also how he spent his entire opening argument talking about how he couldn't understand it
jesus christ lmao
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*
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.
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
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
JP approaches the brink of death, then catches covid, and somehow still here. Michael Brooks, visibly healthy and then suddenly gone.
Fuck you, world.
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
Nah, I didn't watch that nerd shit, I'm just repeating what the cool people said about it.
lmao i gotcha. someone make a zizek's epic owns compilation in case we're mistaken
And people were harsh on Zizek for not being more aggressive in the debate. Shit, Zizek is perfect for a Peterson crowd. A funny old eccentric communist who is also an intellectual heavyweight is who you want to send out there against Mr. Serious Peterson. Zizek was nice and Peterson still went into a coma lmao.
It really felt like he was peaking right around there and definitely went hardcore off the rails immediately after.
I'm pretty sure it was the debate that made it obvious he was already a benzos addict.
yeah, he was shaking and losing focus throughout his opening statement. even kinda felt bad for him tbh
this is unfair, he was fighting off the profound destruction wrought upon his body by apple cider
Wow, and I thought the "I wanted to kick the shit out of a 5 year old" passage from that book was bad
Imagine not understanding a propaganda piece written for workers and peasants in the 1800s lmao
Alright so I've listened to this once and it's hard to fucking understand everyone. Also the audience is really annoying.
What I got out of it was that Peterson hyper focused on semantics of the communist manifesto and made no actual attempt at discussing happiness in relation to a capitalist or communist government.
Peterson did not address the litany of points that zizek made regarding how capitalism by its nature does not nurture happiness as an individual is reduced to their labor. They both agree in that happiness is spontaneous and relative to the individual.
They agree that money cannot buy happiness and zizek puts forth that the economic systems of socialist nations result in greater happiness by virtue of the fact that people are not wholly commodified by their labor output.
In the end the debate is a wonderful framing of the benefits of leaving capitalism behind.
I had it on in the background while I ran and made the time pass quickly but my brain hurt trying to understand the wettest mouth on the planet, zizek.
If I'm wrong please help me
I was shocked when I first heard Peterson's voice. Like, holy shit, it's exactly Kermit the frog.
is he still alive? last thing I heard, he was in a medically induced coma in Serbia due to covid or because he couldn't handle the drug withdrawal symptoms.
I bravely ventured into /r/JordanPeterson to see if they had any updates and I have returned with this galaxy-brain take:
i had my suspicions immediately about him going to Russia ... now he's been there so long I go back to my earlier reasoning: he was potentially under some kind of threat. It sounds very conspiracy-theory-ish but I dont think it's so unreasonable to think that the most powerful voice against the tidal wave of progressive bullshit could be enough of a problem to warrant intrigue.
if you were the radical left wing and you wanted your continuous race-baiting, gender-baiting, idpol bullshit to keep dividing people in the west, your highest priority would be to discredit Jordan Peterson. An addiction to a drug is a good method... who knows whether the dr that prescribed him benzos was not acting under someone's influence?
the thing i dont understand is how someone as experienced as JP would allow himself to get addicted in the first place.
I am sure most of you dislike Sam Harris, but the first podcast episode with Jordan Peterson is just so funny.
Here straight to the good part: https://youtu.be/2lO6WJ9rfs4?t=6805JFK I remember that episode. I was still listening to Harris at the time even though I'd realized he is an asshole.
That shit was such a clusterfuck. The only thing I knew about Peterson at the time was pronoun thing, and that my lib coworker had sent me his incoherent TED Talk because she thought it was interesting and I watched it like 4 times trying to find something generous to say about it besides that it was unintelligible dogshit.
And then I listened to the podcast and they couldn't talk about anything because Peterson had this ridiculous definition of truth and they couldn't agree on what truth was for 2 hours lol. It was then that I was confident I had Peterson figured out as a fraud.
The concept Peterson describes is not entirely uninteresting (it is useful in understanding some psychological processes) but it makes no sense at all to define that as truth.
It is more like strategic belief, i.e. what to believe to obtain the best outcomes, something that our brains naturally try to do in various cognitive biases or defense mechanisms.
