Who would win

Its the dominance hierarchy he asked for

>Anonymous 03/23/18(Fri)17:54:10 No.10887502▶
>Who would win

Peterson benched 225 in his 20's. Zizek's left side of his face shut off.

Attached: 1AY-OoC7iLAwCHSAC05WtFgs-56mNcyJ9mHfbpgNv7g.png (638x559, 345K)

225 black cocks

I'm just going to remind this poster and everyone else here, that Zizek is a citizen of ex-soviet regime which is pretty much enough to be a brawler for life. He can probably stand his own against most mutts and leafs even if only his right side can smirk

>ex-soviet

He's too twitchy and twacked out to throw a good punch. The lean Peterson would clip him on the beazel and both sides of his face would be dunzo buckaroo.

Attached: 1433941060412.jpg (500x737, 80K)

Zizek if he was 15 years younger
But Peterson would wreck his ass today

>Peterson loses his jacket, folds his sleeves, gets in a embarassing position kind of like karate with oldschool boxing
>[varied pitch voice]"You see the secret to delivering a punch is in the hips. And you gotta get disciplined about boxing, you know, otherwise..."
>While he lectures punching the air, Zizek sniffs and scorns at the match, looking to the sides "eh.. uh.. dis is totally ridiculous, *sniff* Peterson can have it, you know, haha well done *sniff*, I'm not, I'm not doing diss"
>"What's the matter Slavoj, aren't you even gonna try this thing out? Maybe one of your genderless friends can help you out"
>"*sniffs* Look, they are not even my friends, my got, *sniff*, I get it you want to prove something and so on, *sniff*, but dis position is not for me, I'm a man of ideas and so on..."

The debate on their very position towards the challenge lasts 100 minutes before one of them have to go.

I guarantee you JP lifts
Zizek is a fatty

Zizek Has Accepted Jordan Peterson's Request For a Debate, it Will be in October.
IdealCommunard• 31d
This will change absolutely nothing.

Zizek will wipe the floor with Peterson because Zizek is an actual philosopher. But Zizek is borderline incomprehensible to the average joe, while Peterson's strength is feeding bullshit to the average joe and passing it off as expertise.

So all we will get is more entrenched ideological camps. The Peterson haters will confirm their hatred of Peterson; the Peterson lovers will confirm their incestuous love affair with a grifter.

Or even more likely, as at least one commenter here has suggested, the right will eat Peterson for some petty reason before this "debate" ever takes place, and it will be cancelled prematurely.

But if it does take place, the real moral is that debate is a fucking useless shitshow that values whoever can put on the best show over the facts.

Every thing you've pasted here is false.

>inb4 Zizek dies before October

Peterson is sincere you goof.

Zizek would just pound Peterson's ass and use his dual hot dog wielding skills.

>actually reading articles written by 19th century LARPers

> Whatever one thinks about my theories, one constant in them is my critical rejection of postmodern deconstructionism and of the dismissal of modern science as yet another ”discursive practice,” the “truth-effect” of which is to be historically relativized. Furthermore, a year or so ago, when I questioned Political Correctness and some aspects of LGBT+ movement (and some other things problematic for today’s “radical Left,” like the predominant stance towards refugees), 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).

lol

Sincerely interested in his bank account

Also trained in gorilla warfare

Well at least now he knows what it's actually like to be a dissident

There isn't really any sort of victory with Zizek debating anyone, I think. Zizek is very good at tearing down ideas and worldviews, but has never actually argued for anything to replace what he destroys. Petersen will just argue for his own moral system, and Zizek will argue against Petersens moral system without really making any positive claims himself, and then the debate will just sort of... end. Nobody will be any better off after having watched this except maybe some hardcore Petersen supporters realizing he's shit.

lol

nice one

I've only recently started listening to him and he seems like a down to earth guy, the stuff he says is so basic that I don't get how it could be false.

Is Zizek a crypto-stirnerite?

Attached: 14054168_1615066308786771_210652848627514661_n.jpg (480x480, 41K)

this. the modern left needs to stop with their endless "critiques" and explain some fucking plans for the future. anyone can see capitalism has its flaws. if you're still just pointing back to marx who is no longer economically relevant you're not going to be recruiting any new believers. peterson has the easy job, finding the good in the status quo, but zizek isn't even attempting his job, at least in public.

also
>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.

Zizek would dominate.

Attached: 3E675052-8F11-46B7-8586-A00F9C1C6BBD-11517-00001125E6F18AB0.jpg (460x276, 34K)

Look at those fuckin girl wrists.

Attached: 1497514564802.gif (355x201, 2.99M)

>that pic
I fucking died

chomsky

back to facebook, retard

Attached: 7qttfnm.gif (540x540, 359K)

Peterson is fitter, would run that fat fuck around the ring and then deliver the killer blow in the 6th when "who ate all the pies" had no energy left to defend. Gluttony and desecration of the body is the worst sin man can commit.

>explain some fucking plans for the future
it called socialism niggga

No. Stirner at least advocates for egoism. Zizek advocates for nothing. He just destroys.

I'm not sure but we would all lose.

Socialism's failures have been arguably worse than capitalism's. Capitalism is deeply flawed but at least it tends to be somewhat stable.

