What did he mean by this?

kekekeke

Ouch

Just when I thought I had no more respect for Land to lose. I really thought he was above this

So is Peterson.

>So Jung said... and we can see this in Genesis... No! Wrong!

There's nothing wrong with being formulaic once your formula is good

Zizek is stellar when he puts in the effort. Unfortunately, he churns out a lot of very lazy content with the bare minimum of effort, like the Peterson piece

The Independent piece surprised me because of how explicit Zizek was in his submission to his progressive managers. In his recent punditry he usually just acknowledges progressive doctrine with a passing boilerplate line ("racism is not good") and often has a little fun with his hyper-egalitarian readership e.g. "I would vote for Donald Trump... because I'm so progressive that I think even better progressivism could emerge from rocking the anti-progressive system," "Sanders supporters should unite with the alt-right... to defeat capitalism," "refugees are bad... because they're victims of economic turmoil caused by capitalism."

But here he's absolutely toeing the party line and making sure that everybody knows how true his fealty is to egalitarianism

What do you think, Veeky Forums? Is it just my imagination? Or did all the Jacobin, Chapo and revleft sneers get to him at last

>Wow, Land. I can't believe you just btfo my communist hero... I thought you were above making me looking stupid
you thought wrong bitch hahahahaha

Zizek and Peterson are really the same kind of bullshitters.

>let me tell you how things really are based on the dated arbitrary nonsense of this 20th century psychoanalysist

Why does Peterson always pretend SJWism is from postmoderism only? Fucking never read some Rorty and Rawls.

Zizek has been comodified, my god

He reads like a progressive liberal in this piece if you don't know who he is.

I don't believe Zizek really (or even virtually, as he would probably put it) cares about any of this. He will keep tweeting drivel about abstractions of symbolic imaginary shit while people get meaninglessly "hurt" by his analysis.

Land probably has more ability than Peterson in spotting the predictable (and to be published in The Independent, predictability is an absolute must) ways in which he exposes his argumentation, so I have no idea why he's resorting to shitposting it up on the internet. Wait no, I actually know why, it's simply because Land has accelerated his brain into goo and is now a shitposter on the internet.

Zizek has interesting thoughts that become easy to follow through and even to anticipate once you have read enough about it, just like Land used to. Both of them have qt3.14 wives that are also writers so they have realistically no reason to fret over trivial matters like public debate (specially if said debate must be made within 3 or so lines of text), and just to wrap this up, I would actually say that, coming from Nick Land, it's actually a compliment when he says Capital is ready to fulfill its role of expelling you from the production wheel and assuming your place as an agent in itself.

I simply don't understand the reaction. I thought Zizek article was fine and on point and far from formulaic, if only he repeats what others who already read Zizek know already.

Which movies?

Pretty disappointing article - reads as if Zizek is afraid to make even more opponents on the left.

Even worse than Zizeks short article is Stefan Molyneux reponding to it, not knowing Zizek and reacting to it like it was a Sun piece by a SJW.

youtu.be/UDGlSkJb_FM

>not knowing Zizek
Embarrassing. Molymeme is even worse than I thought.

t.brainlet
he says some men need jeaolusy to keep his identity(ego) dumbass

>having an identity is pathological
your brain on leftism

>having your identity defined by jeaolusy is pathological
there fixed