If Jordan Peterson is now prepared to debate Zizek, will he have the balls to face Richard Wolff in a debate?
HAPPENING! PETERSON SAYS HE WOULD DEBATE ZIZEK
Other urls found in this thread:
Jordan Peterson is now prepared to debate Zizek
If it goes down, it will go as follows:
10% Luck; 20% Skill; 15% Concentrated Power of Will; 5% Pleasure; 50% Pain. 100% Reason to never do again.
Okay now this is epic
What would they even debate about? Peterson's lies and strawmen? Peterson has been dodging debates for such a prolonged period of time, I have a hard time seeing this happening.
Zizek is not my cup of tea.
Peterson responded to Wolff by the way. Hilarious
Who the fuck are Jordan Peterson and Zizek and Richard Wolff?
sniff man versus tard kermit
fucking steven pinker as the moderator
This would be the biggest dumpster fire of a 'debate' were it ever to actually take place. Peterson would renege on any actual discussion of the material in favor of continually insisting that the debate take place within the purview of his symbolic system of meaning, ultimately resulting in a half-dazed and sob-ridden ramble about the iniquities of not catering to him and his feelings. Pinker will spend the whole of the time unable to do anything of substance past incessantly jerking off to the sound of his own voice and his idea of an 'empiric trend' towards the neoliberal end of history - backed up with his stuffed fucktoy of Francis Fukuyama. Zizek will win by virtue of being the only one whom no one could actually tell what he was saying, meaning exponentially less awful than both the moderator and his opponent. At the close of the debate, they realize that Zizek was actually just some coked out tweaker and that the real Ž never knew about the thing and was in Ljubljana writing his latest critique all about how the debate was symbolic of our place within the capitalist order.
Peterson would, of course, claim he won regardless
Zizek is the host of popular American podcast "Cumtown". No idea who the other two are.
being this new
<"clean up your room" ebin self help man
<"Sniff *tugs shirt*" ebin pervert ideology man
<"Coops are socialism" ebin economy man
Three human embodiments of pure spook.
caring about Peterson
Why? The man is beneath you, and he'll likely bail out of this like every other time because he's a coward who knows actual intellectuals, or even college kids who actually read books, would tear him to shreds.
That's not an accurate description of Wolff's views, he just sees coops as the best tool, and market socialism the best transitional phase, in the direction of a post-market economy.
<What would they debate about?
Freud, the dude who mentored both Lacan and Jung? Liberal identity politics, which they've both spent a large part of their stagetime attacking, but from different angles? Incels, patriarchy, the internet, freedom of speech, there's so much they could at least pretend to create a meaningful debate from.
These two were made for each other.
Wolff is an edgy Keynesian just like Piketty (who works for the P"S" in France), he hasn't made any significant contribution to Marxist political economy let alone philosophy.
thinking Wolff’s advocation of co-ops is not just a means to an end
He explained this recently in a talk with some smaller Youtuber
Jordan Peterson responds to Wolff
dude but what about nazis lol
It's funny to watch people fall from heights.
That's not an accurate description of Wolff's views
Neither are JP or Ziz/
Twas merely banter lads.
you spelled P.'.S.'. wrong
If Peterson constantly talks about the 900 million dead and evil Stalin, they should get an actual Marxist-Leninist to refute all his claims, not Zizek.
Peterson vs Jason when
MLs are fucking stupid though. defending the USSR to the death is pointless since it clearly had many flaws.
Zizek's not going to debate Peterson. He said that he personally hates going to debates and probably only does it with people he can trust to be academically honest ie not Peterson.
defending the USSR to the death is pointless since it clearly had many flaws.
And many upsides. It should be defended, while acknowledging the failures (when they actually happened)
Zizek is going to defend the USSR to the point he makes Peterson cry and it's gonna be epic. Screencap this post.
Yea, Zizek's usually been pretty content with condemning USSR, but Peterson might annoy him just enough to go full Grover Furr mode. That *would* be epic.
