Clean your guns, bucko

Burn off all that dead wood, and buy magpul.

Guy really is based though.

sjws pls go.

>Zizek

Is a fucking retard. While Peterson is no economist they were both having a different debate.

Zizek is unironically one of the most intelligent intellectuals out there right now. Peterson is a joke.

Attached: 3FA16F14-2FC1-44F7-91FA-12203741AAE9.jpg (1200x675, 93K)

He’s a goddamn retarded spaz. Anybody who sincerely adheres to Marxism after it’s been BTFO in every economic circle is an absolute retard and deserves no attention.

Stay mad, lobstercuck.

>Zizek is unironically one of the most intelligent intellectuals out there right now
Holy fuck antifags actually believe this
MEIN FICKEN SIDES

Attached: 94924625652416541.png (1011x1049, 238K)

>but muh basic economics
I bet you think Keynesian economics are discredited too. In any case, nothing Zizek says has anything to do with economics. Ironically, during their debate, Peterson sounded like more Marxist with his focus on materialism while Zizek was arguing that man needed more than that.

yes herr under sergeant!

He's up there. There are actual right wing contemporary intellectuals worth reading who are on his level, but Peterson is not one of them.

>I bet you think Keynesianism is wrong too

For the most part it is. Just like marx was. Now fuck off back to leftypol and don’t come back.

Your post reminded me, so thanks

He's a sniffly hack, dude. If you think he is legitimately one of the most intelligent people out there, you are far less intelligent than you think you are. The dude's arguments rely almost entirely on falsehoods and theoreticals with no base in reality. Peterson is basically a secular preacher with good ideas on helping young men out of the rut this world has shoved them into, he's no mastermind but he's a fairly smart dude with lots of good self-help and self-improvement advice. Zizek, on the other hand, is an outright hack who babbles about nonsensical marxist doctrine that has proven again and again to be ruinous to whole nations.

Attached: 1565820070347.png (790x768, 75K)

>t. monetarist Jew

>t. Retard that can into money

Reminder that fast food wages like you are will be replaced by machines and your labor has no inherent value.

>entire message basically consists of “be responsible for yourself so you can improve your own life and prevent your society from repeating the authoritarian mistakes of the 20th century”
Why does this piss people off so much? It’s good advice.

If you think that Zizek's focus is on economic Marxism, you haven't listened to him at all. I'm not a leftist, and I still recognize his intelligence. His views are far more compatible with right wing statism than anything else. Peterson's individualist view is a joke and easily dismissed.

Because authoritarian shitbags want to repeat all the mistakes of the 20th century.

Right wing statism is still a bad thing, user. Authoritarianism in general leads to human suffering.

>he doesn't realize that soft currency economics is the way every economy has operated since the depression and WW2
>he doesn't realize the economy is only the organization of labor and resources

Because it's naive at best. How can you address left wing authoritarianism without a right wing counterpart? It's not like leftists even listen to him so he's just an obstacle to the right ever exercising power.

>he keeps saying retarded things

Go back to making my tendies wagie.

Every great accomplishment in human history was the result of collective action. Individualism is a joke, and that's becoming increasingly apparent as we enter the late stages of liberal democracy.

>If you think that Zizek's focus is on economic Marxism
Lol you keep saying this as if that's what I said at all. I never said anything about economic marxism, and I still stand by my statement. From a social cohesion standpoint alone, marxism is a cancer that balkanizes entire populations into identitarian groups who begin to distrust and work against each other. This inevitably causes the social fabric of society to tear and leads to mass killing and societal breakdown.
>compatible with right wing statism
FUCK statism, it literally only makes sense if you are part of the select group who manages to achieve authoritarian power, and it more or less always ends in a violent end for those people eventually. People who desire to have a superstate live in a fucking fantasy land where those in power are either them or some idealistic folk-hero who will happen to agree with everything they believe right down the line. Statism is a one-way ticket to having your shit kicked in by the very state you support.
>Peterson's individualistic view is a joke and easily dismissed
There's nothing dismissable about the idea that you should work hardest to improve yourself before you try to reshape the world around you. Color me 12 shades of not-fucking-surprised-at-all that a statist who is sympathetic to authoritarian marxism can't understand this concept.

Attached: UnimpressedMusk.jpg (1559x1080, 597K)

>implying I'm a wagie
I get free ZOGbux

The whole point is that authoritarian ideologies in general are unproductive. Libertarianism (at least relative to the rest of the world) has flourished in the US for centuries, despite the presence of both left and right wing radicals at various points in history. Brownshirts aren’t the solution to commies, having a functional, rewarding economy is.

