also how he spent his entire opening argument talking about how he couldn't understand it

jesus christ lmao

  • RNAi [he/him]
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 years ago

    Zizek not shredding that snakeoil seller to the last grain made me hate him. He could have converted 100k chuds in 5 minutes, but he chose not to. THAT is counterrevolutionary. Fuck him. *schniff*

    • bimbusbumbus [he/him]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      Well Zizek made himself seem agreeable and sympathetic to the broader and inoffensive Peterson has about society and by making himself seem like a big friendly communist he did more than by just owning him with logic and reason in my opinion.

    • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      I swear Zizek is useless at this kind of stuff - he is, or was a good gateway to the weirder leftist theory, but when it comes to actual political philosophy and communist history he is second tier or worse

      The citations needed guys or Brace or Breht or Michael Brooks would have mopped the floor with Kermit Peterson

      Imagine young Parenti debating Peterson

      Still JP made himself look bad by not being prepared, but many teenage chuds would have been converted if there was a "JP owned by facts and logic video" of the debate

      • corporalham [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        I think there's a big difference between academic disagreement and the cultural shitfights we're more accustomed to. And I think that Zizek did want to appear approachable rather than dominating. It makes sense in the context of his larger philosophy, you don't win people over by logically trouncing them, but you can by appearing entertaining, interesting and funny and by presenting a worldview which would be more enjoyable, which he generally did. There were moments where even Peterson was a little taken by Zizek's speech. I think that is the more effective method, even if it results in fewer fireworks.

        • Ewball_Oust [comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          Yeah, I see your point, you are not wrong per se

          And I like Zizek, he was one of the first Marxists I've read back in the day

          The thing is, it wasn't even an academic disagreement. JP was completely out of his depth... Do you think JP could explain the labour theory of value competently? Do you think he has a coherent view of historical materialism? He's a charlatan

          He's a grifter, and he should have been exposed as such.

          edit: I mean there's an art to debating, sure... how to look good while also dismantling the opponent's argument. And I get that being too combative doesn't necessarily look good, but sometimes you need to push a bit more

      • CarlTheRedditor [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        JP approaches the brink of death, then catches covid, and somehow still here. Michael Brooks, visibly healthy and then suddenly gone.

        Fuck you, world.

    • kelptea [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      ah really? what a disappointment to learn. i never actually got around to watching the debate but i assumed there was some blood shed lol

      • RNAi [he/him]
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        4 years ago

        Nah, I didn't watch that nerd shit, I'm just repeating what the cool people said about it.

        • kelptea [she/her]
          ·
          4 years ago

          lmao i gotcha. someone make a zizek's epic owns compilation in case we're mistaken