[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 143 KB, 500x500, Slavoj-Zizek-57859411a44f817186f2c66c2f28ccfe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12262216 No.12262216 [Reply] [Original]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-fight.html


There Is No One to Cheer for in the Potential Battle Between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek

>> No.12262290

>With which questionable cheering section does one seat oneself—the rabid incels who declare all their naysayers unbangable hags, or the sebum-saturated grad students who call anyone who doesn’t quote The Phenomenology of Spirit on their Tinder profile a fascist? I won’t choose, I won’t, you can’t make me.
did they get Zizek mixed up with someone else? this article is peak resentment

>> No.12262303

>>12262290
that sentence hurts so much to read. media really is irredeemable and a net negative for the society.

>> No.12262307

Who literally reads these fucking publications

>> No.12262312

>>12262307
Slate? That's a relatively popular news source I think.

>> No.12262319

>>12262290
Wait who's the incel? Aren't both Peterson and Zizek married?

>> No.12262320

>>12262307
Incels looking for outrage porn.

>> No.12262324

>>12262319
He's talking about those two's respective fans (incels for Peterson and haughty grad students for Zizek I imagine).

>> No.12262328

>>12262319
Learn how to read

>> No.12262331

>>12262312
Popular for whom. Im a young person who knows lots of people. No one i know would read this shit i dont think

>> No.12262371

>>12262324
Incels hate Peterson since he disavows the blackpill and its central (and sole) commandment to Lay Down And Rot.

>> No.12262422

>>12262324
>>12262328
Look like i should kys myself.

>> No.12262503

>>12262290
>zizek
>hegel
>leftists

I have no idea how these mongoloids find work, I really don't.

>> No.12262558

>>12262290
>anyone who doesn’t quote The Phenomenology of Spirit on their Tinder profile a fascist?
wut

>> No.12262674

>>12262558
I think I remember Zizek specifically saying people who say Trump, etc. are Fascists are morons.

>> No.12262726

>>12262216
Name one problem with zizek besides being a communist (and his nose tic).

>> No.12262791

>>12262331
Nah, slate is pretty good

>> No.12262825

Nah I want Žizek to wipe the floor with Peterson. He may be a tankie and provokatour but all his ideas are concrete and based in real complex thought. Peterson’s issue (apart from post modern neo Marxism being a completely incoherent jumble that makes no sense) is his statements are all very vauge and serfice level. This is a deliberate rhetorical strategy so her can always accuse his opponents of misunderstanding or straw maning but I wonder how much actual thought process goes into it, such as the infamous lobster example. Although god help us if the conversation turns to caltialism or lgbt people

>> No.12262859

sneed

>> No.12262867

I agree because psychoanalysis is nonsense that only does harm to the general discourse.

>> No.12262891

>>12262503
how is Zizek not left-wing you pleb

>> No.12262899

the headline is true but not for the reasons expressed in the article

>> No.12262910

>>12262825
>He may be a tankie and provokatour but all his ideas are concrete and based in real complex thought.

>Lacanianism
>real complex thought

>> No.12264206

>>12262910
Lacanianism is based

>> No.12264210

>>12264206
No, it is not.

>> No.12264212
File: 941 KB, 1800x1355, C1B54DA7-6AF4-4BF9-9B79-D36B60B8D4C4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12264212

Me Chomsky saw them coming for his head next so he got on board with the neoliberal agenda in Syria.

>> No.12264232

Reading anything written for these mid-level pap rags at all but especially written by a woman is the equivalent to getting water boarded by Amy Schumer’s Diarhea.

>> No.12264998

>>12262422
kys means "kiss" in Danish. Yes, you should ;)

>> No.12265044
File: 90 KB, 1395x730, zizek_spurdo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12265044

>>12262290
This just makes Zizek seem extremely based.

>> No.12265048

>>12262290
Whoever wrote this is retarded, Hegel is widely considered a proto-fascist by the sort of person who throws the word "fascist" about that freely.

>> No.12265062

>>12262290
You lack self awareness. The Peterson and zizek fan base critiques are equivalent levels of accurate. If you only take issue with the zizek you might not have a good idea how the world sees you

>> No.12265070

>>12265062
desu I don't really think public image matters much when it comes to the quality or significance of a philosopher. Socrates and Jesus were both executed by their own states.

>> No.12265075

>>12262331
>Im a young person who knows lots of people.
lol

>> No.12265076

>>12262726
He can be contrarian for contrarianous's sake. He also can only offer critique without any sort of actionable praxis

>> No.12265081
File: 14 KB, 478x523, 1512183804583.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12265081

>>12265076
>Theory and indeed even the act of reflection are bad

>> No.12265082

>>12265062
They try to make the divide between sjws and incels, but although incels do love JP, sjws fucking hate Zizek because he shits on them all the time and is explicitly anti-tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

>> No.12265091

>>12265081
That's not what I meant. It's easy to say what's wrong and much more difficult to figure out how to fix it. You actually need to have skin in the game to accomplish that, not meta-ironical-pseudo-post modern-detachment or whatever the kids are up to nowadays

>> No.12265095
File: 355 KB, 245x160, ba.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12265095

I'm cheering because this'll be the end of Peterson

>> No.12265110

>>12265091
>You actually need to have skin in the game to accomplish that, not meta-ironical-pseudo-post modern-detachment or whatever the kids are up to nowadays
What's that supposed to mean?

