/lit/ - Literature

>>10096113

If you vote for Peterson, you seriously need to reevaluate what you are doing with your life.

two of them aren't even intellectuals, what a retarded question.

>>10096113
Chomsky

Zizek and Land for fun

>>10096121
Reevaluating what you are doing with your life is exactly what Peterson's lectures will make you do. He's the clear choice because his teachings are actually operational on a personal level, unlike those of the other three unworldly magi.

>>10096113
>a literal autist
>an American who has been wrong about everything
>a stand-up comedian who flirts with a completely failed ideology
>a person who actually comments on things pertaining to what is going on with real world consequences and holds his ground against totalitarian thought control police

hmm, really makes you think

>>10096148
hard choice innit

Chomsky at least made contributions to his field

The maniacal, man-titted, right-wing cultists of Honorable Self-Help Guru Jordy B. Peterson are here to vote, vote, vote -- mutually validating their entirely reasonable clean-bedroom-balanced-huamnoid ethos -- and the future is looking dark, dark, dark.

>>10096175
Someone is butt-hurt.
>Honorable Self-Help Guru Jordy B. Peterson
Ironically enough, this is actually accurate.

>>10096175
>how dare he suggest that women instinctually like to be around children, what a shitlord

>>10096113
>Harris
>Chomsky
wew lad

Chomsky is a fucking idiot when it comes to politics and philosophy, but he is the only "important" nigger in that nigger list

>>10096197
This is your reading comprehension on Peterson. Not only are you picking the easiest of 4 claims to defend, you're already weakening it because it's untenable.

>>10096184
>>10096197

Girls never unironically held your hand as a teen and you were induced into an adolescently-induced nihilist coma. You are try to wake yourself up with Jordy, and I sort of admire you. Still, make no mistake. The man’s true colours are starting to show and you should make like a good rat and flee the sinking ship now (no offence intended). In any case, your current fashionable reality distortion field will start to wane when you notice the Honorable Guru’s methods were staying you in the face the whole time and his extra-ingredients make the broth stink a little. And then you’ll probably get into whoever the next charismatic walking penis who inadvertently enforces the status quo is, God help us all.

>>10096113
Chomsky
Zizek
Peterson
Zoolander

>>10096230
It's funny because a top psychologist from my country came to that same conclusion as Peterson in the pic and I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Peterson.

chomsky - smart and should be taken seriously thought i dont agree with him on some stuff

zizek - funny meme man who is great to have in the background while playing vidya, says some cool shit sometimes

sam harris - absolute fucking mongoloid but he actually has read some philosophers

peterson - next level memery right here holy fucking shit, i guess he is ok if you need to clean your room or whatever, but my gott he should have stayed in his field working as a therapist

Can someone post that meme thats says
>me: I will go to sleep early today
>me at 2:00 am: *screencap of the 40 minutes on a single paragraph from Nietzsche Peterson's video*
Asking for my gf

Whomstever picked anything other than Zizek needs to reevaluate philosopical education pronto

>>10096312
It took him four years to read the complete book

>>10096113
harris cause he has the hat

>>10096312
Found it very easily using Google.
Apply yourself.

>>10096334
This desu

>>10096113
Zizek is literally the only real philosopher there

>>10096431
>Chomsky isn't a philosopher
>[literally one of the greatest philosophers and academics of the 20th century]
>And Zizek (who's a hack) is a better philosopher than Chomsky

>t. retard that doesn't actually know shit about philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, or computer science

Thanks for single-handedly and almost instantaneously demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance of a whole range of academic subjects.

LEFTKEK ZIZEK IS WINNING

POST THIS ON /POL/ AND /R9K/ AND LET'S HAVE ANOTHER WIN FOR THE RIGHT WING AND BTFO LIBERALS

>>10096431
>When you don't know shit about philosophy and haven't even read or studied a single contemporary philosopher, but you watched some Netflix documentary featuring Zizek about the abuse of Nicaraguan migrant workers on Mongolian Lake-Trout Cooking message boards and now you think you're the next Saul Kripke, but you don't even know Saul Kripke is.

Keep the Keks coming my friend, keep em coming.

>>10096113

In Murca? Who cares, the colony is only just starting to walk on its own legs. Nobody cares about your tiny intellectuals yet.

>jordan peterson in second place
i never knew there was such a sizable reddit population on this board.

Harris & Peterson will be forgotten in less than a century. Chomsky will be remembered for his contributions to linguistics. I don't know what the future holds for Zizek

>>10096175
>>10096230
those two tweets carry very sensible opinions as far as I'm concerned
are you a peterson shill falseflagging?

Zizek or Chomsky, both hit the right topics, Zizeks approach is less formal but encapsulates the spirit and ideology of the time, where as Chomsky relies on other intellectuals and concrete events without the realm of faith or the undetermined future

both identify as conservative liberals, Chomsky believes in a more limited future, while Zizek believes we will reach some kind of breaking point where we will have to change the way the world is organized

>>10096121
SORT YOURSELF OUT.

>>10096146
>>10096912
Ironically this is why >>10096121 is correct, Peterson only seems meaningful if your life has been made shitty through your own inadequacies or inattentiveness.
I mean good on you for coming to terms with it and working towards improving your life, but in reality "avoid unnecessary suffering" and "start small and work your way to solving bigger problems" aren't exactly groundbreaking philosophical notions.

Memerson of course.

>>10096113
>all these votes for peterson
fucks sake /lit/

>>10096693
>>10096672

>all the kikes and leftists impotent rage
kek

Peterson helped me. Reading more and lifting more.

>>10096113

well since we in europe haven't heard of of any of them except zizek, ima go with him

>>10097179
Who's the metalhead comedian and ufc commentator?

>>10097340
Joe Rogan

I like listening to Harris sometimes, Peterson makes good content but sometimes it seems he's pandering to his far-right/anti-sjw audience

Peter Hitchens

>>10096113
Holy shit don't even put zizek in with those losers.

>>10096113
Harris
This isn't even a competition
He's legitimately never been wrong about any topic he's written about
The other three frequently humiliate themselves being so wrong

>>10096824
Harris proved Free Will doesn't exist, he has made the single biggest contribution of any and will be more appreciated with time

>>10096113

>>10096130
None of them are intellectuals, Chomsky may have been an intellectual decades ago.

