Are you going to watch it?

he's trying to make a point about capitalism being good xP

his phd is in sociology so it doesn't count

counts more then english or psychology LOL

I already spent all my savings on his rug

Attached: 721362.png (1440x2560, 1.43M)

>calls himself an enemy of post modernism
>his logo is pomo art

Attached: 1503335332084.png (343x315, 160K)

Living up to their respective ideologies, I see

There'll be plenty of restreams, so it doesn't really matter.

he also needs that patreon money. he's being silenced by the rabid left after all!

Lol fucking faggots, he can spend whatever he wants with his money. He made it, he'll spend it as he deems. Neets and commies need not apply

where's the lie? leftists have some kind of mental illness that compels them to spend their whole days snitching on right wing personalities to different authorities like the bootlickers they are.

He hates being called that.

it just goes to show that perterson is in it for the money and zizek is in it for the memes

Absolutely Based.

Wealth proves hierarchy.

Capital is sentient.

Neocameralists rise up.

Attached: d85be290-88b1-4b12-ae45-3cf701c8df5a.png (1310x1410, 725K)

Paying for a livestream. Jesus christ. This guy makes twitch e-whores look like nothing.

Did Zizek really say that? Based and /our guy/ if true.

Attached: dana_.gif (433x350, 2.88M)

Attached: missme.jpg (765x1104, 88K)

i want a commentary track by dawkins
just becuase this debate is peek meme.

DOSTEEHEVSKEE.

Someone (probably multiple people) are going to livestream it for free on some other site while it's going live. DO NOT pay for it

Attached: BDEA1A9B9C74483499479AB57AC3200C.png (394x329, 100K)

Why does he say it like that? Pisses me off.

Attached: 1554220886656.jpg (500x404, 42K)

He sounds like a fag

Because he doesn't have the inferiority complex JP has. Most philosophers don't use the title - it reeks of petty academics

I want commentary by Marie Kondo, Sargon of Akkad, Mister Metokur, Lauren Southern, Richard Spencer and Jason Unruhe. That would be epic.

Reminder that Zizek is Yea Forums and Peterson is reddit.

Attached: 1553028719736.jpg (1080x1350, 137K)

He has two doctorates: one in philosophy and the other in psychoanalysis.

analytical psychology > psychoanalysis tho

zoomers fucking suck ass

Memerson's PhD is in clinical psychology, but his only important work (Maps of Meaning) was pure Jungian psychoanalysis

Since when is Jordan Petern a great capitalism advocator and debater? Is this shit controlled?

Could have at least gotten Molymeme or even Shapiro probably would be better.

Jesus Christ.

Molyneux has a debate with Destiny on 4th of April.

Psychology doctorate is a clinical qualification. Absolutely deserves doctor, and any idiot who has the slightest understanding of the health ecosystem should understand why a Medical Doctor would feel more comfortable referring a difficult, Yea Forums browsing client to a Psych Doctor. When you guys go full Elliot Roger, they want someone who can actually explain your autism.

Does Zizek even care about "happiness" as a concept? I can't see him arguing for Marxism as a great way of making people happy.

Dude is autistic as fuck. He makes philosophy presentable, but unless you're a totally isolated headcase or transmorphic artist it's impossible to relate to him. Normie repellent.

It's weird that he insists on using his title dr in front of his name. I've very rarely met an academic who actually insists on using that.

Because he's a clinical psychologist, not just an academic.

he talked on a livestream on Twitch about it, and how happiness is part of the capitalist ideology and also part of what the Chinese government sells to their people

calm down, dr. peterson

He's proving the superiority of capitalism.

>Jordan Peterson keeps his money
>therefore he is only in it for the money
retard

As a Randfag I expect to both cringe my eyeballs out and cackle derisively as they awkwardly deploy philosophic anticoncepts at each other ad nauseum.

Attached: 1539833112160.jpg (139x186, 7K)

he doesn't hate postmodernism within its capacity to be used reasonably, he hates postmodernism in leftist academia.

I HAVE ZERO INTEREST IN THESE TWO HACKS
HELP ME
I WANT TO BE A PART OF YOUR FANBASE

Oh and while we're on this subject: I AM SO FUCKING BUTTHURT THAT JORDAN FUCKING PETERSON IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT BASED CAPTALISM HERE.
REEEEEEEE

Attached: 1403736526147.jpg (506x506, 67K)

No? Are you stupid?

