EXPLAIN PETERSON TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN PETERSON TO ME RIGHT...

disagree, Zizek gave him a steady reacharound throughout that "debate"

>Lobsthulhu
God damn, why say you‘ll keep it then spoil it in the same post.
Disappointed.

Attached: 0A52A342-CAC8-403B-8D71-A2187F6BB018.jpg (553x703, 49K)

Peterson was clearly out of his depth
like Zizek during it didn't give a shit
he wasn't even trying
and STILL demolished peteson

Peterson kept to the topic of the debate. Zizek just used it as a platform to shill his own person. It was a disgrace.

Zizek is 70? What the fuck

yikes

twitter.com/HOSTAGEKlLLER/status/1119367322379202562

He's literally a self-help writer with a very straight-forward thought. What's there to understand?

Getting an overview of your vis a vis‘s arguments and views before a debate where you will have zero time to lay that groundwork together makes a lot of sense. Zizek would have done good, doing the same. If you expected that debate to take off on higher ground than just the absolute basics, it was certainly necessary. You can‘t have a good debate with someone if you don‘t first lay the ground work. His approach was flawless.

>Trump is a post modernist president.
What a fucking joke. Trump doesn't ignore the facts, he ignores facts that don't matter.
This is the lefts towering intellectual? I should have turned it off right there.

>DON'T DUMB IT DOWN
how would i even be able to, he's an ignoramus

Basically you are disorderly fuck, who shouldn't question the authority or hundeds of millions will die.

>a truth claim is best evaluated by its darwinian utility
>religion is an evolutionarily adaptive extended phenotype
>collectivism is bad

I keep hearing negation things about Peterson but those positions are subtle and nuanced. I'll have to give him a chance.

I like how zizek asks peterson "where are the marxists?" and peterson says 25 percent of social scientist self identify as marxist and the zizek fan bros go "owwwwwned!!!"

Peterson is a capitalist, who leeches of a broken society consisting of broken people without helping them. With the intention to turn them into slaves who simply have a clean room.
To be completely honest he threw me into the world of philosophy when I was 16. Even though he's pretty wrong about everything and a boomer.

>humans have evolved certain behaviours
>deviating from these behaviours will probably make you unhappy
>a societal attempt to rewrite these behaviours (perhaps based on some artsy fartsy ideology based on dipshit moralising instead of science) will not work and cause mass unhappiness and crisis

Peterson's problem is that the science isn't there yet to support what he says. I think one day it will be, but as it stands the field of psychology is a joke and so drawing firm conclusions is difficult to do.

Zizek asked him to name some "Postmodern neomarxists" and Peterson just couldn't do it.

That is extremely gay you fag

>trannypoints

Attached: 1556677514064.jpg (1200x941, 50K)

contrapoints is /ourgirl(male)/

1) judeo-christianity doesn't exist If not for propaganda reasons to keep the Good Goys good. The values involved are actively in conflict.
2) Peterson isn't a Christian: He's a dangerous occultist. He can't commit himself to the most basic Christian idea ("has Jesus EXISTED, mr Peterson?";"HMMMMM"), actively talks about demonic altered states experiences he's had (the meaning of music) and while What passes for his Ethical philosophy might have some superficial similarity to Christian Ethics, he starts from wrong assumptions and reaches wrong conclusions.
3) He's generally an incoherent idiot, perfect realization of the Psychologist archetype: an ignoramus who believes he's a scientist and a philosopher and will never be neither.

They. Are. Both. Shills.
They. Are. Thesis and Antithesis of the Philosophy of the Future.
Soon a new shill will come out who'll unite all the plebs and will make the World Government desiderable.
After We have WW3 Obviously.
Oh syrian civil war = spanish civil war btw. It's 1936 and It's obvious who will be fighting with who.

Shut the fuck up dude you're ruining it

Attached: 1556759685745.jpg (1098x1099, 104K)

That's life. *sniff*

He was a bullied kid who went full isolation mode in order to cope and then went full introspection mode in University to try to explain why people were such meanies to him.

he's a psychology professor who believes in aristotle-like virtues.

Peterson is right about responsability, but for some reason he uses it to validate neoliberalism. He's a true boomer, the ultimate boomer perhaps.

that's so fucking disappointing.

That's what happens when all he does is argue with friends and people beneath him. Once he got the chance to face someone who's actually hardened he got all fucking cocky and went in limp-dicked.

>Clean your room
There

Just wash your duck bruh

a daddy figure scaming young fatherless boys

Pretty much this. Zizek essentially was the bull that Peterson was forced to prep, roughly speaking in Yea Forums terms of course.

He could. 25% of those professors.

Žižek is a fucking meme, larping as a commie to get attention.

Materialist Jungian neocon who changes his discourse from appeals to myth and idealism to empiricism and poppsych depending on who he is talking to

>Trump doesn't ignore the facts, he ignores facts that don't matter.
He ignores facts that disagree with his self-image and worldview.
>This is the lefts towering intellectual?
This is the left's crazy uncle philosopher, by no means is he actually part of the 'curriculum' of theory a good leftie should be familiar with.

He grasped for some vague org which got their stats through questionable methodology.
Even then: those would only be Marxists then, not the postmodern neo-marxists Peterson is talking about.
The fact that the guy who made a fortune shitposting about Marxists in academia couldn't even name one by name is what is being made fun of here though.

He might have decent knowledge of psychology, but he spends most of his time as a 'public intellectual' criticizing people whose books he hasn't read and whose ideas he doesn't understand and merely misrepresents.
He doesn't know postmodernist philosophers and their thought, he just assumes they say the same things some fringe left activist students say.
He doesn't even know Marx: he claims Marx was in favor of equality of outcome which is false! Marx himself criticized this and called it 'raw communism' in his Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts.
In Critique of the Gotha Programme he wrote that under socialism unequal individual endowments and thus productive capacities are recognized as natural priviliges.
He sounds like a fair and balanced guy at first, but he does nothing but misrepresent and strawman.

Self-help guru to the lost manchildren of the internet. He did some pseudo-mystical academic work about Jung quarter of a century ago.
Occasionally resembles a cult leader.