/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17259624]

what did Zizek do to him?

[Anonymous No.17259637]

>>17259624
Juden Peterstein

[Anonymous No.17259642]

>>17259624
Redpilled him on the JQ

"Who are the postmodernists?"
*wipes nose*
"Who are the marxists?"

[Anonymous No.17259644]

>>17259624
man people stopped giving a fuck about ths guy pretty fast

[Anonymous No.17259660]

>>17259624
A crippled mediocre man who sought to play doctor on the world to cure himself. A feeble mind whose only shoddy sanctum was pills and peptalks to slovenly college miscreants who financed his hair transplants.

Father to a whore. Husband to a fraud. He played the jester. His fist up the ass of a Kermit the Frog puppet. Playing it up.

He comes to detest his body which lied broken with his soul in some Russian woodshed they called a hospital. His family had shut him up there. For years? His gasps of agony went unheard. Rude, foreign voices attended him. No one in the world beyond remembered his words or sought his face. He raved of something that onced seemed a reality but now comes as a warped, gnomish dream. A potbellied goblin, smoking a blunt, insisting his assistant pull something up on a blindingly bright screen. Then they spoke of cannibalistic chimps, shadowy dragons, postmodern neomarxists. The burly nurse plunges the catheter up into his bladder.

Now returned to civilization. He grins for the welcome mat. Realizes the shortness of it. How cynically the media touches him, holding him by the edges. He is frought with disgust as he uploads his latest exhibitionist blubbering to his YouTube channel. Something is missing. They have all moved on without him. A word haunts him. Covering it all in a slime that sickens him. Outdated.

Pictures of his daughter prancing around in lobster-themed lingerie are posted on his Instagram feed. He knows a legion of directionless young men in uncleaned rooms are jerking off to his daughter. She takes their money like a whore. And he too feels a tinge in his nearly defunct penis as he gazes feverishly upon the whorish images. Little whore. My little whore, he hoarsely whispers to himself. Fumbling with the cap of the Xanax bottle.

An atheist. A jesuit. A jungian. A masonic celebrity. A superfluous man.

In short, a neoliberal.

[Anonymous No.17259665]

Imagine getting so intellectually BTFO that you start taking hardcore drugs and end up in a coma in a backwater Russian hospital

[Anonymous No.17259786]

>>17259624
>what did Zizek do to him?
Bait him into discussing paradigms while only offering
>>"what if u wrong tho lol"
and
>>"why you call it postmodern neomarxism I dont like dat"

I don't even remember what I learned from the discussion... despite knowing pretty confidently that I learned plenty from each of the two separately.

>>17259660
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.17259795]

Humbled him for a while, but then he went back to his grift because he realized he needs money.

[Anonymous No.17259801]

>>17259660
Kek, that last part

[Anonymous No.17259915]

>>17259624
Literally nothing. He exposed himself as a fraud, Zizek barely had to say anything.

[Anonymous No.17259929]

>>17259624
Nothing

he's fine and publishing a new book
and getting into Twitter politics again

[Anonymous No.17259946]

>>17259914

[Anonymous No.17259970]

>>17259915
Genuinely curious, how did he 'expose' himself? He even shut Zizek's mouth on the long-anticipated explanation of "postmodern neomarxism".

[Anonymous No.17259973]

>>17259624
>what did Zizek do to him?
He DESTROYED him

[Anonymous No.17260017]

So why didn't he just clean his room, be the dragon slayer and take responsibility like a real man? That's what he preaches.

It's funny how anyone could take his message seriously. He is so out of touch with the current reality and the younger generations. He says you need to take responsibility as a man and be a real man and slay the dragon and shit like that. But then again his own daughter leaves the father of her children so she can fuck some poker player in Romania. We are not talking about some liberal cuckmaxxed daughter but The Peterson's daughter. How can you slay dragons and take responsibility when women can just choose your future for you?

[Anonymous No.17260038]

>>17260017
>individual responsibility
>somehow includes trans-generational responsibility for your adult daughter
This reads like VOX.