>>10096113
>Who’s the most important public intellectual of our time?
If this is the question, then Chomsky. If the question is "the world would be a better place if more people thought like __" then I'd say Peterson. I'd be happy to see the left start taking up pragmatism again

>>10097585
Harris (but more specifically cognitivism) proved that the reductionist strawman of free will (spooky ghosts living inside all human beings, spookily influencing their actions) doesn't exist. The problem of free will remains because free will is a metaphysical notion. The question is whether the various physical influences that cognitivists talk about can be essentialized into the general concept of "will" without creating too much of a problem. Ironically, if one were to prove the existence of some "will" as an entity controlling human beings, it would totally disprove the concept of free will

>>10096230
More like their will and ideology is in reality, completely empty, so they don't actually care about criticising anyone, let alone such a foreign opponent like Islam (they have to actually learn about it, deal with legitimate opposition, overcome some of their own inhibitions and contradictions, etc). Their so-called "critique" is always empty pandering and retainment/strengthening of gynocentrism.

>>10097626
I now realize that I made a few mistakes in this post, & that I should have more clearly distinguished between the terminology I was using. If someone is confused, please respond and I'll try to explain what I meant

>>10097585
He proved jack shit. He only recycled old arguments against free will which are are unsatisfactory now as they were when they were first made.

>>10097361
>>10097340
>>10097179
Joe Rogan unirnoically controls the entire world.

Literally why is Žižek even talked about? Can you tell me about a single insightful observation made by that guy? And no I'm not reading some commie slob writing about Hegel for 800 pages.

>>10096672
>>t. retard that doesn't actually know shit about philosophy, linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, or computer science
Funny you say that because outside of linguistics this describes chomsky

>>10098027
>please spoonfeed me, and I'm not gonna read shit just because of a guy's political affiliation

>>10098059
That's exactly what I meant, congratulations you fag

>>10096146
This is his plan, can't you see? He tells you that you are really clueless, that you haven't sorted out not even a single thing in your life, that you're prejudiced and so on. The young, impressionable viewer agrees, and he starts this process, but as he is doing so he is also costantly listening 24/7 to Peterson rambling about ideological matters in an extremely biased way while emphatizing every gesture and word, often while knowing nothing about what he is talking about.
This is brainwashing 101: he convinces you to re-examine your life, and as you do it he costantly tells you what to think in the way that is to him, a psychologist, the one that will most likely seem reasonable, if not wise and deep, to the uneducated, naive viewer (he is a virtuoso in both giving talks to crowds and body language).
This is how he catches you guys, and this is why JPposters always use the same jargon, think in the same terms and reach the same conclusions.

>Petersonbulls are winning
>Chomskucks btfo AGAIN

Zizek

>>10096113
chomsky is most significant, zizek is most interesting, peterson is as much of a philosopher as paul joseph watson, harris is irrelevant

>>10097504
zizek is commie scum though

>>10096113
anyone who doesn't think sam harris is the best philosopher in the past hundred years is fooling themselves, he singlehandedly PROVED that we don't have free will. what has zizek ever done? analyse a few films? woah...

>Chomsky
>third
This fucking website

>Zizek still first

I feel bad for Chomskyfags.

>>10096113

i wish it were zizek, but chomsky is more important

>>10096113
>Zizek vs. Peterson
i just came to /lit to suggest this very debate

>>10097591
>you can't be a philosopher if you are not a philosopher
you can't know nothing

>>10097591
>there's been good moral philosophy since Aristotle

>sam harris
this pretentious cunt

>>10096113
Dennet obviously.

>>10098192
He merely suggests that change starts within, what's your bone to pick with him?

They sound the same because
they're regurgitating his memes

>zizek still #1 despite occupying redditors who upvoted peterson en masse
ha ha

>>10099462
They would talk past eachother

>>10099462
>debate
Discussion, please.

>>10100191
Zizek is the obvious choice. Sure, he's inconsistent and insanely prolific, but it's critique of the left from within the left and I never get tired of academics scrambling to denounce him as a 'useful idiot' whenever he's mentioned in a classroom. He also adheres to Lacan, that French intellectual otherwise so popular among erudite post-structuralists like Kristeva and Cixous. If you look past the psychoanalytic babble then it's still obvious that he's studied both Marx and Hegel extensively, and Hegelians in particular are a rarity to see in today's public discussion.
Meanwhile, JBP is glorified self-help who's popular because he's easily digestible.

>>10100018
>what's your bone to pick with him?
Did you not read their fucking post? I think it's pretty clear.

>>10097853
Imagine if he invited Zizek.

>>10096113
None of these qualify as thinkers, intellectuals, or philosophers by any stretch of the imagination, but I guess Peterson is the most likely to add at least a tiny amount of value to your life.

>>10096113
Zizek: smart, entertaining and well read when it comes to philosophy, but politically his commentary is boring conformist crap. Still, he seems dedicated and not just after easy bucks, although he seems to enjoy the fame a bit too much perhaps.

Harris: literally autistic, reasonably smart, but not as well versed in philosophy, he likes to cut corners with sophistry, panders to reddit for easy shekels. But I like him occasionally, because autists can be insightful and they see things their own way.

Chomsky: don't know that much about him. What I did read was good. It's a shame that he's not more entertaining, because his critique of American imperialism is insightful. I'd probably rate him highest when it comes to honest intellectualism, although he seems to have his old way of doing things and a permanent bias.

Peterson: he seems to have done some honest work in psychology and has some good insights in the current state of the world. But he got carried away by the fame, he literally uses Twitter (I can't respect a person who does that) and he doesn't seem very well read when it comes to philosophy and abuses some concepts to make a point.

>>10100977
is this bait?
>i know nothing about chomsky because I don't read books, but he is the smartest.
>peterson is dumb he uses titter. Sam harris is smart but he also uses twitter

>>10101002
I read a few Chomsky articles, not his books though.
Peterson and Harris are both reasonably smart (above average for sure), but probably dumber than the other two. And I'd probably put Peterson above Harris when it comes to intelligence.
Using Twitter means you're whoring yourself for fame and don't take intellectual thought seriously.

>>10100905
He'd either shutup and get converted or try and "debate" him despite being an uneducated meathead who probably couldn't even define Marxism

>>10096113
define important

>>10101020
have you considered the possibility that you're too stupid/autistic to recognize or measure intelligence in other people?

>>10096230
>>10096247
Half of /pol/ came to the same conclusion, way before Peterson was a meme. It's not rocket science once you realize that women like dominant men with strong boundaries.

>>10101026
I don't know man, Zizek loves to talk about pop culture.

Well I guess.... Sam Harriss.... isn't well liked on the..... 4chan /lit/ community

>>10101202
only reddit could think sam harris is a valuable thinker. he's a trust fund baby riding off of his parents coattails and has contributed nothing in his life. he would be a failure if not for his parents connections and people only watch him because they think his voice makes him sound intelligent. he's the quintessential reddit thinker

>>10101202
too many enlightened bernie bro anarchist chomsky fanboi cucks on this board if you ask me.