' ' would ' ' then to be would
*would* doesn't look as good as would
He should go ahead and do it. He's already been locked out of the radlib publications according to his own account
I'm sure half this shit doesn't work anymore.
nice discord formatting friend
What are these?
any time, any place
Why is this faggot such a passive-aggressive inferiority complex ridden brainlet? He thinks that intellectual debates are a substitute for lobsters physical fighting and chopping off their limbs.
I still sometimes break out into fits of laughter because of that time peterson got into a fight with a zizek twitter bot
can the mods please enable latex? it would make it much easier to discuss economics.
Pretty sure it was disabled sitewide and our BO is a faggot who wouldn't do it anyway.
BO is a fag but the vols generally aren't.
Only board owners have access to stuff like that, vols are janitor tier as far as permissions go.
should lobsters be allowed to wear makeup to work?
Guardian for one
What did he do to make them cry?
"Well you see *sniff* when you look at Stalin he, how should I put it, did *scratches nose* uh, nothing wrong. There is old Yugoslavian joke *tugs shirt* ah ah, a vagina and penis blah blah blah, you know, kulaks deserved it yes *sniff*"
Coops are socialism and market socialism is socialism
it's utopian socialism
a youtube video where every comment is worthy of upvoting
coops are comparable with Étienne Cabet’s utopian literature and socialist colonies and Edward Bellamy’s utopian literature
there's only two kinds of socialism: utopian socialism and scientific socialism. yours is the former.
"Yes, I'm TOTTALLY willing to accept the horrors of 20th centtury socialism, Stalinism and so on. What I'm simply saying is this *sniff* *scratches nose* ARE we aware that our condemnation of these regimes is puurely ideological in the most primal sense of the word. *tugs shirt* Did you know - and I loove this - did you know that now even right wing historians like Timothy Snyder and Stephen Kotkin, they now admit that you know guulaags and famine in Ukraine and so on didn't kill nearly as many people as we've been led to belief, Holodomor you know didn't really happen. *sniff* But NONE THE LESS we ACCEPT that these things, in a sense happened, even as we know they diidn't. In this sense the evils of 20th century Socialism function - and I loove this story - they function as Niels Bohr's horse shoe *sniff* as the pure object of ideology you know - it works even if you don't belieff innit, haha. *scratches nose* In the same way we don't have to believe in this ooh 30 million killed and so on, in order for it to excuse the obscene amount of violence it takes just to keep our current capitalist system going *scratches nose*"
Marx wasn’t against co-ops and I’m not a utopian socialist
The word "vaginas" makes me think of Zizek saying it.
Here's Wolff on how Peterson pussied out of the debate: youtu.be
Ah, I hadn’t seen his response. Thanks for posting
Cryptofash vs cryptofash
Zizek is fascist
Where are your proofz you faggot?
go to bed bakunin
Another migrant from r/Socialism?
This is going to be a trainwreck no matter who wins.
Probably CTH at this point, yikesing faggots.
I like zizek, he sees the truth of all things, but doesn't know what to make of it.
PETERSON BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
you can't blow the fuck out that which has already been blown the fuck out, but doesn't realise it cause it's a mindless slave of ideology
well that just means he just listens to Jordan Peterson. LibTard OWNED!
Well, I cannot say that hes wrong…
inb4 twitter bot
Wew. If you didn’t watch the video, you didn’t miss much. It’s astounding that this man calls himself an academic.
muh 100 gorillions
saying you’re a Marxist but not a Stalinist is like saying that you’re a Nazi but not a Hitlerite
the left critique of the Soviet Union is just “if I was personally in charge I would have done better”
communists are lead by compassion and are “for the poor”
actually if you make $32,000 you’re in the global 1%, so everyone who lives in the West is actually a part of the 1%
I figure most people know why the first points are bullshit, but I wanted to point punt why the last one is bullshit as well. First, roughly 10%, give or take, of the world population lives in the “West”. It is mathematically impossible for everyone in the West to be a part of the global 1%. Second, roughly half of American workers (the world’s third most populous country and thus the largest contributor to the “Western” population) make less than what he assumes all Westerners make.
He’s an out-of-touch “academic” that assumes everyone else is as well off as he is.
