/Peterson vs. Zizek/ OFFICIAL thread 7

zizek won easily .

post your reasoning

Both of these shills are talking about absolutely nothing of practical value or substance. They're literally spewing out the most generic day-to-day nonsense while blabbering on and on about whatever stupid trivial topic they feel like spaming into the mic. Half of the time the two are obviously talking just to hear the sound of their own voice. Which is hard to believe because they sound like shit. The two just finished talking about "toilets" in Western Europe. There was never any point. Then they move to the next random verbal-shitpost while they role-play for the idiot crowd. Notice Jordan Peterson's fake twiddling "Hand Gestures". Jordan's trying to be Adolf Hitler after receiving drama classes. The guy is a total fraud. This pseudo-debate is literally a shitpost organized by the jewish elite that won power across W. Europe / Anglosphere after WW1-WW2. The 1% jewish class are shitting all over you on purpose.

This staged debate is by design. This sham of a debate is no different than jews shitting on art canvasses and calling it a "masterpiece". It's a mockery.

This is how the jewish tribe operates. They mock everything in our society. Everything, including the concept of philosophical debate. The only westerners who fall for such utter garbage like this are psychotic homosexuals that are simply attracted to the manufactured "fame" of the event. These are the people clapping in the audience. The audience is totally inorganic and forced. They clap because they see a "pop star" not due to hearing wise words. Half are no doubt paid.

This debate is a total scam. It's a pseudo-philosophical shitpost.

Attached: I ATE MY SHIT.jpg (900x1200, 421K)

Zizek is too deep for stupid debate competitions.

>Peterson makes us look retarded.
The primary function of controlled opposition is to fail.

Attached: Jordan Peterson Brags On His Soviet Art Collection - Toronto, CA, British-Trotskyist Propagandist.jp (1920x1080, 387K)

It was fun until you dropped the Youuuuuuuuuus.

>be marxist
>be crypto-marxist
>have debate

Attached: 1511266486162.jpg (586x330, 25K)

Im in beggining of debate.
Did peterson get btfo by a commie?

yup

yeah, pretty much

Making people to pay to watch a fucking streaming of a debate in today's SOCIETY... Is he delusional?

Attached: 43444343.png (588x110, 14K)

read spinoza

No, ignore the retards who think a side won

>5
this.
They were converging at the end and going hardcore on speculation. It was respectful, I didn't see much tension.

fpbp.

and fp was not a faggot today

hes a multimillionaire from doing this shit so no quite the opposite.

ikr, this is the only way leftys can win anything.

Attached: Jordan B Peterson - Canadian Neocon Trotskyite Internationalist.jpg (368x245, 21K)

Attached: 7C915BF7-39C9-4028-BB67-37343C097007.jpg (749x1042, 79K)

if we add a billion more well fed niggers, their brainpower will be totally worth it 1:40:00-ish

Attached: ara (242).jpg (650x850, 332K)

"Capitalism cant save us, but JUDEO christian traditions can." -Jordan Peterson

Attached: 4c54c0049eb2fa0bcd30fcd592d15968fdf6a314fbf2efc14b5f919f25cb8cf2.jpg (1920x1080, 393K)

Attached: ara (387).jpg (524x800, 332K)

Attached: ara (23).png (1074x1517, 766K)

Attached: ara (44).png (657x890, 590K)

No, he got btfo by a crypto-fascist.

JP is such a paranoid idiot

Brainlet here, say i am willing to learn whatever zizek is arguing for. What do i need to read and where do i start

Tbh, head over to /leftypol/ given they've been shilling him since forever

You start with the Greeks.

>hierarchies existed before capitalism therefore it cannot be attributed to capitalism
unsound assertion, I'm skipping to zizek

Marxism doesn't deny hierarchies anyway, so it was a stupid argument to get involved in to begin with.

Plato and Aristotle, then Kant, then Hegel

Peterson was boring and predictable as always but Zizek holy fuck, the guy doesn’t make any sense. He talked for 30min in his intro without saying anything. Literal word salad for galaxy brains. It was so cringy, I turned of the stream.

youtube.com/watch?v=WGRC5AA1wF0
2:24:54 WHERE ARE THE MARXISTS? WHO IS THE MARXIST HERE?

Attached: zizekk.jpg (1960x2944, 505K)

>uses China as an example of how the impoverished became middle class
but Communism is classless
...
>China combines authoritarianism and capitalism in the name of happiness
>but isn't happiness a dangerous pursuit
really heady stuff Zizek
>in our daily lives we pretend to desire things we do not desire
>so ultimately the worst thing that can happen is that we can get what we officially desire
>conclusion: there is more to life than searching for happiness

lol, really wasnt that hard to understand user.