>Every great accomplishment in human history was the result of collective action
And yet the vast majority of those accomplishments took place well before statism was even a resolute concept in any way.
Social cohesion =/= statism.
Voluntary cooperation =/= statism.
Collective efforts =/= statism.

Self improvement is obviously important, but it's not an end in itself, only a means to an end. In any case, with a rising authoritarian left, the only solution can be an authoritarian right. Peterson spends all his time fighting that and that helps the left more than anything.

>ZOGbux

Ah so you’re a nigger. Have fun dying for Israel

>he's a marxian statist who believes no cooperation can happen when you believe in individualism and he lives off of welfare
holy fuck the memes literally write themselves

Attached: 1565768813197.gif (500x476, 999K)

>the only solution is the authoritarian right
That’s fucking stupid.

>with a rising authoritarian left, the only solution can be an authoritarian right
holy fucking shit how is it possible to be this wrong? cooperative anti-authoritarian effort is the solution, not more authoritarianism. Once you implement your authoritarian model it can (and will) be easily usurped from people/causes you are sympathetic to and consequently used to oppress the fuck out of you.

>Libertarianism has flourished in the US for centuries
America's peaks were under governments that were far from libertarian, which is a modern ideology in any case. The 1950's for example had a heavily controlled, regulated, and taxed economy.
>having a functional, rewarding economy is.
You are actually right about that, but more and more people don't have that anymore. We also have a suicide rate and drug overdose rate that's through the roof. A cohesive country stops commies, but failing that, you need something else.

>In any case, with a rising authoritarian left, the only solution can be an authoritarian right.
Then why did the only major test case qe have of that fail? Fascism ultimately lost to Communism.
>inb4 Jews
Not their fault Germany overextended into a 2-front war.

We don't have social cohesion anymore, partially as a result of big business. How do you rebuild that without statism?

>with a rising authoritarian left, the only solution can be an authoritarian right
Yeah man that worked SUPER well for Russia, Spain, Germany, Italy... It definitely didn't lead to hyper-escalation of violence and the dissolution of peaceful political discourse or anything.... right?

Attached: 1498979187.png (500x600, 156K)

>his guns stink
>when you touch them your hands get covered in soot

Attached: 68290566_1194185724119351_1682531946191650816_n.jpg (640x635, 26K)

I'm not a Marxist and I earned my ZOGbux by fighting for Israel.

>more bad ideas are the only solution
They can't oppress and attack me if I do it to myself first guys!

sometimes i just get really messy with my crab legs

How do you rebuild it WITH statism? Do you really think that by becoming a violent dictatorial faction the government will somehow magically create social cohesion? No, you'll end up creating even more asymmetrically violent factions within your populace who will attempt to either overthrow the state or secede from it. Neither of those things will lead to social cohesion.

Historically untrue. I don't want to establish some Stalinist regime, but something that replaces liberalism.
It worked well in Spain, they were free from communist and liberal influences under Franco for decades.

Hitler's foreign policy was obviously retarded, just don't repeat that mistake.

If Zizek is so smart, how come he hasn't figured out how not to speak like a retard?

Its usually a smell that comes from a combination of 1k wolf steel case, sweat, and snackies. Cleaning time is probably occupied with vidya or gherkin-jerk.

They can't oppress and attack you if you do it to them first. I don't care about the liberal social values they do, so I wouldn't lose anything I care about.
The same way Germany did, which held strong throughout the war. There were very little internal conflicts there after 1934.

he's ascended beyond normal comprehension, every tic is just another layer of meaning

>I'm not a Marxist
>I just believe that marxian theory is totally reasonable and viable
So you're a spring-in-Michigan-IQ boot who ran a grill or drove a truck for 4 years, who lives off of essentially boot welfare, and thinks that radical right wing authoritarianism is going to lead to a healthy cohesive society
Were you by chance exposed to some toxic reagent while serving that partially severed your brain stem?

Attached: 1525802560370.jpg (465x423, 37K)

Once one side starts being authoritarian, all bets are off. You either have to do the same or get crushed.

On what do you base this conclusion?

