Literally HOW did he drop the ball so hard? I didn't expect much but wow...

Then why did Zizek publish a book on the Communist Manifesto this year?

Peterson's field is psychology, not philosophy. He could've quoted Jung or Freud and Zizek wouldn't have recognized the quote. Props to the guy for playing outside his sport.

He didn't convince Zizek of anything, though. He just addressed the points of nuance that were already part of Zizek's ideas. It was like when a teacher tries to walk a student into articulating a point the student hadn't considered before and the student suddenly gets it and goes "aha, well what about this:"

I would guess Zizek has a larger store of quotes by psychoanalysts than Peterson. He's basically an expert on Lacan and frequently quotes Freud.

>and zizek wouldn't have recognized it

Nice hypothetical, you colossal faggot.

Attached: 8D51692F-28F5-4A8A-A65A-84D081888E95.jpg (1242x1827, 983K)

Zizek was mentioning Chesterton's views on christianity. He didn't come up with them.

>He could've quoted Jung or Freud and Zizek wouldn't have recognized the quote.
Dude, Zizek is probably the most well known psychoanalytic philosopher alive.

That's even worse for Peterson

>160+ IQ internationally renowned academic
lol

Attached: 1336188446682.gif (209x180, 1.18M)

>Props to the guy for playing outside his sport.
He's been peddling the inane bullshit for years. Do you think they picked the topic randomly? He promotes this as a major area of his expertise.

Reminder: this man has not read Marx

Attached: 1519770476010.jpg (950x634, 348K)

> well I wanted to prepare so i read the communist manifesto
> and boy was it the dumbest thing I ever read!

Attached: 1455000465591.jpg (550x512, 40K)

>Anyone who has taken a 100 level course on Marx could have given as good or better of a rundown and critique of the Communist Manifesto that Peterson gave.
Meaningless, unsubstantial claim, without backing it up. Zizek, for his part, agreed with Peterson's criticisms, which you're choosing to ignore.

>Incredible lack of research.
This seems dishonest. Peterson had a point that Zizek's writing is very dense and covers a lot of areas, but that he often comes back to Marxism, so one can understand why he chose to attack Marxism, Zizek's kind of trollish refrain he does in fact often come back to, as a nub of the debate.

>Peterson did not stick to his position that Marxism was bad
He didn't have to since Zizek disavowed Marxism and they both together moved more into nuances of their actual views. Again, you're addressing irrelevant technicalities to try to portray a sense of faulty logic or something.

>Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program
Bullshit criticism; there are any number of random things you can bring up, that weren't on the table, that either of them hadn't read. You're just totally lacking in integrity aren't you?

>By the end, Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes.

Zizek said he doesn't really believe in Marxism, but just laments the corrosion of social democracy. He didn't propound any agenda or solutions, in fact he said he's a total pessimist. He also agreed with all of Peterson's criticisms of Marxism.

>Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.

This is a dishonest criticism; Zizek himself said he knew that Peterson is referring to postmodernist theory. Zizek did fairly press Peterson to clarify his argument about this - that is, who among these identity politics leftists are proper Marxists? To which Peterson gave the correct answer - that by associating identity politics with Marxisms, he's referring to how (Marxist) theorists in the 60s shifted the emphasis of oppression from class to identity. This is the correct answer, which again, Zizek AGREED with. It's good that Zizek asked him to clear this up though because just calling it Marxism is a bit fuzzy, but he's right in that it's a continuation of post-Marxian 'oppression' politics.

By the way I'm neither right nor left, just pointing out what bullshit your copypasta is.

>IQ

Attached: 1459876076755[1].png (499x499, 192K)

He literally thinks it's a post modern philosophy. He claims to go in with critical thinking but ends up just viewing it through his own ideology

Jordan Peterson shrunk and sounded wimpy and scared. Is that undeniable?

Attached: gettyimages-107698141-612x612.jpg (612x408, 36K)

>a Marxist critical of other Marxist
IMAGINE MY SHOCK!

>Meaningless, unsubstantial claim, without backing it up.
I literally have higher academic credentials than Peterson in this field

Attached: IMG_20190419_222103__01__01__01.jpg (3360x2113, 1.77M)

hes been around for a while now

cope

based and redpilled

Another completely superficial comment. The debate evolved as they got a sense of the nuances of the other person's stance. They seemed to be committed to being productive and open, rather than just having an agenda to take down the other guy just for the sake of ideology. When Zizek signaled that he was willing to admit he agreed on (quite a lot of) points, and that he was open, Peterson, like a reasonable person, seemed moved and responded in kind, having an open discussion, willing to find common ground.

As for how he sounded, his voice always sounds shaky like that. You're just looking for irrelevant details to try to portray this as some big left vs right thing when in fact it turned out that they both were willing to go past ideological tribalism, and they articulated as much.

He's always been a charlatan. Please read the following article, rife with passages from his books.

currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Attached: mycutewifechewy.jpg (960x1200, 113K)

Your guy was fucking destroyed. Get over it.

And like many lesser academics, you resort to dishonest technical arguments for the sake of your chosen ideology, which both of these guys I'm impressed to say were actually beyond that.

>a B.A.
>Double Major in Philosophy and Political Science
what a waste of time and (potentially) money

Peterson's not my guy any more than Zizek is. I found myself agreeing with both of them many times though. This isn't a sport's match. The whole debate was ultimately about how this sport's match mentality is shallow and unproductive, and yet here you attempt to misinterpret/ misrepresent it because you're a weak little tribalist of the sort they were both together criticizing.

I honestly couldn’t pin down his actual ties to marxism in the entire debate but he sure did btfo jordan

I'm capable of being nice to downies and making them feel like we have common ground because I don't take pleasure in torturing the weak, yeah, that doesn't make me a fucking intellectual giant

Peterson is an illiterate snake oil salesman and you're not going to convince anyone here to respect him

So this debate would be comparable to Nietzsche Vs. Plato? It was essentially two no names saying nothing new and arguing about trivialities. Day to day life is the same and I got nothing out of it. Tell me why I shouldn't read Milton or Freud instead of watching two completely forgettable people?

Oh, I see. It's become clear that you're also illiterate

Zizek was like "I agree with you but [destroys peterson]"
Peter was like "[I agree with you, I'm being submissive, don't destroy me] *struggles to say anything*"

> Nathan J. Robinson

Attached: njr.jpg (494x484, 22K)

He got timid and didn't dare take ground. Philosophical debates are futile. Use your fists, kill somebody

>dishonest technical arguments
What about "Jordan Peterson hasn't read Marx or Zizek" went over your head? This isn't an abstract, he was shown to be uneducated in this subject (the evils of Marxism) he professes to be an expert in.

