/lit/ - Literature

>>11422311
We're against leftists here, sweetheart. Try Culture of Critique

>>11422317
>sweetheart

faggot

>Culture of Critique

go back to moscow, dimitri

>>11422327
Try the redpill, kid

>>11422317
>this is your brain on /pol/
almost as bad as jungians

>>11422348
Rabbi, is that you?

>>11422317
>We're against leftists here

You must be new round these parts

>>11422355
Do you have this all in a notepad file to copy paste or do you literally just write the same thing in every thread you are in?

>>11422317
This is an apolitical board (or at least it should be)

>>11422361
>>11422362
>>11422364
This isn't your safe space, snowflakes

>>11422370
Authority = submission
Submission is the mark of an effeminate male. Effeminate men allow others to freely use what would rightfully be theirs without ever claiming it for themselves.
Being pro-authority = being a cuck

eyy the anti-semite bot got hammered, now let's shit on Peterson

>>11422387
why?
the mods are lazy faggots

>>11422397
only because he is a jungian

With Jordan Peterson, you know what's my problem. I like to debate with neo-fascists, with [unintelligible], but sorry, Jung is too much for me. When I just open, I cannot buy it for moral reasons, but in a book store I opened a little bit of this '12 Rules for Life'. Fascism is okay, racism is okay, but my gott all those wise advises, you know, like when you see a dog caress him or whatever, that's too much for me.

I'm no major Peterson fan myself but Zizek is being lazy here, in my opinion, in a low-hanging fruit sort of way that is a bad move in his position as a champion for the plausibility of a new leftism.

He's being generally uncharitable, which is intellectually dishonest and unusually petty for him, but it's on a very subtle level. Part of what makes him charming, and it's kind of interwoven with the matrix of his whole persona and intellectual style, is that he's unusually charitable to strange things as a defense mechanism against the milquetoast totalitarianism of "let's be reasonable" neoliberalism. He himself deliberately advocates "weird," counter-intuitive (to post-metaphysical, scientistic, "sober" liberals) metaphysical Hegelianism over against the much more fashionable communicative rationalists. He has a good track record of seeing the whole, recognising other "nomads," and being a beacon of reasonable leftism in nomadic space (where otherwise people might coalesce to form ingrown fascisms etc.). He's misjudging where Petersonites stand in this war of position against capitalism, he thinks they are simply regressive forces of capitalism and liberalism. That's true in a sense, but they are also nomads, and he'd do much better not to condescend to them. That is exactly what will turn them into really stagnant, entrenched neoliberals.

You can say Jungians or self-help gurus are a symptom of a disease, you can say all kinds of interesting and inflammatory things, but "haha fuckin' Jungians am I right" is low-hanging fruit. It's not only driving away and ossifying the Peterson types, but even worse than that, it's activating the wrong part of the brains of his listeners. It's not showing them the fascist underbelly of neoliberal feelgoodism, or of intra-capitalist authenticity-jargon and new ageism, and thereby showing how easy it is to be re-anaesthetized to the pains of capitalism and the culture industry (which are already anaesthetic, but need this sort of second dose to take care of the nagging side-effects of the primary anaesthesia). What he's doing is telling them to entrench their own positions in nomad space, become just as ideologically stagnant, and be condescending to other weirdos who aren't pre-packaged as ideological friends of the left.

Zizek likely knows better than anyone that the return of newageism and the jargon of authenticity means a return of fascism, but a return of fascism also means a return of potential for leftism and revolution, in fact for a leftist it ought to mean the responsibility to turn the former into the latter before things go horribly wrong. Instead, he is being uncharacteristically flippant, and his audience is hearing: "It's okay for me to tweet closed-minded condescension to neo-fascists. Being a belligerent cunt is part of being a good leftist."
You catch more flies with honey.

>>11422435
I think it was a joke, anon...

>>11422397
The really funny thing is that the poster whose post got deleted isn't an anti-Semite, it's a butthurt ESL speaker who has been making posts like that for a year or two now. It's always something like:
>We only discuss right wing thinkers like us here sweetheart. Take the redpill
Subtle Engrish and similar syntax every time.

