PRESS F

chapochuds write in this same reddit format you're not fooling anyone

PLEASE FUCK MY WIFE

The moments where he remained completely silent felt like hours. F lobster mane

If we're talking about who 'won' in this debate, which comes down to who stumped the other one with a solid question, then Zizek won with the 'name some marxists' question.

Peterson won't name the Jews that want to subvert western civilisation (or any civilisation for that matter including their own). You know Peterson was stumped because he goes on the attack, and wouldn't let up as easy if the roles were reversed. As Peterson says 'be very precise in your speech', but his answer to 'name a marxist' was anything but precise. He has created a 'cultural-marxist' strawman which in 2016-2018 was a piece of the puzzle the mainstream was missing in terms of understanding what is wrong with the current politically correct climate.

But Peterson's failure comes from his own lack of specificity, and if you have been following his career since he entered the public space he has essentially gone the way of a stand up comedian. He started out as an edgy voice, took up an agent, and is now watching what he says (i.e political correctness) when it comes to getting to the fundamental issues with our society.

I will say however that Peterson established the groundwork for today's youth to understand Christianity and Christ via a meta-narrative story context, and his Maps of Meaning work is substantial as what it is: a map. But it lacks the final groundwork that cements everything together.

Logos. I'm still figuring this stuff out myself. I'm currently regularly viewing and agreeing with Owen Benjamin and E Michael Richards. I'm reading the Bible (more interested New Testament than Genesis), and starting to discover the breathtaking beauty of Christian thought and values.

I'm not a converted christfag (yet).

>Zizek won with the 'name some marxists' question.
no he didn't, zizek even AGREED with peterson's reply.

To be fair, it stands to investigate what all the academics mean by stating they are Marxists on those polls and how this correlates with thier idpol stances.

Of course, if Petersons critism is that everybody uses some form of argument derived from Hegel - in the form of the argument - then that's not a good criticism of any arguments content.

I wonder what Zizek would say of their same pathology regarding "discord trannies."

you can’t attack slavoj because he’s just a bulky mass of analysis that is all very interesting and entertaining and points to many things but leads nowhere. peterson at least tells you to wash your stinky fucking dick.

Attached: Ideology is Kosher.jpg (1622x1346, 596K)

Yeah, tell a North Korean to get their house in order and see that work.

People on YouTube are saying Zizek dismantled 12 Rules and made Jordy his bitch. Was it that bad?

I'm a lefty but chapos are not welcome

heh gottem

Zizek put forth the question but other than that who cares about him. Peterson floundered under the question. I've seen him in hundreds of interviews and this was him floundering.

It's strange that Jordan 'be precise in your speech' can't be precise in naming some marxists. I'm being rhetorical and sarcastic.

Peterson raped zizek.

No but he got exposed as a tard who understands neither Marxism nor Postmodernism, which he undoubtedly is. And I say that as someone who is relatively sympathetic.

no, just rabid fanboys filtering out what they disagree with

>Peterson floundered under the question
no he didn't, naming names is not conducive to a debate...

Peterson agreed with Zizeks counterarguments to his points. That means zizek won because managed to convince his opponent

not really, zizek "won" but this was basically just Paul vs KSI where they are both raking in tons of money from this

they're probably at a restaraunt right now laughing about how much money they made from this shit

He did fine. Seemed a bit nervous in the beginning, but he pulled himself together.

Poor guy. I believe he genuinely wanted to do good for people.

north korea has a different set of problems, wouldn’t you say? are you looking for universal instruction? wash your penis would be at the top of that list regardless.

Nobody won the debate, or more accurately, nobody lost and both won. They both came out looking really good, much more nuanced and honest than politically correct people try to portray them. They were in agreement on nearly everything, except that Zizek puts a little more effort in societal reform while Peterson emphasizes the improvement coming from each person, but neither were actually extreme about either point, they found value in the other side.

In the end, it confirmed what I have felt for a while that those critical of the current political correctness, whether they lean right or left or are some combination of the two, have a lot of overlap that people aren't acknowledging. Anyone watching this critically might come away realizing they can really find a lot of common ground between the two and that it doesn't fit into the culture war binaries at all. Which was clearly the goal of the debate.

I'm pretty convinced both of them also came out of it liking and respecting each other.

The whole general point of Zizeks talk is "what if actually we are living in NK but ideology makes u blind of it"

I've come out of it thinking better of both of them.

no, zizek agreed with peterson's counter point about how what it really is is just a perversion of marxism with oppression instead of class. Peterson isn't even saying there are people who identify as this sort of thing, just that certain thought patterns have emerged within the establishment, which again zizek agreed with.

but then he needs to bring up NK as a separate entity to say it wouldn't work there? nahh

Zizek donated his pay to charity though

Peterson seemed out of his element, but to be fair it seems he expected to only talk about Marxism. Zizek didn't care much about the format and seemed to just want to talk directly with him.

baller move. he's making money from this regardless. this was zizeks biggest move into the public eye next to that old vice documentary

First off the debate was mostly them agreeing with each other. Why? Because they're intellectuals who are allowed a platform and selling stream passes for 14.99.

So the debate was a failure if we're looking for clarity of thought, because Peterson couldn't answer a straighforward question. It showed the strawman of his beliefs. Worse, because Peterson is an intellectual powerhouse and high IQ, it shows that he is making a choice to avoid naming marxists.

Why?

Because he is signed with an agent. And he is making money. Who controls the money? Jews. Who are the vast majority of marxists? Jews.

He can't name the Jew so there is no debate. It is pageantry and nothing more.

He is jabbing at Petersons relativism obviously.

The purpose of the question was to show how Peterson is rattling his saber at no one in particular. It shows the cracks in his education and academic standing: he simply can't address the philosophical tradition.

peterson didn't do his hw and it shows, he missed it no matter how you look at it

F

>to be fair it seems he expected to only talk about Marxism
>starts the debate off by pointing out that he read the communist manifesto once as a teen and reread it
>wants to talk about marxism

i think zizek kept to the format more. this was supposed to be about happiness and zizek structured his entire first speech around the actual debate topic yet peterson just made his a vapid attack on the Manifesto

Peterson was about to cry