HAPPENING! PETERSON SAYS HE WOULD DEBATE ZIZEK

...

Three human embodiments of pure spook.

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.

...

He explained this recently in a talk with some smaller Youtuber

Attached: 3dcbc8d1a0ae6476b7fffab20d227fa3c0bfb9e9e4fd44cc07cd674f2a313be2.jpg (565x354, 10.17K)

It's funny to watch people fall from heights.

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

kek

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.

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
would

Fuck.
' ' would ' ' then to be would
*would* doesn't look as good as would

FCKING AUGHGH

Attached: 5Bqi_470bvi_1Am8DtInmA28jNk5GgbHczBfbs4Pz40.png (960x960, 350.81K)

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?

test
test
test
test
test
$$T$$
test
$$\color{red}{test}$$
$$\left[\frac{NAZBOL}{GANG}\right]$$

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?

...

Coops are socialism and market socialism is socialism

it's utopian socialism

Heh'd

Attached: 20_15-39-25.png (352x405, 129.05K)

“no”

there's only two kinds of socialism: utopian socialism and scientific socialism. yours is the former.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 12.98K)

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/qoHjX2vQgbQ?t=185

Ah, I hadn’t seen his response. Thanks for posting

pass

Where are your proofz you faggot?

go to bed bakunin

10/10

Attached: 1444342295844.jpg (472x329, 34.11K)

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

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x424 374.58 KB, 438.92K)

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

Attached: rs_600x600-161206064342-600.the-walking-dead.zombie.ch.120516.jpg (700x700, 67.17K)

Attached: glowingbateman.jpg (225x225, 4.33K)

well that just means he just listens to Jordan Peterson. LibTard OWNED!

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (680x743, 500.34K)

Well, I cannot say that hes wrong…

...

Apologize.

Attached: B1952E77-AC9A-4729-A1C9-8A5C960B64C3.mp4 (480x360, 1.25M)

Wew. If you didn’t watch the video, you didn’t miss much. It’s astounding that this man calls himself an academic.

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.
ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2017
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" "?

Attached: 1411465797956.jpg (164x251, 13.55K)

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

Attached: tmp.jpg (1280x720, 55.39K)

Can Zizek even travel with his health problems?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720, 1019.77K)

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/watch?v=Yn-Vf1-1hrU

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.

oh shit

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

Attached: 634C247E-6B5D-4B88-8B2E-BC28A15E029C.jpeg (822x1024, 95.1K)

Zizek will throw Peterson off by telling off colour jokes, like the one about the African with the prehensile penis.

Attached: c794ea4044789db630910d6f78a3491230c8b3bd34b5d384f0326c8d06800310.jpg (617x960, 115.37K)

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.

(checked)
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.

Captcha: gFasOg

Attached: oj7.png (355x500, 276.29K)

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.

:^)

Attached: 2pawvn.jpg (697x500, 84.55K)