I think you missed the point about China, the point was that Capitalism doesn't need democracy and freedom to function, and many times those things just get in the way. Capitalism can easily assume the form it does in China, and continue functioning with no regard the values its generally associated with.

Polite Sage

doesn't surprise me. Peterson is obviously delusional but I didn't think even he was delusional enough not to realise zizek would annihilate him in any real debate and significantly damage his reputation and career. Gives more credence to the idea he's just a charlatan purely in it for the $$$ and fame

bumping with my lack of context: what is the topic of debate. I gleaned that the title was something like Communism Happiness Capitalism, which doesn't mention anything about how the economies are packaged.

dunno watching Zizek open was like watching water spiral down a drain.
Peterson thrives on wild improvisation that seems to contradict reason while Zizek maintains eye contact with his prepared speech, glaring upwards on occasion.
Peterson is a meme for his snaggletoothed lack of political correctness, Zizek creates memes with his careful preparations.
I don't think Zizek's style lends itself for debate.

Zizek does seem like an accelerated reinterpretation of Marx
>Zizek predicts an apocalypse
w00t

what kind of retard asked for this debate to be within these broad terms.

it must have been peterson bcs "muh communism bad" was the hill he was expecting zizek to die on. what an idiot

well Zizek is a post-communist memer with a degree in psychoanalysis
Peterson is anti-political-correctness professor of psychology with a minor in playing the devil's advocate (necessary for debating the merits of capitalism with absolutely 0 foundations in economics)
really psychology seems to be determined to solve the problem of happiness, so that's the only bridge between the two, then capitalism and communism are just seen as opposite poles on a spectrum.

It was supposed to be specifically about Communism and Capitalism in regards to happiness, but turned into an argument on Peterson's end about the validity and history of the systems themselves, with Zizek then reading a written script which did actually get around to the topic of happiness after spending 15 min talking about other things. Tbh, the whole thing was kind of a mess. If they were to debate happiness, they should have before hand come up with a set of parameters to discuss such things (i.e. What defines happiness in each respective system, how does one acquire happiness in each, etc.).

LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN, BROS.

Attached: FBWPvwf.jpg (480x299, 40K)

Isn't Peterson a marxistaboo?

the opposite

1:43:25 JP just misconstrued capitalism as a sociopolitical system
and now claims that it has raised people from the point where their lives are unending day to day struggle for mere survival, as if those people had no agency in elevating themselves from poverty
I'm looking forward to the Shaimen remix of it
the whole thing was memed into existence and it's great for what it is
he just plays devil's advocate for anything that's edgy

jew vs commie .
f off

>1:43:25
I meant 1:41:25
1:43:21 JP predicts ecological catastrophe as population grows
bitter much?

capitalism = voluntary trade

even after reform china still has 60-70% state owned corporations and uses literal slave camps to outcompete free enterprise.

that's not capitalism.

Zizek is the true anti-SJW one here, he knows cultural marxism is a subset of liberal capitalist ideology.
There should be a third debater, of the fascist kind

>Zizek preparing for the debate

Attached: Zizek.webm (480x480, 1.44M)

You are not smart

Your free trade meme is not capitalism, it always existed, it's just a natural thing to promote for capitalists and justifies market tyranny

>Brits themselves think jew and anglo are synonyms

go back

Socialist v. Socialist? No humans allowed.

>had no agency in alleviating themselves from poverty.

It's Capitalism and the market which is what allowed them to exercise that agency to begin with. Such agency can't really manifest itself in systems where trade is heavily restricted and the flow of goods and services is hampered.

>7 threads
>about 2 faggots
only on Jow Forums

he says, not realizing he just exposed himself as the same thing he's criticizing.

What an awfully superficial list.

>capitalism = voluntary trade
If your definition is basic trade, then nearly every system that has ever existed is capitalism. It doesn't even matter any way, if your system of "voluntary trade" degenerates into people restricting "voluntary trade" through its own mechanisms and peoples own self-interests, it was nothing ever but inconsequential or at the very least a temporary marker in history.

Read a book, nigger. Non-fiction.

Its Zizek that requested it not be a real debate, what are you babbling about? Being structured like this was his condition in order to participate.

What is this debate about? Who thinks happiness is tied to economics?