+1 for the barely intelligible, tic-ridden slovene

fuck JBP and fuck Harris

>>10096121
I think Peterson will be remembered for the longest and have the most influence on the real world than the other three. That’s the reason I voted for him.

Chomsky and Zizek are the only intellectuals there.

>commie is used in a derogatory manner on /lit/

This is why the gulags will be filled, you enemies of humanity.

>>10101286
>le ebbin gulags xd

>>10101286
lmao during the inevitable revolution that we've been on the brink of since 1848?

tell me how occupy wall street is going when we go on a helicopter ride you braindead lazy slob

>>10101270
peterson is a fotm intellectual and will quickly fade back into obscurity with no lasting influence. Chomsky has been in the limelight for decades and is only just now starting to fade out of his respective field and Zizek will have a lasting influence in psychoanalysis for a long time to come. Peterson has barely contributed anything academically and his 'real world influence' is as a self help guru and videos titled '10 times jordan peterson BTFO SJW'S'. He'll be lucky to be remembered in five years time, if you look at his social blade you can already see his views and subs are down 50% from last month

>>10101314
Zizek is only known for his Pervert guide to ...
No one knows what he did in psychoanalysis, he's irrelevant and can't answer a straight question to save his life, you can see that well in his interview with Will Self of all people.
Chomsky has become senile and thinks the republicans are the most dangerous group in history.
And Peterson will be known for his biblical and personality lectures.
Peterson will outlast all of them except maybe Chomsky

>>10101331
this

>>10101270
Hats off brother Kekistani!

>>10101331
the dude has written 30+ books and will be the go to secondary source for reading lacan plus his own contributions to the deconstruction of ideology. who the fuck cares about pop culture documentaries, you're projecting your own lack of familiarity with his work. Notice how you're just attacking chomskys' character? chomsky has made many important contributions to his field and even some of his contributions to political philosophy are quite valuable. you have to be quite deluded to believe banal lectures on youtube are going to outlast the intellectual giants of the early 20th century, i've already pointed out empirically that peterson is already fading to obscurity and yet you pretend people will be still be watching his lectures in 5 years time when in reality you won't even remember his name by then

>>10098033
Even inside linguistics desu.

>Pirahã

>>10101351
>who the fuck cares about pop culture documentaries, you're projecting your own lack of familiarity with his work
You did the EXACT same thing by claiming Peterson is only known for his BTFO SJWS videos.
So what is important, that which they are known for or what they actually did?
Banal lectures, you can say the same about Chomsky and the numbers say that Peterson is more interesting than Chomsky and Peterson has only just started. Fact is Chomsky makes a fool out of himself by attacking strawmen libertarians and saying the republicans are worse than the nazi party, the man is tearing down his legacy.
Peterson has a bigger online audience than Chomsky or Zizek, if you're going by how popular they are then Peterson will outlive all 3 of the mentioned people ITT, sorry bud

he's already gone from like 3.5 million views a month to less than two million. He'll be pulling 100,000 by january

>>10101357
Did you say the same in May?
He hasn't released new lectures in a while, that's why the numbers are going down, dummy

>>10101356
>so what is important
their academic influence. i couldn't give a fuck if peterson went on dancing with the stars
>You did the EXACT same thing by claiming Peterson is only known for his BTFO SJWS videos.
ok so outside of his big five traits what has he achieved academically? he's nothing more than a stock standard college professor
>has only just started
and to think it's already ending
>Fact is Chomsky makes a fool out of himself by attacking strawmen libertarians and saying the republicans are worse than the nazi party, the man is tearing down his legacy.
yes i imagine people will think twice before looking into his linguistics work and instead will attack his character
>Peterson has a bigger online audience than Chomsky or Zizek
woah SJWs BTFO!!!
>if you're going by how popular they are then Peterson will outlive all 3 of the mentioned people ITT
pic related

>>10101361
nope that's the first time i've looked at his social blade and a quick look at his channel shows that he uploaded quite frequently through the last month

>>10101372
I can't even take your post seriously.
First you talk about someone becoming irrelevant to the public and then you go on to say only their academic work matters.
If you really care about the academic work, why bring up his socialblade?

>>10101378
8 videos the month before
3 videos this month + one just released 10 hours ago
Why are you lying?

>>10101379
because the only thing peterson has is his youtube channel, he has literally no contribution except some bullshit big five
>>10101382
so his influence has already capped? people should be still watching his lectures and i don't see how a video a week is not uploading. his videos should get more views in the academic offseason although his fanbase is mostly neets i imagine

>>10101397
8 videos gets more views than 3
Do you understand that or do i need to break it down for you?

>>10101403
i just looked again and he uploaded 4 videos last month and as i said, if his influence were actually growing he would still be garnering views - which he is not. Plus he should be garnering more views while it's holidays as that's when people actually have time to watch his videos and his last month looks like it was abnormal anyway because apparently he interviewed google man

>>10096121
Kill yourself, commie.

>>10096995
We live in a fucked up world which is very abnormal compared to how a human being is supposed to develop. No wonder such figures are needed to guide many. Stop being such a pretentious wanker.

ITT
>Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!

>>10096175
>right wing cultist
Alright, that's how I know you're a retard.

>>10101416
>if his influence were actually growing
Classic moving of the goalposts, you claimed he was declining, I claimed he wasn't.
If we look at the interest in Peterson we just have to look at his Q and A's and what we see there is this:
2 weeks ago: 163K views
1 month ago: 186K views
3 months ago: 186K views
Seems like his interest is not fading at all, just the amount of videos made and about which subject.
A subject like James Damore or two ongoing lectures get more views than his regular videos which is completely logical.
It seems like his steady fanbase is 200K large and it goes over and under depending on the subject.
Compare it with Chomsky or Zizek and they will barely hit 20K if they uploaded regularly.
His subscriber base is growing, just not as fast.
You see that as a decline in influence, which is a joke

>>10101440
>compare it with people who aren't youtubers
the absolute state of /lit/

>>10101446
How else would you like to compare them?
Zizek has talks up on youtube, it barely cracks the 100K.
Face it, he's irrelevant and not intelligent at all.

>>10097626
>>10097635

it gets the point across
3rd sentence could be better

>>10101449
As >>10101372 said, their academic influence. You act as if intellectuals have ever had followings from the public. Petersons' entire claim to fame is from arguing with misguided college kids and other than that has accomplished nothing notable academically

>>10101475
Then why did you bring up his social blade and his ''waning'' influence?

>>10096121
If don't vote for Peterson, you seriously need to go and tidy your room.

>>10096121
This

Peterson makes more money than the rest, save perhaps Harris.
So Peterson is the smartest and tops the dominance hierarchy.

