/lit/ - Literature

>>20057740
What even was the debate about, do you know, can you say, are you a moron?

>>20057740
There was no debate peterson didn't read marx so he did improvise with what he have read through Solzhenitsyn and soviets

There was no debate. Debating about sociology is retarded anyway. It's just opinions.

>>20057745
yes, yes, yes, and yes.

>>20057740
They might be the same person

Zizek is the Peterson of the left.

>>20057740
Why the fuck would you debate Zizek about Marx? There have been generations of thinkers since then who have arguably had more relevance to Zizek's philosophy.

They both embarrassed their respective disciplines.
That being said, Peterson looked worse.

>>20057764
>They both embarrassed their respective disciplines.
Yeah

>>20057764
Why? I didnt watch the debate because I didnt read neither of these guys.
I also didnt watch the Fucko (((Chomsky))) debate even though everybody said its awesome because I am scared I wont get it.

>>20057745
>What even was the debate about
only a literal Nazi would ask that question, just say Peterson lost

>>20057740
What debate?

>>20057785
associated with the alt-right?
lmao, i've been on /pol/ and if i ever see a jbp thread it's always them shitting on him
he's def a sort of gateway to more radical ideology though, but also functions as a gatekeeper for disillusioned lolberts/neocons.

>>20057740
Whoever won, we lost.

>>20057740
>Peterson: dirty and messy room
>Zizek: clean and tidy room
Really makes you ponder.

>>20057762
Zizek had just released a book about how the Communist Manifesto was still relevant, so Peterson read and responded to that.

>>20057740
Peterson realised he was criticising a very reductive image of leftist thought that he’d skimmed from a literal propaganda pamphlet and immediately realised he was out of his depth. Zizek, being the amicable guy that he is, was gentle with him so as to not split his anus wide open with his comically oversized theory-phallus. The only thing he really challenged Peterson on was his strawman of the “post-modern Neomarxists”. So it didn’t end up being much of a debate. Besides, most “debates” with Zizek just end up with him trying to find common ground with people who are ideologically very distant from himself anyways, in classic Hegelian-negation fashion.

Also, if you’ve watched any videos of Peterson talking about it afterwards he clearly has a lot of respect for Zizek and even adopted some of his ideas (specifically Zizek’s post-theological commentary on the scene of the crucifixion).

>>20057775
They were debating Marxism and Peterson admitted during the debate that he’s never read Marx beyond briefly skimming through the communist manifesto.

>>20058078
>yeah I just skimmed through the whole thing in an hour
>anyway here is what you should think about it

>>20057785
Considering that National Socialism was clearly the superior ideology of the 20th century, what's wrong with embracing it?

>>20057740
imagine listening to two globalist shills have fake debates

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3fe9/a4ce68c9560f0d97e88f7003e0b2b5217a72.pdf?_ga=2.60148970.656485712.1618732694-2122113780.1618732694
>Jordan Peterson a UN Globalist: Edited a Report for the High-Level Panel on Sustainable Development
https://redice.tv/news/jordan-peterson-a-un-globalist-edited-a-report-for-the-high-level-panel-on-sustainable-development
>Jordan Peterson Exposed As Globalist Operative Who Drafted ‘Agenda 21’ Manifesto for United Nations
https://www.pb-news.com/news/jordan-peterson-exposed-as-globalist-operative-who-drafted-agenda-21-manifesto-for-united-nations/

>>20057748
its an excahnge of rhetoric and propaganda. team red and team blue need to pretend to hate each other and divide the plebs.

>>20057785
Of course peterson lost, he's controlled opposition. Every commietard on university can't seem to figure out that two people who agree to debate each other are actually comfortable politically behind the scenes.

>>20057985
bingo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo&t=247s

>>20058131
>both Zizek and Peterson are shills
>so here are three articles proving Peterson is a shill but literally nothing on Zizek
If you’ve ever read anything by Zizek you’d know he’s highly suspicious of the globalist narrative. I think you need to learn to stop projecting your personal politics into public figures, it’s not healthy

>>20057740

>>20057775
you don't need to watch the debate, its not that great. Chomsky is invested in justice and goodness and believes communism will make the world a more just place. Foucault doesn't care about any of that and spends 2 hours with a smug grin telling Chomsky he's full of shit.