Crossposting peterson fanboys yesterday:
>lmao daddy is going to destroy this marxist cuck so hard
Crossposting peterson fanboys now:
>well, actually the whole debate was all about how we can come together and respect each other despite our disagreements

fucking kek

So what position are we taking? I feel like Zizek pampered up the dangers of communism. He specifically avoided talking about it to hide it's negative effects

What are the rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities of this degree?

Peterson was about to cry. Dude looked so nervous. He was LOST

Attached: disgust.png (1920x1080, 1.1M)

>This is the correct answer, which again, Zizek AGREED with.
Saying that the shift from class to identity in the (New Left), doesn't somehow vindicate Peterson bitching about post-mordenists. If anything the New Left was as modernist as the old one. Both Zizek and Peterson saw the same thing, but only one took an actual correct take from it and it is not Peterson

Is Yea Forums the pseud board?

>it's
I hope you take the position of fucking off to whichever board you came here from.

Completely frivolous. Spent probably more than 4 years of your life getting drunk and bullshitting an essay to do well in class. "But I learned something," no you only stroked your ego asshole and read stuff that made you feel smart. Most people in your major are also women, so nice work.

It's Hegelian Dialectics

Attached: 57358058_2178623915554129_3202467142205177856_o.png (1282x887, 797K)

> Name
> One

cope

He mentioned that Stalin was mean many times and even made a joke about the phrase "the people" in Stalinist times.

Never knew Zizek read Andy Warhol literature

Attached: 57314206_2148103868610189_3293784572189212672_n.png (656x605, 264K)

> and basically disavowed Marxism himself.
you must be retarded and new. zizek has always been critical of marxism. Just like every serious Marxist has before him. The frankfurt school and such.

Peterson agreed that you can't will yourself to be happy so does that mean I shouldn't buy his self-help book?

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

No one is impressed by a bachelor degree. The BA is the entry requirement for the MA, nothing more.

Attached: 57644650_2222832437806624_2522986728814280704_o.png (1069x590, 211K)

What does Peterson have?

Nobody needs that much water.

Attached: pocarisweat.jpg (1280x720, 108K)

I'm in grad school right now. Nice get.

>Peterson drinking carbonated water
worse than cider, no wonder he fucked up

This is embarrassing, please never post on this board again

Enjoy your shitty adjunct position making no money retard

Is the recording available yet?

Attached: 1533754518044.jpg (813x551, 163K)

>Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion
lol,no the fuck he is not. He's just some typical psychologist who makes pastiches with religion. His Christianity is total bullshit. Peterson is just a refined ideologue for people who would otherwise read the New Age genre.

Go to Muke's channel

>recording
yeah, the motion picture is available on online video-storage platforms.

got a phd worked as a professor for a bit then doubled back and work as an economist for a insurance firm, I still research for uni's here and there. If he goes all the way up the ladder he should be fine phd's get you plenty of jobs worth their weight, and IIRC a BA in philosophy isent even that terrible for getting a job, i mean you wont be getting what you want but thats not the point of your degree if your going for a BA anyway

He did a 15 part lecture series doing a Jungian reading of the bible; he certainly bills himself as such.

Yeah, and it's fucking complete shit. He has no basic understanding of Christian thinking. His lecture were the most ahistorical bad scolarship able to be produced. He has absolutely no credentials in religion, user. Like, really, how the fuck could you imagine he did?

Can we ban the word “Judeo-Christian”

Like, I'm not just Peterson-hating. I'm serious.There are a million good theologians and scholars on Christianity from the left and right whose scholarship is good. Zizek in his atheism is unironically much more Christian than Peterson

KOLTORAL MARTZISM *sniff sniff* AN SO ON AN SO FORT. MEESTER PEETERSEN,*sniff sniff* WOULD YOU LET ME *sniff sniff* FACK YOUR DAUTER? I WOULD LAV TO FACK YOUR GIRL, PLEESE.

He wrote his only academic book on religion and psychoanalysis. You can say he's bad at what he does, I won't disagree with you, but he has far more academic credentials in religious studies than he does in political philosophy

Why are Peterson fans taking this so hard? Relax, its ok. What did you think he was? Why is this stupid little talk so important to you?

I don't agree with him or support his message, but seeing you guys all so bummed upsets me.

What is Crying Peterson thinking RIGHT NOW?

Jordan Concederson

I haven't watched it yet but from what I can gather it's the tragedy of Ti hubris.

you sound like someone whose life revolves around mock trial. a debate is just a series of technicalities to be scored for you, because you never have to believe anything. you mindlessly proceed from assumptions to conclusions, without questioning the assumptions to begin with. don't even respond to my post, it'll all be cope anyway

Mom, why did Zizek have to kill the lobsterman?

Attached: all ogre billy.png (226x111, 21K)

>organizes a debate about Marxism with a marxist
>clearly doesn't read anything beyond the manifesto
Just when i thought my opinion of Peterson couldn't get any lower

Attached: 1548363946910.jpg (500x431, 92K)

I do not care, all I know is Commies are cancer.

>hey mom, where'd you put the box of my graduation stuff?
>no reason, just wanted to look through it
seriously, not even disagreeing with you, but pulling this irl trycope shit is embarassing

It was an absolute failure of a debate by Zizek and Lobstermein

But mostly zuzik.

It was supposed to be a debate centered around happiness and psychology. It quickly became something else.

Zizek debated in bad faith. Like most commie fags.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA the absolute state of Yea Forums

go back to plebbit

>It was supposed to be a debate centered around happiness and psychology.
no, it wasn't

Attached: rumble.jpg (1086x611, 91K)

>Judeo christian values

Attached: 1492241700553.jpg (447x444, 16K)

In one of these lectures he talks about one man walking a road, he needs to sleep for the night and uses a stone as a pillow.
The stone is a symbol of the self in Jungs work.
Beterson says it is a symbol of how the man was not prepared for his journey. He is mistaken here, the bible is a largely esoteric text, everything is symbolic.
I think he is projecting some sort of "work hard" complex he has, onto the bible. It can be seen in much of what he says.
Jung believed that the things we hate tell us about the parts of ourselves that we hate. Juden Patreonstein seems to always complain about laziness.

twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

wait, is this real? lmao

Attached: 1506627137773.jpg (620x388, 36K)

Yikes

twitter.com/SEIFFERTOVAL/status/1119433717020151808

HAHAHAHAHA

His starvation diet is starting to get to him, he seems a lot slower and less vibrant than he used to.