>>10101475
Also how do you measure academic influence?

>>10098213
Nice and accurate pic, my proletarian brother.

>>10101480
I didn't, i said >>10101446
Do you think sam harris is more important than zizek and chomsky because he gets more views on youtube? I don't look at pewdiepie and say he's the most important intellectual of our time. I still don't see what peterson has actually accomplished. He just looks like a half decent professor to me but I wouldn't say he's particularly important

>>10101491
Citations. You can look on google for accurate results of how often they are cited. Zizek pulls in thousands a year

>>10101498
I never claimed that the more popular you are the better an intellectual you are.
Maybe more influential yes.
And comparing Peterson with Pewdiepie is simply stupid, even you know that.
If Peterson will be remembered he will be remembered for trying to give religion a fair shake, something no big name figure has been able to do as successfully as Peterson has.
He will also be known for standing up against the rising marxism in university at a time when hardly any other academics spoke out about it.
And in the future perhaps he will bring down the university humanities degree with his new project, but we'll see whether he'll succeed with that.
>>10101504
Peterson has only been relevant for a year, give it time and he'll eclipse Zizek.

>>10101514
completely baseless statements on all fronts
>Peterson has only been relevant for a year, give it time and he'll eclipse Zizek.
i doubt it, his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns. I would believe he could be more relevant than zizek if he actually brought anything new to the table but he's just rehashing old ideas. The only thing new he's really came up with is a different interpretation of jungian analysis and the big five thing which doesn't seem to have gained any traction in the last ten years.

>>10101475
Intellectuals always have a public following
careerists don't

>>10101532
Yeah of maybe a few thousand people. This is the first time someone has become an """intellectual""" through youtube except for molyneux which is actually a good comparison. They're just semi smart guys with youtube channel. Neither of them offer anything to academia

>>10101531

relevant to you. The man has been on tv for years in canada.
You keep making a strawman of his situation. If it was merely what you claimed it to be he would have been irrelevant a week after that viral video.
He's rehashing "old ideas" that have actual use to a person and their life rather than some original mumbo jumbo

>>10101544
If Peterson has not offered anything to academia why does he have a job within the academy?

>33% of /lit/ are petersonfags
Seriously, peterson is a fucking pseud and unknown outside of reactionary internet circlejerks.

>>10098237

This thread is proof of the barely-literate /pol/ insurgency. Zizek and Chomsky are the only two who could be genuinely called intellectuals.

>>10101531
>his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns
Ouch, you just outed yourself as an idiot.
His top 4 videos are:
Biblical lectures
Message to millennials
Picture of muhammed
His first Maps of Meaning lecture
None about transexuals.
To top it off he isn't against calling trannies their preferred pronoun, he is against the state enforcing that you do.

>>10101574
Zizek is a joke:
https://youtu.be/_OAWRinR6GM

>>10101552
Im not strawmanning him at all, I'm saying his videos about that canadian bill aren't suddenly going to mean his research is suddenly going to be seen as anything groundbreaking
>>10101557
He's just a college professor that teaches kids the basics of the field, i don't see how he is anymore important that any other professor in that regard
>>10101566
This picture always amuses me

>>10101557
My Professor has been employed in the University for 20 years. He has not written a book or proposed or contributed anything to his field, he's basically irrelevant in academic world, he's still employed. Can you deduce how working for a Universal is not similar to being academic intellectual now faggot?

>>10101588
dude has enough tomes to warrant a scholarly journal dedicated to the stud of his work. He's eccentric, but certainly an intellectual.
Harris and Pubicson are memes, both started and generally maintained by /pol/.

>>10101566
Isn't he the fag that says postmodernist are just spouting unsubstantial nonsense in big words? Does this guy have any self awareness?

>>10101591
>This picture always amuses me
it makes me angry. I have to work some shitty retail job whilst hes getting 60+k a month from saying shit like that. He's like a brain damaged thomas aquinas with hep c

>>10101600
Who is or is not an intellectual is subjective when it comes down to it.
When I see Zizek not being able to answer a straight question, when he says Merkel was right in letting in 1 million middle easterners I think of him as an idiot.
When Chomsky says the republicans are the most dangerous organization in the history of mankind (above the nazi party) then I can tell he's not as smart as people make him out to be.
And of course the /pol/ boogeyman comes when you run out of arguments.
How is Harris in any way connected to /pol/?

>>10101591
You are still making a strawman. People aren't watching his videos for something ground breaking in the academic world especially when they do not have any grounding within the academic world other than the abhorrence that makes up the majority of it these days.
He's able to articulate old ideas and communicate their significance to most people. That's obviously not what you want, but clearly a lot of people do. I don't like to judge but it would appear that you dislike his popularity. I suggest you really articulate your grievances with him and see where it takes you. It might take you far, there is clearly a large audience in opposition to him.

>>10101613
If you think some no name college professor telling NEETs to clean their room is profound over people who either revolutionized or at least greatly influenced thought inside their respective field of studies, then perhaps you lack the critical understanding to make such a value judgement.

>>10101624
lol, you just ignored all of my post.
I'll let it slip though, just answer me this, how is Harris in any way propped up by /pol/?

>>10101613
I don't see what's so bad about chomskys statement there. He believes they're more dangerous because, from my understanding (forgive if this isn't true, I'm no burger), they're denying anthropogenic climate change and thus are a threat to all life on earth for stifling any attempt at doing anything about it and trying to get more coal mines again. The nazi's were never a threat to the global ecosystem

>>10101270
If by influence you mean how bunch of dumbfucks who have never touched a work of Frankfurt school because they're too busy being video gaymers and cite Mr. Memerson whenever arguing about meme conspiracy theories of cultural Marxism and degradation of Western Civilization as intended by Frankfurt intellectuals, then sure, Peterson is really influential.
It's honestly pathetic that Peterson has never actually contributed anything substantial to the idea of Cultural Marxism and the critique of postmodernism. These subjects have been covered thoroughly in academia but "redpilled beings" are too unintelligent to actually search that shit up.

>>10101624
Again with the strawmans.

>>10101599
If he hasn't written a book then he does not have a PhD. Don't call him a professor.

>>10101629
How many people has global warming killed so far?
Chomsky also falls into the trap of predicting the climate a 1000 year in advance, to top it off he doesn't consider the fact that there might very well be technology developed that would decrease our carbon footprint drastically.
Had the Nazi regime won there would have been tens of millions (perhaps a hundred million) deaths and suffering beyond our wildest dreams.
To say that the person who thinks we technology will fix whatever effect we have on the climate is worse than a group that wants to exterminate a race is actually worse...
I'm sorry, Chomsky is senile

>>10101633
You have yet to say any reason why Plebison is more influential than Zizek, or Chomsky, other than the fact that their political views hurt your feelings.

