Having read a handful of Zizek's books and articles, you can see that there is a pattern in how he jumps to some general claim after describing an actual situation/joke. Most of the times I feel these examples are extreme rare occurrences. Is there a reason behind this method of writing/speaking? Shouldn't your theories fit the majority of cases (if not all)? Or am I just missing something?
If anyone feels the need for examples of this, I will provide later.
In "Event : Philosophy in transit", He writes about both Buddhism and Christianity. He comes to the conclusion that Buddhism has no ethical core after drawing attention to the fact that there is a legacy of "Buddhist warriors". I agree. But this is only partially true. There were no Crusades in Buddhist history. But on the other hand when he talks about Christianity, he goes to the "source" (More often than not) - Jesus's crucifixion - and deploys his theories around this single event effectively "forgetting" the Crusades, the inquisition, etc despite of its "ethical" core. In short, doesn't he always fix on something partial in a larger whole? Even in phenomena like decaffeinated coffee, charity, etc, isn't it always the exception rather than the rule he focuses on?