So. Who won?

Soros won

>>zizek just repeats every previous talk he has given
>new = better
wowywow

zizek

/thread

Whoever planned the debate.

Zizek had read Peterson's book. Peterson hadn't even watched the pervert's guide to ideology. This was peterson's introduction to the most basic of Zizek's ideas.

Nobody won. The point of a debate is not to "win" but to bring forth good arguments that can be discussed extensively.

You're criticism is valid but the real take away is

Peterson lost in the first 3 minutes when he admitted that the only marxist theory he's read is a piece of propaganda written for the semi-literate.

But does this really matter? Anyone who watched this most likely agrees with this take already and if they don't, I doubt it would change their mind

right, that's why people are saying Peterson lost, he didn't say anything interesting and was completely unfamiliar not only with Zizek's body of work but the entire climate of "neomarxist" thought he rails against all the time

the team that scored more goals

Honestly this. Half of his positions regarding Marxism are inadvertent straw-men because of this.
Hell, he could've gotten more out of reading only the first chapter of Capital. Had he read both, not even if-full, it would've been all the better.

Their wallets, defintely not the viewers

me

Zizek gave the money he received to charity

then their image, whatever

Peterson made an idiot of himself in his opening speech, but then Zizek managed the push the conversation into a more interesting direction and thanks to his relaxed and open attitude the second half of the show was actually interesting.
What is amusing is that Peterson apparently planned this as a confrontation with his imagined arch-enemy, who was supposed to come out and say "the postmodern neo-Marxism, which is somehow the same as classical Marxism as expounded in the fucking Communist Manifesto, is better than capitalism for the following reasons:", whereas Zizek used the debate as an opportunity to very gently troll Peterson and confuse the hell out of his supporters.

>Zizek gave the money he received to charity
>So. Who won?
Peterson and some africans.

>man telling other men to jerk off
fucking faggot
kill yourself

IOW: Žižek, once again, shows that he's not an actual commie, but only like to larp as one to get attention.

I think Peterson fans lost, if anyone

oh, so it was ethical consumption.

(except that he is a commie, just not in the trite sense that everyone that hasnt picked up marx once thinks)

Communism lost even more, though. Not even Žižek could make a case for it.

>communism lost even more
sure if your concept of communism was purely equality of outcomes and never once picked up a single book on the subject

In what sense is he a commie?
>we need to work together to fix the environmental issues
Wow, what a radical idea.

This desu

To be fair this would make him a hypercommie in the eyes of the modern "right".

If you're going to hang around on a literature board you can at least act like you belong.

Attached: 4.png (604x156, 11K)

In many ways, Zizek is a huckster and a clown, just a better and paradoxically more honest kind of a huckster and a clown than Peterson is. He obviously failed to make a clear case for "Marxism" or "communism", but his success lies in resetting the parameters of the debate in a manner that made him resistant to becoming an object of a "Smart man POSITIVELY CONTRITURATES Slovenian beardo", which was the whole point of Peterson's approach, as evidenced in the tone of his opening speech.

>implying literature is gay
literature is manly af. ever heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? the bible, marx, all the works that shaped the world? christ, why are faggots so stupid?

I'm saying you should act like you know how to read. You are such a dumb cunt, and no I'm not literally calling you a vagina.

This

This would be nice, but it is only wishful thinking. Two at least somewhat intelligent people will mostly find some common ground no matter what. It changes exactly nothing, because most of the people are not at least somewhat intelligent.

>looking at your picture is learning to read
i didn't even look at the picture though hahah
suck it cunt

He uses lacanian psychoanalisis, which is heavily influenced by Marx and Freud, to do critique of ideology.

>ever heard that the pen is mightier than the sword?
>Bulwer-Lytton quotes will make me seem Yea Forums
Points for shitty prose

You decide.

You shouldn't need to look at the picture to know that "fuck off" doesn't always mean "go masturbate." To be able to read is to be able to pick up on contextual clues and understand what phrases like "fuck off" mean when they're used.

no i mean the first pic... wait... why are you so stupid... why am i talking to you... suck a dick bitch ....