>> No.12265173
File: 37 KB, 530x506, 1544418040797.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12265173

>>12265110
Just listen to one of Zizeks talks some time. He's completely fatalistic about liberation from capital. All he can offer is a pseudoaccelerationist "exacerbate the faultlines", see his support for Trump's election. But other than trying to immanetize the eschaton, he offers no way out of the conflict

>> No.12265186

>>12265173
Sorry, I'm kind of a brainlet when it come to philosophy

>> No.12265188

>>12262867
This. Oh god, both of them are delusional, why are people even defending either party? One cannot possibly agree to their ideas, unless they want to diverge from the overall consensus.

>> No.12265190

>>12265173
he's a Hegelian, the negative is always a part of the concept.

>> No.12265239

>>12265173
I bet you have some great suggestions that aren't retarded

>> No.12265252

>>12265239
dood we should support social demokratz XDDDD

>> No.12265253

>>12265252
bernie 2020?

>> No.12265350

>>12265239
Sorry to disappoint you

>> No.12265364

This article is so inaccurate lmao. im not even a fan of either
firstly, anyone who complains about "alienating jargon" is a dribbling moron

>but he has also deliberately referred to the multicredentialed Slovene as “Mr.”, which everyone with an earned doctorate knows is the intellectual’s equivalent of a glove-slap.
zizek famously hates being called anything other than mister.

of course he brings up a german word which isnt even relevant. and spends a whole paragraph on it. christ alive, what a hypocrite

>far ends of the political spectrum
Peter Jordanson isnt extreme right. its very ordinary (boring?) christian conservatism lmao

>sebum-saturated grad students who call anyone who doesn’t quote The Phenomenology of Spirit on their Tinder profile a fascist?
christ alive
the only way this could have happened is: his publisher showed him the tweet and said "youre political, right a piece on this" and he googled zizek and it said marx (so assumed he was sjw idol) and then he googled marx and it said hegel. he followed the link and saw phenomenology

>>12262910
whether you agree with lacan or not, it is complex thought

>>12265173
ive heard him talk about this misinterpretation of what he said

>> No.12265373

>>12265173
That's a trivial interpretation, since he is the first one to admit that, at least in his opinion, our time is not the time for revolution. His accelerationist drive is contingent to his thought, since he clearly thinks that no action available to us at the moment is sufficient for a systemic change. He even turn on its head Marx' famous thesis on Feuerbach by saying "The philosophers have only tried to change the world, in various ways; the point is to re-interpet it".
Basically, he's not really an accelerationist, instead (at least in this regard) he is closer to Adorno and Heidegger

>> No.12265381

>>12265253
Yellow vests 2020

>> No.12265622

>>12262422
Yes, you should 'Keep Yourself Safe.'

>> No.12265643

>>12262216
Wtf, this is just horseshoe theory for anti-intellectuals.

>> No.12266285

>>12265070
Yeah but you’re missing the point. I said nothing about the quality of either ‘thinker’.
>>12265082
It depends on what you consider an SJW. I would say Zizek’s adherents are the “white left” (to borrow the Chinese phrase). These would be proponents of trans-, gay-, minority- rights, etc. would be hip to buzzwords like “equity” as opposed to “equality” and in general are as insufferable as the fans on the other side. There’s no reason to link a Zizek vid just as there’s no reason to link a Peterson vid. This is about the perception of their adherents/fans. Zizek admirers don’t seem to realize how they are viewed.

>> No.12266323

>>12266285
Zizek is known for being anti-idpol? Why would his fans be viewed differently?

>> No.12266395

>>12266323
Peterson is anti-incel yet who are his fans? There is a great deal of overlap between supporters of identity politics and commies/socialists. People who play that angle on the left are almost exclusively socialists. Bernouts, O’rouke dorks...you know the kind. Very liable to say “I don’t agree with everything he says but...” Zizeks fans are less zealous that Peterson’s; they do not hang on his every word so they need not agree with everything he says. Most of his fans don’t even read him, they watch him. They enjoy his energy and gobble up anything they can use. “You know I recently heard Zizek say that it was not...”

>> No.12266414

>>12266395
This is right

>> No.12266481

>>12266395
>Peterson is anti-incel
why would he have ever brought up enforced monogamy if he was anti-incel

>> No.12266520

>Zizek dares to say that leftists need to be realistic about the inherent tension between multiculturalism-in-practice and working class solidarity or else far right populists will sweep every election in Europe for the foreseeable future

>Gets tarred with the same brush as a literal reactionary

>> No.12266522

>>12266395
>Peterson fan are incels

I mean can anybody actually prove this? The guy's philosophy doesn't look anything I've read on /r9k/ or on the woman bashing thread of /v/. I even read my twisted world, and I still see no connection.

>>12266481
Because enforced monogamy is an actual term that descripe a certain phenomena that has nothing to do with forcing women to wed incels? The journalist who interviewed him could have asked what he meant by that or search the term herself but she had to go and makes an ass out of herself.

