Oh shit, Zizek vs Peterson finally happened

Oh shit, Zizek vs Peterson finally happened

youtu.be/43vRoD8GnIY

Attached: images.jpg (200x256, 7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4R7SCY5zVLg
youtube.com/watch?v=rJ9HGqPqgV0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

10/10

damn his Zizek is really good

Can anyone link a good youtube video featuring zizek which is sort of an introduction or overview on what he is about?
I've seen a lot of shorter clips but I just can't seem to understand what his opinions or whatever actually are.

we need a debate.

that was actually good, except for the ending which was a little bit off

>muh cain and abel
>muh pleasure island
>that's that
Close enough, not too bad.

>JP not rocking a V-neck under the blazer


You had one job

Kek this is pretty good.

there arent
or maybe:
>gommies = gud!
basically

Attached: 1512791943973.jpg (400x400, 43K)

damn, this guy is pretty talented, he should do other people

lmao

Attached: 69afed3a9859249a5349315d135ecbaffb3643f382d698f08372ba541fc43b00.jpg (560x560, 48K)

Fucking Dave Rubin I swear

Attached: IMG_3044.jpg (244x319, 21K)

it shows what would happen during a debate, two people talking different languages, if you're versed in either you'd claim your guy won, kinda like Chomsky vs. Foucault.

Peterson won

He is an anti-SJW progressive leftist.

One of his many viewpoints is that people like Peterson have success because the modern leftist idea of "tolerance" leads to a fear of criticism of anti-leftist values (e.g. people allowing Wahhabists in the West because they are afraid of being seen as intolerant). He believes that this "tolerance" also creates prejudice against the people you are being "tolerant" of as it leads to a fear of interaction due to a fear of offending the person.

He supports LGBT but is very critical of Tumblrina-esque postmodernist views on gender and sexuality (he has e.g. basically said that non-binary people are full of shit and all they really do is to create prejudice against actual trans people). He blames capitalism for tumblrinas.

He thinks that "liberal communists" - people who make a shitton of money and donate a significant portion of it to the poor are hypocrites, because they still cause more harm than good to the world.

He loves using psychoanalysis, even on things that you normally wouldn't use psychoanalytic tools on - e.g. Bible verses.

He says that there are three types of violence: Subjective, which is caused by individuals, objective, which is caused by societal structures like capitalism, and symbolic, which is things like threats and mean words. He says people focus so much on subjective violence that they forget/ignore that the two other exist.

An important point he keeps making is that many things in today's societies, including SJWs, Islamic terrorism, deepfried memes (pic related) and Peterson, are direct products of what he calls "late capitalist attitudes".

Source: Read Violence by him and I've seen some lectures, e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=4R7SCY5zVLg

Attached: lwj0xb7vu1h01.jpg (1500x1500, 477K)

>He says that there are three types of violence: Subjective, which is caused by individuals, objective, which is caused by societal structures like capitalism, and symbolic, which is things like threats and mean words. He says people focus so much on subjective violence that they forget/ignore that the two other exist.

Sounds like he's coming from an assumption that violence is inherently bad. People don't "forget/ignore" the other types of violence, they support it. You can't stop a violent person, a criminal, without violence.

None of his lectures are programmatic, so it can be hard. Once you make it through 5 or 6 lectures it starts to make more sense. I'd just power through till you get it

Not at all. He got in shit for saying that Hitler should have been more violent (he also said the kind of violence he was speaking of was the violence of Ghandi and MLK)

What kind of violence is that? Violent solidarity?

>Bret Weinstein is moderating the Peterson vs Harris debate
Fuck yes, Bret is pretty much the perfect in-between of their two viewpoints.

holy shit that was fantastic

Attached: 1485208311408.jpg (557x365, 42K)

Penetration.

I know this may sound strange, but have you tried reading one of his books?

Zizek 10/10, Peterson 7/10.

kek Rubin

His Peterson was fairly caricatural but his zizek was amazing

Violence against that which chains you to the ruling ideology.

The very last paragraph of Violence sums it up better than I could:

>If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.

A few other points from the conclusion of the book:

>to chastise violence outright, to condemn it as 'bad', is an ideological operation par excellence, a mystification which collaborates in rendering invisible the fundamental forms of social violence.

