ZIZEK RESPONDS TO PETERSON'S WAILING FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE CHILDREN IN A NEW ARTICLE!!!

Only because the alt-right believes in a marxist strawman. Due to some blue-haired girl they didn't like in high school, they now think marxism is about destroying the west and masculinity or something.

I only speak one language.

>So I was surprised to learn that Peterson is challenging me to a debate, in response to a tweet operating under my name. If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.
Best timeline

...

youtube.com/watch?v=OeWx9_2oWDQ

I just love how they all took some 16 year old tumblrwhale's word for it that she'd read Das Kapital or Le deuxieme sexe.

It's a strange thing. You've either got charisma or you don't.

Does Peterson really believe the following:

>But I do wholeheartedly disagree with Peterson when he enters the domain of conspiracy theories. What I find really problematic is that he interprets PC (and his other targets) as the extreme outgrowth of “cultural Marxism” (a block which comprises Frankfurt School, the “French” poststructuralist deconstructionism, identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.). He seems to imply that “cultural Marxism” is the result of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or Communist) strategy: after Communism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its leaders decided to move the terrain to cultural struggles (sexuality, feminism, racism, religion…), systematically undermining the cultural foundations and values of our freedoms. In the last decades, this new approach proved unexpectedly efficient: today, our societies are caught in the self-destructive circle of guilt, unable to defend their positive legacy…

?

Marxists in general are all very anti-white, anti-tradition, anti-christian, anti-male, etc.

Yes, weirdly enough. He legitimately believes that Michel 'Cryptofascist' Foucault and Jacques 'The God that Failed' Derrida were part of a conspiracy to undermine western values.

>anti-male
nah, it pro drone worker. that's why the feminists and catholics wanted to leave because abortions are mandatory if you're not making good workers on schedule.

He's been vague, maybe to drum up urgency, about the exact motives behind the "cultural marxist" rise, but he's never explicitly stated it to be a genuine orchestrated conspiracy. He really only addresses the effects and underlying ideas, not the cause. He has also admitted many times that most in that regressive left group have good intentions and aren't malicious.

> If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.

HOLY SHIT ITS HAPPENING

That stuff happened way before Marx. Capitalism itself isn't traditional.

Marxists don't do enough to stand up o he intersectional left. Their lack of action seems like implicit support.

>octobre

This piece shows well the dialectical-level difference between Zizek and Peterson. As far as philosophy is concerned, Peterson wouldn't stand a chance. I bet he'll, unfortunately enough, have things already planned for October.

you know how many people would go that debate

Just waint until the Llubjana Lacanian destroys Peterson in both psychanalisis and philosophy.

Because you’re an insecure creep who immediately relates to anyonr flattering your received sentiments

>Alt-Right
>questioning immigration policy and Queer identity politics means you're right wing

>psychanalisis
i hope you haven't been bamboozled by a hateful Jewish cult user

How much Freud do I have to read before starting with Jung?

Zizeks original article was a piece of pure hackwork. Peterson is intelligent but not learned. Zizek is a walking memorization machine who gets his shit pushed in by pseuds

as much as you want

questioning whatever the NYT is saying this month makes you Right Wing, yes. Welcome to the post war West, enjoy your stay

>they now think marxism is about destroying the west

Yes, psychanalisis is evil goy, keep taking the medicines and smiling, much more efficient, Freud and Lacan were evil, behaviourism and chemical intervention is good

It's only a conspiracy if you're conscious of the act. Peterson never suggests this. He calls them ideologues, which is damn true.

>So I was surprised to learn that Peterson is challenging me to a debate, in response to a tweet operating under my name. If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOH BOI

I was raised in an extremely serious Catholic family owing much to the country's capitalism and haven't known about Zizek until that article in The Independent. So no, you are wrong, you stupid fuck Petersonfag. Go blow the repulsive daddy's cock by donating some quid to his Patreon.

I'm not very well read and Freud but from what I know, The Interpretation of Dreams, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, and Civilization and its Discontents are good for building a Freudian framework. Apparently The Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann, one of Jung's students, is great for starting with Jung as well.

>So I was surprised to learn that Peterson is challenging me to a debate, in response to a tweet operating under my name. If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.
HYPE HYPE HYPE HYPE

>building a Freudian framework
are you guys unironically, in all seriousness, without jest, implying that anybody should actually do this?

No, but it';s probably how Peterson has been presented to him. It was already clear Zizek had not actually looked extensively into Peterson himself.