>> No.12266531

>>12266481
He sees the existence of incels as a problem. Incels exist in a contradiction of simultaneously hating women and yet being ruled by the possibility/impossibility of their acceptance. Enforced monogamy (which Peterson doesn’t actually advocate btw; notice this is one of those moments where he falls back on his typical “it [the prevalent sexual permiscuity in our culture] is more complicated than we know.” His enforced monogamy is provocative spitballing which he would never double down on) does not solve the predicament of the incel as the incel sees it. It solves the problem of ‘chad’ and the ‘cockcarousel’ but not the problem that incels believe are inherent to a woman’s nature. An incel is likely to believe that even under forced monogamy it is unlikely a woman could ever love him for him. That may not bother him or concern him he moment he gets a girl in his life but as an incel he is so deeply filled with resentment that he likely won’t believe Peterson is hitting on a solution, except if he interprets it as a ‘women as property’ sentiment which is clearly not what it is. Peterson would never push this idea btw, it is among the things that will hurt his income so it is off limits.

>> No.12266533

>>12266522
he said it in response to a question about incels

>> No.12266542

>>12266533
So?

>>12266531
Again enforced monogomy doesn't mean "forcing women to marry incels".

https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

>> No.12266544

>>12266522
His fans are the incels-lite who believed they dug themselves out of the shit with his selfhelp advice. To the mainstream anyone who engages with this “intellectual dark web” (cringe term but I am using it because they use it), that is Rogans frequent “intellectual giants” guests among others, can be called incels.

>> No.12266561

>>12262726
>one problem with zizek besides being a communist
Why would I need another reason? He's a revolutionary marxist. That is pretty high up on the list of the worst kind of people.

>> No.12266573

>>12266542
No where in my post did I mention the state enforcing monogamy. For the sake of this conversation this distinction doesn’t matter, mostly because Peterson, although making it clear that it is socially enforced and not a legal concern, does not state how it ought to be socially enforced. In both cases it is an attempt to deter “male violence” so even if it is not a strict assignment of a woman to an incel the end result is quelling male (incel) violence by having them end up with a woman through social pressure/reward. From the incel perspective this only solves half the problem, my point still stands. Recall I stated it is an anti-incel position; Peterson is not a proponent of incels and the more hardcore incels wont be drawn to this solution. This extended post of his does highlight a clear issue of Peterson’s which is the inability to state anything beyond what will keep his revenue secure. I would like to hear which social norms/practices might be adopted to effectively usher in “enforced monogamy”. No doubt the leftists will see it as bad and as fascist as if the state were enforcing it and the right will find fault because the right has longed for a deeper connection between people that supersedes the biological (incels most deeply want a woman to transcend, he they believe are her biological affinities, in order to love them). For Peterson the ‘biological’ does not present a problem because he does not see a woman’s biological disposition in the same way his incel fans may.

>> No.12266603

>>12266573

We already live in a society with enforced monogamy although you could make a point that the enforcing is weaker than before. A simple solution is to make cheating seen as evil or to only legalize wedding to a single person.


>This extended post of his does highlight a clear issue of Peterson’s which is the inability to state anything beyond what will keep his revenue secure

What? What would you have liked him to say? He already stated that women are hypergame (aim for higher statut men than themselves), more prone to worrying and thus breaking up a relationship or that the current legal system is biased toward women. Now that I think about it I'm surprised no one tried to trap him with that.

>because the right has longed for a deeper connection

Now you're just giving vague political movement your own idea.

>> No.12266671

>>12266603
If we lived in a society with enforced monogamy his point would have been moot, a nonsolution. We have those two things you mentioned but that is clearly not what he had in mind. The two things you mentioned are not solutions to the problem of male (incel) violence. Our society at large sees cheating as evil but not because it is not monogamous but because it is deceitful. If one defines the terms of their relationship as “open” then having multiple partners is not interpreted as an issue. This does nothing to solve the incel violence problem. Legalize wedding to a single person only also has very little to do with the issues at hand. I doubt I need to go into why.

None of those points you made (hypergamy, legal system, etc.) are at odds with the sentiments of those who pay him. Personally, I would like him to take a stance on the following: does he believe in a literal Christ/God, to clarify some of the issues that arise out of his theory of ‘truth’ as that which leads to continued existence, what are his solutions to sexual promiscuity and it’s damages, why he wanted Kavanaugh to step down if he were to be confirmed. Maybe a few other things. You can probably tell I am at odds with his metaphysics. I may be wrong but you seem like a fan. The guy strikes me as riding the outrage wave for profit. Didn’t it take him many years to write maps of meaning and then he very quickly wrote his ten rules when he got media attention? This is just an aside about his character.

Incels aren’t vague or a political movement and they are who I refer to when I speak of “right.” They’re not a mobilized political force but a philosophical demeanor. Incels and the alt-right are becoming bedfellows, yes, near synonymous to the outsiders looking in. It is fairly clear that incels lament biological motivations either because (1) they see themselves failing at the biological game (see sluthate and aesthetic obsessed incels) or (2) they long for something they interpret as ‘at odds’ with the biological game. I.e. they want a ‘real connection’ with a woman yet cannot reconcile that with what they have concluded a woman’s biology is. They will not be taken with evo-psych solutions.