>Zizek is a huckster and a clown
honk honk

I've never read or seen much by either of them but I gather that Peterson talks about postmodern Marxists a lot. Maybe I'm retarded but isn't it
impossible to be a postmodern Marxist?

Do you have some sort of cognitive disorder?

> woke political correctness
How the fuck did the libtard movements get a hold of the term "woke"?
Especially since they seem to be using it unironically.

Social media put them in close proximity with black nationalists who they're not allowed to disagree with whose thoughts they have to accept even if they may disagree.

Those who didn't pay to watch this scam.

yeah it's called not having shit-for-brains... suck a horse's cock you beast... also get help, you're clearly mentally ill

Well yeah. Zizek explained this at some point as well. One of the issues of the debate(and in today's political discourse) is that people misuse terms to a point where nobody knows what anything means anymore. Such as Peterson thinking SJW trannies are Marxists or liberals saying that Trump is a fascist

Wait a minute. Having a cognitive disorder means not having shit brains?

sniffles won. kermit b lobsterson is the eternal loser.

just because i was trailing off because i'm not interesting in sustaining a conversation with you, since you eat shit, doesn't mean i have a 'cognitive disorder' you deranged transexual

sjw trannies do like to use marxist/maoist imagery and draw influence from their ideologies to a certain degree. sure, mao would have purged most of them but it's not like the association is completely made up by the right.

they also like to pretend they're not "your average liberal" while endorsing liberal views, which just highlights the hypocrisy prevalent among them.

schizophrenia, autism, traumatic brain injury spring to mind when I read your posts. One thing is clear and it's that your cognitive functions are impaired one way or the other. I leave it to you to interpret this information. Curious to see what the output will be when you processed it with your fucked up brain.

True. I was mroe specifically referring to the terms they use. While they use shallow commodified marxist ideas I'm not sure if they actually call themselves marxists all that often.

lgbt tankies are the worst. it's like, you do know that stalin recriminalized homosexuality, right?

I think being unable to pay attention and sustain the simplest conversation indicates a cognitive disorder. You "trailing off" on a forum where you can take your time and respond at will is not normal.

imagine being this much of a cock-sucking fascist pig. kill yourself you worthless piece of fucking shit.

The real debate was the friends we made along the way

Yeah Peterson said it himself. It's basically peoples who uses postmodernsm to shut on america for the stated goal of total equality.

ok.

it indicates that i don't want to talk to you because you're a fucking stupid worthless piece of fucking shit. kill yourself. you absolutely no value as a human being and you don't deserve to live and no one, and i mean NO ONE, will EVER love you, you shit-eating, cock-sucking, fat, stupid, ugly incel bitch

t. ugly fat dumb commie

and the fact that you're trying to GASLIGHT a COMPLETE STRANGER ONLINE just proves that i was right about you, and i regret replying to your stupid gay bait in the first place. i hope you have fun getting fucked up the ass by your boyfriend you fucking faggot piece of shit

You're doing a lot of talking for somebody doesn't want to talk. You were the one who initially responded to me thinking you were clever.

explain how i am gaslighting you, i am genuinely curiously awaiting your nuanced response

yeah because i fucking hate you now. have you ever even read a žižek book? what the fuck are you doing in this thread at all?

you can't call someone "schizo and autistic" because they hate you for being a stupid piece of shit, user. that's your problem, not theirs

I'm sure you're very well educated in internet Intelligentsia

Wtf Zizek is 30 years older than his wife.

Is that ethical, really?

Attached: zizek.jpg (724x1024, 861K)

dude i'm done talking to you, i'm listening to this debate and staying on topic and you're a stupid troll. fuck off and let me listen to this debate

Yeah run away, bitch. You act like such a ho.

I'm sure he has pondered over that himself and he'll be able to give you a 30 minute answer

why don't you listen to the debate instead of bitching about how many threads there are? if you can't beat em join em right?

