Zizek Victory Thread Part 2

[Anonymous No.12966839]

Continued discussion of Peterson being exposed tonight.

[Anonymous No.12966856]

>>12966839
I have not watched the video, neither read both. But I have an opinion. The thread.

[Anonymous No.12966860]

>>12966839
>speaking in shallow memes without any argument or discussion

There was no clear-cut 'win' or even attempt. They basically seemed to have much more common ground than expected, one emphasizing society a bit more and one emphasizing personal responsibility, but both basically allowing for the other side's point.

[Anonymous No.12966871]

I have no clue what Zizek was talking about at all but Peterson got fucking OWNED!

[Anonymous No.12966884]

>>12966839
The issue seemed to be Peterson was caught off guard by Zizek not being an evil sjw after his second time talking and his stock arguments couldn't go anywhere. Didn't really seemed like he was directly demolished at any point. He just looked very awkward and somewhat lost on what else to say.

[Anonymous No.12966885]

No winner on the topic of happiness but Peterson got exposed for the fraud he is which what anyone with half a brain was able to deduct from reading in between the lines

[Anonymous No.12966893]

>>12966860
can we stop with the bullshit already?
yea yeah they found common ground which we all knew was going to happen. but seriously, zizek cucked that man on stage like three times with no reprecussions. that apart from exposing petersons total lack of knowledge. zizek won obviously, further evidenced by the lack of any genuine discussion beyond the surface level psychoanalyses peterson defaulted to.

[Anonymous No.12966894]

>>12966856
This. Anyone trying to make it as if this is some big Left vs Right battle or win for either party completely missed the point of the debate, which ended up completely denouncing such political / ideological tribalism and jingoism.

Zizek pretty much totally admitted he's not actually even a Marxist, more of a Hegelian who just finds disappointment in the shrinking of democracy. Peterson, for his part, clarified that he doesn't think that capitalism or individualism is the whole answer.

The whole debate really was a very reasonable, nuanced denouncement of the simplified form of political debate that exists online, and the kind of unbridgable cultural warfare. The very act of the debate was in complete defiance of politically correct taboos.

[Anonymous No.12966902]

>>12966839
Were can I watch this shitshow
I am not paying

[Anonymous No.12966911]

>>12966884
Well, Peterson expected a stronger Marxist argument on part of Zizek, so that's how he prepared his initial argument, but once he saw how nuanced and open-minded, and open to talk, that Zizek was, (and Zizek AGREED with ALL of Peterson's criticisms of Marxism), then the debate became more of a clarifying of their actual positions which turned out to be much more compatible.

[Anonymous No.12966920]

>>12966902
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRC5AA1wF0

[Anonymous No.12966921]

>>12966860
You can't "win" a debate except in the eyes of onlookers you influenced, which is why debates are mostly sophistry. Finding common ground (itself a tactic to influence the bias of others) doesn't mean there wasn't a "winner" Zizek obviously "won" by a landslide, he just wasn't impressive to anyone besides pseuds and millennial marxists.

[Anonymous No.12966931]

>>12966893
Completely unsubstantial post, throwing around buzzwords and tribalistic meme-jingoism. You haven't a single argument about any real point, just resort to the usual 'so-and-so on the other side is dumb!" dismissal. Literally every point Peterson made related to psychoanalysis, Zizek agreed with and built on.

You really are completely missing the point of Zizek's own intentions and position here if you think the point here is to come out to be all "the Left wins! / the Right wins!"

[Anonymous No.12966940]

Its hard to say Zizek won when he quickly refused to make a defence of Marxism, and instead lured JP into masturbating about happiness.

On the other hand, JP began unprepared and failed to make an argument addressing the topic

[Anonymous No.12966942]

>>12966894
>which ended up completely denouncing such political / ideological tribalism and jingoism.
this sentiment is just repackaged leftism and you aren't fooling anybody by suggesting you are "above it all"

[Anonymous No.12966949]

Peterson showed up to debate a Marxist strawman of his own construction
Zizek actually debated all of Peterson's major arguments
This shows that Peterson is the sort of guy who has deluded himself into thinking he is always the smartest guy in the room from years spent talking to nobody but teenagers in classrooms; it's obvious from his own admission that he had no idea what Zizek's actual viewpoints were

[Anonymous No.12966950]

>>12966921
Merely stating that one side 'obviously won'. You clearly weren't even paying attention, if you even watched it at all. You went in just waiting to declare the winner at the end, maybe because you wanted it to be a win for "Marxism", not realizing Zizek himself renounced Marxism in this very debate.

