Cite The Pervert's Guide to Cinema in an essay

Go namedrop Deleuze, you fucking loser.

Go change Badiou's diaper

Fucking Zizek, man. Zizek. Probably lamer than Rosenbaum, yet you’re still baffled.

top lel

Yikes

an untenured /rdt/ lecturer appears

L’image-temps bb. I’ve corrected essays by people like op : all zizek deleuze and obligatory tarkovsky

The currency of academia isn't truth or even concepts, it's citation. You can tell a lot by who someone is (or isn't) quoting, and a scholar's power comes largely from being cited.

This is correct. Academia is a popularity contest. In the hard sciences SOMETIMES popularity actually corresponds to valuable contribution. Not always.

What's your point? You're a pseud's assistant. No one gives a fuck.
Academia is dead. Put them on a ban list if you don't like them instead of bitching about it here. I don't like them either, but I wouldn't sperg out over a source.

True. Academia is mostly just connections and rehashing each others garbage. Middle managers of the intellect.

Attached: bricks-2-300x173.jpg (300x173, 13K)

based professor

also, zizek is a charlatan

>t. lecturer samefagging

>pleb culture schizoanalyser

His 'analyses' of pleb culture are legitimately hysterical. He's worth reading just for the bits about how Berlusconi is Kung-Fu Panda.

>citing internet meme videos on an essay

Attached: DjFv0CDW0AAa70k.png_large.png (960x686, 969K)

Tell him that "Something is either true regardless of who says it or where they say it, or it is not true at all."

Based. Academia is the decadent french aristocrats of our world and I cant wait till their Robespierre shows up

That It's not an academic source.

whats an "academic source"?

based

Why didn't you just cite one of his books? That's pretty cringe OP, like citing the Manufacturing Consent documentary rather than the book

>Shitty lecturer. Even non-academic sources should not get you downgraded unless you claim they have the same authority as academic sources.
This is a better if still not amazing way of going about it. The real issue is grey literature or secondary literature i.e. you're looking at your piece of evidence darkly. You want your argument to be clear using strong evidence. There's nothing wrong with citing the content of the pervert's guide or any other media work to do with a thinker, but it's weaker evidence than going to their books or whatever.

Brown source. Tomato source is for plebes and BBQ is for try hards.

Ted is so based

What if it's in the film but not in the books? Or not precisely in the same way?
Why are you fags so upset about this? It's nice though, really proves how cancerous academics are.

It is, Zizek hasn't come up with new theory in a while. No one is upset, it's just people who have been to university cringing at the idea of citing a documentary like that (I have even done similar in uni, but it was a bit different because I actually used the clip of the philosopher talking for a presentation, so obviously I needed to cite it. Short of that stick to books.)

>Zizek hasn't come up with new theory in a while.
Zizek hasn't strictly speaking ever come up with something ground breakingly new, although I guess he sort of seems to be working towards something like that.

>muh new
Fuck off. Wannabe academics are somehow even worse than their teachers.

what? who gives a fuck about "new" theory? if a philosopher is able to develop a position and defend it for decades it's much more impressive than coming up with a novel theory every few years than they end up abandoning
>what is ontological incompleteness

>something that doesn't originate with Zizek

What he really meant was that Zizek is not a source of information. Zizek is a source of Zizek. Zizek can tell you his own opinion of DW Griffith but not vital biographical data or historical anecdotes. You are now aware that all the fake intellectuals are like this.

I know Zizek draws it back to Hegel, Lacan, Lucretius, but none of them actually came up with the idea. Zizek's ontology is his own bastard child

>citations

Attached: 1551476823142.jpg (837x960, 85K)

Name the professor

what's the dream one from?

I keked

Well, it isn't. If you were serious about your paper you could have cited one of Zizek's books. The Pervert's Guide movies are really not his, he's just reading from a script in them.

But who wrote the script?

Jung's red book?

Zizek admits he hasn't even seen the film himself, and parts of it (like the parts on Christianity) are only there because Sophie Fiennes wanted them in there, he thought it was out of place

imagine paying top dollar for the privilege of some old faggot making insubstantial remarks about a shitty essay you wrote that he doesn't care about and wants to find anything he can to dock a few points so it looks like he read the whole thing and he can move on to the next pile of shit he doesn't care about

anyone find ted's writing style very autismo?
i've seen math books written with a better flow of prose

>what?
what?

This. Fuck paper shuffling factories that produce nothing but pseud smugness.

fucking based.

Attached: you_1.jpg (3840x2160, 1.04M)

>anyone find ted's writing style very autismo?
Everyone.
OP should just complain.
Is she related to Voldemort? Anyway, what if it's like that Will Ferrell film what is also like that Charlie Karhman film what is also like Bartleby the Scrivener, Stranger Than Fiction?

Something from Nicolas Berdyaev.

OP this is 100% your fault even if you could argue that Films are academic sources - Zizek repeats himself so often that you could have just found the point you wanted to make in one of his hundreds of books.

Based professor shooting down pop philosophers.

The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System's trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System's basic values.