>no, Hitler did not 'have the balls' really to change things. All his actions were fundamentally reactions: he acted so that nothing would really change; he acted to prevent the communist threat of a real change. His targeting of the Jews was ultimately an act of displacement in which he avoided the real enemy - the core of capitalist social relations themselves.

Kek

>He says that there are three types of violence: Subjective, which is caused by individuals, objective, which is caused by societal structures like capitalism, and symbolic, which is things like threats and mean words. He says people focus so much on subjective violence that they forget/ignore that the two other exist.
Really, huh. I've thought for a long time that symbolic violence is the one everyone has been wasting their time trying to combat.

he's saying meaningless things. It's easy to turn anything around and read it as a reaction, e.g. communism is merely a reaction to capitalism. Oh, but according to communist theory that isn't true. Of course it isn't, and neither is nazism a mere reactionary movement according to nazists; it is as delusional as communism including the belief that they were creating a world where, after the war, the totalitarian state would be unnecessary and the aryans would live in harmony with nature.

I worded the last part badly. What I meant to say is that he says that when people focus on subjective violence, e.g. a terrorist attack, as much as they do, they are ignoring the underlying cause: Objective violence caused by capitalist structures.

Foucault definitely won, Chomsky is a sub-literate moron.

Haven't even considered it desu

So, you're telling me the idyllic romantism your very post implies was the aim for nazism isn't reactionary?

I'm saying communism can be read as reactionary, relying upon noble savage beliefs, reacting to the corruption led by capitalism and alienation; and if so, so what? Violence isn't inherently bad and neither is reactionarism. Unless you have previous agreement with Zizek's subjective political views of what's good and what's bad, then his analysis feel quite dull.

Communism is forward looking while facism is backwards reaching; at least generally. Facism was also explicitly reactionary against communism, all you need to do is read some early fascist literature to figure that out.

Both are human constructs while capitalism is a natural evolution of trade and technology, neither systems and not even democracy will survive "capitalism".

Attached: Icarus_Bitcoin_Mining_rig-1024x768-1-1024x768.jpg (1024x768, 126K)

In his speeches Hitler never talks about going back to anything, only about struggles ahead and the need to stay commited to the movement.

>Everything he says is bullshit

This is what you mean

Too bad Zizek will pass away before the debate

i havent read this thread, only watched the video and skipped to the bottom to make a comment and here you are, talking about hitler. fucking faggot

Not my problem nigger.

Is that a threat

Did you even watch it?

Attached: catroomguardian.jpg (482x453, 30K)

Sorry to break it to you but he has cerebral palsy among other nerve disorders brought on by diabetes complications now and his condition is growing worse. Check out the recent videos of him. I'm as sad as anyone.

Attached: 124125.png (366x357, 182K)

I can't believe kermit converted so many people into the jungian horseshit. I hope he is going to get rekt soon

He also had a major stroke. Its hard to look at him now, Its like Nietzsche after the horse accident. The Zizek we knew and love is gone and his mental ability is growing weaker by the day. He will completely embarass himself if he debates Peterson unless he is bedridden by that time

youtube.com/watch?v=rJ9HGqPqgV0

fascism was more forward-thinking than communism desu. communists have always been stuck in the 19th century, fascism was a true 20th century ideology. it is why it is more dangerous and more potent in the developed world than communism will ever be.

He has bells palsy you retard, it's a relatively minor issue with the facial nerve

Stupid pic made by a small-minded humorless petty cynical person who can't imagine other people actually feeling childish and sincere joy desu. I myself only type stuff like that when I actually laugh out loud and laugh hard at stuff.

its funny and in many cases true to life bully.

>cerebral palsy
Fucking moron, holy shit
It's bell's palsy
It'll probably be gone within a few months

What's going to happen when they actually agree on a lot of stuff?

liberal communist coalition, ownership of the means of lobster production by room cleaning

>natural evolution of trade and technology
forgive my ignorance, but don't these also fall under social constructs?

like what?