How has he done literally nothing to prepare for literally the biggest moment of his career

this fucking can't be real...

NOOOOO, PLESE NOOOO DADDY. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>meanwhile

Attached: Zizek.png (603x603, 571K)

Debate with actual intellectuals means far less for his fans than any random youtube video where he can strawman whatever topic he wants in front of students who will never challenge him because they just want the class to be over.

Oh dear.

Attached: 9CE3FDB8-1641-4060-904B-0F8981566C56.jpg (800x437, 96K)

Low energy from starvation diet, also the reason he's aged like 5 years over the last 12 months.

Attached: 1533134286478.jpg (500x459, 52K)

holy shit

He didn't read a single book.All that time. He said in the debate even that "Zizek wrote too much" And that that is why he decided to go to the "source of it all" The pamphlet that is the communist manifesto which he said he last read when he was 18.
Utterly embarrassing.

I feel like this is worse than having no degree

>Got a BS in rigorous STEM curriculum
>Go to Yea Forums
>Literal meme degrees posted

OH NO NO NO HAHAHAHA

Attached: beepo.jpg (500x775, 37K)

>MM/DD/YY

Post it with a timestamp.

twitter.com/hostageklller/status/1119367322379202562?s=21

He literally didn’t prepare for the debate at all and tried to cram past minute by skimming the communist manifesto and watching Zizek videos on youtube

>I'm going to watch some of his youtube videos
>I'm going to read a couple of his books

I can imagine him turning on some low quality youtube video where you can hardly hear Zizek and then him closing it after 4 minutes thinking he's done enough to prepare. Ironically Zizek basically just reuses the same old jokes he does in most his videos so he could have easily had a counter ready if he actually bothered to put a couple hours into the debate

Attached: 346345345.jpg (1014x1280, 263K)

...

just imagine paying hundreds of dollars for this LMAO

>instead you got to see sjw's and post-modernists get spitroasted by the left and right

decent trade off

only tankies wanna go back to Stalinist times

stem is filled with brainlets that cope with degrees,sat/act scores,iq and what universities they were selected in. we study what we want because we enjoy it, we find it interesting,its our calling, literature is a massive canvas each stroke beautiful and unique in its own way. I rather die then spend 4 years of my life studying something just because its culturally accepted. We are interested in the art form of the written word, artist,academics, and over all creative minds all together motivated to push each other-with a piece of paper and some ink.

Attached: 1.jpg (482x482, 477K)

Lazy, lesser Marxists ALWAYS say this in response to ANY criticism... they affect a smirk and posture as if said critic is some small thinker who somehow hasn't yet attained an elite, complex, super obscure understanding of Marx which of course they will only baselessly allude to but make no actual points on.

>"Haha, he's so stupid! He CLEARLY knows NOTHING about Marxism which only we towering, inaccessibly elite intellectuals are beholden to, amirite twitter? (I won't expand on how at all, please don't ask!)"

15 bucks, though.

>muh sjws. btfo!!!!!
Easily one of the most stale and repetitive talking points in the discourse today besides complaining about drumpf orange small hands etc

>who the fuck is kirky guard?

not for the people who actually paid to be there, mate

>twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562
>Zizek youtube videos
OH NO NO NO NO

Attached: 1551788462109.jpg (960x720, 93K)

There are several video essays and blog posts explaining what Jordan Peterson gets wrong about Marxism and postmodernism. Learn how to google instead of being a complete anti-intellectual faggot who can only attack straw mans

It was the entire thrust of the debate and clearly the closing message of both, but you don't want to acknowledge that because you wish it were just another exercise in dishonest ideological tribalism that suits your own investment.

I think both were trying to say "Fuck SJWs and fuck you!"

But he just doesn't, user. Not even the basics. The whole question was never about le capitalists "being evil" Or "the oppressed and oppressors" or even inequality. Who is lazy here is Peterson who has no idea what he's talking about in anything other than his restricted domain of empirical psychology.

I don't understand why people waste so much time having these conversations about Marx without reading him. Peterson spent so much time casting the dangers of Marxism as an attempt to make everyone equal, meanwhile, Zizek shouldn't even have to debate this, because this is what Marx was actually writing:

>Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
>In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

Peterson literally said he only read the Manifesto twice- and once was 18 yrs. old at that.

I’m happy to acknowledge that it was the thrust of the debate, I don’t want to celebrate it. The whole debate was a pointless spectacle and we gained nothing particularly interesting from it.

STEMlord here making $200k in SV at 23.
Why not have both? Why not study STEM while also exploring literature and philosophy?

And the second time was a day before the debate when he gave up on watching zizek youtube videos. He just skimmed through it and it's just a PAMPHLET. not any of Marx's serious works. You don't have to be a Marxist to understand the sheer mediocrity and dishonesty that is being dealt with here. Peterson proved without a doubt that he is a charlatan.

what high school debate is this from?

The most important point regarding this Zizek addressed: asking Peterson essentially to clarify why or how he is labeling postmodernism as Marxist, which Peterson then explained. Peterson demonstrated he's aware of the 'end of metanarratives' etc ideas but made the point that his connecting postmodernism with Marxism was (correctly) due to poststructuralism being developed by post-Marxist academics who shifted the emphasis to identity and cultural matters, but maintained the 'oppression' dynamic, which Zizek agreed with.

I happen to think Peterson shouldn't be so generalistic in his labeling of this stuff as Marxist or Communist because it might come across as underinformed or simplistic, but there is actually fair reason for his connecting them.

I think he saw and realized today that there are smarter, more nuanced leftist and even Marxian types who don't fall into that identity politics woke leftism stuff though, and I think frankly he was surprised by Zizek's openness and was moved and adjusted his approach to the conversation, as a person should, actually. I think he'll probably come out of this with a reasonable respect for Zizek and maybe a different view of certain areas that constitute leftism.

Attached: 1C39031B-B12A-4E34-B5AE-67FD80C02E99.jpg (800x450, 45K)

I absolutely disagree. I hope that it might demonstrate that tribal political identities and the nature of discourse that results is unproductive and not actually speaking to the actual complexity of things, and I think these two showed that there is a surprising amount of middle ground for people of supposedly very different alliances, and of course nothing can ever get done if such rigidly opposed cultural wars continue. So this was a great step.

t. seething

man, i'd have busted my head on that shelf 1000 times, how does he keep getting away with it?