>>10101633
>If he hasn't written a book then he does not have a PhD.
Not every research gets published faggot.

>>10101620
I don't care about his polularity I just don't see how he's significant, I think he's a good guy but he's not a particularly important intellectual figure just like I don't think Sam Harris or Molyneux are important. It's nice that they're getting people interested in learning like Tyson is but they're just not very significant or insightful. I don't see how this is a strawman

>>10101630
Because Postmodernism wasn't what he studied. He's trying to understand it and he has a background that gives him enough tools to analyze it.

And yeah, most people can't be bothered to learn about a field. What exactly has all your studying of postmodernism given you? You should share it.

>>10101640
Then it is not worthy. Do you work in academia?

>>10101641
This, Peterson is like shitty YA novel, people like Chomsky and Zizek are canon material.

>>10101636
>how many people has global warming killed so far
Want to know how I know you're retarded?

>>10101648
What are you waiting for?

>>10101637
?? I never commented on that. I don't like Peterson but the arguments you are making against him won't do a thing other than anger his supporters and make it seem as if his adversaries are only jealous of his position

>>10101646
What is it about their work that people will still be building on in the future?

>>10101650
Climate change is a threat to all life on earth, sticking your head in the sand and saying it hasn't done anything yet is the stupidest thing i've ever seen

>>10101645
My dude, getting work published doesn't get you PHD, researching does. Worthy has no significance to someone being called a professor.
Also not ever published work is something that will be used in academic studies and considering the lack of significance of Peterson's material, I doubt his work will have any influence in academia, he's a 2bit hack professor that insignificant 16 year olds consider the greatest philosopher of 21st century.

>>10101641
You don't think they are important therefore they are not important. Good luck convincing other people.

It's a strawman because you are not properly outlining his situation. You are reducing it to a level where it is obviously dumb and saying it is dumb while ignoring what

>>10101656
No one is saying that, knock off the strawmen
What I'm arguing it the extent that humans are responsible for it (climate is always changing)
And whether the best course of action is to spend billions subsidizing green energy is the right way to do it.
You could easily argue that taking the route of the most economic prosperity is the best action because technology will develop harder, and so will green technology.
Especially something like solar panels will become more prevalent, it might have gone that route without throwing billions upon billions at the issue.

>>10101662
You research and then publish your research

>>10101666
Or you submit it to your University as a paper and maybe it gets published in some journals or maybe not and it has no significance on the certificate that says PhfuckingD. Me self publishing my research won't get me a fucking PhD, seriously get out of high school first and then discuss the semantics of doctorates, ok?

>>10101676
ever heard of a thesis? that gets published.

>>10101663
You keep saying im strawmanning him yet you've done nothing but consistently strawman me, im not surprised you think peterson is the most important intellectual of our time desu
>>10101665
You literally asked how many people have been killed by climate change, did you really expect me to read the rest of your post? Now that i know you dont believe man is the driving cause of climate change you're not even worth having a discussion with

>>10101688
>did you really expect me to read the rest of your post?
Yes.
If you're not able to answer that's fine, you don't have to act like you're on a higher ground for it.

>>10101679
Where? And what exactly do you mean by published? And what world you live in where every thesis a uni received is published? Do you have any idea how many thesis a decent sized University would theoretically get?

>>10101688
I don't think he is the most important intellectual of our time, desu.

"his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns" that's how he gained a cult following. That is not his relevance.

"The only thing new he's really came up with is a different interpretation of jungian analysis and the big five thing which doesn't seem to have gained any traction in the last ten years."
you're not going to win against the petersonites with these kinds of arguments.

You're just lashing out your hatred for the man incoherently, it won't do any good in the long run, especially if you would like to see him taken off his mantle.

Like I said before, you are making a strawman of his situation then acting baffled at how he has captured the attention and hearts of so many people. There's more to it than "TRANNIES BTFO"

>>10101699
yes, they get a lot. Did you get your PhD from some run of the mill state school or something?

Was your work that insignificant and unimportant that it did not get published? Did it not further the knowledge in your field?

>>10101700
Not him by do you really consider having any sort of influence on "fuck ess-j-dublus, red pill for life" as something worthy? These are the same people that'll say Frankfurt school is responsible for feminism and trannies and any person with decent knowledge about this stuff will BTFO them.

>>10101588
>video of Zizek and Will Self
>Zizek is the joke

>>10101724
Sure, they may be deplorable but they're still people.
BTFO of them then show them how they are wrong.

>>10101708
>yes, they get a lot.
On what level? Citation needed.
>Was your work that insignificant and unimportant that it did not get published? Did it not further the knowledge in your field?
How's that really relevant to when one should be called professor?

>>10101724
Slavoj has socialist corbyn voters as an audience.
Everyone has their dumb following, Harris has the fedora neckbeards

>>10101700
>I don't think he is the most important intellectual of our time, desu.
So then what's your point?
>That is not his relevance
It is though, why do you think his followers are all alt-right or alt lite and 'kekistanis' if this isn't the case? because he told people to clean their rooms?
>you're not going to win against the petersonites with these kinds of arguments.
I guess you're beyond reason then. That's fine just don't pretend that he is somehow a relevant intellectual because he offers free self help
>You're just lashing out your hatred for the man incoherently, it won't do any good in the long run, especially if you would like to see him taken off his mantle.
I believe this is what you would call a strawman
>then acting baffled at how he has captured the attention and hearts of so many people.
I believe this is also what you would call a strawman

>>10101733
that's what your research is supposed to do.

Calling a professor -- professor without a PhD undermines professorship

>>10101732
Fortunately I haven't met any red pilled Petersonbro in real life but if I do, I'll definitely make them look stupid.

>>10101735
No, it is a fair assessment of your posts

>>10101739
good. I doubt they are out there in the academy and the engaging with the real world, thankfully.

>>10096175
>>10096230

>>10101736
Are you actually saying that you can only be called a professor if your PhD research was published? That's not how Uni sees it. You have some misconception about a simple noun and that does make you bit uneducated if not full retarded.

>>10101748
ok where did i say i wanted to see him taken off his mantle? if by "I think he's a good guy but he's not a particularly important intellectual figure just like I don't think Sam Harris or Molyneux are important. It's nice that they're getting people interested in learning like Tyson is but they're just not very significant or insightful." You believe that I'm saying that I want Peterson to get 'knocked off of his mantle' then I think you should come back when you're 18

>>10101768
should

>>10096175
Is he implying young women have pedophilic tendencies? Shouldn't he know that already since he's such an important "psychoanalyst" of our time.