>That Rubin impression

Attached: bruce kek.gif (369x271, 1.81M)

wow i didn't know that zizek had bells palsy now, this is so sad

Holy shit this guy is a fucking pseud (not to say Peterson isn't)

breddy gud

>Can anyone link a good youtube video featuring zizek which is sort of an introduction
>his opinions
top kek, he has no such thing. read the sublime object anyway if you want an introduction to his stuff

>>If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.
so breaking things for the sake of breaking them and hoping that "magical" liberation occurs from that opening, like every other leftist

>communist threat of a real change

Attached: images (14).jpg (239x210, 10K)

current culture is meaningless, no wonder that the first guy to appear who claimed to reestablish meaning while doing minimal societal change is having success

it's not going to work and we will be in the same place in 1-2 years when all the people who "cleaned their rooms" start taking heroin out of boredom like everybody else

fascist futurism > communist futurism

Attached: 1911-century-futurism-legacy-shortcomings-1909-2009 (1).jpg (630x445, 88K)

even if it starts as a social construct capitalism works without anybody actively believing in it once set in motion, not like communism or facism that require permanent brainwashing or they break down naturally

>he has e.g. basically said that non-binary people are full of shit and all they really do is to create prejudice against actual trans people
finally someone fucking says it

Attached: Dios_mio_ideologia_pura.jpg (500x579, 45K)

lmao

I sort of agree with some of this, because I think capital should be considered an agent and that humans are gradually becoming sentient tools.

Lol, how is he a pseud?

she laughed though, that's why she spilled her drink

But isn't capitalism like that merely because people had already been brainwashed to like things like it because of feudalism? Like, didn't people support capitalist structures with a clear divide between privileged bourgeosie and the common workers because they had been indoctrinated to like a similar system with a clear divide between privileged nobles and common farmers?

>watches one 15 minute video of a man who is clearly not feeling well during it
>declares all of his decades' of work for pseudoscience

This is nothing about intent of the people. It's actually what defines these regimes as reactions: they were alternative projects for modernity AS ALTERNATIVE to the underlying structure of the previously established industrial revolution. I don't know why you cling particularly to the word reaction, does it anger you or something? It does not put either communism or nazism in a secondary level or anything of the kind.

Furthermore, he is precisely claiming that said reactions are not meant to tip the balance but rather to maintain it. Kinda like a pendulum has to swing to the other side and dissipate back and forth before settling down in the vertical position. Both sides of "action" are really struggling to maintain the system as close as possible to the inertial minimum.

Zizek also holds no illusion that the twentieth century is still here (ironically, many of his critics, and I used to be in this first group of critics, do believe we are still there). He knows very well that the projects of modernity for the 20th century be it fascism, communism or even the 80's democratic liberal capitalism are not the, or a, definitive structure for society that we can stay as indefinitely. What he advocates for, mostly, is precisely that we tip the balance so that things do not remain as they are. In this way he is deeply critical of current leftist liberal trends who are keen in perpetuating the very conditions (of course) for the existence of the right they seek to "fight".

He also has much praise for the ingenuity and the advantages brought upon by the machinery capital spawned. In a terrifying way I believe Zizek actually finds joy in his thoughts of machines mind-controlling us sometime in the future.

It's "natural evolution" bro, don't question nature.

It might work in a more subtle way than that. Consider for example that back in the 20th century Marx sought to engage the "proletariat" in protesting and fighting to "take back" the value they were generating in a certain sense. Who is this proletariat today? Well, they are the dream jobs of most people, because it has become a thing to have massive and permanent unemployment, or informal jobs with little to no guarantees.

In a way, capitalism has adapted and turned that which was pointed out as abusive conditions (a stable job with little surplus value) into a high quality asset to be competed for and to be desired. This adaptation is not a project from some individual, it is an accumulation of collective processes of a complex system. It is in this way that most people claim capitalism can work without brainwashing (a most precise claim would be "capitalism does the brainwashing by itself, as if it were a thing separated from us"). Note how all of this happens under the best life conditions we have ever experienced on the planet, with the most personal freedoms in spite of losing most of our political and economical freedom.

communism has more in common with feudalism than capitalism and feudalism.

capitalism can work in a democracy, for communism to work you need a revolutionary vanguard running a dictatorship, and a revolutionary vanguard, memes aside, it's just the communists rediscovering the need for an aristocracy

>What he advocates for, mostly, is precisely that we tip the balance so that things do not remain as they are
"tipping the balance" is fine and all, but nobody is going to rely in communists to do it, specially when they just won't take responsibility for anything they do

call me again when communists have seriously confronted their own destruction and developed a serious theory addressing it

That's just stating the obvious. Everyone that is "above" the masses knows that the average guy cannot understand any kind of subtlety and unless you call him a faggot they don't care what you do with their lives.

