I mean even if you are forbidden you can still do it, you’re just in deep shit if the wrong person sees you do it.
Technically everyone is totally free to do whatever the hell they want if they can deal with the consequences. This is why “freedom of X doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” is a stupid saying, politically speaking having a “freedom” means being free of certain consequences.
the context is a section of zizek’s sublime object, which also gets frequently repeated in other zizek works, particularly pervert’s guide to ideology portion on sound of music. it’s not that evangelists (particularly evangelists) are free to do whatever they want. instead they work with the idea that what’s forbidden is explicit and well-marked, which stands in contrast to the postmodern condition where there’s a set of fuzzy cultural mores which should or should not be observed which should mean we are allowed more freedom, instead in practice we have the burden of anxiously examining and re-examining our own steps, whereas evangelists have that burden removed from their decisions. what’s forbidden is forbidden, everything else is allowed, it already has a divine a-ok, so it’s ripe for enjoyment. or something to that sense.
