It's basically a truism when one thinks about it for a bit.

How true

@@MrLcowles You mean other than the example of the Nazi's used in the video? Here is one from contemporary American politics that is similar: Fact: "immigrants pass illegally over America's southern border" Re-packed Fact: "Hordes of immigrants storm America's southern border" Clearly, neither of these "facts" (or "truths") justifies the treatment of these immigrants as anything other than human beings in search of a better life. However, it was used to justify callous treatment, particularly when phrased in the latter form. What is less clear, but equally relevant, is that these "facts" don't even justify any given political policy of any type. Political policies are always expressions of values and power and can never be justified theoretically by appeals to such "facts." When a person advocates for a political policy and marshals "facts" in support of their case, they "lie" when they do so in a way that "Obfuscates certain social antagonisms." (7:40)

Blake was incredible

I can’t tell whether you misunderstand the scope of the topic at hand or just the idea of concision. It’s a pretty quote and it’s in the same ballpark topically, but if you find them to be of equal depth then you’re stuck on the wrong end of empiricism.

haha

This is also you using a truth about Zizek to lie.

@@peterclark6290 I don't know if you're being willfully ignorant or you just didn't grasp the argument, but his whole argument is very much built against totalitarian ("Orwellian") states unlike what you're insinuating. His argument has basically three parts: 1) there is no pure "data" of reality independent of interpretative frameworks, 2) these interpretative frameworks are objective parts of social fields (that is to say, they are not merely subjective biases but are grounded in existing ideologies, practices and institutions) and 3) even if there is no independent perspective that would dictate how data should be chosen in a given social field, it's possible to say that for example anti-semitism is wrong since it obfuscates parts of reality as they are given within these pre-given frameworks of interpretation.

I think at the core of what Zizek says here is that any ideological framework can be supported if you arrange the facts in the right way (e.g. antisemitism can technically find its basis in actual facts). Thus, rather than contesting the truth of these facts, we should instead question the framework itself (e.g. yes, Jews are represented disproportionately in certain parts of the economy. But *why* do you Nazis care about this? What is it that the Nazis want to achieve?). This is a far stronger response to antisemitism because it does not fall into the trap of fighting facts but rather fighting ideologies, frameworks, and morals.

Summary: to lie is not simply to misrepresent facts, but to use facts to tell a story that hides one’s motives. For example… In Nazi Germany, it was a fact (apparently) that Jews were disproportionately powerful. The Nazi’s used this fact to justify their treatment of Jews. But this justification was a lie in the sense that it hid their true motives of retaliating against their sense of humiliation and lack of power. Thus, one can’t combat Nazism by discussing facts about Jews, or even how they should be treated, but only by revealing the motives of Nazis and how they have nothing to do with Jews.