Calling all Non-stormers

Calling all Non-stormers
(Yes, fuck off. Dumping your shitty penis washing meme folders will not fly here, and I will absolutely downvote everyone who tries that. Dont test me)
What do you actually think of these guys:
>Jordan Peterson
>Tommy Robinson
>Donald Trump
>Brenton Tarrant

Attached: 1564975201058.png (500x300, 16K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mCM3SH6RgbA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I think they are great.
Fantastic post user.

Attached: 1558075448921.png (750x711, 87K)

>Jordan Peterson
no strong feelings for or against. humiliated in zizek debate.
>Tommy Robinson
non-entity, means absolutely nothing to me
>Donald Trump
don't care.
>Brenton Tarrant
stupid.

Zizek debate was...
Its pretty much what you can expect when debating a marxist. Just like,
>Oh that wasn't real socialism
if you attack someones philosophy, they say,
>Well that wasn't my real philosophy. Its actually extremely sophisticated and you should spend three years reading every piece of Marxist literature before you can actually understand where I'm coming from.
The worst part, is that you have to assume good faith, when its not exactly clear that Zizek acts in good faith.

Attached: 1560996287719s.jpg (125x125, 3K)

Well the problem is that Peterson genuinely didn't know -- the extent of his preparation for the debate was rereading the Communist Manifesto for the first time since he was 18. He's a bad hill to die on. There are enough erudite conservative/liberal/etc. critics of Marxism. I don't think Zizek was being dishonest... as vague as the terms and movements being discussed are, postmodern philosophy developed partly out of a critique of Marxism. Zizek as far as I know doesn't deny that genuinely socialist regimes have been oppressive (he lived under one such govt in Slovenia).

How would you have approached the debate?
Also, did Zizek make it obvious prior that he thinks the communist manifesto is a lark?

It should be obvious to anyone, especially someone proclaiming to be an expert on 20th century ideologies, that The Communist Manifesto, being first and foremost a political pamphlet, is not a very deep representation of Marx's thought, nor is it his most influential. Not saying Peterson had to slog through all the volumes of Capital, but he could have read some secondary sources on Marxist thought, like Isaiah Berlin's "intellectual biography" of Marx or something, or at least read some of his Marx's essays like the Eighteenth Brumaire of Napoleon III or On the Jewish Question or something. Even skimming the Stanford wiki entry on Marx and his critics.

>is not a very deep representation of Marx's thought,
The manifesto is in line with the ideas he put forth in Kapital. It exemplifies his dialectical materialism, its inevitable course, and the laws (Namely, Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages which Marx based all his predictions on)
And to the point, Marx is not a very deep thinker by any stretch of the imagination. This is proven by how he acts in his work and personal life, choosing to attack people's characters as opposed to refuting their arguments. (Poor benthem)
And by the fact that he doesn't even understand simple supply and demand arguments, despite supposedly being well versed in classical economics.

Also, how do you quantify, that the manifesto is not his most influential work? Its the work that everyone knows about, and it concretizes Kapital

youtube.com/watch?v=mCM3SH6RgbA

The Communist Manifesto is well known, but I mean it's not influential in the sense that there's comparatively very little in it to exert influence with. Marx's influences were gigantic in the realms of philosophy, sociology, economics as well as politics. It's not the number of people familiar with the title of the Manifesto that counts, but the power and influence wielded by people who read and engage with Marx's texts. If you want to debate Marxists, it pays to have more than a layman's familiarity with his philosophy. As I said, even very small steps like reading Marx's other essays or reading small secondary source texts would have gone a long way. The problem is not so much that Peterson isn't a Marx scholar - there's nothing wrong with that - but that he professed to be an expert while making incomprehensible mistakes such as calling Foucault a Marxist -- he is a complete embarrassment on that front, and unfortunately the philosophical credentials of conservativism as an intellectual movement is unfairly roped in with his failure because people made him out to be some kind of spokesman for it.

brb gonna have a shower