>clinical psychologist
Enough with this. I know literal retards that are 'clinical psychologists' . You just need a degree and the retard Bible (the DSM)

Having successful parents shouldn't be penalized. Edgy fag

>As someone who's been btfo eternally and clings onto useless sentiments
Ftfy

>been btfo eternally and clings onto useless sentiments
Such as?

Attached: tenor(2).gif (220x119, 140K)

Oh so he's an anti semite, got it lol...

Peterson loves Jews. He even said that most of his friends are Jews.

imagine being this dumb and uninformed

>As a Randfag

cringe

Attached: stirner 2.png (991x1753, 16K)

reddit

>demanding money for a fucking livestream
i've had it with this boomer officially now forever.
what a fucking fraud

I don't like Peterson much but he is much better than those two youtube e-celebs. They are not even worth debating against Zizek.

peterson is actually collecting all the money from his stupid followers and putting it into long term high interest bank accounts
in 15 years he will withdraw the money and redistribute to all his followers like a good father would

>waah, i want free stuff
you think he's some kind of charity?
it's his job, that's how he makes money.

just the last straw in a long line of dissapointments.
and yeah, livestreams are usually free when it comes to events like this.

Hate to break it to you, but it’s more modernist

I hate Peterson with all my guts and I wish to see him in a state of misery, but if there are ppl willingly throwing money at him for his trash I kinda feel he deserves to exist just to make these idiots poorer.

>Self help fagget milks retards for money
Yea he is the same as all the rest of that industry

The Peterson hate annoys me because he’s such a basic bitch moderate that only a bourgeoid liberal could get angry at him, but he’s so fucking shameless and greedy, it’s really contemptible. Actually it really surprises me, for some reason I thought he was genuinely a sentimental clown who wanted to help people and maybe make a buck. There are literal homeless who would turn down a buck before Peterson

Pretty accurate, they’re both retards but Zizek has memes and Peterson is now a total bore

I don’t, I genuinely feel bad for these broken people replacing community and church leadership with capitalist self improvement

has there even been an admission ticket for watching a laggy livestream of a debate ever before in the history of internet meme politics?

Attached: 180312-jesus-disfigured-book-index.jpg (618x410, 102K)

capitalism makes him happy

to be fair, Zizek publishes 3-4 books every year which are basically copy/pasted from his older books

>these fags
There is boatloads wrong with Petersons faggy ideas but the profit motive unironically did nothing wrong.

>I genuinely feel bad for these broken people
I can feel bad for the people who followed Jim Jones, but JP? No shit.
Capitalistic self help, at its core, is just cultivating the hope of "I'll get better and put myself in a position where I can screw other people: fuck other people".
It's not an alternative to a local community, or to any association of individuals at all, with a shared goal or seeking a greater good.
It's the straight embracing of the forced capitalistic individual atomization, with the underlying sugar coating narrative of getting somehow (by any means, ethical or not) more powerful than the other individuals around me, in order to "win the competition" and to ascend the "hierarchical structure". It's the promise of winning the total war of natural state, even by hitting below the belt if necessary.
People drawn to Jordan Peterson and his likes perceive this and are seduced by it, even if they won't admit it, because hypocrisy is a weapon in their arsenal. This type of people are more disingenuous than you'd think. That's why I don't feel sorry for them at all.

Go ahead, tell me exactly what "post modernism in leftist academia" means, lmao.

I love this post

Zizek is more like /leftypol/

>As a fag
Ftfy

Homeless people aren't more moral for being poor and bad with money
You just hate wealthy and successful people you pinko faggot

What?

except Zizek doesn't take estrogen

60s lefties wanted to burn down the universities and Adorno wouldn't let them. Now we all suffer through their clown leninism.

Attached: stoplaughing.jpg (436x639, 77K)

>It's not an alternative to a local community, or to any association of individuals at all, with a shared goal or seeking a greater good.

Seeking a greater good, like drinking the kool-aid? No thanks. You really broke your own argument by mentioning Jim Jones.

From my understanding, and I've only watched a few of his lectures and read one of his books, Zizek sees a truer sense of satisfaction as existing within limits that gives the happiness meaning.
Forget his exact anecdote, but he says at one point that some peasants living in a Soviet country were happier than its current citizens because there was never enough shortages for a true famine but enough to make the people value what they had, and they all had someone to blame (the Soviet government) for their problems. Whereas in capitalism, our constant striving without limits makes people dissatisfied. Capitalism is antithetical to hard limits. I would not be surprised if he talks about Lacanian desire in the debate.