>> No.12266721

>>12266671
>We have those two things you mentioned but that is clearly not what he had in mind.
Peterson literally said several times that this is what he meant. I don't know why you two are arguing over this.

>> No.12266735

>>12262726
He is married to a cutie and I'm not

>> No.12266749

I don’t get the outrage
We already have forced monogamy laws, they’re called adultery laws.

>> No.12266761

>>12266671
>If we lived in a society with enforced monogamy his point would have been moot,

We do, it's just that most solutions aren't alwats 100% effective. Enforced monogamy gives a better chance for every men but it doesn't mean some of them aren't going to fail and become angry about it.

>Our society at large sees cheating as evil but not because it is not monogamous but because it is deceitful.

It still enforce monogamy you retard.

>If one defines the terms of their relationship as “open” then having multiple partners is not interpreted as an issue
So what? People like de Sade have always existed. It doesn't mean that the rest of the society prefer "closed" relationship.

>Legalize wedding to a single person only also has very little to do with the issues at hand

Yes it does, it stop the most succesful men from hoarding all the women to themselves, which mean that lower statut men have better chance to find a mate, which disminish the number of incels.


>None of those points you made (hypergamy, legal system, etc.) are at odds with the sentiments of those who pay him

Then who pay him? A weird mix between incels and normies? Normcel?

>Incels aren’t vague or a political movement and they are who I refer to when I speak of “right.”

Then don't use the name of a political movement when speaking about incels.

>It is fairly clear that incels lament biological motivations either because (1) they see themselves failing at the biological game (see sluthate and aesthetic obsessed incels) or (2) they long for something they interpret as ‘at odds’ with the biological game. I.e. they want a ‘real connection’ with a woman yet cannot reconcile that with what they have concluded a woman’s biology is. They will not be taken with evo-psych solutions.

For 1) Peterson solution is for them to get better at the game. For 2) I don't know if he said something about that I'll have to look it up.

Responding to your paragraph about his character would takes too much time, I need to go now. I'll answer later if the thread is still up.

>> No.12266876

>>12264998
Og klap dig selv på skulderen :^)

>> No.12267219

>>12266395
Isn't O’rouke is a liberal ??? I thought lefties hated him

>> No.12267246

>>12266395
Making a lot of generalization with no proof desu

>> No.12267257

>>12262290
based

>> No.12267269

>zizek
why is that hot dog eater even famous

>> No.12267334

>>12266395
>There is a great deal of overlap between supporters of identity politics and commies/socialists.
okay, but why would zizek's fanbase lie in that overlap when he's so blatantly anti-idpol and anti-multiculturalism? idpol people regularly write hit pieces accusing zizek of being a secret fascist, get mad as shit when he talks about trump or refugees and, according to zizek, have finally succeeded in making him persona non grata in most universities and publications. try to mention zizek now to that kind of idpol+socialism pro-bernie chapo trap house crowd and you'll just get dirty looks and an uncomfortable silence.

i think you're just trying way to hard to fit everything you see into this culture war dichotomy when zizek is precisely the kind of weirdo to cause unease on both sides by not really fitting into either.

>> No.12267377

>>12267334
Chapo is a bit id pol but never politically correct

>> No.12267407

>>12267377
They are very PC, dude. They treat blacks as poor dindu teddybears, for example.

>> No.12267410

>>12267269
he became an celebrity primarily because of his ability to explain notoriously obscure thinkers like lacan using approachable and entertaining movie analogies, and then his eccentric persona launched him into internet meme status. this is funny because a. zizek is a traditional kind of academic that just wants to write giant bricks about hegel and doesn't care about the internet and b. the people who meme him online mostly don't read him and don't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. a and b combined make the entire phenomenon an amazing comedic misunderstanding.

>> No.12267429

>>12267377
chapo are certainly way too idpol to like zizek. they attempted to get into an fight with him once over an article he wrote about transgenderism, but he refused to talk to them on the grounds that a nuanced conversation with them is impossible because they only know how to speak in tweets.

>> No.12267436

>>12267429
that sounds like a cop out from a person that is scared of losing a debate.

>> No.12267494

>>12267436
the point was that there was no debate. the chapo approach was the usual obscurantist tactic of internet slapfights where instead of responding to someone's entire line of argument you divide it into individual lines and write a snappy complaint about each line out of context, fragmenting the conversation into a collection of unrelated nitpicks. that's not a debate, that's a cinemasins episode, and zizek was right not to engage with that shit.

>> No.12267909

>>12267429
Based Zizek

>> No.12267918

>>12266749
Do you live in Iran or something? The west doesn't have that.

>> No.12267998

>>12266721
>>12266749
The two examples do not stop “a small minority of men from getting all of the women”. Peterson clarified that this is what he meant. Both of those examples are part of our social norms yet do not solve the issue of incel violence. Cheating as evil is not a solution because people are very likely to engage in behaviors that are not monogamous and not cheating (incels still lose) and marriage to a single person is not a solution because that is the current norm and people are less likely to get married/remain married (incels definitely lose). The social norms that enforce monogamy will have to look very different from these two ‘solutions’ if you want to fix the incel problem. I would be interested to hear which solutions Peterson would think might work best when it comes to specific social norms.