It's blindingly obvious, just look at the medical system in most countries. People think that medical incompetence is normal, it's ok if a dentist chips your tooth, it's ok if you get prescribed the wrong medication. It's fine bro. But if I were to punch a guy and chip his tooth, oh boy, you know what would come after that - either jailtime or beat down time for me.

Touch a girl's ass and you get thrown into prison for a long time.

Ruin the lives of thousands of people, or at least affect them in a negative way by exploiting them as resources? It's fine bro, it's too subtle for them to realize it, do what you want, just don't touch someone's ass or don't use a rude word.

It all boils down to the fact that the average person is simply too stupid to comprehend / care about these kinds of subtleties.

This is why patriotism and nationalism exists, this is why morons fight in the army even though they hate politicians and other people, they don't even define what a country is, they're just manipulated and they are attracted like flies to a big pile of shit, they get used and abused by more powerful ideas / people.

t. spooked meme individualist

What's your criticism?

t. /pol/boy

your post amounts to saying that humans are social animals, which is a platitude, and then seem to imply that there's some people who really "get it" that can see beyond this, and can escape it, which i am not buying

most "individualists" are just cardboard copies of each other, which means they are just occupying a certain niche that our society provides, like everybody else

so what you're saying is that, because you cannot avoid being a social animal, it is not worth it to even try reducing the degree to which you are influenced negatively by social influences?

>and then seem to imply that there's some people who really "get it" that can see beyond this, and can escape it, which i am not buying

your post amounts to saying that there is no difference between a dumb shit who joins the army and dies and then is forgotten by everyone, and a person who decides to live his own life and think clearly about where he is going

>most "individualists" are just cardboard copies of each other, which means they are just occupying a certain niche that our society provides, like everybody else
that's a pretty big claim you're making, I think you are exaggerating the fact that there is still some influence and copying being done, but now it's to a lower degree

I'd rather be a "cardboard copy" individualist who copies other people to a lower degree than a non-individualist who surrenders himself to society and cultural influences, thank you

I think you are too fascinated by the fact that even individualists are influenced by outside sources i.e. experiences and, yes, people (no shit)

but that is no reason for you to self-suck and consider yourself worthy of saying that "human = social animal => no point in trying to live like an individualist"

you're excluding an action just because it doesn't have perfect results

it's like saying "I don't want to go to university because there is a chance, however small, that I am going to end up poor or even homeless, therefore I will run away from my parents' home and beg on the streets"

cool, you noticed that even individualists are indluenced by people, since they are humans, but there is no need for autofellatio, you aren't god, you cannot exclude an entire action just because it has imperfect results

>it is not worth it to even try reducing the degree to which you are influenced negatively by social influences?
i am saying that what you consider "negative" is social in the first place, there's no stepping out of it and judging it from outside

His Kermit needs some work.

I mean, I did not join the army, but maybe I did and I'm having a psychosis.

So you're telling me that it's impossible for me not to become a nationalist or someone obsessed with politics? I understand what you're saying, and I understand that you're obsessed with the fact that you understood that society is full of influences that you cannot evade completely. I know, I know. Just assume that I know that.

It's impossible for me to not assimilate the lowest and riskiest influences in society, even if I am attentive and try to analyze as best as I can what their origins and what their effects would be? Am I doomed to become a grunt in the army?

People don't have to be "indoctrinated" to support or even like a system of values to live by it, because they need one and will follow it genuinely believing it's the natural course of things.

Attached: 1520219989485.jpg (259x195, 8K)

capitalism is pretty much natural selection applied to the concept of firms and enterprises. None needed to invent it, once it emerged it was so powerful that it gobbled everything and dispatched any other inefficient poverty-ridden system like feudalism or socialism.