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.
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
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.
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