>>20058039
nah zizek is ok

>>20058144
In the end Chomsky got the last laugh because Foucault died of aids with a prolapsed anus.

>>20058143
>Zizek is enthusiastically reading from a blank piece of paper
Never fails to make me laugh

>>20057740
It wash a deebate? *schniff*

>>20058150
For a clown

>>20058141
which is exactly why is he invited to debate in a globalist university, and preaches communism a globalist idea. peterson and zizek are the same, controlled opposition to modern day UN style globalism. Peterson represents the dissident right and Zizek the dissident left. Peterson and Zizek both work for the UN. Peterson was exposed writing studies and agendas for the UN.

>>20058143
reminds me of the ryan dawson and destiny debate

>Jordan Peterson
>Drug addict with messy room

>Slavoj Zizek
>Tidy room and habitual coke user

I think I know who won.

>>20058215
Coke apparently makes you obsessively clean your place.

>>20058201
> preaches communism a globalist idea
Firstly, Zizek doesn’t “preach” communism and you’d know that if you’d even bothered to picked up a book by him, he says constantly that he’s a Hegelian (dialectical idealist) rather than a Marxist (dialectical materialist). Peterson himself conceded that Zizek was presented to him as the most prominent Marxist scholar, which is why he took the debate, and then realised midway through the debate that Zizek isn’t a communist in any conventional sense of the word.

>Zizek works for the UN
Source? It’s so fucking easy to default to the “controlled opposition” argument, but you haven’t presented any evidence for that claim whatsoever.

>>20058257
Why does a Hegelian have a Stalin portrait above, and a bust beside his bed?

>>20058262
> Why does a Hegelian have a Stalin portrait above, and a bust beside his bed?
To fuck with the normies, obviously. You clearly don’t have a sense of humour

>>20058257
I like Zizek a lot, his criticisms of capitalism is completely unlike that of an ML or some sort of 20th century bourgeois LARPing tankie.
Peterson seems to be obsessed with "cultural marxism" or whatever, and he's an individualist which is clearly not working in the context of western society.

I'd root for Zizek over Peterson desu

>>20058270
>its just a prank bro
Whatever you commie piece of shit.

>>20058257
I'm not arguing anything. If you work on a University Campus and you participate in these propaganda programs you are a part of the plan whether you're aware or not. Even if zizek is an honest hero being taken advantage he is being used to create disinformation for wall street.

>>20058257
>>20058270
He's not a communist goy, he just gets featured on Jewish television and in Jewish universities and has portraits of Stalin and spends his whole life professing /study
hegel and marx.

>>20058270
>m-merely pretending!!!
lol

>>20058274
Lmao triggered, clearly the poster is doing exactly what he intended it to do

>>20058275
You really need to get outside of your own head more often dude. And you STILL haven’t proven the claim that “Zizek works for the UN”, stop deflecting like a coward

>>20058281
“Hitler did nothing wrong” was originally an ironic provocation, you’re just a dumb mutt who can only appreciate things at a surface level.

>>20058283
Epin troll, owning the libs with his mass murderer poster.

>>20058288
>I've been found out!

>>20058272
I like Zizek, but he’s not without his faults. Most of the time he’s making the exact same point that he always does, just reframed though a bunch of different pop culture references or dirty jokes. Sometimes he’ll come out with a really unique or surprising take, but for the most part his thinking can be boiled down to:

>here’s a thing
>here’s it’s opposite
>now here’s how the negation of the thing is actually a constitutive part of the thing itself, isn’t that funny?

As much as I appreciate him explaining Hegel in a way that the average person can understand, it does get a bit tedious. Still miles ahead of Peterson though

>>20058313
He's witty and charming, he doesn't come off as a preachy idealogue, he's like a grandpa you'd sit down with and ask about his life stories

>>20058283
cope and seethe

>>20058313
>>20058342
how much per post?

>>20058342
Agreed. He’s also proof that you don’t have to be good-looking to get the girls, just being charming and intelligent will do it.

>>20058350
>why do we need to do this "taking picture"

>>20058350
hubba hubba
muy bonita

>>20058270
I saw him speak at CUNY. The entire Q&A was liberals coming to the mic because they were offended by him wording something one way, or failing to mention some group's oppression. And he apologized to every single one of them. yeah, he's an edgelord indeed

>>20058059
Best summary in the thread

>>20058153
In a century no one will be discussing the works of Chomsky but they will be discussing the works of Foucault.

