It's over boys, he lost, communism is dead, fuck my life

it's over boys, he lost, communism is dead, fuck my life

Attached: 124124124250_594.jpg (850x594, 254K)

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/17849644
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>He believes this when the only thing he needs to do to win is not cry and keep making coherent points.

F

Attached: Ideology is Absurd.jpg (2200x1347, 475K)

How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man?

Attached: ciswvapa58s21.png (640x360, 344K)

hoped for zizek to obliterate lobsterman but he just shat himself while reading from a sheet.

>getting btfo by a fucking self help con artist

Time to pack it up commies

His wife's tits are great, so in the end who is the real winner?

He even took the lobster pill
>I don't think the main lobster has authority
He'll have to explain then what makes it "the main lobster"

I'll admit I used to be a Marxist, but the reality of the matter is Marxism died after the failed revolutions in Europe after ww1. Only the first world would have been able to change the direction of history. Obviously there have been other impactful communist movements throughout history, but most of them were ultimately just nationalist movements that aligned with the Soviet Bloc against the first world. Fascism is where it's at now, but only if you can swallow the black pill.

peterson is getting BTFO
literally said zizek was "too complex" to respond to

Attached: 1555722140478.png (632x1162, 419K)

Is this a debate or a nice morning coffee between two friends who agree on 99% of their ideas?

Attached: neutral.png (500x428, 58K)

not really, he was repeating the same old points from his youtube meme videos.

i like how this debate had a topic and everything but instead Peterson is just rambling about the communist manifesto and attacking zizek on general communist points that he never made

in peterson's fairness, its difficult to take any point from anything zizek says

key-key-key-key-key-key-key

He's so old he can't come up with new stuff and just rambles like a retard.

yeah and peterson obviously didnt do the barest modicum of research, hes rambling right now

literally didnt use all of his time

It's a self help guru with sober lvl 1 talking points against a coked out, rambling self-hating communist reading out the same notes and examples he has given 20 times before.

They are talking at different wavelengths, this is inherently boring.

Attached: 13352160456.jpg (549x354, 216K)

Peterson's mistake was not doing his homework and realising that Zizek is a conservative social democrat and not an actual communist

Zizek, like most philosophers, think one thought and it is typically the thought of their age. Why would you expect him to come up with new material at all?

>Dr. Peterson my argument isn't against you, its against happiness itself
hahaha what the fuck
who thought this "debate" would actually work

Am I the only one that absolutely does not give a shit that this debate happened?

Goddamn it this guy is a meme.

strawpoll.me/17849644

no. I don't too

t. OP who replied 90% of the posts in thread to seem like Peterson had a coherent discourse in the debate (yes, less incoherent than Zizek who is so dynamic and ambiguous, that he may lead to confusion)

Attached: 1555286675023.jpg (500x669, 33K)

Why is Peterson shaking?

Attached: 1493501142920.jpg (798x770, 195K)

Yeah exactly no communist is going to waste their time debating Kermit the frog. Zizek is just a charltan who tries appeal to college kids because they are the ones who buy his books.

Apologize.

Attached: zizek_frown.png (916x935, 918K)

Who are the serious communists youre thinking of that are above this?

I did until I started watching it.

I was not looking to spend my night fucking watching this bullshit, but here we go.

holy shit im ded

the first lobster

we know that

hmm what are we talking about why not just some grammathica applied science

Attached: tumblr_m52x2yAp2t1rqv36a.gif (500x310, 34K)

Watch the debate again, basedboy.

he was saying that lobster hierarchy was based on actual, immediate physical merit or superiority. True authority in the way we understand it should be able to survive without its physical justification.
That's why he used the example of "if I said 'father, i trust you because you are wise or w/e' that would be an affront to paternal authority"

back to discord

Fuck, communism is dead? But I've already committed to being a tranny

>communism has anything to with trannies
2010s were a mistake

Top kek

Ziziek talked about how leaders function as people who bring about the movement/potential on individuals.
This means they don't have to be qualified in the areas where they lead as long as they can bring out the best of their followere. It was perfectly explained in the jesus example, there were and are people way more capable then jesus to explain christianity , but jesus had the charisma to keep his followers.
The hierarchy legitimises itself not because the leader is qualified, but because he is a good leader and what makes him a good leader is his followers believing in him. This goes in opostition to lobster ideology or natural selection as where the leader is selected by excelence in the important aspects of being a lobster. This, however does not the guarantee the best outcome for the other lobsters. A good leader is born when the followers belive him a good leader and maximise their eficiency, in a way the followers are the real leaders.