Anyone else remember a time when "debate" actually meant two sites providing evidence in favor of their argument in an attempt to better learn other points of view and weed out facts from fallacies and not today where it pretty much now means "Two guys flexing on eachother to prove themselves the more "intellectual" and "win" "?
I feel like if people understood the socratic method and how to use it political dialogue would advance much faster.
It was never what you described.
Debates that actually meant anything have always been this sort of shit. It’s not about “learning from the other side” or any other idealist nonsense, but as a way of spreading your politics and consequently your power base.
You describe debate as essentially two sides trying to discredit each other. I disagree that it was always like that. People don't learn anything in those kinds of debates and both sides end up feeling shitty afterwards either because their "victory" was shallow at best or because they are the losing side
it reminds me of some proverb i heard ages ago that went like, "when you discuss, you teach yourself, when you argue you teach the opponent, when you debate, you teach an audience" no one has ever entered a public debate and left with a different opinion, it has always been done to showcase your side against the opponent, not to prove your side is better to the opponent, but to showcase that your side is better to the audience
I hate proverbs, "wisdom", and so on and so on
Any time, any place. But not a few weeks ago when I was in Europe and it would've been pretty convenient for us to debate.
Can Zizek even travel with his health problems?
Peterson is a self-help psychologist who became notorious through online lectures with edgy viewpoints about women. He's a liberal who "has nothing to do with the alt-right" (in the same way Sargon of Akkad "is left-wing"). He also gives McCarthyism tier lectures about Marxism that showcast he hasn't even read the wiki entry on Marx.
Zizek is a meme philosopher who draws from Marx, Hegel and Lacan among others. He makes good points sometimes and is entertaining, but at other times his analysis can barely be called coherent or materialist. Would destroy Peterson in a debate though.
Wolff is a Marxist economist who has brought out several good books and lectures, but also holds some dumb views on 20th century socialism that are (rightfully) unpopular here.
no health problems youtube.com
What 'dumb' view does the Wolff hold regarding 20th Century Socialism in your opinion?
What are some of Wolff's dumb views on 20th century socialism? If I can trouble you. I only just started digging into Wolff's videos a few days ago and have not fully acquainted myself with all his viewpoints.
tfw he was at my uni and it didn't get crashed
Something I think more people need to understand about Peterson is that above literally all else, however much you want to attribute his positions to grift or opportunism, his anti-communism is genuinely held, he's been doing the McCarthyist tier bullshit literally since the 90's, basically since his career in Academia started. I also think that most of the discourse surrounding Peterson approaches it incorrectly, which doesn't surprise me since most people opposed to him are doing it from the other side of a culture war but he genuinely is only dangerous insofar as policymakers, wonks etc identify him as politically useful to capital, which has been increasingly happening over the past few years but the most concerning thing would be his presence at one of those Bilderburg style global conferences recently, although idr exactly which one it was, but he was apparently an invited speaker there. Essentially, all of his Culture War bullshit hasn't mattered until very recently because now the Ruling Class is taking notes.
good Points, would like to receive more information about said conference.
regarding Peterson: i cant get too upset about him. he's capitalist through and through, he hates whatever he thinks is "Marxism" and i doubt his economical understanding is worth anything.
he basically justifies capitalistic order by being the best system we could achieve.
he's straight forward about it though and actually states that he believes life should be about being contempt rather than being happy. basically justifying any system for as long as there is no revolution because there being no revolution could be seen as people in a sufficient number are contempt
the more i write, the more i think he is a shill. partly enjoying his thoughts anyway tho
usually I don't correct people when they make spelling mistakes, but "content" and "contempt" are two very different words
He claimed that it failed on multiple occasions. Also made statements about muh repression, muh 1000 gorillion, etc
I want them to debate Christianity tbh, political discussion would lead nowhere.
Agreed. If zizek is subbed out for hedges.
I don't think there's separating politics and christianity for Zizek anyway. I just want someone who understands psychoanalysis to explain why Jung was a clown.
