I'll see you there
I'll see you there
All urls found in this thread:
wake me up when Zizek vs. Peterson finally happens
jordan peterson getting owned
All Sam has to do is bring back the discussion about what is truth. Peterson will do the rest of the work for him
Harris is a positivist, not much anyone can do for him.
biggest debate in ancom history. can't wait.
who would watch this lol
You can't say that for certain.
muh professional wrestling big boy debate
You guys are fucking stupid.
Sam Hyde vs Peterson would be something.
Is this for fucking real?
Are americans really this retarded?
a liberal who doesn't believe in God vs a liberal who doesn't believe in God but acts like he does
both have virtually the same stance on every other topic
wow. truly riveting.
who cares about Memerson when Sam Harris is currently having a meltdown over Vox calling him racist?
le podcast man vs le youtube man
why wouldn't this be real? Peterson is a retard that will debate anybody just because he thinks he is smart and Harris will also debate anybody that will bring him an audience and more NEETbux which is Peterson at the moment
so a debate about embracing the meme vs. having no self awareness?
why wouldn't this be real?
Yeah my bad. I have to remember these retards will do just about everything for money.
Hey at least Peterson is productive. He has done interviews and discussions with literally everyone, even if they're some literally who blogger, Cliff included.
Not Veeky Forumserature. Fuck off.
that's true, also Sam Harris has finally gotten himself into real trouble by playing the "just being an autistic rational guy and speaking with everybody game" as mentioned here , and now he is trying to weasel out of the trouble when Ezra Klein challenged him to discuss the issue in a podcast
the most important intellectuals in the history of the west
not Veeky Forumserature
terrible, I pity the audience
says a lot about the west if an edgy atheist islamophobe and a self help guru are the biggest intellectuals it can offer
LE EDGY XD BUZZWORDS
The ethic that governs Klein’s brand of journalism appears to be: Accuse a person with a large platform of something terrible, and then monetize the resulting controversy. If he complains, invite him to respond in your magazine so that he will drive his audience your way and you can further profit from his doomed effort to undo the damage you’ve done to his reputation.
God damn, and then this...
I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.
... and then he does it! The absolute madman!
I hate e-celebs as much as anyone, but this is actually sort of interesting.
if this doesn´t count as edgy i don´t know what does
anything that insults someone i like is a buzzword
the most important intellectuals in the history of the west
let the west die
they are really milking the cow
I doubt Peterson will actually show up. If he cancels debates with small fry leftists like Zero Books, then why would he talk to Zizek?
he always does it, the problem is that the emails end up making Harris look like a retard, like when Chomsky made him look dumb in a few emails and he thought he won somehow
he already went radio silence after Zizek accepted the debate in a 2nd article after having a twitter dispute with a quote twitter bot
i don't think the debate would be anything else than a shitfest of two people speaking a totally different language, but it would be entertaining for memetic reasons
the problem is that the emails end up making Harris look like a retard
I am noticing this as I read through them. He's pretty smug and annoying. Definitely punches above his weight class.
Chomsky is obviously leagues above Harris, but I think its Chomsky that is being a dick there and not Harris.
Chomsky is a cranky old man, and Harris playing the "it's different because intentions, doesn't matter how many die"-card is kind of low
I remember at the time, using the US involvement overseas to justify 9/11 was kind of "le thinking-man's edgy intellectual opinion."
Even though it was right, most people said it to be contrarian, so that's a little annoying.
I disagree with you there. I think Chomsky's perspective on the whole matter was obtuse. I don't know whether it's a defect of letting the inner activist reign over the thinker, or just old age, but yeah, like this user said , I found Chomsky to be the dick there. I won't address the politics, but on a matter of who championed good will and a predisposition to further the conversation things are clear to me.
We should also note that this is Veeky Forums, the place where either anyone on the right of Trotsky is hated viscerally, or conversely, anyone on the left of Hitler is demonised as the catalyst of the demise of Western civilisation. Veeky Forums infestations of /pol/ and /leftypol/ agents have made this place unbearable to the point that these aren't just foreign invasion anymore, it's all part of Veeky Forums culture.
Terrible place for politics, which is why I urge you all to stick to discussing literature.
