[xamuel]

Zizek isn't a philosopher, he's an entertainer disguised as a philosopher. His entire schtick is: take something common sense, declare the opposite is true, and do so in a profound-sounding way with lots of eccentric gesturing and lisping.

Chomsky on Zizek [1]: Posturing. There's no theory in any of this stuff. Try to find in all [Zizek's work] some principles from which you can deduce...empirically testable propositions...beyond the level of something you can explain in 5 minutes to a 12-year old.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

[haberman]

There's also the fact that he's impressively blind to abuses of power committed by his friends. Doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to see things clearly.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/why-did-i-sign-the-letter-...

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-brief-post-script-on-the...

[claudiawerner]

I've come across a comment almost exactly like this before on HN; was it you who posted it? Zizek does entertain, but most popular writers also entertain, and entertainment is not mutually exclusive with philosophy. He is respected within philosophy (and Chomsky is not a philosopher, as much respect I have for him too) and widely cited. The inversion of common sense things is precisely the aim of critical theory. Granted, Zizek draws from "low culture" too in order to appeal with popular media, but you can't simply say he's not a philosopher. What he does is philosophy or critique of it and you can read as much in his books.

You might say that he lacks rigor or prowess in his arguments, but those admit he's a philosopher. I can't see how you can deny he is a philosopher. Let's rephrase the essence of your argument: anyone who writes to entertain or repeatedly questions notions of common sense cannot possibly be a philosopher (despite large output and several research and teaching positions in and invitations to philosophy departments at universities around the world), if and only if a linguist says so and they have a lisp and some nervous tics.

I'd also suppose that none of the topics which Zizek addresses are philosophical ones: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/

[xamuel]

He's a pop philosopher and a genius at cultivating followership, but he doesn't really have productive ideas (at least not ideas whose results you couldn't explain in 5 minutes to a 12 year old, to borrow Chomsky's language).

Take a saying of Zizek and route it through a robotic voice (to eliminate his accent and mannerisms). Do the same to the negation of same. Play the results to a random population. The genuine saying of Zizek will not statistically stand out as being any more valuable than its negation.