That's why Cupid has arrows

>That's why Cupid has arrows.

Attached: 846738a09cd54fa7a65a1c7ecd6d69e9_bbb6467021bb486391911663a8b6ea07_2_www_marquee_standard.jpg (661x360, 21K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

why does cupid have arrows?

i was waiting for the apollo theater sandman to drag him offstage

I'd like him more if he had a good sense of humour

Peterson just got exposed as a dilettante, and a poor one at that.

1) 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.
2) No serious Marxist reads the meme pamphlet Marx wrote for uneducated workers, it's not an academic source, it's a propaganda piece.
3) Peterson, although claiming to have read and understood at least a modicum of Zizek's works, was not able to produce a single meaningful critique of his theory, even going so far as to be impressed with Zizek's take on Christianity
3a) Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion, in particular Judeo-Christianity; he also critiques Marxism for being an athiest doctrine which rejects these principles. So if Peterson had done so much as read Zizek's wikipedia article, let alone an article on him in an encyclopedia of philosophy, let alone read one of his books on Christianity, he would have known this position and not been impressed by it. It means he didn't even watch Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Incredible lack of research.
4) Peterson did not stick to his position that Marxism was bad, instead retreating to a simple repetition of his individualism (at one point admitting that the heart of the individualism leads to the position that you must do what is best for the community anyways "good enough for you/your family isn't enough" which basically recasts JP's position as individually enlightened Marxism)
5) Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program which is shorter than the Manifesto and much more important (reminder this intellectual has been arguing against the evils of Marx for decades and hasn't even read him in any meaningful sense since he was 18).
6) By the end, Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes. His only point to the debate which had any relevance was to point out Capitalism's productive force, a fact that he also admits Marx agrees with and discusses at length in the Manifesto.
7) Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.

Peterson has been exposed as someone who has no real education (or perhaps intellectual interest) in political theory. 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.

Because it represents aggressive male sexuality where in women are penetrated unwillingly but are manipulated into "falling in love" with their attackers. Obviously.

i think i spit out my coffee when he said that

he said it with such a childlike enthusiasm...

Attached: 2011b.png (1024x429, 130K)

>nothing says love more than a bunch of memearrows

>What? Sure.
I'd be curious to see Zizek and Peterson psychoanalyze one work and see the difference.

Attached: 1555875971838.png (1920x1080, 1.1M)

>7) Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.
what a pseud

cupid just did what his mom said

he was cornered, he knew he couldn't wheel out Foucault and Derrida in front of the Paris VIII educated Zizek without getting his shit pushed in

he tried to wheel out foucault and zizek rightly pointed out that foucault's primary opponents were marxists. but he should have really hammered him there instead of just offhandedly dismissing it. peterson needs to be exposed as someone who simply hasn't engaged with the material he constantly talks about.

Just got exposed?

Attached: -JUQpKBz_400x400.jpg (400x400, 19K)

he was pious, i just watched a bit of the debate and i can't belive how much of a hack peterson is(never watched or read anything by him before), he doesnt know nothing. zizek was too much

There's a reason Zizek is ignored in the mainstream as well

fat shaming

i meant that zizek was too much for him, not that he crossed a point in regard of anything. he's a coherent thinker why isnt he liked in the mainstream

When confronted with a true alpha lobster, the beta lobster grovels in submission

That’s very postmodern neomarxist analysis

Who said this and why? I don't even remember this from the debate but then again, I just focused on Zizek and ignored Peterson's parts.

It was a hilarious point in the dialogue section of the debate. Zizek was talking about the "fall" in falling in love, and how it disrupts your whole world, and then Peterson just interjected with that quote from OP. lmao peterson is retarded

i did the same thing though not because of any personal dislike of the man just what was coming out his mouth was nonsense especially for an academic in a debate. sad but you can only put up a farce for so long

this debate proved that fiction is better than reality
nonficfags are the really btfo ones
youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY

zizek is incredibly mainstream
hes the most popular modern philosopher there is

Attached: LitspirationSpenserian1600.jpg (1800x2472, 968K)

No, Chomsky is more popular though Zizek is still up there.

It's 2019 dude.

Chomsky is nobody.

he's one of the most cited intellectuals of all time

Ask a normalfag who Chomsky is and a good percentage will know but ask about Zizek and most will not be familiar with the name.

samefagging

Actually changed my mind, you're right. I also think anyone who knows who Zizek is would likely know who Chomsky is, but not the other way around.

Attached: Untitled.png (547x649, 26K)

the citations

nice shop

>Anonymous
thats true

literally every talk Chomsky has ever done they wheel out the fact that he's the most cited intellectual of our age, it's not nearly interesting enough to stage some sort of intrigue over

Hes a psychologist by profession, I’m not sure why anyone wanted him to debate a Marxist anyway. Unless he can bring some corporate psychology into the discussion as a polemic it’s not really an interesting debate from its conception. He probably got paid pretty good.

Also, I agree that he should probably do some research to understand his opponents positions so it’s not two straw men getting taken down during the debate but at the same time does a psychologist really need to study a dead ideology?

Imagine if he had debated an Arian or Something totally dead that didn’t still have a Fashion to it.

No, academic mainstream

Peterson, valiantly rallying against the Bogomilite heresies.

these are cool writing ideas the woman and her foot just make me jerk off though