Memerson

Attached: 1555701986684.png (680x360, 174K)

I don't need to listen to this garbage because I'm not an idiot.

they had a child together and it's his only one. if he had married someone his own age, she wouldn't have been able to give birth to a child. so, unless you're an anti-natalist, there is nothing ethically wrong with it, and you're in the wrong because your moral judgement is based off of ageism, and, dare i say, internalized misandry

The real winner were the memes we made along the way

whatever bro a lot of us had been looking forward to this debate for a while

You looked forward to it LOL

>internalized misandry
It's time to go and never come back.

maybe you were right about this one. I can get caught up and have narc tendencies. I'm genuinely sorry. that was not my rational mind speaking

this is internalized misandry at its purest

>they had a child together and it's his only one.
he has at least two kids, one is much older than the other.

hey man it's not you, i just have a problem with people playing psychiatrist online. it's just like, are you a psychiatrist? no! i've seen psychiatrists, they say i'm sane, so i don't need other people who have no idea what they're talking about questioning my sanity!!! especially since my mother pyschologically abused and gaslit me my entire life!!! then when i grew up, got off of medication, and talked to some people that i found out that actually i'm sane and it was psychological abuse!!!! so maybe be a little more sensitive next time!!!! it's really triggering for some of us!!!!!!!!!

word my bad you're right! i didn't know

i get you. hope things get better for you. I'm also not in a good place right now and I'm also quite sensitive to this kinda stuff. Was recently diagnosed with ADD so funnily enough I'm the one with an actual problem apparently.

how can anyone take an anti-marxist who admits he's only read the communist manifesto seriously

>confuse the hell out of his supporters
He has given those opinions in many videos. Concederson was backtracking.

you sound like either A) you are bipolar or have schizophrenia or B) you've watched way too much terry davis

Attached: 3xfto2jnb1g21.jpg (1469x1102, 320K)

>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)

I meant Peterson's, sorry if it wasn't clear.

Because the way in which Marx made to inspire workers to his cause are more important than the thousands of pages of dialectical meandering he published.

...

>Here's your prize.
*pulls out dick*

thanks, yeah things are good. i'm sorry you're not in a good place though, i guess you are sensitive about the stigma attached to mental illness and were taking it out on me. i'm sorry for calling you so many names, of course i didn't mean any of them, i just get really triggered when someone questions my sanity. also i was on another website last week, some bullshit art website, and i never had a problem there until this one stupid fucking bitch came along and started gaslighting me and shit, because she herself is mentally ill and it helped her and stuff. i took medication since i was 8 until i was 21, and even went back on it after that, and it never once helped me. i am mentally healthy and i don't need anybody trying to make me question my sanity, because it is fundamentally a form of oppression. i don't think mental illness exists, i think it's a pseudo-science and a hundred years from now will be seen as a backwards form of pleasure or torture, like lobotomies and electroshock therapy are seen now. anyway you shouldn't worry too much about ADD, it can even be a good thing! lots of people with ADD are more active and outgoing. anyway sorry again for insulting you my friend

>using ellipses means you have bipolar or schizophrenia
does the shit ever leak out of your ears?

I wasn't the guy in the first messages though. I came in, read your comments, thought they were a bit ridiculous, and decided to make a comment like that. Then I realized how much of a personal issue it was to you so I wanted to apologize.
I believe mental illness exists, as in people who deviate significantly from the norm, causing them trouble in daily life. However, the rate at which people are coming up with new expensive treatments, pills and diagnoses worries me.
Psychology is such an abstract field, as in, there isn't a concrete set of symptoms that characterize a specific illness. This is why so many snake oil merchants are established in mental help services. Even the licensed psychiatrists can't tell you whether a type of medicine will work or not. It's all still in the very early stages, since the human brain is so complex.

i think it's fucking stupid to think you know someone's fucking psychology based off of some words they wrote online.
i think mental illnesses are just, like, types of stupidity, since mental illness is a social construct and doesn't exist. i don't smoke or do drugs and i barely drink alcohol, and this is how people are meant to live - naturally. it's stupid to abstract a person's complex biosocial shortcomings or dissatisfactions or whatever into some sort of fucking imaginary disease that must be treated with medications that are being shilled by million dollar corporations.
psychiatry is an industry. it creates mental illness. you probably think it's "crazy" for me to say and to think this, but i'm not alone! read the works of deleuze, and the solo works of guatarri, who was a psychoanalyst!
>Psychology is such an abstract field, as in, there isn't a concrete set of symptoms that characterize a specific illness. This is why so many snake oil merchants are established in mental help services. Even the licensed psychiatrists can't tell you whether a type of medicine will work or not. It's all still in the very early stages, since the human brain is so complex.
i agree with you here.