>>20057985
agree

>>20058210
AMAZING, do you love black people?

>>20058350
is this Steven Kenneth Bonnell II in 20 years?

>>20058686
It’s almost as if an edgelord is someone who says things to provoke a reaction, rather than unironically believing their own bullshit.

>>20058059
Good post
>>20057740
Zizek was miles ahead of him but as the >>20058059 says both realized this and he was cordial.

>>20058750
true

>>20058274
>>20058291
all the edgy shit that gets posted on here and you choose bitch about zizek having a stalin poster?

>>20059132
right wing chuds on 4chinz think they are different than the easytooffend butthurt librulz

>>20058773
who?

>>20058750
eh, manufacturing consent is a technical real-world description of the abstract process presented in the Society of the Spectacle (which absolutely will still be relevant in 100 years).

>>20057761
underrated.

>>20059071
Both are irrelevant

>>20058215
pure ideology

>>20057740
This is a Nietzsche vs Hegel...

>>20057761
not even close if you move past the meme persona of zizek and actually read his work

>>20057740
Peterson basically did nothing to prepare so got absolutely fucked. Both are terrible though. See >>20057761

>>20058118
>clearly superior
>loses
>not just defeated and ousted but disenfranchised the world over
seems legit

Zizek vs dugin when?

>>20058686
>tfw you'll never be a fratboy at CUNY

>>20059704
You're in /lit and you're somehow unfamiliar with the concept of tragedy. Go to /tv and talk above movies that prove life is about happy endings.

>>20057740
>some fascist hobo
>some Commie edgelord
The absolute state of philosophy.

>>20058291
that's nothing I have a picture of Pol Pot in my bedroom. there was a Dugin thread on here (I was under a ban for asking a simple question about book recommendations) and he has no plans for us in North America so I had to fill in the blanks. none of these current year thinkers do anything for me so I had to embark on a philosophical journey of my own. there are still many unanswered questions.

>>20058350
why does he always look so fucked up?

>>2005834
You obviously haven't heard a whole lecture, just snippets. I don't know how he does it but he goes on and on and can't shut up a bit to ponder. He had a public "discussion" in London with a psychoanalyst and the other guy couldn't get a word in. It's on YouTube. He also confessed he sabotaged his analysis. Maybe if he had seen it through he'd be more interested in others

>>20058059
>post-modern Neomarxists
>strawman
wrong. this description best represents the majority of retards on the left today and addresses the real problem. a couple of faggots pontificating don't mean shit. these every day retards are the ones acting on their half-baked ideals and muddying up everything they touch. the time for arguments has past. the age of eternal retardation is upon us. we are drowning in the deluge of people who never invented the wheel that only be held back by a dam of famine, war, and plague. may God save us all.

>>20060573
Ideology is inherently nebulous so as to reformulate any contrary narrative according to its own beliefs. Any point of criticism is deflected at the periphery and arguments aimed at its core are dismissed as not adhering to how the ideologue defines the ideology at that given moment. Basically, let's nitpick about why your generalized terminology is incorrect without clearly defining the specifics of my belief system--that way the debate will never be framed in a way that's critical of my ideology for being an ideology.

>>20057740
grifter vs grifter who gives a fuck i want white people to be free!

>>20057740
Zizzek won even though I disagree with him.

>>20057785
>only a literal Nazi
got it you don't care about truth and just want power

>>20061228
>Zizzek won even though I disagree with him.
I think that sums up the problem with debates like this, if he actually one he would've convinced you. Nothing can convince me that non scientific debates aren't a waste of time.

>>20057740
>canadian crackhead
>communist coomer
truly a battle of the minds

>>20057761
yes

>>20061268
maybe the real problem is that people don't understand what constitues winning in a debate. Personally, I have learned something new from both of them, and Peterson has admitted to have learned something from Zizek.

>>20057740
Ziz

>>20060573
>this description best represents the majority of retards on the left today
It really doesn’t. It’s an incoherent strawman, if these people were actual “postmodernists” then they wouldn’t be so accepting of the metanarrative of oppression, yet they submit to it without a hint of skepticism. They are plugged into a radical politics emptied of its capacity to rebel, since “woke” is as much a marketing term as it is a mindset. Call it by its real name- identity politics. Equally a subset of corporate inventions as it is the hysteria of a public that has been trained to see prison bars everywhere.