I actually kind of agree with both of them, fall somewhere in between their views, leaning one way or the other depending on the issue. Definitely came out of this liking both of them.

faggot internet retards picking the Red team or the Blue team and tallying up points when their faggot team makes a pointless coup

why not be upset with the structural weirdness of the public sphere that allows two academics to "debate" something at a sophomoric level like ships passing in the night, and never say anything of substance? why not be upset that no one in the audience is capable of understanding either speaker enough to hold them accountable for saying effectively nothing for two hours? why not be upset that people wanted to see Talking Head vs. Talking Head for the sake of seeing a Talking Heads Debate, without actually having enough of a concrete idea of what constitutes a debate to go "hey wait a minute, this isn't a debate, they're just kind of giving gay little speeches"

peterson doesn't give a fuck about reading postone and marcuse and getting into the nitty gritty of what exactly marxism is, when career marxists with decades of solipsistic article-writing can't even agree what it is amongst themselves. zizek has the opposite problem as a continental philosophy ivory tower queer, whose job is basically to shallowly extemporize by deploying quaint little chunks of homogenized critical theory as a parlour trick. he knew he had exactly two options against peterson: go hardcore specialized, going into abstruse detail about his sub-sub-sub-section of involuted leftist shit like "IS MARXISM AN IMMANENT CRITIQUE OR HERMENEUTIC OF SUSPICION OR IS IT A 'SELF-STANDING' ECONOMIC THEORY? CAN THERE BE AN ANALYTIC MARXISM? IS MARXISM DEAD AND IN NEED OF RESURRECTION, OR ARE WE POST-MARXIAN? IS THERE A UTOPIAN MARX, A YOUNG MARX, AN OLD MARX, A HEGELIAN MARX, A MATERIALIST MARX, AN EPICUREAN MARX? IS ENGELS MARXIST? WAS THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL MARXIST? IS THE NEW LEFT MARXIST?," or just softball peterson and talk around him.

this debate was a failure at every level and no one even cares about it. the first thing either of these men should have done is realise how difficult it is to actually have a dialogue between them, and then either work through that (maybe by having a more fluid, informal discussion of basic ontological commitments), or frankly admit a debate is pointless. the first thing organisers should have done is realise the same. the first thing the audience should have done is fallen asleep or pelted them with rotting fruit for talking past each other. the first thing viewers should have done was gassed the audience for being a bunch of hooting retards who can't hold the debaters accountable.

instead chapo aids house undergraduate geography major faggots on the internet who get mad when they see the word NIGGER are going to post "lmao peterson didn't even read the grundrisse XDDDD" (they haven't either) on twitter, and peterson fags will say "PETERSON STOOD UP FOR VALUES.." and continue being middle class. in an echo of the shit debate, nobody convinces anybody else because no one is in dialogue with anyone else

Attached: 82697C4D-927D-4B79-8C62-32ED262DFD43.jpg (601x508, 31K)

Do you guys think that Peterson is going to read Das Kapital?

All the STEM people I know probably have higher IQs than me, but are still utter plebs when it comes to literature (and culture in general).

this is the kind of copypasta I came to this thread for

Attached: 1508355240707.jpg (1280x720, 390K)

>two academics to "debate" something at a sophomoric level like ships passing in the night, and never say anything of substance?
this is literally what public debate is all about. it’s like football for the kids who got stuffed in lockers in school

based

Marx's principles are the easiest to understand and to refute. "Historical Materialism" or "Dialectical Materialism" are so absurd they're practically Anglo Empiricism, a comedy bit. He fumbled worse than he did against cowboy.

>why not be upset with the structural weirdness of the public sphere that allows two academics to "debate" something at a sophomoric level like ships passing in the night, and never say anything of substance?
> zizek has the opposite problem as a continental philosophy ivory tower queer, whose job is basically to shallowly extemporize by deploying quaint little chunks of homogenized critical theory as a parlour trick. he knew he had exactly two options against peterson: go hardcore specialized, going into abstruse detail about his sub-sub-sub-section of involuted leftist shit like "IS MARXISM AN IMMANENT CRITIQUE OR HERMENEUTIC OF SUSPICION OR IS IT A 'SELF-STANDING' ECONOMIC THEORY? CAN THERE BE AN ANALYTIC MARXISM? IS MARXISM DEAD AND IN NEED OF RESURRECTION, OR ARE WE POST-MARXIAN? IS THERE A UTOPIAN MARX, A YOUNG MARX, AN OLD MARX, A HEGELIAN MARX, A MATERIALIST MARX, AN EPICUREAN MARX? IS ENGELS MARXIST? WAS THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL MARXIST? IS THE NEW LEFT MARXIST?,"
this is literally social science you retard, this is what it's like to talk about Marx in an academic setting. you are both critiquing Zizek for not saying anything and not being able to understand what he's saying; if you pick one, it disqualifies you from claiming the other.

>let's debate the bible.
>guys, first I have to tell you that I've only read the book of revelation when I was 18

Attached: 1.jpg (310x387, 18K)

Poststructualism was developed by "post-Marxist" academics who were concerned with identity? Which academics? This is a huge claim which requires evidence. The fact that Peterson is meant to be an intellectual and couldn't even name a single person who he cites as an example of this or use any textual evidence at all is a disgrace. His ideas about marxism and postmodernism are like a child's tracing in crayon. He read some vague ideas through exegesis of exegesis and doesn't engage with actual texts at all. He's not a serious thinker on these subjects, just a popular celebrity online.

how the FUCK did he think he was going to get away with it?

Attached: 1527475891739.png (640x360, 158K)

>earnestly replying to pasta
you, sir, are a faggot. good day
>tips fedora and absconds

Peterson's argument for why postmodernists could be neomarxists was that 25% of sociology professors claim to be Marxist. He's out to fucking lunch.

>this post
maybe it was really worth it

Attached: 1451145031200.png (633x758, 23K)

he consistenly got away with it until now, so probably delusions of grandeur and all that stuff

Even in Metro 2033 everyone hates the Reds
commie scum lol I shot a whole bunch of them

I fucking kek'd in the introductions
>Peterson PhD in psychoanalysis
>Zizek PhD in psychoanalysis and PhD in Philosophy
>Peterson taught at Harvard and later at U of T
>Zizek is a professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London.
>Peterson wrote 2 books and 100 article
>Zizek wrote more than 3 dozen books [and hundreds upon hundreds of articles, and has an academic journal named after him]

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>probably the biggest debate of your life
>think your entry level dissection of the communist manifesto you made as a teenager was going to be enough

Attached: 3232.jpg (449x294, 26K)

>let's debate Republicanism
>guys, first I have to tell you that I've only read the American Constitution when I was 18

ummmm

half of zizeks work is on lacan and freud and shit

Bet you Zizkek had rakija there. Any decent Eastern European man doesn't go into any debate sober, this shit is fuel.