I agree that using ellipses is not an indicator of schizophrenia but having actual delusions are and that's what you just demonstrated. Nobody accused you of being schizophrenic for using ellipses.

>million dollar companies
sorry, meant billion

what fucking delusions am i fucking having you fucking worthless subhuman piece of fucking shit? the delusion that you DON'T suck cock because you're NOT a fucking stupid faggot? fucking kill yourself you fucking retard

the kikes did. this is Yea Forums yet the kikes who run this board won't delete a politics \ topical thread.
what else can we post here that the kikes won't delete?

Attached: jewplan.jpg (1024x1024, 261K)

I literally just told you. Nobody accused you of being schizophrenic for using ellipses but you perceived that they did. Your perceptions are not meeting up with reality.

Eric Andre

THIS is a delusion, you worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being. just because YOU think something I don't think doesn't mean i'm DELUSIONAL, it means you're a fuckign STUPID FUCK. kill yourself you cocksucking autistic piece of worthless shit.

I hope this doesn't trigger you too much, but:
Of course it's a social construct. It has been established based on the societal norm. But, since people are expected to function within that society, so I don't think it's unreasonable to compare individuals to that societal norm. This goes for many supposed "social constructs".

MISINTERPRETING YOUR POORLY WRITTEN FUCKING STUPID JUDGEMENTS ISN'T A DELUSION. YOUR STUPID FAGGOT PERCEPTION ISN'T REALITY, AND DISAGREEING WITH IT DOESN'T MAKE ME DELUSIONAL, IT MAKES YOU WRONG. YOU FUCKING STUPID WORTHLESS PIECE OF FAGGOT SHIT. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO FUCKING STUPID AND AUTISTIC TO COMMUNICATE YOURSELF IN WRITING BECAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKIGN MENTALLY RETARDED COCK-SUCKING AUTISTIC PIECE OF SHIT DOESN'T MEAN "MY PERCEPTIONS AREN'T MATCHING UP WITH REALITY" YOU FUCKING STUPID PIECE OF SHIT. YOU FUCKING STUPID FUCK.

Actually me, it was fun in some sort of bizarre self-loathing way.

Also, if this is the same person as you're a real hypocrite

yeah no i get that, let's all take pills to make ourselves more functional so we can valorize capital at the expense of our mental health. i would say that late capitalism is insane, not any specific individual.

>YOUR STUPID FAGGOT PERCEPTION ISN'T REALITY
Do you actually think I said perception is reality? You are really stupid.

A H, A N I C E C U P O F I D E O L O G Y

It was just to make Zizek not look like a grifter. Ethical consumerism is bad for Zizek when it is used as an advertisement for consumerism... This obviously wasn't the purpose of giving his money to charity here. Zizek is not against charity in general.

>WHAT ACCESS DO YOU HAVE TO REALITY YOU FUCKING ASSWIPE. ARE YOU GOD?! ALL YOU HAVE ACCESS TO IS YOUR FUCKING DEFORMED, AUTISTIC PERCEPTION.
>your perception isn't lining up with reality
THE REALITY OF YOU BEING TOO FUCKING STUPID TO COMMUNICATE YOURSELF THROUGH WRITING. AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME DELUSIONAL, IT MAKES YOU FUCKING STUPID. YOU FUCKING STUPID PIECE OF SHIT. KILL YOURSELF.

I don't mean a capitalist society per se. there are simply people who cannot function within any kind of organized group of people. It can be school, in team sports, work, or even within their own family. these kinds of people do need help.