This person is actually the extreme form of the posters who replied with knee-jerk scorn. I can't tell if they're trying to parody a /pol/ poster or they actually have a long term (but obviously ineffectual) plan to make people hate /pol/.

They likely got their post deleted for spam more than for being a /pol/ faggot. They get deleted/banned a lot because of how repetitive and obnoxious their syntax is.

>>11422448
It is a joke, sort of, which is why I distinguished between what Zizek is doing and what his audience hears. I think Zizek could probably have an honest conversation with Peterson if they actually stayed on point and got down to the subtleties of their respective political ontologies, i.e., of what it means under the visible surface that people are interested in new age jargon of authenticity and masculinity again. I'd like to see Peterson's response to a well-articulated, non-kneejerk Marxist response.

But Zizek is making it seem to his already semi-faggoty audience as if "n'être pas republicain à vingt ans"-type, philo-fascist sentiment isn't simultaneously the first step toward leftism and the biggest danger to leftism when left unchecked. The left already has a huge problem with responding to these upstarts, who are mainly upset about liberal faggotry, by being even bigger condescending faggots.

>>11422471
He actually talks about Peterson and fascist mythology for about 15 mins, this is cherry picked.

>>11422489
That's better then, I was worried after I saw that piece he did on Peterson a while back, and I figured he was passing over the "Peterson phenomenon" in a 10 second joke here. Whole reason he's interesting is because he doesn't generally do shit like that.

>>11422327
what did he mean by this?

>>11422471
Thats what happens when leftists inflate their egos. We are the smartest bois rightys dumb.

>>11422415
the real question is how many times did you touch your nose while you said this

>"fascism is okay, racism is okay"

Leftists are fucking retarded mouthbreathers.

>>11422565
He's talking about people he would debate not people he agrees with

>>11422489
link?

redpill me on jung

>>11422471
>>11422435
I mostly agree with you. Even though you and I see Zizek's point, I don't think most people see it and the way he puts it, he's just making fun of them for no reason.

>>11422683
fairy stories that the petersun guy happens to like the idea of, thus, /lit/ is interested in yung

>>11422683
the psychologization of metaphysical principles is a jewish psyop

>>11422673
https://youtu.be/fl3E73Rb9hE?t=29m30s
around 29:30, really shitty audio though

What kind of a person buys a book that tells them to do stuff?

>>11422311
Soooo Zizek is as much of a meme as Jordan Peterson?

>Those bloody *insert people you don't like* I mean you just can't take them seriously lol

>>11422683
He wrote a book called the Red Book which he only gave out to his close friends based:
>upon the author's imaginative experiences between 1913 and 1916, and is based on manuscripts first drafted by Jung in 1914–15 and 1917.[1] Despite being nominated as the central work in Jung’s oeuvre,[2] it was not published or made otherwise accessible for study until 2009[...] Biographers and critics have disagreed whether these years in Jung's life should be seen as "a creative illness, a period of introspection, a psychotic break, or simply madness."[7] Anthony Storr, reflecting on Jung's own judgment that he was "menaced by a psychosis" during this time, concluded that the period represented a psychotic episode.

>>11422387
drunkposter here, an heroing prolly soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUuGjJUYCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxGUKcwAVBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XbvDaQdJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9egBPsL7ziU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5j-Sm4Ur8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EZyW_-fo9k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4Ravenckhg
http://mixedmentalarts.co/jordan-peterson-doesnt-understand-the-relevant-philosophy/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262280/jordan-peterson
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life?amp
https://arcdigital.media/the-tolerance-of-paradox-387ee4940cc5?source=collection_category---4------0----------------&gi=ba5f153c8b63

>>11423533
stay with us anon, you must live to see the meeting of the memes. plus Zizek hasn't even taken his accelerationist turn yet

>>11423533
>Assblasted faggots see things mad that one person in particular disagrees with then who is also succesful academically are on the brink of suicide now

I mean yeah that sounds about right, I can't think of why such a non issue pisses people off so much besides being a deranged ideologue desperately attempting to funnel his stress into a single political issue

>>11423599
was this post written by a bot or something?

