, else he would not make such dumb claims. A small example is the following quote:

I think that the task of philosophy is not to provide answers, but to show how the way we perceive a problem can be itself part of a problem.

Lecture "Year of Distraction"

:Youdontsay?: Examining the way in which you examine something, is an idea in philosophy already around since the 5th century BC. I mean this person is nothing more than the euro version of dr. Phil, for his analogous 'university' order, in prestigious Slovenia.

 

[Traitorfish]

I heard about this. Very embarrassing all round.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

George Orwell also noted this phenomenon in his writings, although he never attempted to give it a formal definition.

Because nobody hates the far-left more than a man who fought in a Trotskyist militia.