And yes, I'm aware that all these are sublevels of our capitalist society, that they are all influenced by the common values and goals of the system they are part of. But, for the time being, do we let these people suffer, or do we offer them at least some symptomatic treatment, while we work to solve the cause?

i'm a normally functioning individual myself (job, girlfriend, friends, family, etc), but i still think that things are more dynamic than that in the context of the group - belonging to the group, it is fundamentally a mistake, an error to abstract the individual from the group and project the group dynamic into a feature of the individual's psychology. in this way it is almost a form of torture of the individual, who is a victim, by the group, who are oppressors.
for instance, for me, my mother was an abusive alcoholic who was always drunk, yelling/screaming at, and beating me, and who was emotionally abusive as well. yet, instead of seeing that maybe i was sad from her abuse, and from her and my father always fighting in front oe me, i, an 8 year old boy, was suffering from mental illness, was mentally ill. then, when i got away from my horrible mother as an adult, what do you know! i'm fine!
so i consider it as a form of bullying, or, at worst, oppression, because you marginalize the victim's experience within the context of the group, stigmatizing them as "mentally ill," whilst denying any responsibility i.e. my mother denying that she was abusive and instead blaming "my mental illness" and screaming at me to "get back on my medication" as a grown man who had escaped from her crutches
i think what you've said is fundamentally stupid, bigoted and wrong, but still it's an interesting point and i appreciate your backwards perspective

this

Eveb his fans have to admit that Zizek made him look fucking retarded.

i forgot to include my further nuance in the first comment.
this is basically the answer.
While I agree many psychiatric treatments fail to treat the cause of the symptoms, is it wrong to offer a temporary solution? Your abusive mother was the cause, and later on, when the cause disappeared, so did your symptoms.

Marxism is not about "ethical." It's about science and progress.

>It's about science and progress.
fucking lol

>That moment when Zizek stabbed Pertson's Dragon of Chaos through the heart with an ideological spear
Peterson is over. Thank the matrix.

oh word i thought that this was someone else replying to you.
>is it wrong to offer a temporary solution?
you raise a very valid point... i don't think so at all, but it's wrong to, as in the case of that stupid bitch on the art website who, like, worshipped psychiatry as the 'answer' that 'saved,' view a temporary solution as the answer. this can be said about any number of things that distract us from our suffering - sex, food, art, alcohol, recreational drugs, exercise, social media, etc.
at the end of the day, people should do what they feel is right. and they should also have the autonomy to do so - a diagnoses, being deprived of your autonomy due to being "mentally ill" and subjugated to the mental health system, is a form of oppression.
as in the case of my abusive mother being the cause, and me getting better when i moved out, the temporary solution was wrong, because i was made to believe that i was sick, that i was mentally ill, that the problem was me - when it wasn't!
people need to take more responsibility in their interactions with others. it's a two-way street. it's narcissistic to gaslight someone. i mean, in some cases the person is mentally ill, for example i read about david letterman's stalker last night, and she was clearly psychotic. but in the context of your own family, to be treated like that, like you are insane for, what, wanting my mother's love and acceptance? is pretty fucked up. it's stupid that people accuse each other of mental illness so flippantly, people they don't even know. this is how narcissistic we've all become - i am god and if you don't recognize that, well, you're crazy. it's stupid, it's the same as flexing on someone, except it's manipulative - the goal is to dominate the other, to have power over the other.
you're othering the other person into a thing in order to gain mastery over them. "this other person is not my equal, they're mentally ill!" so it's a power game, and a power structure.
granted, most people really do need help - there are tons of stupid, crazy people out there.

this is perhaps the last meme the boomers will understand about the internet. the last two relatables of the fringe. this marks a line where everyone is now self conscious about the internet just being another advertisment and product review page. talk about meta narratives, they both have been made a neutralizer and sterilization of more complex thought. why not right? retirement is near

holy shit its 2.5 hours. should i even bother?

you are kind of all over the place, since on the one hand you try to empathize and understand why people are the way they are. but on the other hand, you don't hesitate to call people "crazy" without further nuance.
Narcissism is a form of mental pathology as well, so if you want your anti-oppression argument to stand firm, you should also look into what can be the causee of this widespread narcissism. Someone on here posted a book a while back, it might interest you.

