ITT : We write the Peterson Zizek debate line by line

Both are a fucking excuse of """"""philosophers""""""

>*begins to cry

>debate
It won't be a debate, you faggots. Both will have their 20 minutes for a talk and then 10 min for the reply and that's that.

Someone better post a stream link

youtube.com/watch?v=1Q46AoR80M4

This is exactly why, the negativity of the lacking of the milk is included into the self-identity of the coffee - *sniff*- computers cannot comprehend this, they are too stupid to understand old Sovjet jokes, you know.
I almost had a big fight with my good friend Toni Agamben about this, he's as you may know my theoretical enemy but personal friend - *tugs shirt*.

His sniffs are endearing

>that chat

and I thought political talk on Yea Forums was trash

is this the leftypol stream?
top tier cringe

how long is it scheduled to go for?

until zizek has a stroke and sharts himself on stage

It's probably everyone from /r/jordanpeterson to /pol/

>debate
stop saying this, zizek literally pussied out and requested the format to be that each of them would present their thesis one at a time, then ending with a follow-up Q&A. It's not a debate.

lmao

So another 13 years?

As my good friend Alain Badiou says, it's not the milk that matters, it's the coffee without milk. Let me make a fine theoretical point about this. I don't want to play this game of "ohhh ecology, the animals blah blah". No, it's precisely the contrary which is true. I hope I am not talking for too long, but I need to address this question: Hitler was the best Pokemon Go player.

dont get the joke. wouldnt it be more like you go in a coffeshop and the phone in your pocket automatically orders your fave drink that is poured by a robot and your surrounded by muslims

Gee I wonder which format a genius such as you would propose in order to better convey conflicting information to public that probably has not read both authors? Public debate is not the same as a personal debate and is all about presenting your ideas to third parties. I have no idea why someone who thinks this should be a petty short term argument fight is in here and not over @reddit or someone else where you'd get virtual cookies for being as angry as possible at your least favorite side.

Perfekt

But nonetheless, and this is a nice paradox - *sniff*- that when you effectively DO drink the milk, you gain a little bit of fat, no? And this is what in Lacanian psychoanalysis we call object small a, the object cause of desire.
The very obstacle, the excess caused by milk, returns as a repressed in a dialectical movement of its opposite. This is my gott, in our permissive post-political era, our true predicament - *touches nose*.

hope this works and isnt taken down

>sniff this reminds me of an old soviet joke sniff

Why the fuck were the debate threads deleted. There was actual discussion and fun going on.

Yea Forums has the worst janny

>well see here bucko... ... ... now I cant help be scratch my head when I took a look at your scripture... ... and ... a sort of puzzlement comes over my moral compass... like do we NOT agree that good things are good when they are given to us as good things ... I think not

peterson is not Yea Forums

and no there wasn't this whole thing was a disgrace

N

yes but I got a rare butterfly picture :3

Attached: Screenshot_20190419-184611_YouTube.jpg (720x1480, 283K)

idk, it makes no sense. Two public intellectuals who have both written multiple books being involved in a discussion seems like a pertinent topic, moreso than half of the other shit on this board.

>peterson is not Yea Forums
He's an author and academic, what are you talking about? And even then are we going to say Zizek is not Yea Forums? This was most definitly Yea Forums related.

>Academic
lol. Zizek is lit because he's at least somewhat more than an ideologue

Attached: c8cb7566079e0093956333821e5950c8.jpg (500x500, 43K)

>Zizek is lit
Okay, then the threads were relevant and shouldn't have been deleted.

Based retard that has no idea how formal debates work

I

I really enjoyed this, I think I like them both more because of this. Zizek was right though, Peterson would be better if he told some jokes.

what's wrong with new age bullshit? asking for a friend.

>zizek is lit because I fall for his anti-ideology ideology

To show the raiders they don't belong here

Imagine being one of those who payed 1000$ to attend this shit

>raiders
what do you mean? zizek has always been Yea Forums

Attached: 1527325651528.png (600x399, 337K)

eceleb shit doesn't belong here, and hopefully this thread gets deleted as well.
Take your shit to /pol/

who won?

Zizek, But it felt more like a friendly than a cup finals.

I initially disliked Zizek but I'm glad Peterson and his fanboys went through this. He's been debating easy target brainlets too long. This should encourage onlookers to look into other works (always a good thing) and not see Peterson as infallible and unshakable.

He's usually viewed as a pop-philosopher and right now is Yea Forums is getting flooded with marxists who have mostly left the board for discord or leftypol or whatever. They come out in swarms.

It's pretty obvious that you're the tourist here.

I still can't believe I paid FIFTEEN DOLLARS FOR THIS BULLSHIT. GOD DAMMIT I FEEL KEKED BEYOND BELIEF

Attached: wojak-suicide-57fbf34784a46.jpg (1059x962, 312K)

>imagine not pirating literally everything

Haven't you been on the internet lately?