Zizek doesn't drink

Why didn't Zizek call him out for stealing Lacan's crazy diagrams

Attached: 346346.png (997x792, 214K)

I almost died laughing when Zizek asks him to name a single postmodern neomarxist and says something like:
>I'm not trying to make you look like an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about, but can you name one?
Also when Peterson tried to demonstrate Marx's theory of exploitation with the example of hording flat screen TV's in a room was like something out of Monty Python. I haven't laughed like this in a long time.

Where can I watch the debate?

Bullshit

Attached: frodo.png (560x559, 325K)

I hope Bloom is doing alright and still has plenty of time left to reread Shakespeare a few dozen times

>Judeo-Christianity
How to spot a newbie.

That's Peterson's term, he is obsessed with what he calls "Judeo-Christian values"

Are you retarded user?

KEK

Peterson came off as nervous in the beginning but improved significantly as time went on. He probably should have just read something for the first segment like Zizek rather than going off-the-cuff, but they both did fine overall. It was a surprisingly civil discussion with plenty of agreement between them. If nothing else, I feel like paying more attention to both of them after this.

Dog ate his homework

>He could've quoted Jung or Freud and Zizek wouldn't have recognized the quote
to be this brainlet... I guess now I know who follows Peterson

"He graduated from the University of Ljubljana in 1981 with a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy for his dissertation entitled The Theoretical and Practical Relevance of French Structuralism"

"In 1985, Žižek completed a second doctorate (Doctor of Philosophy in psychoanalysis) at the University of Paris VIII under Jacques-Alain Miller and François Regnault."

"in 1967 he published the first translation of a text by Jacques Derrida into Slovenian

What the fuck is this? I can't even conceive of a context where this would make sense.

As much as I like Peterson he's playing way above his league. Stick to fixing young people.

that would require reading das kapital at least, which would take too much time better suited for harvesting monies from his fanboys

Lol, literally none of you read books.

Related to that truth is the truth that the only people who cheer and clap at talking points like anybody who cheered in the crowd for this "debate" are people who don't read.

Zizek was the only one who adressed hapiness in his initial speech. If Peterson wasnt lazy schoolboy it could be different.

>twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

That's a big YIKES from me

I'm a Zizek guy, though.

>fixing young people

Attached: abomination.png (680x789, 715K)

What is he googling?

Attached: 453463.png (549x2020, 643K)

>tranny furry latex midgets
>hmm, what if I remove midgets

Was I banned ?

And some of Yea Forumsards thought this can be compared to chomsky foucault debate

Attached: can lactose intolerant people eat dialectic.jpg (819x1200, 86K)

Zizek actually made an argument against Foucault in the debate

Attached: tom1.jpg (555x400, 41K)

c'mon guys, yes he didn't prepare well for the debate, happens to the best of us, but still it doesn't mean that communism works and marxism isn't some outdated shit that ruined lives of millions of people.

>Props to the guy for playing outside his sport
Yes, setting yourself up as an authority without knowing what you're talking about is truly admirable

Heres the definition of a man and women.

Attached: behold_ive_brought_you_a_man.jpg (550x306, 41K)

Attached: giphy.gif (478x354, 2.35M)

At what momement did he set himself as an authority on philosophy?

Sorry user, I know this is shocking but if you want to critique Marx and expect to be taken seriously you need to read him.

Attached: 1555748248174.png (549x2020, 724K)

If you were the person staging the debate, who would you have put in the place of Peterson? Can someone point me in the direction of a competent writer who espouses the values of western culture but who is well read and current on communism.

Attached: disappointment.jpg (526x730, 41K)

I want him to go up against Sadler. If the Minotaur wins(he will) he can cannibalize him.

Attached: minotaur.jpg (1280x720, 232K)

The moment he started making videos on Marxism as an evil philosophy from the position of a "respected" professor making educational content for his patreon supporters

what would they even debate about? Sadler is interested in the history of philosophy, he doesn't have a position himself per se

room status: uncleaned
will to wash penis: waning

Sadler casts himself as a philosopher. He's also an expert on Hegel and most early Christian philosophy.

>who would you have put in the place of Peterson?
An actual believer in Marxism, and put Zizek on the side of capitalism.

Zizek would destroy him.

There is one man... But it's too dangerous to allow the two to be in the same room.

Attached: x.png (482x482, 64K)

hes bored

You can find videos where he says he's not interesting in taking any particular position, he has no plans to write a book of his ideas or anything. He is interested in reading and studying philosophy, not creating novel philosophical positions.

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

youtube.com/watch?v=LITHAzXSrps

Attached: nick land.png (511x767, 1.02M)

I am sure Peterson doesn't even know any Japanese philosophers.

Attached: 1555748549216.jpg (480x480, 35K)

Thanks man, I was running out of sick mad man jungle drum and bass. Wicked mans got hot.

>a bitchy faggot misreads Kierkegaard: the animation
No thanks.

it's shooped you mong

What did he mean by that?

I know

Attached: land croaking.png (500x360, 42K)

it would be great if zizek asked peterson if he agrees with *marx quote* and then disagrees with marx

Cringe

>The debate evolved as they got a sense of the nuances of the other person's stance. They seemed to be committed to being productive and open, rather than just having an agenda to take down the other guy just for the sake of ideology. When Zizek signaled that he was willing to admit he agreed on (quite a lot of) points, and that he was open, Peterson, like a reasonable person, seemed moved and responded in kind, having an open discussion, willing to find common ground.
very deep non superficial

Endlessly stating that the ice cream machine broke.

Cope harder liberal retard, your patreon daddy got dabbed on

Big Man Ting Peak Gully Mandem, Law it Bruv

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 8K)

>Zizek said he doesn't really believe in Marxism
This is how I know you don't have an idea of what you're talking about and haven't read a thing at all. Zizek is mostly a Lacanian and Hegelian but he is still a Marxist.

he DESTROYED so many cultural marxists up until then...

Too bad "Dialectical Materialism" doesn't come from Marx. And that right there is how I know you're a pseud.

Sadler clearly favors christian philosophy at the very least

Zizek has written multiple defenses of Marxist dialectical materialism though, like In Defence of Lost Causes

I'll be finishing Law school this year.

