Zizek vs Peterson when

>not only is he often relying on unverified theories
I don't like Memerson but this is pretty funny coming from a Lacanian psychoanalyst.

I'm heavily conflicted. I like Zizek but hate his fanbase, and I dislike Peterson most of the time and despise his fanbase. Since neither of them is really a proper academic anymore (not to deny that Slavoj has written some great theory whereas Peterson's writing is meh) and they've taken on the role of a public provacateur I think Peterson is having a more positive discernible impact on media discourse about academia in that he is drawing attention to the dominance in select fields of academia (and even more importantly in university administrations) of Social Justice theory (CRT, Queer Theory, etc.) and the contradictions of many of those theories (which in themselves are simplistic and abusive misreadings of post-structuralism and related theory). At the same time I hate his abuse of the term "post-modernism" and how his dismissal of so much he doesn't understand out of hand contradicts with his deep love for and defense of more classical parts of the canon that are often poorly understood or misrepresented, Jung, the Bible, etc. Although as a Russian studies grad I don't appreciate his analysis of Dostoevsky which like most western analyses often misses the mark by quite a bit, ignoring historical specificity of the texts in favor some kind of reductive universal psychologism.

I'm reading his article and it's horrible so far, have a read yourself:
independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

Why would you say it's horrible? I found it pretty spot on, besides what I said in

>Zizek gets wrecked by Will Self
What?

>zizek and peterson debate

best timeline

He says Peterson speaks half truths yet when he adresses half truths he talks about fake immigrant rapes etc, Peterson hardly ever talks about immigration, and he has never said anything about immigrant rape gangs.
Most of the article is fluff, his only strong point is about the inconsistencies of the liberal project, why not focus more on that?
youtube.com/watch?v=_OAWRinR6GM

>muh horseshoe theory

Absolute hack.

>Most of the article is fluff,
Parts of the article border on libel.

>not a proper academic

Peterson is one of the most cited people in his field, and still retains his position at UoT? What do you mean by this?

Also describe how Peterson has misinterpreted Jung and/or the Bible

>The same holds for how, today, the anti-immigrant populists deal with the “problem” of the refugees: they approach it in the atmosphere of fear, of the incoming struggle against the “Islamification” of Europe, and they get caught in a series of obvious absurdities. For them, refugees who flee terror are equalised with the terrorists they are escaping from, oblivious to the obvious fact that, while there are probably among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals and so on, the large majority are desperate people looking for a better life.
This is very naive. Poor muslim refugees aren't liked because they come from a different, more barbaric culture and when they come in masses they create their own ghettos and have trouble living that culture behind. They are too conservative even for conservatives. Of course Zizek knows that perfectly well and he's just playing dumb.

>leaving* that culture behind

being an academic doesn't mean publishing scientific papers it means writing word salad justifying communism.

>Canadian

Yeah, but at least he's not European.