>>12266761
Your point about de Sade is indicating to me that you have very little clue about this particular issue (that is, incel violence). Incels would not agree that the rest of society prefer closed relationships. The hypergamous nature of women make it so that they prefer to ride ‘cockcarousel’ (small minority of men) until the age of about thirty and only then settle down into a monogamous relationship with a provider. This has nothing to do with de Sade or erratic libertine behaviors; it’s the Western clubbing, bar, dating app scene. You may not agree with this being the case but we’re talking about the question of incel violence and this is what they believe, which causes their resentment, which leads to their violence. The question is how do you solve it and the only answer you and Peterson seem to be giving is an enforced monogamy that is already the case in the society. I am becoming somewhat confused as to what you’re trying to say. You’re saving face for Peterson in that he did not mean anything more extreme than “cheating...bad” and “marriage...good” but at the same time are making him look pretty dumb because neither of those actually solve the problem he was addressing.

The people who pay him are the ones who were not so deep into their resentment that they could not be reached by his self help advice. A lot of currently or previously unemployed, uneducated, antisocial men who were not very successful at “the game” but who were not yet resigned to the despair of your r9k incel. Many were technically incels who were focusing their energy on anti-SJW anti-gamer hate things rather than MGTOW or incel things. That’s how it appears to me anyway.

If you think “right” is the name of a political movement then idk what to tell you.

>> No.12268058
File: 52 KB, 500x459, zizek blanket fort.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12268058

>>12262216
That's false, we're all cheering for our boy Zizek

>> No.12268066

>>12268058
I know what I would choose in that picture.

>> No.12268091

okay I actually read that shitty article and immediately regret it. It all boils down to the entire "i'm a super smart center leftist (so smart that i'm smarter than egghead academic language games!) and everyone else is a hysterical dumdum" and this khazaress has completely missed the mark on the followers of both of these people. It confirms my strongly held belief that journalism is where the weakest and dumbest people in a given field of study congregate after washing out of doing something useful in their lives, or worse, having never even tried.

>> No.12268097

>>12268091
is this pasta?

>> No.12268102

>>12267334
Zizek is not causing unease on both sides; to believe this is a need to feel ‘outside the box’ or somewhat ‘revolutionary’. Speakers who cause unease don’t often get to speak at American colleges anymore. Listen to Zizek at Pamona in 2017 and his anecdote about the Native American who prefers to be called “Indian” and you will see why he has the fans that he has. On the surface it seems like an anti idpolitics stance (do not hyphenate identity, Native-American) but it ends with the punchline (“white man’s stupidity”). He goes from there to say white guilt, white self torture, is a pleasure and is itself racist (though he also states white men are to blame for most problems). Doesn’t sound like a secret fascist (as the term is used by the left) to me, sounds very much within the milieu of leftist talking points at uni and social justice narrative. Now I will add this caveat, where Zizek and Peterson differ is that people go to Zizek’s talks to hear HIS interpretation which is a creative act. It has a certain element of surprise to it because part of his schtick includes undermining expectation (in this example beginning with “call me Indian” undermines expectation, it turns the point on its head with a seemingly racist or antipc position). How he gets from there to his point is a creative endeavor. Peterson’s fans are there to see him discuss the scientific literature and to explain evopsych talking points. Peterson avoids his own interpretations, when interviewers tend to ask him what he feels should be done you will often hear him simply claim ‘I don’t know precisely’ or ‘it’s a complicated issue’. I would have to agree that Zizek’s final point in the example I’m talking about is that white PC liberals are the problem (not a very interesting point, he seems to be a product of the 90s slogan ‘im colorblind’) but if you are an SJW inclined or idpolitics inclined listener you have been given the ‘blame whites’ reinforcement you needed and if you are a white idpol listener you have been given an additional hole to go down which is questioning your own motivations and creating guilt about your guilt (which, if Zizek is right about this being a pleasurable thing for this type, will be an additional layer of pleasure).

>> No.12268107

>>12262290
why are liberals such brainlets, bros?

>> No.12268118

>>12262422
You aren't allowed to die until you have cleaned your room

>> No.12268138

>>12262216
imagine being this afraid of making a political commitment. kill all journalists.

>> No.12268691

>>12268102
at this point you're simply imagining that zizek "shouldn't" be offensive to the idpol/sjw crowd while ignoring the obvious evidence that he is.

>Furthermore, a year or so ago, when I questioned Political Correctness and some aspects of LGBT+ movement (and some other things problematic for today’s “radical Left,” like the predominant stance towards refugees), I was not only submitted to a long series of extremely brutal attacks, but I was also gradually excluded from the public media (...) The days when I was able to publish comments in The Guardian and occasionally even in New York Times are long gone, and even In These Times now refuses to publish me. The comic aspect of all this is that I am often attacked for the same text from one side for my alleged Eurocentric racism and from the opposite side for my alleged hatred of the Western tradition.
>http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3nMKN3akt8
>https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
>https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/09/zize-n09.html

plus even in the op the sjw-as-hell slate magazine dismisses zizek with the standard horseshoe argument, i already mentioned that chapo trap house (which is the bible of the exact sort of twitter-savvy bernie bro you are talking about) attacked zizek on idpol and immigration and every other mention of zizek on lefty twitter calls him a cryptofascist. yeah, he used to be pretty popular with these people a few years ago but you seem to have completely missed the fact that he rapidly became persona non grata after 2016.

