/lit/ - Literature

to this?

>>15615979
>>15615986
Why do both of the commies wear such short socks? Or alternatively, wear pants not long enough?

>>15615994
Chomsky is not a commie

>>15615979
wait i don’t get it are they the same 3 people?

>>15615979
>>15615986
Man on right chair got replaced by a subhuman?

Did you see Caleb Maupin debate Stephan Molymeme?

Because the avant garde of the social discourse lives on the forefront of media— any debate trying get to replicate what happened between Chomsky’s and Foucault is just a self-serving publicity operation in the paradigm of years past. For confirmation of this look at the age of the people debating

>televised "debates"
read books

>>15615979
What the fuck are these niggers even debating? I've watched the whole damn thing and I don't even know what the fuck they disagree about

>>15616020
What happened?

>>15616030
Wasn't it about language?

>>15616030
CHOMSKY: We should live in a more humane society.
FOUCAULT: Ah, but your idea of “humane” has been shaped by the society you grew up in.
CHOMSKY: Sure, but nevertheless.

>>15615986
everytime i see this image i take a good laugh remembering how much a brainlet lobster guy is
it's even more ridiculous by the way the acts, all pompous like he knows shit except saying to young males to clean their bedroom bc some story of bible said so kek

>>15616413
Basically this. That debate was wrestlemania for academic plebs. Foucault was the cool attentionwhoring that americans always wanted to be, while rejecting his own nerd, who also thinks the same that the french meme himself, but in another thought structure.

>>15616519
rent free

peterson read the communist manifesto in preparation for a debate with someone that actually has an understanding of marx. no wonder his benzo cope put him into a coma

>>15616650
i personally find peterson smart i mean he was able to con a lot of people and make a lot money out of pretending to be an intellectual thats based on my book

>>15616030
Neither debate had anything of substance to even debate, the Peterson debate in particular was about Happiness or something retarded. The topic for these things is always intentionally as nebulous as possible so pseuds from each side can construe whatever conclusions they want as their preferred fraud tells them what to believe with 'their' sophistry.

The Peterson-Zizek debate was fucking great. It wasn't a debate at all. Just a conversation that I think everyone was really curious to hear. At the end they came to a point of seeming agreement, though of course not really. Zizek is obviously more well-read and well-spoken about Marxism because that's basically his job. I only watched it back when it aired but I remember thinking it was the best possible outcome. I feel like Peterson really learned something from it, though I don't know if he's said anything about it since.

>>15616814

you don't have to be smart to grift. just look at dave rubin and candace owens

>>15616814

you don't have to be smart to grift. just look at dave rubin and candace owens. that shit isn't based it's just pathetic. yeah they make cash with it but you can also just sell your ass on the street corner and make money. doesn't make hookers smart

>>15615979
Hacks.
>>15615986
Mostly hacks. The quality improved.

>>15615994
>Chomsky's socks are clearly different colours, one blue and the other black
>anon comments on their length instead
You might be colourblind.

>>15617155
>lists only right wing people
>compares it to street prostitution which anyone can do and makes little money
I don't think you're qualified to evaluate who is smart

>>15616519
Yeah he's a bit of a loon as psychologists tend to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmswlWQrTdE
He claims to have a 150 IQ btw

>>15617178
Not who you're responding to and I don't even know who Dave Rubin is but your post is stupid and he's not wrong. Grifting doesn't require intelligence and plenty of whores out there make more selling their bodies than you do.

>>15615998
anarchism is almost identical to communism

>>15617230

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

>>15617271
You're right, communism is anarchism except not pantshittingly retarded.

>>15616028
okay grandpa

>>15616650
I believe he said that he only read a bit of it.

>>15617205
>150 IQ
Why is his book a bunch of rambling nonsense then?

>>15617271
>doesn't know the difference between Marxist-Leninism and Communism

Come on butterfly, you're better than this

>>15617664
He's a mentally unstable junkie.

>>15615979
why the fuck is this debate talked about so much? never have i seen a debate so uneventful create so many threads

>>15617230
They're literally polar opposites.

>>15617271
pls don't post aggie, moth. she's too good for you.

>>15617205
>He claims to have a 150 IQ btw
Kek yeah yeah i'm a 264

>>15619057
We would get along nicely.

>>15617762
Hm pardon. Most people confuse communism with Leninism, so I lapsed. Not sure what anon meant.

>>15617594
Anarchism is communism without counterintuitive extra steps

>>15617271
I love this video so much it triggers tankies so hard

>>15615986
Zizek refuted Foucault during this

>>15617174
They look white and gold to me

>>15619498
lol

>>15615998
jeebus christmas

>>15619498
>>15619498
They should get Chomsky and Zizek to debate whether it's Yanny or Laurel

>>15616030
It was on human nature. Chomsky argues it comes from within and that it is virtuous via our innate capacity for language. Foucault argues that this nature comes from without-us and is formed by power structures.
>Chomsky: we shape history
>Foucault: history shapes us

>>15617230
are you mentally deficient

>>15619107
have you fantasized about her?
>pic related