>>10101783
interesting projection

>>10101781
Your subjectivity doesn't really have a place in objective definition ma dood.

>>10101783
>Women being attracted to babies is pedophilia
(you)

>>10101785
I'm literally interpreting his words.

>>10101788
How is society making getting fucked, pregnant and shitting out a baby difficult?

>>10101795
A single parent working can't sustain a family as well as they could back in the day.
I'm not into blaming society for things, but it's clear this made it harder for women to have children without being able to provide for themselves by going to college and working on a career.

>>10101803
This is the fault of capitalism, Peterson should get on that... oh wait. It's probably postmodernism.

>>10101809
It's the fault of female emancipation.
Capitalism was around before the 60's you fucking idiot

>>10101791
A silly interpretation. What I've come to expect in an age where literacy is greater than ever but an accompanying reading comprehension is nowhere to be seen. He's saying women are naturally inclined to like children while we live in societies where contact with children is increasingly taboo and where people start to have children later and later, if ever.
I don't even read JBP (if there was anything to read) and I don't watch his ''''''lectures'''''', but even I could understand this much.

>>10101769
I think you and I have been arguing with multiple people and mistaken each other for some posts (I see some strawman posts that were not mine)
but
"You act as if intellectuals have ever had followings from the public. Petersons' entire claim to fame is from arguing with misguided college kids and other than that has accomplished nothing notable academically"

"his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns. I would believe he could be more relevant than zizek if he actually brought anything new to the table but he's just rehashing old ideas. The only thing new he's really came up with is a different interpretation of jungian analysis and the big five thing which doesn't seem to have gained any traction in the last ten years."

"Yeah of maybe a few thousand people. This is the first time someone has become an """intellectual""" through youtube except for molyneux which is actually a good comparison. They're just semi smart guys with youtube channel. Neither of them offer anything to academia"

"He's just a college professor that teaches kids the basics of the field, i don't see how he is anymore important that any other professor in that regard"

"I don't care about his polularity I just don't see how he's significant"

You clearly care about his popularity

>>10101813
Damn, really reddend my pills. Just donated my life savings to Peterson's patreon. This kind of intellectualism should be wide spread.

>>10101824
Epic meme reply m'comrade

>>10101827
>It's the fault of female emancipation.
You deliberately brought us in the meme territory friend. Cost of living has significantly increased in the last 50 years, not everything is fault of feminism. A lot of people are working and becoming career oriented out of necessity, not out of choice.

>>10101837
I never said it was the fault of feminism.
The birth control probably had the biggest effect on female participation in the labour force and for why the birthrate has declined.
You decided to trout out your dumb communist critique of capitalism, as if women in the USSR didn't work and weren't even more emancipated than in the west.
Explain to me how capitalism worked fine and women didn't have to work in the pre 1950s yet somehow capitalism is now to blame for a single man not being able to take care of a family by himself

>>10096113
Where's the "all four should be gassed in a gas chamber" option?

>>10101816
except i don't. I just don't see how him being popular somehow makes him more important than zizek just like i don't think harris and molymeme are more important. I've clearly stated my position that I like the guy because he's getting people interested in learning but somehow you interpret these statements as saying that i want him to be knocked off of his mantle but you have the gall to say i'm strawmanning him. I actually like his interpretation of Jung but it doesn't seem as important to me as Zizek's analysis of contemporary ideology, for instance. To me, as I have already stated, an intellectual's contributions to academia are the measure of their importance.

>>10101867
You are strawmanning him, I proved as much in this reply: >>10101585

>>10101813
i don't consider myself to be a marxist but female emancipation in the workforce was pushed by the elite in order to increase the work force, I'd say this is the result of capitalism

>>10096113
This poll is useless without Nick Land.

>>10101867
>he gall to say i'm strawmanning him. I actually like his interpretation of Jung but it doesn't seem as important to me as Zizek's analysis of contemporary ideology, for instance. To me, as I have already stated, an intellectual's contributions to academia are the measure of their importance.
>me
>ME
>other people's opinions

come on

>>10101871
>Vladimir Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks to power in the October Revolution, recognized the importance of women's equality in the Soviet Union (USSR) they established. "To effect [woman's] emancipation and make her the equal of man,"
Emancipation was pushed by the socialists as well, far before the capitalists did in fact

>>10101869
so you don't know what a strawman is then?
>an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
I didn't misrepresent his position on anything, I said what his relevance is. Almost all of his videos have something to do with postmodernists pushing some agenda or whatever. That's exactly what his relevance is outside of telling people to clean up their act which has been stated numerous times in the past to not be a particularly amazing position. That's what he's known for

>>10101856
You can sustain a lifestyle in the 50s with lesser money, cost of living since then as increased due to various reasons that have roots in capitalism. You are implying that female liberation somehow made women realize they shouldn't have children and that's not the entirety of it. Women around me became career oriented because they knew that their future held certain requirements. Not every female is doing it because they just have shallow points to prove, they're doing it because they want to survive. And I'm not even from some woke Western progressive country, I'm just a third worlder, so you won't actually understand that female liberation wasn't actually a curse that made women cunts, rather it allowed them the mindset to survive in harsher world.

>>10097618
This is probably the only reasonable response I've read here so far.

>>10101885
The strawman comes from you saying ''his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns''
When in fact it came from him standing up against a law that would enforce that you call them by their preferred pronoun.
A big difference
Also his relevance is something you can check by how popular it is, and none of his top 4 videos have anything to do with pronouns.

>>10101876
we're talking specifically about the push for women to join the workforce leading to it being harder for women to have children and i am telling you that was a direct result of rich people wanting to increase the labor force. Using a whataboutism isn't helping your position

>>10101887
>You are implying that female liberation somehow made women realize they shouldn't have children and that's not the entirety of it.
No, it gave them a new option, a woman could have sex and still go for a career, naturally more people went for a career as it's something new, the idea of a household mother became demonized.
>so you won't actually understand that female liberation wasn't actually a curse that made women cunts, rather it allowed them the mindset to survive in harsher world.
I'm pretty sure I argued that exact point, they have to build up a career nowadays.
>>10101898
I'm telling you it wasn't, you believe in a conspiracy theory.
Women participation in the labour force was a thing in socialism as it was a thing in capitalism.
If that wasn't the case the USSR would have collapsed much sooner, excluding half of your population from the labour force means you can't keep up with your competitors.

>>10101897
but that's not what the law was? many people have established this and that's why he wasn't taken seriously at the time and the bill passed. If that's what you think it was then sure, he's relevant because he's against something that doesn't exist. Saying he's relevant based on his most popular videos is definitely a stretch of the imagination

>>10097618
Good point. OP is asking two different questions.

