/lit/ - Literature

>>12976962
I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

>Who can even say what the fuck Zizek advocates?
You could always read his wikipedia page to get an idea of who he is, you could also watch the debate.

> He's a self-promoter with nothing to offer, at least Peterson has interesting insights into behavior and biology.
You have them mixed up. If there is anything novel that Peterson has brought to the table it would be his almost post-modern interpretations of bible/Disney stories into mythologies and tying those into useful tales one can reenact. Still though, this sort of thing has been done before (Jung and his whole school.) There is an academic journal dedicated to discussing Zizek's work.

>It's seem strange to me to target a figure in order to target their fans.
You are entirely correct in this. However please do not (yet I know previous posters have) attribute all critiques of Peterson or Zizek as critiques of their fans/following. One can appreciate the way Peterson hammers out useful ways to improve one's life: clean room, fight metaphorical dragons, take responsibility, while finding his politics to be silly and counterproductive. In the same way uppity, smug liberals helped push the average American to the right with identity politics, Peterson, Shapiro, etc, ate helping to radicalize the left (this is how I view it at least) by using bloated terms against anyone left of center. The capitalist social media mongers? Post-modern neo-marxists! Snowflakes! If you would kindly recall Trump's address of the union (I believe it was that speech,) he addressed every democrat as radical leftists. You want a radical left? That's how you get it.