[Anonymous No.17260051]

>>17260038
Why does individual responsibility matter if someone else can decide your life for you? The only way this works is if you live as a nomad hermit

[Anonymous No.17260058]

>>17259973
you wish commie

[Anonymous No.17260076]

>>17260051
Individual responsibility matters because there's literally nothing better for you to focus on in your life. Given that it's your life, because the way you're painting it, you're a puppet entirely controlled by a puppeteer.

[Anonymous No.17260089]

>>17260076
You need some advanced mental gymnastics to actually believe that

[Anonymous No.17260112]

>>17260089
You need even more advanced gymnastics to believe any alternatives, Anon. What are you gonna focus on instead lol, how oppressed you are? How uncool it is to live in one of the most luxurious civilization on Earth? Literal concentration camp survivors and gulag inmates have time and time again testified of the value of focusing on personal responsibility, what do you have to offer that would beat it?

[Anonymous No.17260123]

>>17259970
it was supposed to be a well rounded debate about philosophy and politics and peterson decided to stand on a soapbox and yap about how much he disagreed with a 170 year old pamphlet

[Anonymous No.17260156]

>>17260123
It could've easily been a discussion about philosophy and politics either way.

[Anonymous No.17260163]

>>17259660
holy shit kek

[Anonymous No.17260192]

>>17259624
I don't think Peterson needed to read Zizek's books, but its clear the man did no research whatsoever. He didn't even watch youtube videos. Peterson had a God complex walking into that debate, he thought he could pull the same old
>"Post modern neomarxists are bad, mmmkay?"
bullshit because he didn't realize Zizek's biggest fucking secret: he's actually a really sensible conservative thinker. Behind all his talk about shitting and "the Jew rabinovich," he really just wants a society with a more egalitarian value system. He wants there to be unspoken social rules like "sir" or "madam" being words that are taken seriously. He pays lip service to trannies because he knows he has to, but if you listen to what he actually says about transexuality he thinks its a pathological identity that has emerged from capitalism's destruction of values and religious identity. And he admits he isn't a Marxist really, but a Hegelian- i.e. that the world cyclically destroys and creates belief systems. Zizek is really just a eccentric guy who wants to figure out how to improve the world.

And then Peterson walks in like "I just skimmed the communist manifesto. Time to end this man's whole career." And then he speaks in circles spouting the same bullshit neo-lib talking points he uses on menopausal talk show hosts. That debate was a Greek play; Zizek's effortless btfo of Peterson was nemesis cutting down hubris. Peterson realized he was out of his depth during the debate that was quite literally the pinnacle of his career up to that point. Seriously I might watch that debate again just for the catharsis of it.

I feel bad for Peterson, desu. First sentence of >>17259660 sums it up.

[Anonymous No.17260233]

>>17260192
The entire premise of this post is that Peterson was being an intellectual snob, when really he didn't say a single arrogant thing. He pulled out the Manifesto, because the people he talks about ("postmodern neomarxists") talk about the Manifesto. They even wear USSR symbolism lol

[Anonymous No.17260257]

>>17260192
you're projecting

[Anonymous No.17260274]

>>17259660
holy fucking kek
I feel really bad for laughing at this

[Anonymous No.17260293]

>>17260233
Peterson wasn't being a snob, he was being arrogant. He didn't respect that another thinker might have something interesting to say. He literally said "ha ha.. you're not like most marxists." He literally had no idea who Zizek was.

>>17260257
Maybe, but projection has nothing to do with whether my analysis is right. It just means I saw the inadequacy because I am sensitive to it. Try writing out an argument retard.

[Anonymous No.17260298]

>>17260233
the point is that Zizek isn't even close to being one of those people, however much Jordan may have wanted him to be. It's easy to take down a nebulous boogeyman in the form of a hammer and sickle wearing Gen Z kid with pronouns in their bio, but Jordan never realized that this was supposed to be an actual debate against another esteemed academic and not a PragerU video

[Anonymous No.17260310]

>>17260293
>Maybe, but projection has nothing to do with whether my analysis is right.

It's literally an accusation that your analysis is wrong, by inappropriately misplacing your own inappropriate emotion onto another.