It did fail on multiple occasions. The USSR and friends made many great achievements but ultimately they succumbed to capitalist restoration. Characterizing that as anything other than a failure in the grand scheme of things is pure delusion.
It was the Trilateral Commission, I remembered it not long after I posted, apparently he not only was a speaker but he was allegedly "wined & dined" so he certainly mingled beyond his timeslot. A lot of the far-right has actually been the group to pick up on this, unsurprising I guess since they have their Globalism Boogeyman, which to be fair, in this case isn't /wrong/, just a misdiagnosis of what the political power players of Capital get up to. What you're saying is all true; that's exactly why they're interested in him as a mouthpiece, he's absolutely a shill, you can look into which agency represents him and the various moves & PR stunts he's pulled with them and who else they represent (some of it's even in this thread). I don't think Peterson has a single problem with being bought off because his entire Patreonbux model is based on him doing something that likely already requires him to compromise his beliefs, why deal with smaller Patrons when you can have a few rich ones and see more success as a result?
you are right, autocorrect on mobile tricked me here in making me mistake one for the other, apologies
but then, there have to be more people in contempt for the system rather than being content
Zizek will throw Peterson off by telling off colour jokes, like the one about the African with the prehensile penis.
Political dialogue is a quagmire of bullshit because that's what it is intended to be. It's been sabotaged deliberately by the ruling class through think tanks, TV news, and so on. If you refuse to talk seriously and just shout at people you disagree with, you can keep them from having a serious argument too. Both sides have to agree to be serious.
Why, yes. Peterson does seem to take his appearances very seriously, while Big Z likes to put in humorous anecdotes and jokes. Naturally a debate or some other lecture tends to be a more serious environment, but Zizek appears to have a
less assburger more chill, viewer-friendly and reasonable approach, from what little I've seen.
Kermit isn't an assburger. He comes off that way because he's being dishonest and the mental resources that goomg toward social awareness are fully occupied with keeping the lies straight. Same shit you typically see with bad liars.
If this happens its going to be one of those situations where people who like zizek will say he won, and people who like peterson will say he won.
This might also propel zizek into the mainstream intellectual stratosphere and make him more popular with normies. who know peterson, but then will see this absurd sniff man, and look up his videos and thoughts some more
Going just by that pic, now is vastly better than then. The top quote is really just a tautology worded artfully to sound deep. The bottom quote is making a salient point about how interpretation works and grounding it in a context that is readily relatable.
He's looking good these days.
i dont think zizik actually said that, its just parodying him to make fun of him
They both will agree that Jews are epic.
Wisdomcucks think anything pithy is deep
He said it. It's from the Pervert's Guide to Ideology.
This one's especially bad though. It doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry because there's not even a fake argument being made.
Wise men know things and fools don't
No shit that's what the words mean.
jordan peterson vs zizek vs dugin vs kaczynski (accompanied by armed guard
moderated by: joe rogan
brought to you by: square space
nobody would understand Dugin
not including nick land
Honestly I just want to see Rogan and Zizek in the same room.
Wise aphorisms are the biggest bullshit, Žižek is completely correct.
Dave Rubin should be co-host.
Really this should become a week-long symposium on the dark arts. Then we can invite even more guests. Paul Cockshott, Richard D. Wolff, Jason Unruhe, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, Camille Paglia, Rafiq from RevLeft, Carl Benjamin, and Stephan Molyneux. Live reporting can be done by a media team composed of Chapo, Cumtown, Douglas Lain, Michael Brooks, Jimmy Dore, Ethan Klein and the one and only Keemstar. Celebrity appearances: JonTron and PewDiePie.
This but unironically. It would expose a shitload of people to left wing ideas.
Didn't he already chicken out of a debate with Richard Wolff after he couldn't squeeze enough money out of the university they were supposed to speak at?
I claim none of them and at the same time all of them
duuude, what a salient point about how interpretation works and like, grounding it in a context that is readily relatable, righteous brah
how the first was so poignant in regards to you, thats life
What about Jim Profit as another guest? His anti-moderators ideas may resonate with many now that facebook, yt, twitter etc are deplatforming a lot of people.