>Zizek gets on a second smurf account to call out Peterson
>Peterson gives some hand wave response
>Zizek declares war
Is the man really this desperate for publicity? It's so obvious he's trying to capitalize on Peterson's fame it's kind of sad. It reminds me of that time Sam Harris tried to start some kind of altercation with Chomsky - - which of course ended like
youtu.be/LlOSdRMSG_k

neis

At some level, all knowledge is just a form of memorization. My point was that Zizek is unlikely to be less intelligent than Peterson (Zizek is in a vastly more advanced and intellectual field, psychology is a meme discipline) and more learned, vide his memorization that I dare to call knowledge. This makes Peterson a pseud, if not in general terms, then at least relatively to Zizek.

ONCE IN A LIFETIME

>I was not only submitted to a long series of extremely brutal attacks, but I was also gradually excluded from the public media. So, now my only access to media in English are three digital outlets: The Independent, Russia Today, and a channel of the Los Angeles Review of Books (which was kind enough to publish this reply – I was not able to post it on The Independent’s site, since it was cut off as too long for a comment).

Being Zizi is suffering.

>My point was that Zizek is unlikely to be less intelligent than Peterson (Zizek is in a vastly more advanced and intellectual field, psychology is a meme discipline)

Building a Freudian framework doesn't mean it's the one you view the world through. It means understanding his thought process. You know you can internalize multiple philosophies without sacrificing your "true" one, right?

What? There's nothing cool about Zizek's appearance. He looks like an alcoholic and chronic domestic abuser. Peterson at least looks somewhat respectable.

(suffering that he rightly deserves)

(FODDER FLOWING IN THEIR MOUTHS)
INTO THE PSEUDS AGAIN
(AFTER THE MONEY'S GONE...)

Peterson’s profession requires more rigour. His work is falsifiable. Which isn’t to say that Zizek’s field ofvstudy is worthless. Just that it’s a decaying one in which many third rate men have risen to the top.

>His work is falsifiable.
Like 4% of what he says has any evidence supporting it bucko

>I define myself by my rebellion against my parents, who peterson happens to resemble
so same thing just from the other direction

ebin :DDDDD

Peterson only cares about stroking his ego and making money out of his gullible followers. Given that this debate would make a lot of money, and that his cultists would ride his cock as always, of course he will do it.

I’m not saying every claim he makes has gone through a lab. Supply a few examples of Peterson’s baseless claims.

Psychology is much more of a 'real' discipline than politics or philosophy. Peterson deals with actual studies and successfully predicts and recreates behavior, a science. Zizek? Nothing of the sort. You must be joking. youtu.be/OzrHwDOlTt8
Watch, learn, shut up.

t. 75iq

i'd probably watch a debate between him and Peterson. Peterson is the only person who has ever engaged with Sam Harris without making Harris look like a significantly bigger idiot than himself. Chomsky destroys Harris and Zizek destroys Chomsky.

Zizek is still on top of the meme intellectual food chain, one of the few remaining public intellectuals that is actually an intellectual.

And what you say has 0% evidence supporting it.

So the fat-slob communist coke-head, feeling incensed, steps up in earnest this time against Canadian Kermit the cult leader. How will the 21st centuries greatest intellectual shitpost go down?

>psychology
>falsifiable

get off this board you fucking 78iq scum.

Holy shit the debate is actually going to happen

>they now think marxism is about destroying the west
is it not?

>There's nothing cool about Zizek's appearanc
>He looks like an alcoholic and chronic domestic abuser
Stop contradicting yourself bro

>Peterson is the only person who has ever engaged with Sam Harris without making Harris look like a significantly bigger idiot than himself
>actually believing this

you watch chomsky getting destroyed by foucault. Same shit, except Chomsky is even 2 levels above peterson.

Funny that people utilize the "peterson is a scientist"-argument, when 90% of Peterson is just deformed and vulgarized jungian theory

Do you think anti-depressants are magic?

Nice reddit spacing.

I would pay to see a movie in which Peterson and Zizek join forces to hunt down blue haired trans people in a post apocalyptic wasteland

He's more of a scientist than Zizek, which is the point. He constantly cites studies and statistics in his videos.The opening of his new book deals with actual evolutionary science. Sorry, bucko, you're wrong.

they can get into a love triangle with camile paglia as they cleanse the earth of trannies and lesbos

Is Marxism not about the eventual destruction of everything that isn’t Marxism?

statistics are inherently racist, so I wouldn't really count it as positive that he uses them

>Foucault won the debate with Chomsky

Zizek is reactionary and a gateway to fascism. Neo-marxists really don't like him.