>>11423615
No, I made a few typos and your small brain is scrambling to interpret them. Pretty hilarious

>>11423629
if you think anything you wrote takes effort to interpret then there really is nothing more to say

>>11423638
I mean obviously you had some problems and are completely dancing around the issues I brought up, so if I'm a shitty writer then you're also an exponentially shittier thinker, fucking hell you've really played yourself huh?

>>11422311
>shits on Jung
>his entire career is based off apeing Lacan
Makes me think.

Episode 145 of "Everything I hate is fascism"

>>11423654
>you had some problems
I was making fun of you, anon. I was being facetious

>>11422311
lolol much based huge funny

>>11422435
Cover a few holes and what you say is not unreasonable but the end you went full retard

>>11423855
cringe

>>11422311
zizek is the fucking worst

What's so scary about Peterson? He is as average vanilla centrist boomer you can get.

>>11425036
I agree he's not controversial to me at all. But I guess he ticked off the wrong kind of millennial.

I haven't watched your video but calling peterson a jungian? lmao. peterson is a fucking clown. Those familiar with Jung don't even need the heads up, it's obvious from the moment you open one of his books.

>>11422317
>>11422370
based

>>11425036
He's normalising hatred and misogyny because of "muh statistics" fags.

>>11425458
>because of "muh statistics"
so because of reality lol

>>11425458
retard

>>11425459
Why not look at the statistics that shows women earn less than men next time, pal. This reality you're thinking of happened because of oppression.

>>11425458
If not troll — he doesn’t advocate for hatred and misogyny. He says women and men have biological and neurological differences leading to natural personality and cognitive differences which may indeed support the contention that there are some naturally more female careers and gender roles and some naturally more male careers and gender roles. Thus, trying to force equal outcome of women and men in all professions would be true hatred and misogyny.

>>11425458
How is he doing that?

>>11425474
Women work less hours on average, choose less high-paying jobs, and are often not assertive enough to ask for a raise. When you factor in at least these first two parts, the wage gap is almost non-existent.

>>11425474
Oppression happened because men are superior to women and whites to nonwhites

>>11425483
All of that is going to change and women will be more assertive. Enjoy the ride, misogynists.

>>11425495
women stll havent run an all female successful company lmao

>>11425501
I don't want any all female companies, that's gender segregation.

>>11425475
If you're not a troll, things obviously don't have to remain as they are, change is inevitable, and doing our best to change things for the better makes sense.

>>11425526
Because women could not run such a company, they have tried and failed before. Men on the other hand find their companies do better the fewer women there are, necessitating totalitarian quota systems to include women.

>>11425495
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719?journalCode=pssa&

>>11425495
>>11425526
Why change? What if women don’t want to change? Why do men and women have to be the same? I’m not even mad. Most of the women I have met, meet, and will meet (I can confidently say) will be more nurturing, more emotional, and less aggressive than men. And I see nothing wrong with this. They like it, just like most men like feeling manly. Your pushing of androgyny is only held by a small amount of rabid feminists. You’re a minority. And even the most aggressively masculine feminists I’ve met have been more sensitive, emotional, and feminine than the average man. There is nothing wrong with this. Femininity is great.

>>11425534
you need to be a lot more mysognist to have an accurate view of femininity. Women have to have a weapon to contend with male physical aggression, and it's deception

>>11425539
Well, so brazenly insulting another person’s gender doesn’t help much in a debate. And men have their own flaws too.

>>11425557
>flaws
I don't see women's deception as being a flaw, it's just the tool they evolved to remain capable of contending with men

>>11425557
yeah but nobody is lying to cover up men's shortcomings, we're the violent half, we're also the productive half.

>>11425534
I'm not pushing androgyny, you're talking to a mirage of your mind, your strawman/woman ain't accurate.

>Why do men and women have to be the same?
They don't. Men don't have to be the same as other men either.
>Femininity is great.
The problem is femininty is socially constructed. Like "submissiveness", everything bad is associated with the feminine for cultural purposes. It's not a platonic constant like you imagine, or at least the platonic ideal might have little or nothing to do with how we percieve femininity in our culture.

>>11425574
>a platonic constant
It's a set of attributes which fall on bell curves, which have different medians than the corresponding male ones