And then there should be this Italian guy, his name is Diego Fusaro. Basically, he claims to be an anti-capitalist and "an independent follower of Marx" or something like that, but the points he makes on cultural and social issues are extremely similar to those of the muh Karltural Margzizm crowd. I don't know if he's fluent in English, though. Also, he criticised the Shniffman quite heavily in the past. But he would defend the USSR.
There isn't an actual debate of idea. There is flexing, propagandizing, and ideology.
Kaczynski would be vindicated looking at todays social credit system and automated surveillance dictating people's behavior.
Thish weel b intradeshting
🅱eterson has accepted an invitation once only to back out later. He'll do it again. The reactionary fears the dialogue.
Kaczynski would just scream how he's been proven right the entire time
Dugin would waste his entire speaking slot talking about Transhuman demons trying to destroy Christendom or some shit or some other Ruskie Alex Jones tier shit
He would also variate between siding with Peterson and Zizek
He would call Zizek a Jew for being a Marxist but would flip his shit when Peterson insulted daddy joe and muh 20 million
Don't forget Finnish Bolshevik, Stimmekoreas, KI Deutschland, DemSoc01, Muke, and Adolf Stalin
titoism isn't marxist in the fucking slightest. how do you read Marx and not want to abolish markets and currency after he wrote an 800 page book advocating and proving the necessity of just that?
writes 800 page book advocating abolition of markets and currency
but in reality all attempts at abolishing markets and currency have failed, including in even nominally socialist states like the USSR which still retained currency and black markets
gee it's almost like the book was…wrong?
there were no attempts made.
if something failed in the past it can never succeed in the future
if I say bracket a pointed statement with "duuuuude" and "braaahhh" it becomes vacuous
Gee no wonder you thought that first quote was profound :^)
Corbyn is an Iranian collaborator
Corbyn is an antisemite
What's interesting is the number of his fans that are critiquing him for this.
I see those kickbacks are going to good use.
well here's an interesting infograph from that thread
Centrists are believers in the status quo and democracy is one means to change said status quo. It's why they shit their pants over political violence so much.
now the NAZBOL GANG will finally come for peterstein
it's ironic for us Americans though considering they all told everyone to vote Hilldawg and then suddenly actually pretended to care about democracy when she won the popular vote
Don't forget the only hacking of the election - the Democrat primaries, and their subsequent blaming of the Bernard Brothers in their downfall.
Voelt kanker slecht oetz
that can happen if you talk with your friend/other academics in the same area of expertise, not on anything on media/public display, since literally forever.
pretty funny, while searching your quote the only result I got was a website that copy all Zig Forums content and apparently index it on google
I see hollaforums has evolved.
this article gave me centrism
i hope zizek refrains from doing this insincere, dumb piece of crap peterson a favor by debating him.
peterson only deserves to be ignored.
Is it any small wonder it is linked via Peterson's tweet?
yeah but it would introduce a lot of his followers to Zizek. That's not such a bad thing.
doesn't Zizek hate debates? He knows they are a waste of time so why would he say yes to them?
Jewish Freudian inspired Jungian pseudoscience vs Jewish Freudian inspired lacanian pseudoscience
but it would introduce a lot of his followers to Zizek
peterson's followers would not give a single fuck about what zizek says. they would applaude peterson and scream "zizek btfo, leftists btfo" in any case, even when peterson would drown in his own crap infront of them.
They're probably going to agree on more things than they disagree on.
If anything, this will be one of their biggest hold-ups/disagreement and they will barely even get to politics.
Useful insight as always, idpol.
Interesting to see this study. I guess the point of contention is how do you gauge the ideology of the person.
Here is the counter-arguement though.
That'd be a dialectic, not a debate. You are a fool and you should lurk longer until your /pol/tard brain is cured.
My apologies, Dr. Zizek
what did Peterson mean by that though
I thought you retards love Jung because he was the only non-jewish follower of Freud
NO PLEASE GOD
DON'T LET PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE OVERTON WINDOW GET ANY ATTENTION
Kind of amazing how transparent this shit is.