How much do I trigger you? ;-)

Good post t b h

>linkposting to an image on an imageboard
go back
>only read the manifesto

>elite, complex, super obscure understanding of Marx
observe the space in between
this
everyone send happy thoughts to the REAL substitute father figure of Yea Forums

I couldn't care less. That post attributed to Marx, which, again, the thesis of dialectical materialism neither comes from or is found.

It really seems like Jordan Peterson is the result of the right hungering for intellectuals, and he's the best they can come up with. Is there any serious conservative philosopher that could just totally replace Peterson? He's clearly the a scheister and just not very well educated in political science.

Attached: 1515574345331.jpg (1254x745, 128K)

second part meant for

philosophy BA is the best possible entry for law, if you feel like selling out

how is this relevant? if anything it merely reinforces the point. dudes written 30+ other books

>Zizek is mostly a charlatanian and charlatanian but he is still a charlantanist

Both Peterson and him are total frauds.

Sloterdeijk. Serious Anglo-conservative philosophers have become very rare in recent decades.

> Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes
What form of Marxism would that be? "We need to find an agreement for ecological problems"?

Don't know how this works in the US of Mexico, but here in my country you start Law school without needing anything previously.

People look at me as if I were a child, because I'm kinda cute. Little do they know that I'll soon become a lawyer, dealing with their legal rights and duties as I please, the very master of my own domains.

Holy fucking cringe

Jordan Peterson hasn't been taken seriously by anyone but a handful of sycophant redditoids for the past couple of years, to everyone else it should've been obvious he's just another mid brow merchant with a penchant for self help.

lol project much?

Scruton, Theodore Dalrymple, John Gray and Thomas Sowell could easily destroy a continental hack ''all concepts and no facts'' like Zizek, specially Scruton, who has good training in Hegelian philosophy but still kept his mind intact somehow.

strawpoll.me/17850950
strawpoll.me/17850950
strawpoll.me/17850950

You need a degree first here, then you can take the LSAT and go for Law School

Peterson talks shit about Marxism because he conflates it with the modern lumpen left, which is actually nihilist and anti-white.

>Judeo-Christian
No such thing. This is a meme invented by jews to ingratiate themselves to Christians. Only white conservatives and jews trying to manipulate them use it.

Retarded country.

Still, you should be ashamed you chose philosophy. Couldn't get into Medicine school, I gather? What about Engineering? Too hard for you?

i love it when less qualified edgelords on Yea Forums try to talk about academia from some ambiguous vantage point like this, whether that be pseuostatistical or cruely social (worrisome on a board dedicated to literature, of all things). all it does is illustrate a profound ressentiment and /pol/ tier engagement with reality.

IDK why "leftists" (of that reddit/SJW kind) call Žižek their guy and call Memerson a right winger or something.
They're both basically some form of social democrats and agree on 99% of the current issues.

And they both find trannies disgusting and think SJWs should hang.

Attached: shapiro_tenrules.jpg (645x384, 31K)

He's one of those retards who thinks that because he's knowledgeable in one specific area, he's qualified to talk about everything under the sun even if he doesn't know anything about it. It's especially common in Doctors and Engineers who think they're always the smartest fuckers in the room, just accept that you'll never be an expert in everything.

Attached: 1554862152119.jpg (598x415, 60K)

People on YouTube and in this thread are so fucking dumb. You poofters seriously think Peterson was honestly confounded this evening? Even watching a single Zizek video on YouTube would be enough to know what the man is like. No, Peterson pretended he didn't know what he's like so he could essentially start off with a strawman and then continue the rest of the evening as if he finds Zizek's thoughts so new and interesting. Peterson knew he would get destroyed either way: he chose to be destroyed by pretending he wasn't informed enough about his opponent or the contents of the debate. People here seriously underestimate what a pathetic grifter this man is.

right wing people have real jobs mate

But, user, where are the Marxists?

Oppressing the working class isn't a job, honey.

Suuuuuure

Attached: smug.jpg (420x420, 47K)

>Is there any serious conservative philosopher that could just totally replace Peterson?
No, because conservatism is dead. Not even Peterson is a proper conservative.

Your best bet for an anti-Žižek would be someone like Moldbug, but that would be too radical (and too high IQ) for mainstream audiences.

>pretended
see

oh, wow, a copypaste of Heideggerean petite bourgeois German conservatism— that’ll show them.

Donald Trump

>takes law
>in a country with much less strict requirements to study law than civilized countries
>brags about it

Okay, I take it back. He's a certified imbecile.

Not him, but do you really think Slaughterdick is so bad? I thought his book on ascetism was nice, but it was the only one I've read from him.

Yeah, but he's a serious person. I dont care if you don't like him. I don't really either. We're just talking about actual thinkers who aren't sophist propagandists working for some think tank or something.

4d chessmaster

> Muh exploiters
> why poor americans keep voting red?

Spoken like a real welfare queen. " I am oppressed because I went into debt to get a wealth signaling degree"

For a bunch of elitist fuckers you sure like roleplaying you are proletarians.

I understand your rage but what you're mourning died before you were born.

>pretended to be retarded
truly the longest con in history

Attached: 1549878874392.jpg (640x480, 37K)

poor americans vote red because they dont want to pay taxes and hate immigration- theyre poor enough from being exploited laborers and they dont need extra competition from other countries driving their wages down any more.

the German academy is a think tank

Marxism- Leninism never claims the proletariat are smart.

The right has some impressive intellectuals but they're mostly banned from youtube.

name 11

He doesn't use the term but he describes it as such, and is the only one to argue that it is literally true, Ontologically, much like Materialism in general is synonymous with truth in the Anglosphere. The only other notable uses of the term are direct references to Marx, or allegorical at best, if not mere "thought experiments". Moreover, it is integral to Marxism in general not only as per Marx, but as reified by his monsters. Wealth is not only ill-gotten in the circumstantial sense, it is an original sin through and through.

>exploited laborers
>vote red
They absolutely do not.

How does a public academic with a PhD get away with doing no reading on a topic he is debating? I'm a dumb pseud and even I have read more marx

accurate

Attached: IMG_1142.jpg (749x474, 34K)

Youtubers aren't actually human beings mate, no matter how many degrees they hold.

Sloterdijk isn't conservative at all, there's no place for religion, history or nation in his philosophy - he can basically be characterised as a globalist Nietzsche

dunning-kruger effect loop

Curt Dolittle
Jean-Francois Gariepy
Eric Striker
E Michael Jones
Kevin MacDonald
Charles Murray
Jan Lamprect

Even David Duke is a more accomplished intellectual than Jordan Peterson.