Attached: culture of narcissism.jpg (1166x1750, 288K)

You can skip the first hour since it's just Memerson delivering shit analysis of Marxism based on commiefesto and Zizek saying same shit as always.

what i'm saying is i'm sane, but most people are stupid/crazy. i consider mental illness just types of stupidity. i imagine that these people are terrified of their own minds lmao. so yes i admit my hypocrisy there.
i'm not sure if i should use the term narcissism, since it's a psychological term. i should perhaps try to better appreciate psychiatry and psychology as a part of the neoliberal paradigm. take a deleuzian approach to it and see it as a problem/idea

Repeat it after me:

JORDAN PETERSON IS A GLOBALIST SHILL ON A QUEST TO REMOVE RADICAL MOMENTUM FROM THE EMERGING NEW RIGHT

>Repeat it after me:
Go back to twitter

There isn't really an emerging right yet so not really. The new right has yet to present any coherent positive vision for society and just flails wildly in (often justified) opposition to various positions taken by other politicians. That's hardly something you can call an actual political movement, just various fringe dissident clusters more or less overlapping.

i liked zizek's argument about a system that has to marginalize dissident voices as intruders, being inherently pathological, as these are the roots of totalitarianism like the nazi regime.

society for witnessing a meeting of the minds this great

They thought they were on the forum, whilst they were actually in the circus.

Attached: 46489612489.png (1920x1080, 2.8M)

>The new right has yet to present any coherent positive vision for society
It's not like the Left have one either.

This is the crux of it. No matter Zizek's position, Peterson showed that he is in no position to critique Marxism or Marxists. He clearly read none of Zizek, the guy he's debating, nor Marx outside of a leaflet he skimmed in one day.

cursed image

The only wack thing Zizek said is his paranoia about "biotechnology" and "linking minds". No power can let an other intrude into you except your permission.

Attached: sophia.jpg (846x957, 272K)

someone is getting triggered

Attached: jew_propaganda.jpg (1553x1202, 1.26M)

zizek said the same thing i said there during the debate

or, you and Peterson realize that the "communist" ghost you're attacking literally does not exist outside of mentally ill college students who listen to chapo

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

he straight up says that markets will not be able to deal with the environmental issue, and that capitalism is responsible for the cultural and moral degradation of the west.
He advocates abandoning capitalism (under threat of apocalypse no less), he just doesn't see any real alternatives being formulated, aka he doesn't know which form communism could take; which is wise.

>Soviet Union lost even more
FTFY. And my nigga if you think shitting on Soviet Union makes you not a marxist, there would be no marxist left on Earth

He voices support for the likes of Syriza and he gets attention from Russian channels, that's it tbeh.

Peterson
>The only prerequisite for being a Marxist is the belief in an oppressed vs oppressor dynamic in society
Also Peterson
>I believe in modern capitalism and democracy, which, incidentally, arose from numerous violent revolutions against the oppressive lords and monarchists by the oppressed commoners.

I was so frustrated that Zizek didn't press him further on this point. Peterson's hypocrisy and ignorance in this regard was astounding. I could use this same logic to say that the Lincolnites were Marxists simply because they inveighed against slavery which has an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. I think Zizek is too kind to debate things like this and it really showed here. I wish a headstrong Marxist intellectual who knows his shit was sitting in the place of Zizek last night.

This is one thing that bothers me about speakers. I once watched an e-celeb speak, in the flesh, and verbatim, word for word, he said the same fucking thing in a youtube speech I had seen prior. I was even saying what he was going to say next to my friend. Fuck people who do this. They're basically NPCs on repeat.

That would make Classical Fascists Marxists too. Conflict theory is ancient.

lucky guy

What book

The Communist Manifesto.

What is the materialist rejoinder to hierarchies that exist outside of the material realm (i.e. hierarchies based on genetics)? I mostly skipped Marx in school and went straight to Adam Smith. I'm probably going to read Capital later this year though

>capitalism and democracy, which, incidentally, arose from numerous violent revolutions against the oppressive lords and monarchists by the oppressed commoners.
brainlet-tier take desu. according to peterson, serfs weren't serfs because they were oppressed by their masters. feudalism was a sensible system for the conditions under which it existed, and the big changes that made the progression to democracy possible are technological in nature.