>> No.12268708

>>12262216
they're both completely irrelevant

>> No.12268829

>>12264206

cringe

>> No.12268891

>>12265173
>immantize the eschaton
I bet he's in the illuminati

>> No.12268947

>>12265173
>he offers no way out of the conflict
not that this is a "way out" in any immediate sense, but when zizek talks about his weird atheist-marxist reading of christianity, where the kingdom of heaven is not a promise but a challenge, i kinda feel like there's something to it. "i bring not peace, but a sword" and so on. basically what i'm saying is bring on the christian-marxist revolution

>> No.12268973
File: 305 KB, 839x1199, llip neerg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12268973

>>12262216
Alright, I'll take the opposite view. Both Peterson and Zizek can benefit from discussing their ideas with each other. Witnessing the discussion would also be beneficial to the viewer.

>> No.12269056

>>12268973
i don't really think there's much of a common ground there for a real conversation to happen what with one being a freudian/lacanian and the other a jungian, as well as one being an orthodox marxist that opposes postmodernism and liberalism and the other having made a career out of intentionally confusing marxism with postmodernism and liberalism.

>> No.12269087

>>12269056
they are the two most famous psychoanalysist today, I don't get this take of "no common ground". imagine if someone said two philosophers couldn't debate because one studied Hegel and the other studied Kant, it would be ludicrous

>> No.12269388

>>12269087
they're not "psychoanalysts". peterson is a self-help guru with a psychology degree, zizek is a philosopher that has a second doctorate in psychoanalysis but his interest in it is doing weird lacanian readings of marx and hegel by way of gk chesterton and batman or whatever. if peterson asked "how can we help the lost young men" zizek would be like "i don't care, philosophy is not about helping". if zizek asked "how can we open up a space within liberal-capitalist ideology for a new marxist project" peterson would be like "marxism is bad because it's part of a postmodern conspiracy that hurts our young men" or whatever. there's no conversation there. they're not even using words the same way so if someone said "ideology" peterson would just understand it in the everyday sense whereas for zizek it's a specific marxist thing derived from althusser. again, there's no conversation there. you can already see from their previous interactions that it's a waste of time (or rather, zizek's interaction with peterson and peterson's interaction with a zizek-quoting twitter bot he thought was zizek, which already tells you how fit to talk to zizek peterson is when he confused random quotes for a conversation).

>> No.12269757

>>12268691
Maybe I am out of touch with his fanbase post 2016 but the video you showed doesn’t do him any justice.

>I am not saying the fears about the refugees are true, quite the opposite
You’re citing publications, Im talking about his fans. If they’re not idpol people then who is listening to him? You seem to think I am saying the idpol establishment sanctions him but all I’m saying is his fanbase holds idpol vinews, even if those aren’t their primary concern. The casual idpol of a colleague who calls you out on some asinine shit.

>> No.12269795

>>12267219
I think you need to step outside of your sooper-immortal-dialectical-science leftcom internet circlejerk in order to perceive the behavior of the average college leftist.

>> No.12269840

>>12267334
I understand that you want to see yourself as a dashing rogue who has transcended the petty squabbles of a political duality, but Zizek's following can be neatly categorized into one or two demographics, the largest of which is almost certainly the chapo/berniebro/shitlib continuum.

>> No.12269868

It's already been done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY

>> No.12269964

>>12269757
and i'm saying that it's precisely that casual idpol colleague that was vaguely into zizek five years ago (when he saw that music video about cutting off the balls) that now hates zizek after seeing a bunch of clickbait headlines about zizek "endorsing" trump or "insulting" the transgendered. it's that part of his audience that has melted away, leaving zizek with a much smaller and more eclectic fanbase that does not conform to your culture war stereotypes.

>> No.12270078

>>12269840
>I understand that you want to see yourself as a dashing rogue who has transcended the petty squabbles of a political duality
you know very well this is a bullshit mischaracterization because zizek's whole deal is not about being "above" anything but being a dirty weirdo that gets into these uncomfortable perspectives. you tell me which demographic it's supposed to appeal to when a communist is telling you that christ demands you love the immigrants precisely because the immigrants are vile.

>> No.12270119

>>12266285
>I said nothing about the quality of either ‘thinker’.
So you have absolutely nothing to say about the substance of their respective political positions and only want to comment on how the general public views them? Do you seriously expect to be taken seriously?

>> No.12270265

>>12269964
And are you part of that elite eclectic base?

>> No.12270292

>>12270078
My dude do you really buy the persona these types present? Zizek has a contrarian vein that runs similar to anons on here. All his ticks are legit too right?

>> No.12270320
File: 15 KB, 220x284, 220px-William_Blake_by_Thomas_Phillips.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12270320

>>12268947
Yeah it feels like very little except outside intervention can help us get out of this pickle at this point

>> No.12270339

>>12269388
>but his interest in it is doing weird lacanian readings of marx and hegel by way of gk chesterton and batman or whatever
Sorry, but I'm going to listen to the guy with 2 PhD's in Lacanian readings of Hegelian Chestertonianism rather than the idiot on /lit/ who refuses to use capital letters or clearly express himself.