>with a rising authoritarian left, the only solution can be an authoritarian right
While I agree that the authoritarian left is more dangerous than the right due to its much larger cultural acceptance in western society, that doesn't mean simply oppressing the populace before the other guys can is any less morally bankrupt. A government exists to protect the rights of its people, and cracking down on everyone is not a solution to stopping elements that want to infringe on those rights.

To clarify, I'm a college student who served in the army for 6 years. Sitting here and dismissing all of Marx is just as stupid as accepting all of Marx. There are somethings that he wrote that are absolutely true, but others that are absolutely wrong. The truth is you need a mixed approach to the economy. It can't be 100% state owned and it can't be 100% unregulated.

Or you could just have normal, productive people flock to the moderate political movements and continue to see the radicals as the fringe elements they are, like the US always has.

You remove the governement enforced monopoly protections, big businesses will collapse unless they actually do create the best product.

Look at any moderate right wing group throughout history. People inevitably jumped on board with their increasingly authoritarian counterparts as time went on.

Deradicalize
Lift weights
Have sex

Attached: yall just gonna scroll on past without saying howdy.png (474x512, 154K)

>A government exists to protect the rights of its people
I disagree, that's a liberal point of view. Consistently expanding rights to more and more people only leads to degeneration overtime. There needs to be a limit to that process, otherwise you end up with shit like trannies.

wanna fuck

Wait are you being serious do you not see the faulty logical foundations on which he hangs many of his arguments? Zizek has a flare for making his ideas sound really reasonable but they don't pan out fully. You don't happen to be European do you?

This is unironically good advice. It won't solve all, or even most, of your problems, but it'll inevitably put you in a better mental state than before you starting doing those things.

>It can't be 100% state owned and it can't be 100% unregulated.
90% unregulated and 10% regulated is the ultimate balance. The only government regulations should be basic law (murder, rape, etc), a basic military, and some low taxes (like 10-20% sales tax) to fund the courts and the military.

And what historical basis do you have for that? Economies of scale and barriers to entry disprove this as there isn't ever unlimited competition.
But what happens when those moderate political movements don't solve critical problems in society that continue to worsen? The radicals will win in that case, which is what is happening now.

>expanding rights
>protecting rights
those aren't the same things.
i am not going to participate in a back n forth here, but the US govt was quite literally made to protect the rights of the people most effectively.
read the federalist papers (if you're american) to understand they wanted a government as strong as it needed to be to do just that.

I'm not saying Zizek is right about everything, only that he is smarter than Peterson.

Imagine using the term SJW unironically in our anno domini 2019. Be precise with your words, bucko.

Attached: 1513015710753.jpg (500x338, 92K)

Yeah nah. It's still well within the zeitgeist and popular lexicon. Nice try tho

I know the founding of America was a liberal one, that's part of the reason why we got in the negative position that we are now in. Over time, this notion of rights has expanded way past what was initially intended by the founders, who were ok with things like slavery. I'm not a constitutionalist, it was good for most of American history but it shouldn't be worshiped as the only source of reason.

I don't necessarily disagree with zizek on everything but he's a spaz.

A group working together to defeat a threat or overthrow an oppressive state isn't the same as "becoming authoritarian".

Yes lets just abolish the FDA. The drug companies know best what is safe and what is not.

Forgot to mention, no I'm not a dirty europoor

Sounds awfully collectivist and authoritarian. You should just care about yourself bucko.

>And what historical basis do you have for that?
medicine is expensive largely because doctors unions have pushed for regulations like limiting the # of doctors that can enter the workforce (I believe it is 100,000). At the very least less regulations would allow more competition which would at least cause more options for competition.

That could be true. I love peterson, he has alot of things really well thought out. But I've noticed his knowledge base isn't as expansive as i would think and he misses some opportunities during debates to really cement his arguments using things I've heard him discuss in other lectures and debates.
Doesn't mean zizek has his particular niche quarrel with Peterson nailed, but he could be smarter in some ways

>It worked well in Spain, they were free from communist and liberal influences under Franco for decades.
Right, because slaughtering dissidents by the hudreds of thousands and causing a civil war is so fucking successful right? Holy shit please read some history.
>dismissing all of Marx is just as stupid as accepting all of Marx
Broken clock and all that. Marx got some very basic concepts right but no more than your average armchair philosopher is right. His work is, largely, irrelevant trash that dealt with how to get bread in the hands of poorly people before the industrial revolution. Trying to apply his identitarian nonsense to any modern setting has failed conclusively over and over again. By your faulty logic you should also say the Frankfurt school shouldn't be dismissed in its entirety, despite the vast majority of their work being garbage, as with Marx.
>To clarify, I'm a college student
Yeah it's exceeding clear already that you're a college retard. Hot tip: You're being fed garbage unless you're in a pure STEM field, and even then you're probably still being fed a good amount of hot garbage.
>this notion of rights has expanded way past what was initially intended by the founders
If you knew literally anything about what you were talking about, you'd know why this statement is so laughably wrong. There's a reason the 10th amendment was ratified; the founders believed explicitly that the federal government should NOT have the ability to curtail whatever rights they wanted to.