Wrong. Stop attempting to psychoanalyse me, Jordan. This user got it best, I think. Zizek's genuine and that's the sort of his charisma for me. Peterson is the opposite, lacking authenticity, who makes lots of logical and factual mistakes which combined exemplify the collapse of the real intellectual in the capitalist society for me. Most of all, from what I've seen of Zizek, he just throws a philosophy blob at you, gives his interpretation but leaves you there. Peterson seems to speak from the perspective of authority that he clearly doesn't have. Going to sleep now, leave me an answer if you find jarring disagreement with what I wrote. Gonna read it in the morning. Cheers.

Everything i dont like is marxism and part of the international communist conspiracy!!1

fun fact most of the postmoderns you hate so much are in direct conflict with Marxist thought. Marx was not in any way a postmodern thinker, in fact one might consider him the epitome of a modern thinker. There are still Marxists around, they do not think in the same way as your mainstream postmodern liberal retards. Postmodernism is largely an outgrowth of liberal and non-marxist socialist modes of thought.

Meanwhile big daddy neechee that you all worship was the godfather of postmodernist philosophy.

I watched that debate, neither of them could even find ground to argue on. While he didn't manage to look worse than Harris, he didn't manage to utterly humiliate him. I consider this a defeat for all intents and purposes because every other public intellectual that engages with Harris basically humiliates him.

>omg he uses studies and statistics
these aren't replacements for logic

It's about owning the fruits of your labour.

>Zizek is still on top of the meme intellectual food chain, one of the few remaining public intellectuals that is actually an intellectual.
This. Zizek is the biggest pop intellectual since Carlin. He would destroy Peterson on a debate.

what if I make babby through labor, is it mine

Wrong about what? I'm a different guy. I assume you imply that being a scientist has some further relevance? Especially citing studies somehow creating legitimacy? As a psychology student with a large interest in philosophy i encourage you to get some deeper into the principles of quantitative research and how at the second step of operationalization the whole thing falls apart, because it moves into the speculative field of language.

How do you operationalize for example: Love, Anger, Fear. Try to define it as something quantitaively measurable. You will come up, in almost every study, with a reductionist and, from my perspective, deeply ignorant operationalization of terms that, if you ask me, require deeper philosophically-guided reflection. This does not mean that scientific findings aren't just as important to consider when we determine how to measure what, but the way it is, most quantitative studies and especially those that reach the public eye, are really falling apart if examined closely, which, reasonably so, almost nobody does as it is a hassle.

It will never cease to amuse me that the very same people that are sucking memerson's cock for being a psychologist were completely dismissive of the field a couple of years ago, along with viewing humanities academics as ivory tower hermits with no knowledge of the world.

But now, because they found a college professor that feeds their political views, being a psychologist is the greatest honor that can be bestowed on a human, even though psychology is quite light weight compared to other fields.

Behaviourism is good indeed

you can think most of psychology is shit while some of it is good

A lot of his research makes him more of a psychometrician. That area of psychology has always been more respected by right wing types so I don't think your criticism holds much value.

chomskys argumentation is so embarrassingly onedimensional. The debate is shit-tier because we never reach a point in which both connect. Foucault is obviously wondering what he's supposed to do with such an idiot who blabbers on about his definitions of what is right and what not and what he thinks about the big bad state, while foucault analyzes the fucking matrix of power.

I dig chomsky btw. He's informative to read, he's just not on the level of Foucault and not even on the level of Zizek (who, if people read his real theoretical stuff is a genius-maniac)

>right wing types like the area that involves actually measuring things
Now why could that be

So nothing at all?

I miss Carlin. I wonder what he would have had to say about all the shit going on right now.

obscurantist drivel
reads like a bad parody

Autism

Lmao what an utterly fedora-under-self-helf-illusion answer. I'm a statistician and I sometimes analyze medical and social sciences papers from the perspective of statistics used. They're scam. Also agree by my family who are doctors. You're a total retard if you think Peterson quoting statistics is any more valuable than basically someone's opinion, because you can get statistically-significant data backing anything you want in social sciences, even in medicine.

>tfw unironically afraid of trannies.

I'm literally just talking about how quantitative research in psychology is being conducted
>scientific psychological methods are now obscurantist drivel

Probably because they're incels with small dicks.