/lit/ - Literature

Jordan Peterson is a moron and a toddler's alphabet noodle soup diarrhoea would best him in a debate.

>>11314755
kek

Yes, Zizek, which is why Peterson won't debate him.

>>11314729
Zizek's existence destroys him.

Peterson isn't even a particularly good debater. He's rambling and unfocused and you have to watch 20 hours of his lectures to have the slightest clue what he's on about. He just gets into debates with the top minds of the left which makes him look relatively smart.

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=5m55s

Depends what you mean by "win". The only way to "win" against an opponent whose entire rhetoric is based on moving the goalposts and vomiting up word soup about dragons and janitorial work is to not debate him.

>>11314729
>Jordan Peterson is propoganda
>Behold, the left's greatest intellectual.

>>11314729
I would destroy him.

>>11315930
I'm sure you would

>>11314790
makes me wonder how a guy like this even becomes a prof at an uni. Memeson makes actual points at least.

>>11314729
get the fuck of fourchango and wash your balls bucko

>>11315930
Yeah me too

his counterpart is so obviously Zizek. Plus he's already been destroyed by a left-ish new-atheist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

>>11315971

>>11314729
can our society even pretend it cares about debating when it has a number of topics you arent even allowed to discuss?

seems like a charade to me

This thread and it's replies are reaching triple-post-meta-irony and I am proud to witness this moment

>>11315996
modern debate is about being able to debate topics you arent even allowed to discuss

>>11315971
Zizeks counterpart is Chomsky

>>11314729
Even though he could be a raging pseud at times, Chris Hitchens would have probably dismantled him. Zizek would do the same.

>>11316043
Hitchens would have the audience laughing at him by the end, but I am not sure anything productive would come out if it. I still wish a Zizek Peterson debate would happen, though.

>>11314729
Probably me(me) to be honest f a m

>>11315930
With LOGIC and FACTS

>>11316024
didnt even this guy refuse to talk about Jews though for example? Like it seems memey to hold reasoned debate as this gold standard when there are topics where instead you say 'this is too dangerous'. I mean the entire idea is that debating thing in the open is supposed to get the truth out, so why would on some topics it have the opposite effect as in 'we cant talk about this because people will get the wrong idea if we allow it'. It is a direct contradiction

>>11316063
Peterson refused to answer it when it was asked because he was afraid he would screw up the answer if I remember correctly. He wrote an answer later, though, because he thought it did need to be addressed.

DOCTOR JORDAN BAUDRILLARD PETERSON ABSOLUTELY SMASHES FEMINISM

>>11316081
I clicked on a PragerU video once(1 time) and now my recommendations are full of shit like this

>>11316098
>not browsing everything in incognito mode
are you even the hacker known as 4chan

>>11316098
Disable recommendations and comments. Youtube turns from shit to not so shit.

>>11316081
You are really contributing a lot to the conversation there buddy.

>>11315971
Nobody takes atheist wimps seriously.

>>11314729
>implying Peterson is right wing

>>11314729
Not since Zizek died

>>11314729
Zizek would be a counterpart if he could just get his thoughts together and not ramble on about Lacan for 18 minutes straight every time somebody asks him a simple question,

>>11314729
Christopher Lasch. it's not postmodern neomarxism, Pete. It's managerial liberalism, mass media driven information overload and the resulting culture of Narcissism. If anything, you should be blaming Rawls instead of Foucault. Peterson manages to 'own' leftists only because he is defending middle class commonsense against the increasingly intrusive psychopolitical demands of the managerial globohomo leviathan. Try reading vox, the guardian or the nyt, grates like nails on chalkboard precisely because they are asking you to adopt a very specific kind of mentality that's full of internal contradictions. On one side, it's institutional realism, on the other, it's a mangled form of social constructionism. shrill moralism and the journalistic royal We deployed for the sake of an ethics of mandatory individualistic hedonism. All the traditional criteria of merit thrown out the window for a fixation on percentages and 'representation', and yet they still expect the deference accorded to traditional merit based institutions.

'identity politics' has been embraced by major corporations precisely because it's an effective instrument of post fordist human terrain management. Doesn't prevent Jeff Bezos from becoming the wealthiest man in human history. See Deleuze and Foucault on the society of control vs disciplinary societies and Lasch inspired paleocons such as Paul Gottfried and Sam T. Francis on the rise of managerial power.It is in the interest of managerial therapeutic state to define you as a victim who must be granted self esteem by the benevolent external agency of the system. Internet leftists are sadomasochists who use the heavily formalised discourse of social justice to inflict narcissistic injuries upon each other.

>The postmodern big Other is a Symbolic Order stripped of its symbolization of itself; not posing as God or History, it openly announces itself as a social construct - but this ostensible demystification doesn't impede its functioning, for it has never functioned more effectively

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/175086943