Seriously, give me ONE example of an authoritarian government that hasn't ultimately led to social turmoil and economic ruin.

The FDA is largely in charge of farming production which caused them to create some pretty bogus regulations (like the food pyramid was inaccurate for many years because they were pushing for increased farm production). Government agencies are just people as well, and can be just as wrong as anybody else.

>You should just care about yourself bucko.
that isn't what peterson talks about. his entire theme can be summed up as "take responsibility for yourself".
You have to square yourself away before you can help others, so if you want to get things done you need to make sure your side is in order before taking on bigger goals.
It's advice as old as time itself but people benefit from hearing it and realizing that they can blame the world all day but it won't fix anything.

> can be just as wrong as anybody else.
often intentionally. as you said, the food pyramid was disingenuous.

>You have to square yourself away before you can help others
This is the crux of his whole philosophy. Given the propensity for radicals on both sides of the aisle to have messed up, unfulfilling personal lives, I think he's right on that one.

>Right, because slaughtering dissidents by the hudreds of thousands and causing a civil war is so fucking successful right?
Yeah because it saved Spain from people like the CNT-FAI and International Brigades who committed mass atrocities and destroyed Spanish history.
>Marx and the Frankfurt School
Yes you shouldn't dismiss these out of hand. In fact, since the left has been in power for so long applying critical theory to them is devastating to their presumptions. Read Christopher Lasch for an example of this.
>college
I don't buy into the shit my professors say, what I believe comes from me reading shit independently.
>authoritarian government that hasn't ultimately led to social turmoil and economic ruin.
The 3rd Reich and Fascist Italy reversed both these treads in their countries. With better foreign policy, this would've been about as perfect as a man made system could be.

It seems the source of your confusion is an inability to differentiate between common goals and a forced strict adherence to a specific group ideology. The authoritarian left and right both fall into the child-like mindset of "the world would be better if everyone thought like me". It can't work and never has for long. It's the reason national identity casts the broadest set of ideals possible, to reinforce common goals among disparate groups for the best possible outcome for the largest number of people. Success brings them together further in an organic manner.

nice digits
I'm not sure how that's a crux, it's very basic life advice. It's what the father figure is typically stereotyped as teaching when he has his son (metaphorical or otherwise) do hard work so he can discover that it's not so bad and the finished product is something to be proud of.
They tell this to first responders and other emergency professionals as well because if they're out of the "fight", so to speak, then they can't help people.

>it saved Spain from people like the CNT-FAI and International Brigades who committed mass atrocities
And murdering the population of a large CITY isn't an atrocity itself? Authoritarianism delivered Spain from the frying pan directly into the fire.
>I don't buy into the shit my professors say
And yet here you are espousing marxian-inspired authoritarian trash. BIG think.
>The 3rd Reich and Fascist Italy
Both ended in riotous social turmoil, mass political violence, and long-term economic depression that was only reversed by liberal revival in the '50s and '60s. You are proving my points. Name an authoritarian regime that never resulted in social turmoil and economic ruin, you literally can't.

This pathologizing of authoritarianism is just stupid and liberalism's only response. Authoritarianism originates when the current order is failing at basic functions of statehood.

>Authoritarianism originates when the current order is failing at basic functions of statehood.
States failing at basic functions is largely due to increased state control and tends to make problems worse rather than better.

>Authoritarianism originates when the current order is failing at basic functions of statehood
Do you have any historic basis for this statement? This reeks of self-serving authoritarian nonsense. The failure of feudalism didn't result in authoritarianism.

Franco killed way less people than if his leftist counter parts came to power, he did a lot of good for Spain. Moderates never would've been able to stop them. I've already said Hitler's foreign policy was bad, had that been different, the system would've been fine.

I think I overclean them if anything

>medicine is expensive largely because doctors unions
That's ridiculous. Drug companies increase their prices arbitrary all the time.