This

>they come out in swarms
so says the locust

what happened after the cut off

FUCK YOU, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTH IT AND THAT I'D BE CONTRIBUTING TO A GOOD CAUSE. I DIDN'T EXPECT HOMELESS MEME MAN TO LITERALLY BE STRUNG OUT ON COCAINE THE WHOLE TIME AND DERAIL THE SHIT OUT OF THE DEBATE THE SECOND HE OPENED HIS FAT SLURRING SNIFFLING STUPID MOUTH. WTF WAS THAT??? SODOMY, GENETIC ENGINEERING, TRUMP, EVIL, SERIOUSLY WHAT THE FLYING FUCK WAS ANY OF THAT?

He was addressing his main points of concern about modernity, that's all.

he didn't derail what are you talking about?

>AND THAT I'D BE CONTRIBUTING TO A GOOD CAUSE
you were zizek donated all of his profits to charity, and the rest went straght into your lobster daddy's lambo fund

Peterson actually says "you seem to have invited the dragon into the house" about 1 hour 5 min. in.

source?

Imagine paying for one of those scalped tickets Peterson mentioned. More than Leafs playoff tickets.

OK??? WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HAPPINESS UNDER MARXISM, THE POSITION HE WAS *SUPPOSED* TO BE REPRESEMTING?! AT LEAST LOBSTER MAN WAS WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT CAPITALISM IS FUCKED IN A LOT OF WAYS BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVES, WHAT THE HELL DOES ZIZEK ACTUALLY STAND FOR? I WATCHED THE WHOLE FUCKING THING AND I STILL DONT HAVE A CLUE

How does Peterson not cringe himself to death saying stupid shit like this? this isn't the 19th century

always, always, ALWAYS pirate first and pay later, if you still want to pay. internet 101.

>COCAINE
Doesn't last long enough for a 1.5 hour debate. Zizek uses Adderall, which he almost certainly gets free through the rather impressive Slovene health care system.

zizek's thing about happiness was the same
and zizek stood for being intelligent about capitalism by criticizing, you should probably watch it again regardless whether or not you paid for it
all zizek does in his writings and lectures is criticism capitalism in its ideological assumption which is why he uses marxist theories, but not as a system to displace it

Zizek, just like basically all leftists, do not actually stand for anything but inflation of their own ego. Don't take them seriously, they have no serious proposals to offer you, and the proposals they do bring forward are guaranteed to be extremely costly (both financially and in terms of the lives sacrificed to attempt their solutions) and handled in a way which is simultaneously significantly more oppressive than anything fascism or capitalism could offer, while also bringing forward none of the benefits those two systems can produce.

Neither of them are e-celebs.

>eceleb

In the era where literally everyone of note uses the internet for self-promotion this term is meaningless.

>fascism
>benefits
Yeah, if you're the Fuhrer or Tojo, I guess.

wtf was he thinking by trying to talk about marxism without even having read Marx? You're going to sound like a brainlet.

Attached: wyp.png (500x621, 145K)

Uhhh... He read the Manifesto TWICE (once even at 18). He's basically a Marx expert.

An eceleb specifically denotes someone known not for their academic works but simply for their social media following, Zizek may not fit the description given how cited he is in his field, but since none of you faggots talk about his work in this board he might as well be.
Peterson is by definition eceleb filth that has overstayed his welcome.

It's fairly obvious you know nothing about fascism or third positionist thinking in general. Fascism provides an incredibly strong framework for nation building, and in particular national socialism works very well to the point of having been co-opted (albeit under different branding) throughout some of the most powerful nations on Earth including both modern day Russia and Israel. It provides a framework for the promotion of internal birthrates, a strong social safety net while still maintaining the individual incentive to participate in society, and creates a strong sense of civic unity and communal engagement.

Fascism/third positionism is imperfect as all political frameworks fundamentally are, but it's fairly obvious that leftists know significantly less about third positionist thought than the other way around, and will remain fundamentally unprepared to engage with it unless they are actually willing to engage intellectually with the many legitimate criticisms of liberal capitalism that it offers.

I hope you are being ironic

The communist manifesto is just political propaganda. Reading it is fucking useless if you are an academic whose purpose is to criticize Marx ideas.

His second time through he even made 10(!) points about how it's not a route you want to go down.

user, you might be autistic if you can't detected that he is being obviously sarcastic.

Until he boards his flight Zizek is the only person in North America who's read Capital.

>An eceleb specifically denotes someone known not for their academic works but simply for their social media following
There are hundreds of celebrities who have never written an academic work. There are hundreds of celebrities who use the internet for promotion but don't use social media. You're just reaching for some frame where the word might mean something. It doesn't exist bucko.