What the fuck is up with the retarded hand gestures and cadence?

He seems like a terminal autist rehearsing a tv / movie spot

>He seems like a terminal autist rehearsing a tv / movie spot
Well, he it is literal advertisement. Even the script seems dishonest af
>Of course it is more convenient to watch it when you want, but there is something about watching it at the moment.

Greater good such as common good you barebone retard.
Go buy your happiness from Daddy Jeweinson's Patreon you atomized goyim, and learn at least how to throw a decent jab.

>that jarring cut at 1:13
what the fuck?

He reminded me of Elliott Rodger cringe videos. He unconsciously bought into his persona and now is consumed by it. There's not a single sliver of genuineness left. At least when he cried at the start of his retard hero journey he seemed truer.

>Man makes assloads of money and upsets millions of poor stupid people who think they're smarter than he is.

Where have I seen this play put before ...

Attached: 1553766722884.jpg (451x451, 29K)

That's pretty retarded.

Infinite pain is not preferable to infinite satisfaction, only a socratic Ironist would argue otherwise in earnest. So, there is an empirical hard limit to the ends of the spectrum of existential suffering.

Saying that because they didnt realise how fucked they were they were actually less fucked than people who realised it is just sophistry.

>making money and being SUCCESSFUL = automatically good and virtuous
this is your brain on burgers

Attached: main-qimg-5a28a9e588bee0ee890f3881aa569ca4.jpg (602x602, 66K)

>muh virtue
fuck off slave moralist

That is not the point at all, brainlet. Here's a simplified version. Would someone who has unlimited access to chocolate enjoy it the same as someone who only has it once in a great while? Will they be happy with that unlimited access?
No. They take it for granted and do not enjoy it. Billionaires who could easily enjoy the rest of their life with their money still accumulate money. The guy who just got a new car is already looking for his next purchase. That's not happiness.
Capitalism does not provided 'infinite satisfaction' it only allows for the infinite striving of desire, which is suffering.
If you are so averse to Lacan just think of it in terms of Schopenhauer.

You're making apriori propositional statements based on conjecture; you don't get to presuppose what the axioms of satisfaction and happiness are.

Happiness and satisfaction can involve tremendous pain and suffering. In most cases there comes before the resolution of an act into satisfaction the confrontation with an unknown element of reality; which necessarily produces negative emotion.

I’ll stream it frend
Nothing to worry about

>stop talking about the real world REEE
go outside, loser. You have said nothing besides you simply don't like the implications of what I am saying. Your attempts at sounding erudite just make you sound pathetic.

You have to actually read the books, son, not just look at thumbnails of the fucking covers on Yea Forums.

You're a serf and you'll always be a serf. You will speak when spoken to, plebeian.

Attached: 1553391837356.jpg (720x709, 49K)

And the resort to shitposting after attempts at kantposting fail. Trying thinking for yourself next time and provided something with substance.

>Trying thinking for yourself.
>Trying.
>And provided something with substance.
Provided.
Absolutely reprehensible get off my board you disgusting illiterate.

You are making apiori propositional statements based on conjecture, you don't get to presuppose what the axioms of illiteracy or disgust are.
Illiteracy and disgust can involve tremendous literacy and pleasure. In most cases there comes before the resolution on an act into illiteracy the confrontation with an unknown element of speech; which necessarily produces negative literacy.

Can any mods please ban this retard please.

Says the slave of money

I am just highlighting how much of a psued you sound. Your post suggests that people do not understand satisfaction and happiness, or that saying what they are is somehow apriori (when it is a posteriori as it derives from the experience of it). If people cannot know what happiness is, there is no point of debate. If there is no common understanding of happiness, there is no point of debate, because to debate there must be a common ground.
>Happiness and satisfaction can involve tremendous pain and suffering
Assuming you are , you contradict yourself by assuming one system offers 'infinite statisfaction' that precludes 'infinite pain', then immediately shift your opinion and now satisfaction comes from pain. Which is it? If I am wrong in these assumptions please correct me an write out your whole opinion.
> So, there is an empirical hard limit to the ends of the spectrum of existential suffering.
The only empirical hard limit to the ends of suffering I can think of is death.
Oh sophist of sophists, you can write a lot without saying anything. And you pretend to be knowledgeable.