>>10101911
>Women participation in the labour force was a thing in socialism as it was a thing in capitalism.
If that wasn't the case the USSR would have collapsed much sooner, excluding half of your population from the labour force means you can't keep up with your competitors.
notice how i said using a whataboutism wasn't boosting your position. in contemporary society women joining the labor force is a result of indoctrination by corporations, if you believe it was some sort of grass roots movement i'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but it wasn't

>>10101917
The actual content of the bill is irrelevant, the thing I called you out on was strawmanning, which you 100% did by framing his issue as simply not wanting to use certain pronouns.
>Saying he's relevant based on his most popular videos is definitely a stretch of the imagination
You're surely joking here?

>>10101924
Then prove it.
And explain how it happened in a socialist society as well.

>>10101897
>''his relevance is just as a man that refused to call trannies their preferred pronouns''

This isn't false though. He does personally refuse to call trannies by their preferred pronouns to their face out of principal, with all the disrespect that implies.

>>10101933
Absolutely not true, do you have any evidence for this?
And you don't call some a she in front of someone face, you call them by their name which he does.

>>10101490
kek well played

This poll is useless without Ta-Nehisi Coates.

>>10096148
was going so well until the last one

>>10096247
I'm guessing your country is Saudi Arabia

>>10096256
correct

>>10101665
Holy fuck how dumb can you be, and still manage to get past the recaptcha?
Government subsidies/funding are the driving force behind innovations, not your precious capitalist overlords, you bootlicking piece of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDrHqNZ9lo

>>10102017
>Government subsidies/funding are the driving force behind innovations
Top lol
Goldman Sachs invests in green energy as well, so do many other businesses.

>>10102017
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/10/renewable_energy_projects_the_private_sector_not_the_government_is_funding.html

>>10096113
probably Chomsky. I don't agree with him for the most part. He is a proven asshole in his own field. at least he is accomplished by his own right.

Harris didn't earn his spot in that group in my opinion. what always he accomplished? He is rich baby that can pontificate.

>>10102066
>>10102078
Capitalists refine and make these technologies affordable yes, that is the main redeeming trait of it.
Most of them are spearheaded by government though, like the internet, nuclear technology, wind power, probably solar power if I could be fucked to google a source.

>>10102092
Because no one can compete with the government yes.
Cars, television, Radio etc etc did not come from the government.
The government also discriminates between who they give contracts, making it harder for other companies to compete in the market, and we all know what competition does to a product.
And that's not even touching the idea of the government spending my money on an industry

>>10102092
To add on to this, goverment takes the financial risk of innovation in many cases, while the private sector is then free to exploit it for profit.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2013/07/02/4-government-programs-that-drive-innovation/#71ad1ac33978
http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2016/06/08/influencing-innovation-governments-role-in-subsidizing-rd/

>>10102107
The government exploits me and takes away my money to invest in an industry.
You can't take the moral high ground with this issue.

>>10102114
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were retarded, my bad.
Have a good day.

>>10102118
Always fun when someone spazzes out and runs away
You started with such confidence!
Explain how capitalists exploit the market but government doesn't exploit me, please do tell!

>>10102126
In terms simple enough for you to understand; capitalism seeks to concentrate wealth, goverment aims (in the US mostly in theory) to redistribute it to the benefit of the greater majority,

>>10102133
But one is offering me a product while the other one simply takes away my money and invests it in something I might not want.
One does it voluntarily while the other one has a gun to my head.
It's clear which one exploits me.
Take the example of green energy.
If the government didn't already take my money to invest in it I could have invested it myself.
In fact I think investing in green energy is very smart, but my money automatically goes to whatever producer of green energy my government chooses.
I can now choose a different company to invest in but I'd be competing with my own government.

>>10102140
I would pray for you anon, if I thought it would do any good. I'm mostly just happy we most probably don't live in the same country. You seem "red-pilled", I'll give you that.

>>10102154
Hurl some more insults my way you socialist faggot

>>10102157
You're a piece of shit that the world would be much better off without. I hope you never reproduce, and that you're a registered organ donor so your life won't have been in vain when you eventually kick your miserable bucket.

>>10102164
Great.
You know nothing of economics and I'm glad people like you stay at the bottom of the ladder economically.
I laid out exactly why government is the exploiter yet you cannot even address it, pathetic.
Crawl back to whatever socialist reddit forum you came from.

>>10102164
kek thx for revealing what you think about other people

I think my favorite historical writer of all time (and when I say historical, I mean predating 1900's) is H.P. Lovecraft. I'm a big fan of the horror genre and he was very influential to me personally.

>>10102133
>goverment aims (in the US mostly in theory) to redistribute it to the benefit of the greater majority,
You cannot be THIS delusional.

>>10102171

>>10102174
>those last 45 years
"it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

>>10102167
I make €90k a year, which is well above average in my part of the world.
I'm also very familiar with your way of thinking, I've read all the great "thinkers" of the bootlickers, Rand, Nozick, Hayek etc., and have never found them very convincing.
If you have ever tried to entertain the thought that capitalism is a violent, exploitative system that seeks to make a small number of people wealthy at the expense of the majority, and didn't buy it,I'm having a hard time understanding how.

Can I ask if you have any work experience at all? Have you ever felt the oppression of the workplace, the alienation of your labor?

>>10102171
Trust me, I am.
>>10102197
>>10102174
If anything, this shows the failings of the current political system.

>>10102133
This is what happens when a person is educated by talk shows and blogs.

>>10102207
I don't have a TV, and I don't read blogs.
This is what happens when you've been in the work force for more than 10 years, and have read anything else than ASOIAF.

>>10102200
I finished my studies this year and plan to go into business my father was very successful in.
I saw him work his ass off and eventually making it.
i have work experience and don't see the exploitation at all.
The most I've felt exploited was that I had to have an internship and didn't get paid anything to do the work, but of course that went hand in hand with the government mandating that I do a spend a set amount of time at an internship.
I'd much rather work for below minimum wage and learn on the job, sadly the government made this near impossible.
>the failings of the current political system.
The failings come from handing out welfare to more and more people.
A safety net sure, welfare as we see it now? no fucking way.
Also don't insult me by mentioning Rand

>>10102216
I wish you luck, I really do, but please don't be a dick to people in order to "make it".
If you ever find yourself in a situation in which you think "should I fuck this person over for personal gain", which you will do no matter what, I hope you're a good enough person to not do it.

>>10102223
I'll do whatever I feel is best for the company, that's all the guarantees I can give you

>peterson ahead
I'm literally shaking

>>10102236
Then I wish you a hasty death

>a run-of-the-mill pseudoscience professor that plays father figure for lost teenagers on the internet is well ahead of a linguistic titan and productive contemporary philosopher
The absolute state of this shit board.