[Anonymous No.12966952]

>>12966931
>buzzwords and tribalistic meme-jingoism
I hope this was intentional.

[Anonymous No.12966954]

>>12966894
Lets be honest, it was mostly JP backpedalling cause he realised he was completely out of his water when he started making his intro speech and he actually got laughed at.

[Anonymous No.12966960]

>>12966942
I just have realized long ago - which this debate, among other things, confirms - that there are actually no clear distinctions in politics and that there is significant overlap with anyone who actually engages in serious thinking.

[Anonymous No.12966962]

>>12966949
>that he had no idea what Zizek's actual viewpoints were
Does anyone?
Does Zizek?

[Anonymous No.12966966]

>>12966950
Most of the audience isn't as big a pseud as you.

[Anonymous No.12966967]

>>12966931
who said anything about the left or the right? you're insecure and projecting. zizek showed peterson for what he really is. peterson was thoroughly exposed for being a total hack. he fucking lost. take some of his advice and dont lie.

[Anonymous No.12966969]

>>12966911
Yeah, I think that's an apt description. It just made Peterson act awfully awkward to where he was a loser to onlookers. He's not used to speaking with people like Zizek.

[Anonymous No.12966972]

Just woke up. Have not watched the video. Zi man thinks happiness is joke. Probably has read schopenhaur. Most likely took this debate just to shit on jp and promote himself

[Anonymous No.12966973]

>>12966962
Yes because Zizek repeats his point 50 times a lecture

[Anonymous No.12966974]

What is JP thinking right now?

[Anonymous No.12966977]

Honestly this was way better than what I've expected but also left me more confused than I thought I will be.
In the end I don't think either of them are 100% right, I think Peterson has the right idea that we have to take responsibility for our own personal happiness but in everything else, Zizak was right. I especially liked the part where he mentioned that as a society and humans as a whole, we need to stop, think about what happened so far, plan and then start doing something. This is a thought I had for a really long time, I mean just looking at 20th century history so many things could have gone wrong it's a fucking miracle we are even still alive. things really need to calm down

[Anonymous No.12966978]

>>12966839

This was like watching some cringy, not-so-attractive effeminate daddy-issues riddled twink hitting on young Dolph Lungdren(Zizek)

>I'm trying to make you tell a joke, can't you see?
Jesus, dude, just laugh at least.Poor guy.

[Anonymous No.12966983]

>>12966962

This. Zizek had to read his opening statement, and still was getting lost

[Anonymous No.12966986]

>>12966973
So his point is sniffing?

[Anonymous No.12966991]

>>12966954
No, that wasn't what it was, it was more the debate adjusting to the realization that they had more in common than expected and then getting into the nuances of their respective takes on current issues.

And I like how you just threw in a dishonest weasel phrase like "actually got laughed at". Where did such a thing happen? Zizek was extremely open and responsive to Peterson, and Peterson was respectful and open to Zizek in turn. There was no BTFO-ing, the whole debate was completely against the very notion. They were trying to get past this kind of internet meme simplification of political binaries.

[Anonymous No.12966992]

>>12966974
counting money or something

[Anonymous No.12966993]

>>12966972
no thats why peterson did it. hes a slimy fuck. he bragged about the tickets being sold out at the start and zizek looked visibly disgusted. hes a car salesman

[Anonymous No.12967009]

>>12966966
Again, a shallow, unsubstantial post in the form of an ad-hominem. You just are invested in the culture wars for some reason, and was hoping Zizek would attack some "alt right", when in fact he was trying to get past all that. At the end he even said it's inaccurate to keep dismissing people as "nazis" when you disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.12967011]

>>12966991
he basically called him stupid to his face twice and peterson did nothing to verbally counter to or even show that he was wrong in his response

[Anonymous No.12967018]

Let's be honest, Peterson looked like a fucking brainlet. The man was about to cry.

[Anonymous No.12967021]

The real question is why didn't Peterson read ANY of Zizek's work?

[Anonymous No.12967026]

>>12966967
Again, you keep using some meaningless buzzphrase, in multiple threads now, about him being "exposed" without any argument or evidence, while also meaninglessly making an appeal to the crowd/audience without demonstrating in any real way how you're supposed to know how some supposed monolitic audience is supposed to have felt.

[Anonymous No.12967028]

>>12966960
The distinctions are pretty clear if you actually have a decent understanding of both sides of the coin. Most of the left/right paradigm just isn't trendy at any point in time. You can't mix and match the two because then your conclusions aren't internally consistent. People like Zizek try to dance around this by simply not having a conclusion and telling others to sort it out for him, while also denouncing any threatening oppression as ideology.