Welcome to the bankruptcy of the cathedral.

STEMlord doing the same in Seattle, this is the based path—get a good job, then go /fit/lit/fa/ and achieve your max potential

You're a piece of shit and everything that's wrong with the world. Be a real person instead of an empty-headed mongrel.

Deep down you know you went through the path of mediocrity.
Had you been smarter, you have gotten into pure science, and walked among the gods, challenging the fallen heroes for a place in history.

Instead you chose the easy way out, a wife, children, and a crisis at 50 when you realize your meager accomplishments are worth nothing once you look oblivion in the face.

> a few decent points and a lot of retardation, 5/10

Peterson literally cries in every talk he gives

twitter.com/hostageklller/status/1119367322379202562?s=21

These are the inane ramblings of an insane man.

And yet thousands of young men see him as a father figure. That's how far the West has fallen.

Did they bring any of their own ideas on the table or did they parrot past philosophers like they always do?

Memerson didn't parrot anyone because he hasn't read anyone.

The worst part was the audience

>t. coping brainlet with 40k of non-dischargeable debt

I liked it when they cheered Zizek's Marxist refutation of idpol

negro, no one remebers scientists. some very few selected names became memes and stiuck with normies, but no one not in the field could even begin to explain their ideas and why they mattered besides the most superficial shit. but prove me wron, tell me without googling who was the first person to produce liquid oxygen, who was the doctor who first used anesthesia, and who invented the most popular method of creating silicone crystals, and how does thast method work? fucking high schooler understanging of what it's like to be a scientist, I swear.

>Major in Philosophy
>Major in Political Studies
LOOK AT THIS DUDE
WAIT TILL YOU SEE THE TOP OF HIS HEAD
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

This, both at the venue and off. Both are surrounded by a cloud of assholes.

>Didn't know they let 10 year olds on here

>3 hours
fuck me sideways, can I get the cliff notes?

>t. just watched a 3 hour debate on political philosophy

you can safely skip first half and not miss much t b h

Get a grip boy

What you call sanity and common sense will only bring you despair in the end.

Most people don't know about those who scratched greatness, but who cares about what the common man thinks?

They know what they accomplished. Just like you know you accomplished nothing Because you will know you never even dare to try to aim for something bigger.

I preferred Zizek before his rail of adderal kicked in. When he's high he can't hold a train of though.

So did Peterson really lose? This thread make it sound like it but and the answer he gots make me think its mostly the people buthurth by him jacking off

>you're a weak little tribalist of the sort they were both together criticizing.

>Irony, adj.
>Of, or pertaining to, the quality of iron

>JP: I read the Manifesto for the first time since I was 18, bloody dumb guy that Marx. He wanted people to be equal, but no ones really equal!
>SZ: deconstructs postmodernism, capitalism, happiness, ideology
>JP: I only have one question, how can you be a Marxist if you don't sound like my strawman?
>SZ: you haven't read Marx. can you name a single postmodern neomarxist?
>JP: no

99% of people agree with 99% of current issues its how and why they disagree on the 1%

Absolutely devastated. Zizek deep-fried his Lobster theory and sent him home nursing the burns. We can be pretty certain Marxism is the only way forward and Capitalism is a failed experiment.

>[...] is a more accomplished intellectual than Jordan Peterson.
*gasps*

maybe watch it yourself and make your own opinion, it's on youtube in full

If you can't tell Peterson lost you are not in an intellectual position to try and defend the sort of specious nonsense you quoted

It's not a formal debate so there is no winning or losing. Zizek was more entertaining and had better command of the subject matter. So he had a better showing. This is the best metric you can apply.

Notice that the post you linked was a defense of Peterson's perceived failings. user didn't even try to give you an example of him getting one up on Zizek.

What's a significant disagreement between Žižek and Peterson?
Besides some minor academic misunderstandings about whether SJWs are actually neo-Marxists or not.

Tell me how they disagree on the relevant parts on how societies should run, for example.

Zizek won just because this fight wasn't fair to begin with.
You are not going to beat a philosopher in a debate, it was that Mc Gregor ginger dude fight all over again.

This was a sham from the start. In any case Peterson came out alright because Zizek pitied him. I was expecting him to have a meltdown and breakdown live but Zizek was too busy making jokes and trying to teach him shit.

He did not even think he was worth it.

By the way, I despise both people in this debate equally and from what I knew about Zizek expected him to be a butcher.
Dude might lost his edge.

My datacap is almost as its limit, I'll watch it in a couple of day

Well the answer to this nonsense are half "ur dumb" and half serious reply and he also btfo'd those.

S A N C R O S A C T

I'm rich enough that I don't have to work and I never even finished high school. It's just pathetic to read the ramblings of some guy that's young and sounds like a middle-aged man going through a depressive phase. You're scum and have no real identity, and no woman will ever want you.

>I despise both people in this deba
Why even watch this shit then.

>the left that can be named is not the real left
imagine still falling for leftist propaganda taoist riddles in the current year of our lord and savior

Peterson was actually grateful to Zizek.

>from what I knew about Zizek expected him to be a butcher.
>Dude might lost his edge.
Zizek is incredibly polite and generous when he's onstage with other people. He only gives the impression of being dangerous because he's sententious.

The only man that can destroy Zizek's career is Sam Harris.

I will only be 23 once you nigger, I want to see what my absolute peak is like. You wouldn’t understand aesthetics

Attached: DABF77F0-B9F4-4129-B67D-77815FC38805.jpg (500x665, 42K)

Peak in males is like 50-60.

Zizek vs. Zizek when?

Absolute destruction would follow.

he didn't even btfo the original post he replied to

Ironically this is what the debate was supposed to be about, but I find fulfillment in playing my narrative role correctly, and am happy as a result.

The same reason I watched the Mc Gregor vs Mayweather even if I hated both of them:

I wanted to see one of them getting hurt.

Sure I was expecting Peterson to cry but maybe, just maybe, Zizek would have a drug overdose and die on stage. That would have been worth watching.

I think Zizek hold back. In any case I read a few articles but never saw him debate until now.
He was more polite than I expected, for sure.
Maybe this is not his fight, after all.
It is not like he would take a stance in favor of inter-sectionalism which has declared war on Peterson. He probably hates modern SJWs more than JP does.