>>10102243
lol
You should know how often my father has to fire someone for stealing.
Get off your high horse, the poor people are more likely to fuck someone over.
fucking socialists I swear, out of touch as can be.

>>10102270
Zizek predicted this

>>10102280
You in 2 years

Literally when did this Peyerson meme started? I browsed /lit/ religiously until last year and not ONCE was he ever mentioned here.

What gives? Is this a /pol/ thing? Cause Zizek should be #1 in this poll if we go off /lit/ threads since 2012 or whenever.

>>10102294
Good one.
Now spaz out again I loved it the last time and other anons too, show your socialist autism.

>>10102296
It's an American thing. Digestible self-help 'philosophy' that doesn't force you to read while also going against the grain of those dreaded SJWs and bloody postmodernists, bucko.

>>10102298
Nah, I'm going to close my computer and go read a book instead.
Have a good one.

>>10102305
Here's a recommendation from me to you <3

>>10102298
>"You should know how often my father has to fire someone for stealing."
>B-b-but I'm not really a daddy's boy!

You surely are an island unto yourself: the definition of a self-made """""""""man"""""""""

>>10102313
Daddy's boy how?
I didn't even grow up with him.
All I'm saying is the socialists demonize rich people and lionize the poor, a fucking stupid thing to do.
Also never claimed to be a self made man.

>>10102318
So you are a self-hating poor person?
>All I'm saying is the socialists demonize rich people and lionize the poor
Google: lumpenproletariat

>>10102318

>socialists demonize rich people and lionize the poor, a fucking stupid thing to do.

The first thing I learned in economics was to avoid normative statements.
Second, communism literally defines the rich and priviledge as the vanguard of the idealogy. Being rich isnt a bad thing. Its a condition; which you should evaluate. If you were worth 5Billion in a country where 70% of the people are under the poverty line, isnt it a fair assessment that the structure of power and the allocation of resources may be unbalanced?

>>10102330
I'm not poor, just middle class.
I'm not sure where my ''hate'' comes in, just countering the idea that rich people are assholes and poor people are just misunderstood.
>>10102332
Who decides what's balanced?
The poor?

>>10102318
>socialists demonize rich people and lionize the poor

That's what Christianism does. Why I am even losing my time with an American kid?

>>10102347
I'm Dutch

>>10102343
>who decides what's balanced
«Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.»

>>10102343

>Who decides what's balanced?
In a democracy, the people.

>>10102355
We don't live in a pure democracy, thank god for that.
>>10102351
Doesn't really answer the question now does it.
In that situation I'd go for a fair society, one in which people cannot take away what you have, your property would be protected by the law.
That goes for wealth that you pass on as well, if I make good money using my skills I want a better future for my child, I'll do it by working hard, not voting to take someone else's money away.
But again I ask you, who decides what is unbalanced?

>>10096113
Dafuq, is this a joke? Where's Aleksandr Dugin?

>>10102366
u r 2 far gone

>>10102373
Let's not play this game, give your normal reply.
Or do I have to insult you twice before you answer me again?
I'm not an ancap, I'm not against taxation.
Did I calm your autism enough for you to dare form an argument?

>>10102133
Greater majority means the dumb, weak and lazy, as the worth of people is a pyramid. Why waste money from those who earned it to support the less able? It's natural selection, let the weak ones die and you'll strengthen your tribe.

>>10102412
t. Randshitter

>chomsky gang suddenly pulled up
what the fuck

>>10102455
rigged

>>10101291
t. Literal corporate cuck

>>10102200
>>10102216
>I have a bigger dick than you so it makes my world view valid
the absolute state of /lit/

>>10102830
It's a product of pseudomasculine societal right wing might makes right ideology, even if they're leftists they're still tainted by the i want to make daddy proud kool aid

>Zizek
>makes a carreer out of talking about the perverted things in public
>into psychoanallysis
>believes love is the greatest act of freedom
>envies James "thunderwords" Joyce for his relationship with his wife Nora
>married a much younger latinamerican supermodel
>her parents are psychoanallists
>she's named Analía
You just KNOW.

>>10101289
you think I am joking, wagie? better pack your shit for the upcoming gulag

>>10096113
>Who’s the most important public intellectual of our time?

There has never been a single American intellectual. You are all consumerist cucks regurgitating shat out re-packaged Enlightenment ideas.

Chomsky is a retired academic who spends most of his time shoe-boxing, which would, I guess make him at least honest? IDK. The rest are Ted talk level whores.

>>10103116
kek

>>10096175
>faggoty leftist pontification

>>10096121
As opposed to the other morons listed? I think you just hate him because he's working very effectively against some of your favorite prejudices.

wait wtf why is chumpsky winning aside from linguistics he's a dumb monkey who thunk khmer rouge dindu nuffin

>>10101642
Probaply half of all post-modernist tought is dedicated to studying post-modernism. Just open up bookfi or your preferred site for pirated academic books and search "post-modern". You'll see hundreds of books analyzing the subject.

The fact you think that examination or critique of pomo is somehow groundbraking shows that you have never set a foot to a well stocked libary.

>>10101600
Go on /pol/ and compliment Harris and see what happens.

>>10103402
Remember when he said that India would have modernized before the West and invented everything if not for le ebil colonialism? lel

>>10103405
Even his linguistics stuff is second-rate imo

>>10103497
Peterson said that?

>>10103552
Chomsky did, I just can't figure out how to reply to the right poster :(

>>10102004
Sweden

I still don't get how people find Peterson appealing.

>>10103698
because he totally OWNS the sjws and postmodernist cultural marxists

All of these memes, get on a true intellectual level anons.

For real though, right wingers can't write, except for Nozick. He's still fucked in the head, but it doesn't make you feel stupider by the minute, reading it, like many of the others.

>>10103564
Without colonialism setting up improper and exploitative national boundaries for states, India probably would have modernized before the west given its access to vast natural resources and long history of academic and trade knowledge. I see no problem with that statement, other than the obvious fact that what-ifs are always just hypothetical scenarios.

>>10103116
based Zizek blasts apart pure ideology in three easy steps

>>10103617
I'm assuming that psychologist is now dead?

>>10105192
Maybe you should stop watching FOX news

>>10096672
Chomsky is NOT a philosopher.

>>10105237
why'd he talk past Foucault about human nature then?

>>10096121
Listen to his lectures, backpacker.

>>10105192
go be cancer somewhere else >>>/int/

>>10102455

>>10101291
>le ebin helicopter meme
look mom I did it again!!

>>10096121
Fpbp