Socialism is a meaningless term used for hundreds of very different systems. Most "socialists", and especially Zizek, don't even follow a particular socialist system and only express the vaguest concept of what it would entail. Soemhow the spontaneous masses will magically make it work. Also being detailed would expose them to critique. Better to remain a vague "socialist".

It's pretty obvious that Peterson would win.
He can lift 2pl8 and Zizek literally has cerebral palsay.

>meaningless term used for hundreds of very different systems
No, at best there is like 10 kinds. And zizek is a communist IIRC so he is quite clear on what he wants.

>*a wild minotaur has entered the play area*
What would happen?

Attached: 1520644040593 (2).png (2025x1190, 1.5M)

I don't think Tito killed all of Stalin's assassins so you could call his country "Soviet".

Somewhat stable, yes. Please ignore all the depressions and crashes - not to mention how economies are forced to intervene into one another, steal limited resources, and abuse the planet.

Attached: 1521592542191.jpg (960x606, 73K)

I'm not ignoring anything; As I said, it's deeply flawed, but as far as it's stability, yes, it's better than any alternatives we currently have.

Zizek looked really weak in one of the interviews I saw recently. The poor bastard is getting old.
Yeah, I like Peterson. I can admit my bias. But Zizek's health is failing. It honestly wouldn't be a fair fight right now.
I think it'd be more interesting and much more fair if we rolled back the clock a few years on Zizek. Back to when he was still old, but healthy.

Peterson would certainly dominate a Zizek quote bot on twitter.

> if you're still just pointing back to marx who is no longer economically relevant

We have Wallerstein now.

I didn't know we had spoilers on this board

Memerson couldn't even find a decent surgeon for his hair transplant, dude's toast

>moving a Veeky Forums thread to Veeky Forums
ffs mods why don't you move this to /pol/ like you do for all out of topic Veeky Forums threads

fuck you, you piece of shit mods

How is this Veeky Forums related.

>& Humanities

Zizek easily.

Posting retarded philosophers and asking who would win in a fucking fist fight does not constitute "& Humanities" but nice try mod.

This trash belongs on /b/, or even better, put it on /pol/ so they blame the jews for more shit.

>fat as fuck
>neo-marxist
EXPLAIN THIS SHIT RIGHT THE FUCK NOW

Attached: 1379997715774.png (354x367, 201K)

Spoiler: Hitler dies

scratch that, which one of them would be the first one to utter a coherent sentence?

Attached: all_smiles.jpg (600x450, 51K)

Makes about as much sense as him having lived under the commies and still wanting to be one.

[spoiler]le test[/spoiler]

youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY

>lobsters construct a societal hierarchy of dominance through their actions
>therefore, humans cannot possibly create societal constructs through their actions

Truly, this man is the apex of conservative intellectualism.

Attached: 1453978087467.jpg (500x502, 70K)

Monarchism was "stable" for thousands of years. Hunter gatherer societies were "stable" for millions. Where are these forms of social organization now?

Isn't the debate scheduled in octomber?

Nothing wrong with monarchism.

>the modern left needs to stop with their endless "critiques" and explain some fucking plans for the future
No, we should mudsling and attack our enemies as much as possible. Although even if nationalism experiences a revival in the short run I think rising inequality caused by automation and the threat of global warming will create a shift to the far left in 15-30 years desu.

Strawman.

He doesn't say it can't be done, he said it involves oppression and bloodshed.

Strawman critique #4353 by messy roomed metrosexuals of Peterson's ideas.

Don't forms of societal organisation evolve and change naturally?
All a form of social organisation is, is a complex system. And it's well-known that all systems undergo development, crisis and transformation into a new system.
It's also known that no system lasts forever.

Why do we expect our social systems to be stable forever?

Why does he keep saying he has anything to do with leftism nowadays?

Guy is probably the only living example of radical centrism i've ever seen

What Zizek debates are like that? The Chomsky one? I'm mostly under the impression that Zizek always talks about the same thing every time, it's almost kind of boring. Besides, if you all are expecting some hard bloody fight between them, I think you're gonna be disappointed. Even if you are doubtful of Peterson's intellectual pedigree he's still an intellectual and so the engagement will just be like two fancy professors' debates that you always see every now and then in the campus.

>therefore, humans cannot possibly create societal constructs through their actions
What? Where does he say this?

He doesn't. They strawman his views every chance they get because his main points are too reasonable to oppose.

>too reasonable

Attached: 6ec.jpg (500x663, 123K)

That's a nice picture of yourself user, a little pretentious though.

>the modern left needs to stop with their endless "critiques" and explain some fucking plans for the future.
Zizek is not an analog for the left

His main points are usually dressed in layers of anecdotes, idealism (despite his pessimistic psychological based worldview), and appeals to principles he assumes everyone else must share.

But he is a self-titled marxist-hegelian-stalinist

and most leftists are not even remotely Marxist or Stalinist. Those few leftists that call themselves Marxists usually don't even know what it means.

But that's what he basically says in the article. That today's Neo-Progressivists are just Liberals with a touch of leftism gone wrong

he does not argue against societal constructs.
he argues that they were developed with good reason and you'd be retarded to think you can improve it in some way and not fuck it up in 10 other ways at the same time