Brainlets don't understand that there are aesthetic joys and great discoveries to be made in engineering. They have an an academic hierarchy memorized and judge things in terms of it. They themselves will never accomplish anything they will be terribly proud of.

I've seen him on the stage with many people. Debate or no he's been gracious to all of them.

Did /sci/ made you cry and you came here to act superior to the humanities folk?

You engineer fags disgust me. Know your place in the intellectual food chain and stop embarrassing us all.

Don't be bitter.

Perhaps the age of gentlemen is over.
I have gotten to used to the screeching monkeys methods since the rise of the new atheism and now I may have forgotten intellectuals used to behave like people.

>He could've quoted Jung or Freud and Zizek wouldn't have recognized the quote
Žižek's primary field IS psychoanalysis, so I'm pretty sure he'd recognize or at least understand quotes of the founder of the field or one of its very well known followers (though leading the ideas into a direction very different from Lacan's).

Yeah engineers get a Pygmalion & Galatea narrative around their works, as they come “alive” and are put into use (especially so in CS). My hours are flexible, I can work from home whenever, my teammates are friendly and social people my age, so I think as far as jobs go this is a pretty good one.

I think STEMfags are some of the dumbest people I've ever met. The only likable ones are those that stick with what's on their intellectual level - Star Wars, Marvel, vidya and anime. These ones that come here to "enlighten" us with their intellect built on reading one book a month are so fucking annoying.

Any scientist speaking outside their field is bound to look like a fucking idiot.
What you guys get here are usually the worse of them all, the people who where humiliated by their colleagues and they are trying to seek validation by bragging to you people instead.

if you read the book it would

>especially so in CS
Absolutely. You can get positively drunk off of accomplishments in this field. Especially when you master recursion or discover a new design pattern that opens a landscape of solutions. If you don't understand math you will never recognize it as math, and your judgements based on some secular Great Chain of Being will always be medieval.

Attached: DWAtBjLWAAAC9me.jpg (1176x954, 161K)

So how did they do?

Attached: peterson.jpg (595x561, 88K)

first 30 minutes: peterson tells why communist manifesto is wrong and evil
next 30 minutes: zizek as in any zizek video ending with "we're heading for the apocalypse or something"
peterson reply: wow why you're not defending marxism? climate change also might be not a problem
zizek reply: marx called egalitarianism bourgeois lol
q&a
peterson: emm... you marxis?
zizek: i'm hegelian
peterson: marxism is dangerous
zizek: i don't want to say you are an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, but can you name any of these "postmodernist neomarxists?"
peterson: ... 25% of social scientists in the US identify as marxists
peterson: radical postmodern types like derrida and foucault...
zizek: foucault was a critic of marxism lol. okay let's drop it here, but if you want...
peterson: let's move next
moderator: how to be happy?
peterson: take responsibility
zizek: should north korean clean his room? also christ was an atheist on the cross
peterson: wow i've never thought about that.
zizek: chesterton's "orthodoxy". it's a small book
peterson: and north korean might also clean his room.
zizek: *tells his joke about toilets* *tells about hiels bohr's horseshoe* that is ideology!
peterson: so so so uh
zizek: tell a joke
peterson: in my book i suggest people not to lie. don't do what's wrong, do what's good for society.
zizek: himmler argued that only a great man could kill innocents for the country. also zen buddhists helped imperial japan
moderator: so, let's conclude this
peterson: discussions are good
zizek: leftists, don't be pc

Well done, user. Now get in your cage.

>the people who where humiliated by their colleagues and they are trying to seek validation by bragging to you people instead.
This, these are the people that get filtered out in the first semester since they don't value the subject, but it's social status and thus are unable to spend the required amount of time with learning something they don't value in itself. If they would have any kind of scientific ambition, then there would be way more respect and appreciation for other fields. Either that or a lack of social maturity pays it's toll.

something like this

Attached: z.png (595x561, 266K)

Roger Scruton. For more practical ideas, Thierry Baudet. I believe his main book is translated in English. "Attack on the Nation State"

He was point out his qualifications to participate in this particular debate. He wasn't boasting about his degree.

I'll have to rewatch later to confirm, but I'm pretty sure "dominance hierarchy" and "zizeks applauds himself" should be checked.

>160+ IQ
Who are you talking about?

Attached: pff.png (500x575, 31K)

i remember lobster mentioning "attractiveness hierarchy" and zizek clapping out of cringe from the audience applause during the introduction

>I am actually amazed there are people who watched this debate and think Peterson managed even the bare minimum of understanding of both Marxist theory and the historical realities of capitalist dynamics.
I'm actually amazed that there are people who still think Peterson is worth any attention, after exposing himself as a pseudo-intellectual fraud for, what, 2-3 years (of hype)?

it didn't matter he already sold the tickets

>You don't rise to a position of authority that's reliable in human society primarily by exploiting other people, it's a very unstable means of obtaining power

Peterson is a one act comedy

incoming salary brag

This, except I only just realised it. I've avoided hearing anything by him at all for years (even the lobster thing) and now that I've heard him, I'm mind-boggled he has any following.

What, from doctors and engineers? They earn fuck-all, user.
This was the real salary brag all along.

its going to depress to you realize his main adversaries are not intellectuals but buzz-fed writers with even less credentials than him.

The age of man is over. The age of the youtuber has begun.

>bemoans the current state of popular intellectualism
>quotes the Lord of the Rings movies
3,000 iq chad

Putting a screencap of these meme degrees and believing that they actually impress anyone
Dude, no

Attached: 1536479570222.jpg (702x1024, 61K)

>this isn't a debate, they're just kind of giving gay little speeches
That's how they intended the discussion to function, actually. That's how Žižek described it in a recent interview for RT.

>Q: Is autist pussy best pussy?
>Gariépy: honestly, yes, autistic women are dedicated to success in the sex sphere
What did he mean with this?

Why was he so unprepared? Lmao

He thought that he was going to debate Nicolas Maduro

A day before the debate he said that he's going to 'review some of Zizek's youtube videos' as preparation. No, I'm not kidding.

twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

>I'm rich enough that I don't have to work and I never even finished high school
being a neet isn’t something to be proud of user

>chesterton's "orthodoxy". it's a small book
fucking school'd.

>People paid hundreds of dollars to watch a marxist academic debate some dude who read the maifesto when he was 18
I would pay thousands to watch schizo posters debate Zizek. now that would be good. Or even land 2bh

Attached: 1554811572630.jpg (785x822, 266K)

>zizek applauds himself and explains why
God I love him

Peterson won. That user is correct