Shut the fuck up cunt. Nobody cares about your opinion.
who championed good will and a predisposition to further the conversation things are clear to me
that's Harris' entire modus operandi though, le rational debate man who gets surprised when people get emotional about emotionally charged issues
I don't know why people say this like it's a bad thing.
"I'll just bring the hottest potato in academic writing onto my show"
"Why are you all so upset?"
wow i guess even the pet shop boys have to get older
East end boys v. West end girls
Who will come out on top?
Chomsky does this on other published correspondence I've read.
Maybe he posts here.
That's just an observation, not a judgement. My actual judgement would be he plays up to that hyper-rational image to try and compensate for actual flaws in his arguments, especially when he's debating people better informed about a certain topic or generally smarter than he is, from a "if you can't win the debate just try and look like you did" sense
Noam — We appear to be running into the weeds here.
He's posted on /e/ and /u/ a few times.
But surely, gearing your facetiousness to adopt the 'le rational debate robot-man' persona would play against your premise of having 'flaws in his arguments'. If his weakness is the argument itself, then his sophistry should lean in the opposite direction, namely the rhetoric of emotion, not autistic rationalism.
FEUD OF THE PSEUDS
Is /pol/ really that insecure that it needs to infest other boards?
Having a bad argument and an emotional meltdown is worse than having a bad argument but remaining composed and agreeable
Right, so you agree that Chomsky came out worse. It's settled then.
What's his basis for his islamophobia?
In that exchange, yeah.
a stillerite in the wild
don't startle him or he'll run away
Yes, the tremendous intellectual weight of Veeky Forums is intimidating.
two non-philosopher meeting to talk about philosophy
Wow it is fucking nothing
You know what's more embarrassing than slightly above average contemporary philosophers and philosophy communicators? Twenty-somethings who think philosophy is this magic word only to be associated with deities of their will.
They're just gonna kiss.
people who didn't study philosophy aren't allowed to have minimally complex conversations
plebs actually believe this
if you define edgy as being provocative for the sake of being provocative, it could be argued that zizek is 'edgy' at times
it is a buzzword however, because besides the definition given above, edgy carries with it a heavy connotation of involving teenage angst or trying to be cool.
its a stupid word to use if you only mean the first thing, in the same way that negro pretty much only means black, but carries with it some other nasty implications.
if you meant edgy in the first meaning of the word, thats fine, but phrase it differently
if you meant edgy as in the buzzword sense of the word, i'd ask you to explain why you think zizek has teenage angst, despite appearing to be a pretty confident adult
if you just used edgy as an insult without considering its meaning, then you are just yelling buzzwords, and i'd ask you to kindly fuck off
Funny thing is one of them actually has an undergraduate degree in philosophy and has spent the best part of his career engaging with it.
slightly above average
Come on that is way too generous. School of Life is a better 'philosophy communicator' than these two
philosophy is this magic word only to be associated with deities of their will.
I actually don't think that way, plebs can philosophizes all they want, but that doesn't suddenly mean everyone should take their opinions really seriously. Any idiot can do independent research and submit a scientific paper, but that doesn't magically means he is a fucking scientist. So curb your passive aggressiveness senpai.
The Orpheum in Boston? I live 45 minutes north from there so maybe I will go because nothing interesting ever happens around here. I bet there will be a lot of "interesting" characters attending.
I disagree with your assessment of both of these people. And so do their pleb audiences who would have otherwise probably never engaged with philosophy. That didn't get us very far did it?
be sure to take plenty of pictures for us
Two brainlets. Who cares?
engaging with it.
if by engaging you mean ignoring the whole history of moral philosophy and pulling out of his ass a theory of how science will solve morality without engaging in any of the relevant literature, i guess
So you appealing to popularity from the very same people whom you already confess ' never engaged with philosophy'? It sure didn't get us very far, it seems I struck a nerve.
What's the debate about? Who is the bigger meme?
the fact that muslims are utter fucknuts
Kid, I never appealed to their popularity to determine their worth as philosophers. I merely pointed it out to make it obvious that it's not wise to dismiss them, whatever you think of their output.
This whole thing started with your claim about them not being philosophers. You indirectly agreed that you were wrong to make that claim so our discussion was over the moment you replied. Everything else is noise and shitposting.
science will solve morality
If you have trouble comprehending Stiller, I don't know how you claim to have superior taste since anyone 'superior' to him would be out of your reach. Unless you're deliberately misrepresenting his claims.