>>20058686
>Strong leader
>"I-I'm sorry for forgetting your oppression pls forgive me I'm a goodboi"
holy shit why would anyone want to be a lefty

>>20057740
The debate in the abstract revolved around the different perspectives of if outside events influence our perspective (zizek) more than our internal reality as an individual (peterson).

Other than that they mostly agreed with each other and talked philosophy and Zizek even gave Peterson an epiphany when he mentioned that even jesus on the cross doubted his own divinity. Which Peterson later tearfully brought up at a different interview he was at. With the sad irony that Peterson himself probably sees himself as a messianic messiah figure but is plagued by self doubts about being able to live up to that image he has of himself. Again because he thinks our internal 'life' has more of an effect on our environment than the reverse. Which is why he is always about telling people to put their own house in order etc. Whereas Zizek is all about how outside things like Ideology, and life circumstances and the effect of chemicals on the brain can influence our behavior more than we give them credit for.

Whoever 'won' the debate depends entirely on your own view of the world and whether you have an "internal locus of control" or an "external locus of control".

>>20059236
Guy Debord was a depressed egomaniac

>>20061228
My beef with him is purely autism related.

>>20057740
>Who won the debate?
Anyone who didn't watch it

>>20057740
I think we all already know the answer to that question

>>20057785
Free (you)s, but ar what cost?

>>20058215
>Virgin Zizek unconsciously obeys Peterson's orders to clean his room
>Chad Peterson has shown enough dominance and control that he doesn't even need to bother cleaning his own room to convince Zizek to
mogged

>>20057785
>>20057785
https://youtu.be/cfmmWPp9u7M

>>20057740
It seemed kind of redundant desu. Why hold a debate with the defining topic being as tired as communism vs. capitalism? It's not the 20th century anymore.

>>20058257
I don't know about Zizek, nor do I care to, but for a communist to say "not real(ly) communism" is defaulting to the oldest trick in the book. You'll have to forgive us for not falling for that one after it's been played out a countless number of times before.

Peterson exposed himself as a retard who clearly doesn't understand Marxism(and doesn't want to), and Zizek exposed himself as a very cringeworthy social-democrat liberal Hegelian Fukuyamist.

So they both lost desu, and are both cringe.

>>20058154
>blank piece of paper
It's covered with semen.

>>20061906
Based Trane poster

>>20057740
The better question to ask is "who cares", it wasn't even really a debate, more like a massive waste of time

>>20057740
>messy room despite becoming a multimillionaire off telling people to clean theirs
>sitting in bed like an autist
these are the strongest minds in western society?

>>20057761
Do modern leftists even care about Zizek?

>>20062165
Who gives a shit what they care about

>>20061992
>tired as communism vs. capitalism? It's not the 20th century anymore.
Exactly. It’s fucking absurd. Even if communism was the best thing ever made it’ll never be picked up in the USA. Time would be better well spent talking about how the people could practically lessen the grip the elite have on society at least a bit. A little at a time

>>20057746
Why do these niggers have debates without reading what they’re debating? You wouldn’t have a serious debate about Christianity without reading the Bible. Fucking retarded as shit you can’t take these people seriously. Everything they say is null and void

>>20058046
Tee hee

>>20058350
Looks like a drunk rapist. Between having a tidy cozy clean room in >>20057740 post and wearing a nice suit in this it looks extremely jarring. He looks like he should be in a dirty apartment (like Jordan’s above) in a dirty wife beater beating his wife

>>20061992
>for a communist to say "not real(ly) communism" is defaulting to the oldest trick in the book.
No it isn’t, the “oldest trick” is leftists claiming past attempts to establish communism are “not real communism”. Zizek has never made that defence. Nor does he believe in continuing to try in spite of those failures. That’s why a common slogan he puts forward is “Don’t act, just think”. Besides, you might assume that you can discredit someone simply by attaching a political label to them, but that’s not how it works. It’s intellectually lazy to focus the discussion on what he is or is not, rather than the ideas he presents.

>>20058059
Quality post