Attached: MEME TOWN MEME CLOWN.gif (500x281, 673K)

>f your definition is basic trade, then nearly every system that has ever existed is capitalism.
We can certainly argue there's elements of capitalism in pretty much all human economic systems, trade and the market has certainly proved vital to the progression of civilization as can be seen with early trade routes going as far back as 5000 years or so.

>It doesn't even matter any way, if your system of "voluntary trade" degenerates into people restricting "voluntary trade" through its own mechanisms and peoples own self-interests
That doesn't even make any sense.

>it was nothing ever but inconsequential or at the very least a temporary marker in history.
Not really. Unless you consider the building of civilization due to trade after the Neolithic revolution to be inconsequential.

>We can certainly argue there's elements of capitalism in pretty much all human economic systems,
You can argue there are elements of any system of in any other system, what you are saying doesn't actually define capitalism concretely as a system.
>That doesn't even make any sense.
It will always be in peoples self-interest within a market to control the market, especially for the largest businesses/enterprises. Complete "Voluntary exchange" in regards to society wide markets is an impossibility, because profit wise it always better to be in control or have in influence in a market then not at all. This idealism that politics is separate from markets or that markets are separate from politics is a farcical, and it has never been like that ever. Ironically enough, you're not thinking enough like a capitalist.
>Not really. Unless you consider the building of civilization due to trade after the Neolithic revolution to be inconsequential.
Inconsequential in the sense that it cannot prevent its own dissolution or internal contradictions from taking hold. Total complete free exchange cannot protect itself from influence or force, and to defend it from such would require a separate arbiter to interfere and meddle in it to do so, defeating the idea of free voluntary exchange. The idea of "free voluntary exchange" is idealistic, because it assumes the market exists outside of society and power, or at that it very least could be placed in an area free from those things, which is infantile.

Peterson got btfo, no contest (and no surprise)

You start with the greeks, there's a /lit/ guide, look for it and see you back in five years

DO IT FAGGOT

No, you just have to understand that peterstein didn't even know what he was talking about because he has only read five books in his entire life.

lol just showing up to laugh at peterson fans who clean their room

hes a hungry slovenian warrior

So you like cock, and fpbp is right about you. Got it.

Peterson just got exposed as a dilettante, and a poor one at that.

1) Anyone who has taken a 100 level course on Marx could have given as good or better of a rundown and critique of the Communist Manifesto that Peterson gave.
2) No serious Marxist reads the meme pamphlet Marx wrote for uneducated workers, it's not an academic source, it's a propaganda piece.
3) Peterson, although claiming to have read and understood at least a modicum of Zizek's works, was not able to produce a single meaningful critique of his theory, even going so far as to be impressed with Zizek's take on Christianity
3a) Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion, in particular Judeo-Christianity; he also critiques Marxism for being an athiest doctrine which rejects these principles. So if Peterson had done so much as read Zizek's wikipedia article, let alone an article on him in an encyclopedia of philosophy, let alone read one of his books on Christianity, he would have known this position and not been impressed by it. It means he didn't even watch Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Incredible lack of research.
4) Peterson did not stick to his position that Marxism was bad, instead retreating to a simple repetition of his individualism (at one point admitting that the heart of the individualism leads to the position that you must do what is best for the community anyways "good enough for you/your family isn't enough" which basically recasts JP's position as individually enlightened Marxism)
5) Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program which is shorter than the Manifesto and much more important (reminder this intellectual has been arguing against the evils of Marx for decades and hasn't even read him in any meaningful sense since he was 18).

6) By the end, Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes. His only point to the debate which had any relevance was to point out Capitalism's productive force, a fact that he also admits Marx agrees with and discusses at length in the Manifesto.
7) Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.

Peterson has been exposed as someone who has no real education (or perhaps intellectual interest) in political theory. I am actually amazed there are people who watched this debate and think Peterson managed even the bare minimum of understanding of both Marxist theory and the historical realities of capitalist dynamics.

>Capitalism VS. one of its variants
I don't get it

Attached: MM on Marx1.png (1518x258, 83K)

I can't believe I paid $950 to watch this

Attached: 163a65624421ccfef4daa136ed48a1b35959548875782b70b0dd3d74e132cfda.jpg (666x666, 144K)

hey check it out
a marxism vs marxism debate

Attached: 2fyvdt.jpg (654x500, 115K)

wat
sauce

Writing philosophical proofs on the existence of God

mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf

>mileswmathis.

Attached: whoa man medal.png (1023x546, 507K)