Because they are the teachers of young people, the university intellectuals are in a position to help the System play its trick on the young, which they do by steering young people's rebellious impulses toward the standard, stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women's issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media, or through personal contact, of the "social justice" issues for which students rebel, and they imitate the students. Thus a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotyped mode of rebellion that spreads through imitation of peers—just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.

Attached: ted kaczynski wojak.png (1859x1070, 513K)

The latter would just give you the former or some variant of an opinion that has more pinions in factoids. It may be more thorough, academically, but it is patently ridiculous to treat art as an academic subject in the first place. If anything, art academics are a method of tyranny where they categorize and biographize every infetesimal detail by saying it's necessary to understand the art. Art pieces themselves, as individual pieces, are meant for discussion and not for dissection, as the dissection, or detailed chronologist that just makes art timelines, serves only the need of the ivory tower and is just a cerebral high end form of People.

Dubs and 300 of truth. Please bow.

It's funny that the anarchist tradition especially does not resort to this academia gimmick. There is a latent authority in it, an elitism, where the reader must either get the reference or become master of it over time.

that's gonna be me user

You people criticize... but don't have anything to back it up with... it is ridiculous to be "against"... be "for" and nothing else...

Attached: 0.jpg (800x928, 133K)

>(((academic source)))

>Zizek repeats himself so often that you could have just found the point you wanted to make in one of his hundreds of books.
this

He means that when he told you to use a fucking academic source, he meant go read a printed article in a reputable academic journal, or a book from an academic press that carefully cites its sources--not Zizek wanking off on camera, not a blog post or rant by a philosopher or academic, but written work that's actually gone through a peer-review blind edit and been accepted by academic editors. If you want to feel superior to the entire academic system like the knobs here, fine, but don't pay tuition and waste everyone's time in a classroom: just save your money, read at home, and waste time here.

Do any academic journals have non-academic editors/anonymous peer reviewers?

The second one is based

It may have something to do with Zizek holding a D.A. instead of a Ph.D. as this is sometimes regarded as a lesser doctoral degree. Zizek is very qualified to teach, and his work is just as qualified as anyone's to be part of the curriculum, but his research is not by default academic as there is no university who's reputation is on the line if he were to publish bad research.
More likely than not it was the title or your instructor's internal bias.

Attached: hqdefault (3).jpg (480x360, 9K)

He's got a D.A. in philosophy and a PhD in psychoanalysis from Paris VIII, he is very well credentialed, and I've had PhD credentialed political science professors lecture on his theory of ideology; it's just the fact he used the film rather than quote one of his books or papers

On Copyright:
>My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.
It's only true if you can be cited as well, forget about how "one must be silent."

No. They're anonymous in the sense that the academics reading the papers don't know who wrote them (unless they can guess from the argument, etc.--but it's supposed to be neutral), and the author doesn't find out who the reviewers were, but they're supposed to be members of the academic community with relevant specializations. If you want to publish an article on Joyce, you'd better get a few Joyce scholars to tell you if it's crap, or argues anything new, etc.

That's it. Zizek is certainly qualified, but it's the mode of publication and lack of review and editing. I have a doctorate too, but if you quoted one of my Yea Forums posts as an academic proof, it wouldn't be kindly received.

I mean really. Who the fuck cares about a fucking essay?

>but written work that's actually gone through a peer-review blind edit and been accepted by academic editors.

Attached: 1408995760152.jpg (395x401, 59K)

Both the professor and the student should as an essay is generally an exercise to ratify the thoughts of the essayist. If, for example, we were talking about the benefits of cunny posting and I asked you to write an essay about it and turn in a meandering diatribe about jannies then we would both know that you didn't really understand and I--as your professor, if you will--should help you rectify that perhaps by immersing you in the subject like say watching these kinos:

>Leon the Professional, The Orphan, Lolita 1997, Lamb, Moonrise Kingdom, Innocence, Hanna, Mustang, Pretty Baby, Yulenka, Curfew, Show Me Love, Alice in the Cities, A Little Princess, Water Lillies, F-Report, The Blue Lagoon, Laurin(89), Sleepwalking, Matilda, You Were Never Really Here, Lawn Dogs, Take Me to the River, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Valerie and Her Week of Wonders, Stray Dogs, Spirit of the Beehive, Stephanie, The Taste of Tea, Hounddog, Bridge to Terabithia, The Beguiled, Somewhere, Alice(88), City of lost children, Cape Fear(62), Arcadia, Tomorrowland, Christiane F, the trailer for I Feel Bad, Walkabout, The Florida Project, My Girl(91), Addams Family Value, Young Aphrodites, The Ice Palace, Swing vote, Tideland, Bad Seed, Cocoon, Annabele: Creation, the opening scene of Desire, Phoebe in Wonderland, Gifted, Spark, Caspe, Because of Winn-dixie, Zazie dans le metro, Amanda, Waterworld, Girl (2018), What Maisie Knew and Paper Moon

Citation is good and poor or no citation is what's wrong with academia. Most fields outside of elite STEM ones think valid citation is 'someone said it once so it's clearly true and you must take it as factual without elaboration for some reason'.