This is a fun exchange, please keep going.

You're spouting jibberish, peace, fag.

Sage

>making money is good and therefore people making money are good people.
Fuck off you mental midgets, /pol/ should be more up your alley.

no but this shows hes in it for the money. have some self respect.

Define "in it".

My assessment is the exact opposite. The debate has started long before they sit together. This is just bait from Zizek.

Jordan actually has the moral high ground because he has no need to display virtue signalling.

A man like him helps noble causes. The fact that he hides this fact makes him much more likeable.

>A man like him helps noble causes.
Such as?

>has no need to display virtue signalling
but virtue signalling has been his entire career since the bill c-16 affair

which team will you be supporting?

It's literally called Capitalism vs. Marxism? Did the "SJW gets BTFO by logic" people name this event?

Which one is the bigger shabbos goy

Attached: 1551578359503.jpg (309x305, 62K)

>the "SJW gets BTFO by logic" people
what part of jordan peterson did you not understand?

psychiatrist maybe, not psychologist

Have Zizek or Peterson ever talked about the Federal Reserve or the Rothschilds

I hope someone will livestream the paid livestream.

idk but Zizek has talked negatively about soros on more than one occasion

Zizek has said that the Federal Reserve gets too much flak, and credits Bernanke as saving the world economy during the last recession. as far as the Rothchilds are concerned, Zizek would probably downplay their significance. groups like the Rothschilds will always exist as long as capitalism exists, it's symptomal healing

Not burning down universities because of some faggot said so is a limitus test for 60's leftists' level of consciousness. They failed.

Jim Jones was all about the common good, as you call it. That's how you sucker people in.

At least when you read a book, you can parse what has utility and what is nonsense for yourself and move on with your life. Church is really just a way to socialize, when you look at it objectively. So if that's what you want, you're better off joining a sports club or something like that.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Peterson advocates going to church, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Even a church wants your money, and they pay no taxes. I mean, they're both aggressively capitalistic at the end of the day.

Are we not all slaves to some master?

Attached: Tigerball.png (374x356, 112K)

the problem with Peterson is he monetizes everything whether it's a livestream or a stupid personality test on his website.

plus his speaking events are outrageously expensive

Peterson has an appeal that his audience likes.
Zizek has an appeal that his audience likes and he's completely dependent upon maintaining that appeal, like most celebrities.

I don't respect public donations from celebrities anymore than I trust politicians kissing babies.

He thinks that's demeaning and ridiculous. He also loathes whenever anyone calls him "professor". The thing about this "debate" is that it will not be one. In a recent video Zizek made for RT he said that there will be no actual back and forth, that JP will speak for half an hour, then he will speak for half an hour and then there will be a Q&A. Zizek said he was the one who asked for this format, because he's afraid of JP's rhetoric. I'm not even joking. Check out the Zizek 70 year birthday on YouTube. I don't have a time stamp, but he says it when they're recording inside the car.

Attached: 983d9696-149e-46a6-bcfc-26dce3aeee15.jpg (284x284, 16K)

There's nothing wrong with that

If he said this:

I don't care about zizek what point he may be making - that debate is often less about what is true and is more rhetoric, entertaining and manipulating an audience through means other than purely logical.... but come the fuck on. The guy has a line of people out his door demanding burgers and he's going to give them a toasted bun? Just do a back and forth. Faggot.

Jared Taylor would mop the floor with these guys. Prove me wrong

>but how can that be true if the civil rights movement fought against it?
>*audience gives standing ovation*

Not going to happen unless Peterson throws a low blow.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTtwrqtBI00&t=763s

12:43

Apparently Peterson wanted to milk the debate and do it in several other places, like a live tour. What a fucking simpleton hack, it's no surprise he sells lobster shirts and rugs.

Anything that is presented in such simplistic terms as "CAPITALISM VS MARXISM" is not worth watching.

No. You should've stepped aside and let the commies take over.

Good post

definetely peterson, slavoj is the most based and redpilled lefty

he already did a multinational debate tour with Harris

Then it's worse than I previously thought.

>those teeth
couldn't he afford a dentist?

step one, hairplugs
step two, invisiline

Attached: 2011b.png (1024x429, 130K)

Read the Nicomachean Ethics, small-souled bugman.

Attached: serveimage-43.jpg (1280x720, 85K)