There's literally nothing in JBP's attitude or behavior that was arrogant.

[Anonymous No.17260313]

>>17260293
>He literally said "ha ha.. you're not like most marxists."
And that is fair. Because Zizek is a Hegelian. And it's also fair to say that Peterson came underprepared for Zizek as a thinker, but the vitriol the post relied upon is just... pretty baseless. Neither shined bright, neither got debunked in anything.

[Anonymous No.17260314]

>>17260233
>>17260257
If you think Peterson is anything other than a mediocre psued then I genuinely feel bad for you.

[Anonymous No.17260325]

>>17260298
>Jordan never realized that this was supposed to be an actual debate against another esteemed academic
I would actually agree with this, but as I wrote in >>17260313, it's still whatever. Neither of them shined.

[Anonymous No.17260330]

>>17259624
>what did Zizek do to him?
Pipepilled him
https://vocaroo.com/1f6ydfarS8Hv

[Anonymous No.17260334]

>>17260314
>t. seen 12 Rules for Life in a store and never even heard of Maps of Meaning
Genuinely.

[Anonymous No.17260341]

>>17259624
Killed his wife.

[Anonymous No.17260344]

Didn’t he (junkie Peterson) just post a podcast with Matthew McConaughey. Seems people are just fucking shilling whatever. But hey, gotta support that benzo addiction somehow.

Clean your room! There May be a Xanax somewhere in the carpet.

I did love the Peterson zizek debate though. The consequences of his addiction are in full swing.

[Anonymous No.17260350]

>>17260334
And what exactly is the point of Maps of Meaning? Tards like you bring it up like it was his magnum opus when the reality is nobody has read it and nobody gives a shit about his interpretation of Jung.

[Anonymous No.17260368]

>>17260310
Wrong. When someone projects they see in others things they are sensitive to in themselves- in extreme forms the projections can be completely baseless. But small amounts of projection are essentially normal human empathy- you've experienced an inadequacy, you know how you react to it, and you see those same reactions to others. People with inadequacies are often more acutely able to see them in others. Regardless its pure ad hominim you haven't said a single interesting thing or laid out any rationale, pleb.

What am I projecting anyway? My assessment of Zizek, or Peterson being btfo?

>>17260313
I think Peterson was absolutely BTFO. Zizek was just being Zizek, but that was all it took for Peterson to look like a fool.

[Anonymous No.17260386]

>>17260350
>like it was his magnum opus
It very much is. It investigates beliefs as a psychological phenomenon through neurological, social and literary-analytical lenses. Easily in the top 10 most insightful books I've ever read. It gets repetitive and the historical and artistic references he likes to use for illustration are boring, but if we're talking beliefs and their formation, it's gold.
>Jung
You can skip each and every single Jung reference and the entire book still makes 100% sense and delivers 100% of the insight. He quotes Jung like he quotes Nietzsche - as an influence, not an academic source.

[Anonymous No.17260390]

>>17260325
I'll add I really liked Peterson in the beginning, but I have a bit of contempt for him now. He didn't live up to the hype of being an amazing spiritual and intellectual leader and I'm kind of angry about that. Again though, doesn't mean i'm wrong. Just that I'm being a bit too mean

[Anonymous No.17260396]

>>17260368
>I think Peterson was absolutely BTFO.
How tho? The most awkward part was "bro that pamphlet isn't what I believe" and Peterson was like "ok well... good. Roughly said."

[Anonymous No.17260414]

>>17259660
Then they spoke of cannibalistic chimps, shadowy dragons, postmodern neomarxists.
>The burly nurse plunges the catheter up into his bladder.

lol

[Anonymous No.17260443]

>>172603968
The BTFO wasn't purely intellectual, though in my opinion Peterson lost on that count too. The major BTFO for Peterson was that he was completely blindsided by his opponent. It destroyed his credibility- remember, before this debate Peterson was the second coming of Christ. So many young men, myself included, pretty much idolized the man. He was bullet proof, pushing against the toxic liberal fanatacism that was on the rise. Then he goes to the debate, isn't particularly sharp when he's speaking (literally looking at his computer constantly and uhming and ahhing as he looks up the points he wrote down). His body language and voice inflection were incredibly weak. Seriously, that video destroyed the incredibly powerful symbol Peterson had become. Not to get too pretentious, but a God bled on that stage, and he never has and never will recover the respect and admiration he had. I'd recommend watching the video again and assessing Peterson's performance.