>> No.12270353

Two pseuds who are going to miss the point at each other.
Literally who gives a shit.

>> No.12270384

>>12270339
>muh punctuation

reddit

>> No.12270398
File: 190 KB, 960x960, abisad2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12270398

Pewdipie plays the
>but I'm not actually a right-winger
and he's sympathetic.
But in reality, anyone who know /pol/ rhetoric and memes knows that he's clearly familiar with all those memes and talking points too. How does he actually sort of getting away with it - why does he have so many fans on the left despite his conceiled internal philsophy?

>> No.12270414

>>12270384
You are actively contributing to the decline of Western civilization, fuckboi

>> No.12270797
File: 23 KB, 300x300, character_themuppets_kermit_09279e8e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12270797

>>12268118
Peterson says you should wash my penis with your mouth.

>> No.12270868

>>12270078
Being "above" something and being a contrarian aren't really different.

>> No.12270872

conceptual schemers will be triggered by this

>> No.12270900

a soap nox for both fags to stand on so that thry remain relevant masquerading as a debate.

what the fuck will they debate.
they just gonna be like
"thats nice, now let me tell you about MY philosophy"
fill in the gaps with pedantic truisms, anecdotes and neologisms.

>> No.12270909

>>12270398
What are you actually talking about

>> No.12271170

>>12269795
Yeah. The average college leftist isn't a liberal. You're just pulling the "all my enemies are on the same side" meme which lots of commies do by merging lib(ertarian)tards and nazis.

Talk to one leftist (not ImWithHer liberal, but actual socialist) and they fucking hate those centrist dems

>> No.12271302

>>12271170
College socialists in the US will bend over backwards to spite what they perceive as Republican hegemony. Just look at your average DSA faggot. Again, most socialists are not hardline orthodox Marxists, and even there you will have some lip service being paid.

>> No.12271409

>>12271302
>People who play that angle on the left are almost exclusively socialists. Bernouts, O’rouke dorks...you know the kind
You(?) didn't say that a dsa "socialist" (dsa isn't socialist) would vote for rouke as damage control.

You said rouke was a socialist which is just retarded

>> No.12271437

>>12262825
you tried and have revealed yourself to be an idiot
also
>serfice

>> No.12271604

>>12271302
This is true
I mean I generally consider myself a Soc.Dem but I abhor marxists

>> No.12271624
File: 62 KB, 953x730, 1518046443850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12271624

>>12271604
>consider myself a Soc.Dem but I abhor marxists

>> No.12271688

>>12262859
absolutely based and redpilled

>> No.12271719

>>12262726
those are the only things we like about him

>> No.12272505 [DELETED] 

>>12271409
>You(?) didn't say that a dsa "socialist" (dsa isn't socialist) would vote for rouke as damage control
Where didn't I? I thought I was pretty clear.

>> No.12272544

>>12271409
>You(?) didn't say that a dsa "socialist" (dsa isn't socialist) would vote for rouke as damage control
Where didn't I? I thought I was pretty clear. Also, don't play the no true Scotsman game with me. Marxists don't have a monopoly on the title of "socialist." The DSA can be adequately described as a leftist movement. There are also plenty of college Marxists who share the same behavior that I described before, and there are plenty in each group who do what this anon >>12266395
was alluding to with respect to Zizek.

>> No.12272573

>>12270339
i don't know how you're going to manage to "listen" to zizek if you're so bad at reading as to think that was an anti-zizek post

>> No.12272577

>>12270868
and he's neither

>> No.12272590
File: 312 KB, 720x1280, Screenshot_20181223-024836_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12272590

I hate this fucking place.

>> No.12272595

>>12271624
Keep the system stable by introducing programs to boost those at zero, but do it democratically in a reasonably free market and support those who are naturally productive.
I don’t need marx

>> No.12272604

>>12272595
but the top will still have the means to increase the difference between them and the bottom, for example reducing pay since the state is taking care of some of that, and that pushes them bellow a taxable point reducing the total income and you can no longer give that boost.
you should really read some basic economy books if the capital is too advanced for you, no shame in that, you're not supposed to be born understanding social engineering.

>> No.12272613

>>12265095
nah it'll be good PR for both, their demographics don't overlap, and the media will suck it up, seeing as they're publishing articles on it even now before anything has happened

i actually think they'd get along

>> No.12272623

>>12262867
>psychoanalysis is nonsense
why? curious

I can see how one would disagree with a lot of the specific ideas that have sprung up, but I like the general concept, jung's stuff on archetypes is great, and even freud is interesting to read if you don't take all his far out stuff too serious (which he himself never did anyways)

>> No.12272658

>>12272623
you got those two confused
Jung is fun but pointless, Freud compiled a ton of "general knowledge" and created a system for other people to make it a real science.

>> No.12272664

>>12262290
This is pretty funny.

