Is Žižek vs Peterson going to be better than Foucault vs Chomsky?

More like the Logan Paul boxing match

>virgin water
>chad orange juice

More importantly, will it be better than Yarvin vs Hanson?

zizek is a stroked out hack
peterson is a coked out fraud

YE OF LITTLE FAITH

Attached: deathanddreamsintorontocanada.jpg (768x768, 120K)

Communism vs Capitalism

The future is at stake here

More memeable maybe.

I like the idea of Zizek being a 1800's hegelian lich king fueled by cocaine, very aesthetic desu

uh where to watch this?

people will probably post streams when its up otherwise youre gonna have to pay up some shekels on kermits website

I have a better question: how many years faggot OP needs to grow up to catch up with 15 y.o kid?

I recall watching some segments of that debate and my understanding of it was that Foucault couldn't understand a single thing Chomsky was talking about, and his replies were completely unrelated to what Chomsky said.

So yes, that's exactly what we're getting out of Zizek vs Peterson

Will streams be posted on this board or another (if there are any)?

Someone posted a supposed stream last night
youtube.com/watch?v=1Q46AoR80M4&feature=youtu.be

Two public intellectuals engaging in dumbed down debate for the benefit of mass consumption? What could be better?

>Peterson
>intellectual
he is intelligent because smart enough to extract money from masses, not intellectual

Both of them were running their goalposts to opposite sides of the field, if you think Chompsky was making any more sense I've got bad news for you

I'm there right now. Anybody wanna meet up?

Attached: Screenshot_20190419-191921_Gallery.jpg (1080x1920, 815K)

That's the case of all "public intellectuals". I mean it pejoratively

imagine paying to watch two hacks disagree on definitions for 3 hours lol

youtu.be/jhyCyAwr7A4

forced perspective trickery

Is the illegal jewtube stream gonna have volume eventually?

It did for a minute just now

and meeting fellow 4channers while you do it

You know we're going to be talking about this for the next two years right?

>you know we're going to be mindlessly regurgitating what the two hacks say in this video for years right?

please, every single pseud here will give their take on why both of them are dumb and he, user, is superior

>no fun allowed

Sound is back on now.

No

But similar dynamic of an academic fraud encountering a sober political commentator

>focault vs chomsky
>trash vs trash

>peterson x zizek
>self-help guru x trash

yes

>can literally hear his lips
for fucks sake Zizek just grab the microphone

It's legit :O

They both suck, why should i watch this again?

>mfw I'm going to have to listen to lip and nose sounds all night, in addition to wearing a raincoat

fuck fuck fuck how many times do i have to hear his lips?

you can't even spell foucault correctly kek

>>self-help guru
so, trash?

Foucault a chard

*chad

How the fuck is peterson even close to zizek's level?

zizek vs peterson is like the first boss battle in a video game. very easy for zizek.

Zizek vs nick land would be like one of those final fantasy boss battles were they got like 500 energy bars and you have to switch discs to complete it

Attached: land pshh.jpg (1200x1043, 212K)

Fuck 4channel fuck women fuck black people fuck getting a job fuck reinstating previously lost friendships fuck college

Attached: 49319639_2490946560934225_6081261226949531721_n.jpg (800x800, 99K)

You're right that would be fucking sweet

Do you mean the opposite? Foucault seemed to talk on a different level from Chomsky.

Yeah, sounds like Yea Forums.

LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN, BROS.

Attached: FBWPvwf.jpg (480x299, 40K)

>But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. - original beard dude

And Pentti Linkola in the left hand corner.

Land is really polite irl I doubt he'd take the debate and if he did he'd lose because he most likely engage in producing counter points to arguments, if you've seen any interview or videos of him he just seems like the avg. cute sophisticated brit. I think its the speed that makes the guy a a.i. god worshiper/cultist

Attached: 1485304097211.jpg (351x500, 111K)

Land debated some professor over skype once, he did quite well

They should stream a debate from their homes

Attached: 43634345.png (866x436, 428K)

Land can barely convey a coherent thought when being interviewed. The thought him being in a debate sounds extremely painful.

How did one of the most Anglo people ever manage to out French the French?

Attached: mugshot-land.jpg (482x482, 25K)

Can we crowd fund this or something? I'm not kidding.

final boss is Evola rises from the dead.

>likes: goin gast
kek

Yes

Chomsky/Foucault ended as a 1-1 draw (Chomsky was and is correct as to the existence of a human nature, one of the few things that I will give him credit for apart from his refusal to die) although Foucault scored the more impressive goal in the second half (one does make war because it is just. "One makes war in order to win". The irony here is that Foucault understands human nature itself while rejecting the concept of human nature for various wrongheaded Marxist-pseudo-historical reasons.

Yet to hear the new one (didn't know it was a thing until tonight) though of course the Chomsky/Foucault comparison is irresistable.

*"one does not make war because it is just. One makes war in order to win." -Foucault

"Yeah, nah, I don't agree with that" -Chomsky, badly misunderstanding reality on the politics-side, though he had just effectively correctly articulated human nature earlier, in scientistic terms. The more I think about it, the more I think that the Chomsky/Foucault debate is classical philosophy done right: a civil exchange with a minor actor (Elders), in which each actor has roughly half of Truth, and our engagement is required to arrive at full Truth.