I'm not arguing that that's a sensible reading of history btw

>i want to return to hegel

yes YES he destroyed his cage

Attached: mirror-750x513.jpg (750x513, 34K)

I'm going to agree with you here and say that Zizek showed him mercy

I mean feudalism was sensible. There was certainly oppression of serfs by the lords, but it was still sensible

zizek wanted to have a conversation rather than win a debate. he could've easily destroyed peterson's misunderstanding of marxism but that wouldnt have been counterproductive. peterson's followers aren't going to go read Marx to understand why he's wrong. zizek only corrected the most egregious misunderstanding to Marxism which was egalitarianism. he focused most on what they agreed with and ended with the question "where are the marxists you're talking about?" out in the open, unanswered by Peterson. that'll stick with people.

I'm listening to JBPs opening now and it's absolutely incredible. misunderstanding Marx on basically every point, and wtf is all this good/evil talk? it's defo not in Marx, and it's an embarrassing way for someone who has allegedly read Nietzsche to be talking.

this

This. Philosophical debate of this kind is no longer human. The only refuge I find now is in music, science, and comparative religion

based

To be clear what made Jordan Peterson at least temporarily entertaining was he was basically confessing to his weakness and tearing apart himself, exposing how life was going to destroy you if you were anything like him. His rise to 'power' is ironic.

This. Zizek going out of his way in both opening and closing statement to say fuck political correctness and Trump isn't a fascist was pretty amazing.

>>zizek just repeats every previous talk he has given
isn't that his standard mode of operation?

>implying clever conmen need to read anything
this is why you incels are losers writing inane shit on imageboards

peterson lost the debate, but communism lost it too

yes, his books are also all copypasted

Peterson
>The dragon and tiger is real

Also Peterson
>The dragon and tiger is not real

he's been saying this for nearly four decades

Attached: Less-than-Nothing-1050st-298174ca807675b57687a71eb3b15408.jpg (641x1050, 292K)

More like
>Let's debate Christianity.
>First, I have to tell you that I've only read the Bible and ignored three millennia of other texts since the Bible is the core of Christian evangelism.

Peterson.

EZ.

Meh, reading bible actually takes time, while the manifesto is like 40 pages.

When Peterson said Marx made one right claim and that was that history was the result of hierarchical struggle but Marx was wrong because it's actually much deeper than capitalism this struggle goes back to prefeudal society I half expected The Internationale to start playing in the background. He basically only agreed with the most radical and revolutionary aspect of Marxism.

I sincerely hope you aren't implying Marx wrote the Manifesto as the core of communist theory...

What's important is that political correctness lost.

What a false equivalence. Those three millennia of other texts are COMMENTING on the bible, everything they talk about is rooted in the bible, it is the core of christian thought. The equivalent of a communist manifesto to christianity would be those anime girl gods gift john 3:16 and shit pics, you know what I'm talking about if you are not a tourist. and that's disregarding all the advancements made in theory since then

>Because who wants to engage with dense philosophic theory when we can read a pamphlet instead

This debate was so bad that after finishing the entirety of it I still wasn't sure what it was about. Peterson attacks a strawman of Marxism and Zizek just talks about ???
What a waste of time. It was nice to see Zizek ask Peterson for some proper citation for his cultural marxism bullshit though and call him out for making shit up in favor of getting an audience, but that wasn't worth those nearly 3 hours.

Is Zizek part of the intellectual dark web now?
He is, right? This is their thing. Discuss about philosophy and such things civilly, agree on many things but disagree on some.

Attached: 1524289692793.jpg (225x350, 27K)

> Kermit DEFENESTRATES Oscar with Logic and Facts

Who else watched this mainly for the unfiltered livestream comments?

Peterson lost. He looked dumb.

removing all my leftylarp, I agree with you completely desu

Peterson lost, but marxism lost too