svcg

Fairly unsurprising conclusion, really.

Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we're also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can't find the source, I'm sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies "welfare". [Edit: found the source here.]

I think Zizek's qualified support for Trump's first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn't worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.

Well, Freud was the first to say (or at least the first to popularise) ideas that - in retrospect - should be obvious, like that human behaviour is motivated by unconscious drives, or that past trauma influences your current behaviour. However most of his theories about how the unconscious works were basically unfalsifiable and based on nothing more that his own interpretation of what he's noticed about his own patients (though to be fair, I think that's mostly the case for most of psychology). I think a lot of the early psychology of Freud, Adler, and Jung is quite enmeshed with the philosophy of Nietzsche (who said some truly wild about human nature without providing a single source) and remains more popular than it should be for that reason.

Funnily enough the rights themselves are broadly similar, but the European Convention on Human Rights established the European Court of Human Rights, so being a party to the treaty means we are still within ECtHR's jurisdiction.

Edit: for anyone who may be confused, the Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU] - sometimes called the European Court of Justice [ECJ] is the court that enforces the law of the European Union [EU]. This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [CFR]. On the other hand, the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] is a treaty drafted by the Council of Europe [CoE] that provides for the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR].

So when the United Kingdom [UK] was a member of the EU, then the UK was still subject to the CFR, enforced by the ECJ (except not really because the UK opted out of the CFR (except yes really because the opt out was worded in a way such that it was essentially only symbolic)), and also subject to the ECHR, enforced by the ECtHR. After the UK left the EU, the UK was no longer bound by the CFR or the ECJ (except insofar as it still is, because of Northern Ireland [NI]), but it still is a member of the CoE and bound by the ECHR and the ECtHR.

Theoretically, the Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC] in the UK is responsible for promoting the rights of the ECHR, in addition to rights of the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010.

I hope that clears everything up for people.

The UK is still a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Many such cases!

I don't think his reasoning was prescient and correct, though.

If Trump wins, both big parties, Republicans and Democratics, would have to return to basics, rethink themselves, and maybe some things can happen there. That's my desperate, very desperate hope, that if Trump wins—listen, America is not a dictatorial state, he will not introduce Fascism—but it will be a kind of big awakening. New political processes will be set in motion, will be triggered.

he will not introduce Fascism

Neither party rethought anything (your point about Mamdani shows just how little the Dems have rethought) and now the US is rounding people up to put them in camps.

And re. the transgenderism/Freud comment, I think it mostly serves to show that he puts way more stock in Freud than he should, because Freudian psychology is largely a load of wank.

(Yes, the use of a sexually based pejorative to disparage Freud was deliberate. Please appreciate my clever joke.)

Cowuuube!

Slavoj Zizek also advocated for voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and says that "transgenderism is incompatible with Freud", so his advocacy doesn't count for much AFAIAC.

If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to eat Kraft dinner.

But we would eat Kraft dinner.

Ice cubes and artificial sweetener?

So no.