If they engaged with it they'd move over to it. Which is why their only arguments are violence and platform denial.

pic related

Attached: 1547540487966.gif (395x520, 1.69M)

>Russia and Israel are fascist
Imagine being so politically illiterate that you believe basic social democracy means fascism.
>It provides a framework for the promotion of internal birthrates, a strong social safety net while still maintaining the individual incentive to participate in society, and creates a strong sense of civic unity and communal engagement.
Yes, we can see all of these results in Russia today

>Reading it is fucking useless if you are an academic whose purpose is to criticize Marx ideas.
The manifesto was literally written for uneducated workers to dumb down what he was saying in his main works, your country must have some very low standards of what constitutes an academic

E-celeb implies someone like Lauren Southern or Styxhexenhammer. It's disingenuous to imply two academics/ authors are on that level.

I agree. Truly grasping Marxism isn't possible from reading anything in published form. Understanding Marxism is more a state of being, a translucent state that can only be striven towards rather than reached, and anyone who criticizes it and claims to understand it has simply not grasped the nature of its perfection yet.

12 rules for life is no better than whatever Lauren Southern might've written.
Peterson is on the same league as those two, whether by having the same following, or the same ideas (which he does a good job at repackaging into self help).

Lauren Southern got famous writing for Rebel Media. Styx might actually be an eceleb but he does write books on occultism.

Well he's an actual academic so I wouldn't say that.

You don't get to be a professor at the University of Toronto writing self-help drivel. He might be a mong but he is an academic of note in his field.

zizek nigga thinks im jimmy neutron going full brain blast

>So, this cultural Marxism that mister zizek is taking part in, what they do is they break you down by your identity- you know, race, religion, sex, and so on- and that's a scary thing, man, that's a scary thing, because here's the thing- life is suffering, life sucks, but you see these skateboarders man, the way they catch the board in the air- with their feet- then slide on a rail, that's conquering the dragon right there. That's the archetype of king David playing out and so on.

Attached: Screenshot_20190419-222356.png (1080x1920, 765K)

Stephen Hicks is also an academic who supposedly teaches philosophy in University, yet he gave us classics such as pic related.
Being an academic is hardly a bonus if you're straying away from your field to spout nonsense.

Attached: pomo.jpg (1650x2550, 368K)

I'm very disappointed in you guys for caring about these fucking hacks.

is this bait?

What the fuck is this retarded horseshit. Rousseau never wrote on socialism. :3

The entire title doesn't even make sense. It's a bunch of jumbled interconnected buzzwords that don't belong together.

Zizek himself literally says as part of his capitalism is over routine that the internet allowing everything to be pirated will be part of the downfall of capitalism

I just farded and shidded

what basement fascists actually believe

>tfw used to read hicks' website way back in my lolberg phase in high school

Attached: 1555094307004.png (500x300, 167K)

Zizek explicitly addresses the point you just brought up. Maybe you should watch the video.

I knew he was a meth head.

I watched the whole "debate" though honestly it was more of a conversation (which is a good thing, the whole debate culture is incredibly childish) and while Zizek brought up many good points about how bad things really are, his only concrete solution seems to be criticism of capitalism without actually having a different framework to replace it. If the happiness of the individual is such a shallow foundation for morality (which it is) how do we achieve this synthesis of the individual actualization and the social responsibility while also forsaking all known potential collective identity groups?

Zizek dismisses the marxian class grouping as too inconsistent with the complex hierarchical tendencies of society (which he's correct about), the post-modern individualist identity groups as too vain (also correct) and the fascistic racial/national identity group as too rigid (not quite as correct but I understand his objection) yet never actually proposes an alternative to the three we've seen implemented thus far which can form a functional collective for said synthesis. Basically he's all smoke and no fire.

They are socialist systems which are explicitly ethno-nationalist, have a largely corporatist economic system with shared ownership of most important economic assets between the state and private oligarchs, and have no issue with explicitly using military powers to crush their ethnic adversaries when they do not bow to their will. That sounds pretty NatSoc to me.

Your reading comprehension doesn't seem to be particularly strong. Rousseau is referenced as the beginnings of liberalism/skepticism, who ultimately became a large influence on post modernism. It's similar to talking about how there is a large Marxist influence and even larger Hegelian influence in many post modernist thought even though neither of which were post-modernist (or even alive to see post modernism develop).

because zizek is a philosopher. he's not about answering questions but about knowing which questions to ask.

That's a total cop out and you know it. Asking the right questions is only half of philosophy. It takes a significantly stronger philosopher to propose and defend answers than ask critical questions. A philosopher with useful contributions is one that can answer and understand the limitations of their answers. They must not be a butcher with a knife, but rather a sculptor with a chisel.