[Anonymous No.12967029]

I mean, its clear peterson has not studied zizek at all. Zizek has been very critical of political correcntess and identity politics for a leftist perspective

"OH MY GOD YOU CAN DO THAT"- pol tard

[Anonymous No.12967033]

>>12966993
>bragged about the tickets being sold out
He was happy at the enthusiasm. I don't think there was any bragging about it.

[Anonymous No.12967038]

>>12967009
Your a sperg who thinks this debate (or pretty much any debate) was about marxism vs capitalism and not Zizek vs peterson.

[Anonymous No.12967039]

>>12966974

JP
>I see the connection between the post-modernist types and the Marxists as a slight of hand that replaced the notion of the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeois, as the oppression by one identity group by another.

Zizek
>totally agree

SJWs BTFO

[Anonymous No.12967044]

>>12966991
Zizek was like "I agree with you but [destroys peterson]"
Peter was like "[I agree with you, I'm being submissive, don't destroy me] *struggles to say anything*"

[Anonymous No.12967049]

>>12966993
zizek played his part, he was far from disgusted. you’re an absolute tool of you think he was not ingratiated by the pageantry. at least it was over two intellectuals and not some fucking disney flick.

[Anonymous No.12967050]

[Anonymous No.12967052]

>>12967028
>The distinctions are pretty clear if you actually have a decent understanding of both sides of the coin.

I'm probably more read in Zizek, poststrucuturalism / critical theory and Marx than you are, and have taken the time to see what Peterson is actually saying too, so no, I'm not just coming at this without being informed on the matters discussed or respective positions.

[Anonymous No.12967054]

>>12967029
>>>/leftypol/

[Anonymous No.12967062]

>>12967021
too busy designing new merch with his team of marketeers

[Anonymous No.12967068]

>>12967038
To people meming or committed to political tribes this certainly started out, in its promotion, as a stupid event about Zizek vs Peterson, but the actual debate, as they delved more into the other's position, became more about a repudiation of political tribalism and political correctness, while clarifying their small differences, which were hardly extreme or damning.

[Anonymous No.12967069]

Peterson was extremely outclassed. It quickly became apparent that they shouldn't have been on the same stage.

[Anonymous No.12967072]

>>12967054
Not an argument. Even just a quick perusal of zizeks wiki article will tell you he has criticized both idpol and the soviet union.

Dude grew up in a fucking communist country

[Anonymous No.12967075]

>>12967044
>>12967039
this is how zizek always is as a speaker. he's literally girardfag incarnate. when anyone asks him a question the WORST CASE scenario is "ahhhh but don't you see?" as long as the discussion is civil. generally zizek will say "i agree" and then not agree at all which is really fucking confusing to debate against (although extremely pleasant to listen to)

[Anonymous No.12967076]

>>12966950
>Zizek himself renounced Marxism in this very debate.
He didn't, he just stated what anyone with knowledge of his work knows. He is a hegelian.
So was marx, They are drinking from the same source and agree on most things. Zizek is just not an autist that thinks marx is the end all be all.
He also made a point on how marx is also not as rigid and egoistic as people paint him. You just have to read beyond his propaganda works like the manifesto of the communist party.
He tried to show this facet of marx for two reasons, the first being educating the public and second is avoiding an awfully long and pointless debate with him defending marx with tooth and nail. He stated in interviews before the debate that he would be talking to the public.
The end result is. He makes strong criticisms of capitalism, admiting to be a marxist and showing other works and aspects of marx (he cited gotha programe and others). Expecting watchers to aknowledge the problems he is pointing and seek marxism on their own. In this sense i can say peterson's shitty interpretation of the manifesto played right in to his hands.

[Anonymous No.12967077]

>>12967039
Of course he does, Zizek can obviously see this identity for marxism is unsavory, so he disassociates "real marxism" from it and reassures his opponent his marxism isn't like that and this element of marxist expression isn't intentional.

[Anonymous No.12967085]

>>12967054
This is our board, fascist

[Anonymous No.12967087]

>>12967072
>Not an argument
I wasn't making an argument, i was identifying where you can from and telling you to return there. I didn't even read your entire posts.

[Anonymous No.12967088]

>>12967050
this, but be sure to dispose of any firearms in your general vicinity before you start reading.

[Anonymous No.12967095]

>>12967085
For the next few weeks until the circle jerk is over and you go back to discord or whatever.

[Anonymous No.12967096]

>>12967054
>>12967085
Both of you calm down, /lit/ is neutral ground as long as you're not a liberal