[Anonymous No.17260450]

>>17260396
>>17260443

[Anonymous No.17260485]

>>17260443
I watched it live in some café and I must say I've never met a person who despised JBP after the debate without having despised him prior to it. But it makes sense that if you idolize him, the fall is all the greater.

[Anonymous No.17261331]

>>17260298
Peterson's whole life is about as dumb as a pragerU video. You can find him in any glory hole now trying to score xanax from a zoomer

[Anonymous No.17261406]

>>17259624
Its definitely a pleasure to hate him. He rode the jumps in popularity that conservative misquotes gave him, and he leaned into that characterization: finding moments within a more moderate context to accentuate some more controvertial phrasing of what was still just equivocation. And yet, when it came down to it, he simply spoke his mind, not running full tilt into his audience's typecasting of him. I don't see that as being something to hate him for, except that you could say he is pretty self-rghteous without the actual depth or genius that could make us forgive him for it.

Agreed that Zizek was simply above his intellectual weight-class as a philosopher. They weren't particularly well matched because they do their thinking on completely different dimensions. Zizek of course could wrap his whole existence up in a neat paragraph, but he didn't because he sees him as a good popular-philosopher, despite his shortcomings as a serious one.

[Anonymous No.17261431]

>>17259660
Fuck lmao

[Anonymous No.17261447]

exposed him as a dime dozen facebook boomer tier conservative talking head who has no idea what he is actually talking about. its pretty fucking embarrassing to be outplayed by someone who unironically believes in communism

[Anonymous No.17261502]

>>17259660
Sheeeesh!

[Anonymous No.17261506]

>>17261406

>Zizek of course could wrap his whole existence up in a neat paragraph, but he didn't because he sees him as a good popular-philosopher, despite his shortcomings as a serious one.

He Floyd Mayweathered him then lmao

[Anonymous No.17261634]

>>17261506
In that he wins through good defence?

[Anonymous No.17261765]

>>17260233
"postmodern neomarxists" don't exist, and neither post-modernists nor Marxists will talk about the Manifesto as a primary piece of Marxist literature. also, no post-modernists will defend the USSR, and most "Marxists" in the academy won't defend it either. your post is entirely wrong in every specific claim it makes.

[Anonymous No.17261773]

>>17260386
hahahaha oh my god are you real

[Anonymous No.17261790]

>>17261634
And mostly with little effort but in such a way as to allow his opponent to save some face to the casual audience but the enthusiasts just laugh and say damn Floyd worked him like nothin

[Anonymous No.17261868]

On his website, Jordan Peterson blames Foucault and Marx for creating the systems of thought that inspired his vacuous buzzword "postmodern neo-Marxism". I've seen posters on /pol/ use the Frankfurt School as a boogeyman too when citing Peterson, though I don't know if he's ever actually mentioned them. Peterson has not read Foucault, Marx, Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, or anyone else that he complains about as the ideological beginning of SJWs (he admitted that the only Marx he read was directly before the debate, and it was the Communist Manifesto, which is just a cry to arms not a detailed political treatise, so it's not very useful for learning what Marx really believed). He thinks Foucault's structuralism is equivalent to Marx's dialectical materialism, which is laughable if you've even done some basic research (like googling) as to what the terms mean. It seems like he gets all his information of the thinkers he derides secondhand from Steven Hicks.

Peterson is a hack speaking outside his discipline who uses the veneer of academic authority and "expertise" to comment on areas he has put minimal effort into studying. That's why Zizek was so visibly baffled a few times during the debate, he was taken aback by the fact that this guy was just name-dropping without having done any fucking research. All Zizek did was read the thinkers he likes to discuss. Peterson clearly didn't, that's why the debate was such a joke.