>> No.12272725

>>12272595
thinking you can fix capitalism through tax rate/modest distribution is peak utopian thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfde5s_03WM

>> No.12272734

ZIZEK FEARS PETERSON

>> No.12272808
File: 52 KB, 900x900, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12272808

>>12270292
>All his ticks are legit too right?
it's called tourettes, anon

>> No.12272892

How its going to go down:

Kermit:

But you see this represents chaos or uhm primordial male principle, it just doesn't work uhm, neo-marxist post-modernists uhm lobsters

Sniffman:

But isn't the opposite true, that so on and so one sniff like that old joke with milk without coffee sniff pure ideology sniff

Nobody wins

>> No.12273002

>>12265082
>you can call me nigger

>> No.12273303

>>12272725
>>12272604
I don’t at all believe I have the capability of “fixing” such a complex system, but a consequence of production is that some are have-nots, and maybe something can be done to alleviate the suffering involved. Not to mention the instability of the system, created by inequality, which if left unchecked ends with us all starving

>> No.12275065

The author of that article communicated no rationale or basis for her conclusion that Zizek + Peterson = bad.

It's pure preaching to the choir, no interesting ideas or insights are advanced in the article. It's simply self-righteousness posturing against blacklisted academics.

I haven't read this thread and I'm sure there are many posters pointing out that she's a sterotypical bloviating Jewess unaware of why she instinctively opposes things, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that this is not how you convince people to see your way of thinking.

Both far right and far left are excruciatingly close minded and both are contributing to a hostile process that will lead only to destruction.

This impoverished ideological level MUST be transcended if humanity is to progress, and if the West is to escape it's weakened and disorganized cultural rut.

>> No.12275085
File: 20 KB, 306x306, 1505975190511.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12275085

>>12275065
>ideological level MUST be transcended
>Jewess

>> No.12275112

>a thread about an article about a tweet

>> No.12275337

>>12275085
Anti-semitism isn't my taste. If you removed the contribution of Jews to intellectual history the world would be worse off because of it. Not all Jews!

>> No.12275846

>>12275112
Based?

>> No.12275894

>>12275846
>a post about a post about a thread about an article about a tweet

>> No.12276460

>>12262216
this is like a new low for slate

>> No.12276470

>>12262216
>Slate
STOP! Zizek and Peterson are both hacks who should hang themselves.

>> No.12276472

>>12262216
Zizek is a serious philosopher and this debate only fuels the centrist delusion that he is somehow comparable to Peterson. Peak fucking low for humanity, the author of this piece should be shot for being this embarrassing.

>> No.12276474

>>12262290
wtf I love Peterson and Zizek now

>> No.12276493

>>12269388
It would still be a wake-up call for people who still cling to Peterson but I'm not sure anyone wants to associate with people this annoying.

>> No.12276496

>>12267429
holy fucking based

>> No.12276553
File: 106 KB, 612x491, c7c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12276553

>>12262216
Does anybody else find Zizek hard to follow and almost incoherent? I never really understand what point he's trying to make when I listen to him. I don't like Peterson at all but at least he presents his ideas in a way that's easy to understand.

>> No.12276851

>>12262825

>and i thought about this a lot...

>> No.12276867

>>12276553

zizek methodicaly repeats his points over and over its impossible not to understand

>> No.12277946

>>12276867
explain

>> No.12277959

>>12262331
No one I know eats at Applebees. How do they stay in business?

>> No.12277964

>>12277959
it's a cover up for skippy pedesta

>> No.12277965

>>12262290
Kill all journalists

>> No.12277973

>>12276553
No, he's very clear with what he says. Plus he says the exact same stories at each lecture.

>> No.12277985

Did anyone watch the Jordan P, Sam Harris debate?

The comment section kept repeating that it's not a debate just a discussion. That's how you know it was bad. I thought Jordan was going to cry.

I don't care for Zizek, but Jordan really isn't cut out for debates. He's more a self help kind of guy. And self help guys are notorious for bullshit. Obviously JP is highly intelligent but he's really just a great psychologist.

>> No.12277990

debates are for plebs and boomers anyway.

>> No.12279777

>>12266735
>>12262216
he's likely more handsome than you and definitely more so than JBP frog man

>> No.12279787

>>12262290
>With which questionable cheering section does one seat oneself
Is this not american politics in a nutshell? The need to "cheer" for one of the two teams (always two), like democracy and everything it entails is nothing but a zero-sum game between two sports teams.

I remember reading an anecdote about Chomsky being asked which team he cheers for during some sort of lecture, refering to the jihadists and the US military as the two teams of the conflict. Not that I care too much for the man himself.

>> No.12279794

>>12266561
>He's a revolutionary marxist. That is pretty high up on the list of the worst kind of people.
Are there good marxists? Besides the Nazis.

>> No.12279799

>>12262216
There Is No One To Cheer For in the Potential Battle Between Two Guys Who Have Views Other Than Those Of Slate Magazine

>> No.12280339

>>12262216
A christcuck vs a pinko, how enthralling.

>> No.12280343

>>12262216
but it's the opposite, there's no way to lose

>> No.12280348

>>12280339
Zizek is more of a Christian than Peterson

>> No.12280461

>>12280348
Protestant you mean (aka proto-Commies)

>> No.12280487

>>12262216
How the fuck does this stupid bitch think that Peterson is a far-right extremist?