Slavoj Zizek, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Stefan Molyneux get together for a round-table discussion

true but 87% of that is owed to his strong eastern-european accent and grating lisp

man, big buks for sure

i wish land would speak for the public more

it has always fascinated me that people like land and bataille and celine and houellebecq etc etc can craft textual horror while simultaneously being such friendly people. ive always found land charming. yeah okay im done

They bore me to death with their 20th century mindset.

I don't think you get your own academic journal with an intriguing accent.

they decide to order pizza
zizek and harris can't agree on toppings. zizek wants peperoni but harris wants margarita
the argument escalates as the others take sides
zizek pulls out a gun
harris pulls out a gun too
molyneux hides under the table
peterson also pulls out a gun
mexican standoff ensues
the ghost of christopher hitchens appears and appeals for peace
harris looks like he wants to stand down but zizek pulls back the hammer
then
DING DONG pizza is here
while under the table peterson has ordered both peperoni and margarita
everyone's happy
zizek refuses to give a tip to the delivery guy

no, but you become increasingly hard to understand

Good thing books have no accent.

As opposed to?

Watch zizek's al jezeera interview. Same thing, but with three other brain dead rhetoricians instead of one. They endlessly repeat facts to talk over zizek's point which is far more nuanced than they are capable of conceiving

Zizek is one of the most lucid and pedagogically clear writers in the theory game. It gets a bit difficult to fit all the blocks of his castles together if you aren't familiar with his Lacano-Hegelian Marxism, but you can get yourself up to speed just by reading his earlier works, because of how carefully and precisely explains and exemplifies every concept, theory, and philosophical structure he introduces.

That's going to be interesting. Veeky Forums fantasizes about a rectum-shredding debate but I doubt that's going to happen. Peterson retweets Molyneux videos also, so I don't feel as though those two would argue that much either. I suspect that Molyneux probably sees that he and Peterson are more alike than different, given the culture wars. It's just that Peterson is a bonafide academic and Molyneux is a public individual/redpill culture guy. He does best when his guests are people who basically already agree with him.

Zizek is the one who would be the most difficult interview for all three of them, but it's hard to say for sure. He would probably common ground with Harris about Trump, maybe even Chomsky. Neither like political correctness, and both are probably going to like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Harris doesn't strike me as a progressive, he strikes me as being part of the Cybernetic Consciousness from SMAC who got time-warped into our reality. Compared to the other guys, who are always getting so agitated, he might as well be the Rock of Gibraltar. Apparently he's been asked about interviewing Molyneux but he didn't sound too excited about it.

With Peterson, of course, Z is into Lacan and JP is into Jung, but I don't know, maybe since they're both feeling alienated by society they'll work it out.

Zizek/Molyneux would be a wonderful, total disaster.

I think the only way to do this would be to lock all four of them in a room together and just see what they come up with. There might have to be some trust falls or reality TV shit in it or something. Really though I would just like some hero documentary filmmaker to ask these guys about the world today and get their responses to things. Not in an adversarial way but to just ask them about the good life or old vague general philosophical questions that people care about. Maybe try and capture some of the way that they think.

Nick Land especially. He probably wouldn't do it, but if you had some cool animation stuff to just sort of try and give you a brief insight into the way these guys think, and then you as the viewer make up your own mind. Or leave your own mind unmade. Land is interesting enough to get his own short film.

It's always disappointing when philosophers go to war. But debates don't work either, they have too much to lose if they look stupid. Just a film about listening to these guys talk would be okay.

I'm opening my wallet up for that four-man roundtable if it happens, though.

>tfw no Aki-Zeta 5 gf

Zizek's books do

Alright there memer.

Me too. The CC is for me the greatest faction in vidya. If that game had a custom faction designer I wouldn't even use it. The CC is what I would make. One of the greatest things I've ever read on the chans was about them:

>When everyone is Big Brother, no one is.

Boom. True, now everyone you meet is Sam Harris: the guy at the gas station, your doctor, the guy who brings you your pizza. You too are Sam Harris. You are okay with this. But AZ5 is out there somewhere too, thank God. I don't actually think they're as strong as the Hive, but I've already been banned from one board today...

Anyways, if I had to sort them:

H: CC
Z: Drones
M: Morgan
JP: Gaia? not sure
NL: Morgan
D: Hive

>Peterson is going on Sam Harris's podcast in 5 days

wew lad, this is going to be something

not an argument

Dugin would make things interesting

>Nobody actually knows where he goes but they find him the next day about a mile from the venue, staring into the horizon.

>At this point Peterson repeatedly bangs his hand on the table has actually a pretty good meltdown. It is the Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams takeaway that everyone remembers. He then bursts into tears and leaves the room. Nobody actually knows where he goes but they find him the next day about a mile from the venue, staring into the horizon.

I like Peterson but this made me chuckle.

>Land
>20th century mindset

mate

Are there even any serious intelletuals that support Political Correctness to a high degree?

Molymeme even more than the rest is just far too literal-minded to actually hold up any discussion with someone like Zizek. He's a somewhat amusing political commentator but I don't know why he thinks he understands anything about philosophy.

All of them are pseuds tho:
>le power of Lacan pseudoscience and le Hegel man, also gommunism man
>le pop psychology and Carl "Collective Consciousness" Jung man
>mister lolbterian red pill man
>Nick "Overdose of Postmodernism" Land
>Sam "Thanks science for these morals" Harris

The fact that he's so emotionally invested and loopy is one of the reasons I like him so much

Please think before you post. Sometimes 'memeing' isn't suitable and a sincere type of post is needed.

thank you

When such people are taken too serious no sincerity is ever necessary
All there is left is to mock them

why the fuck does anyone read these hacks

zizek is the only actual philosopher out of all of these and even then has completely fallen out of favor in contemporary academic philosophy

>has completely fallen out of favor in contemporary academic philosophy

this is not a bad thing t.b.h

most contemporary academics seem like idiots. and if they aren't, why don't they make videos and talk about things? oh right, they're too busy circle-jerking.

But ok, let me try a sincere comment. I think these 'intellectuals' are in fact memes themselves: unsincere and meaningless, only to exist to propagate in this case their ideas.
Most of them might be absolutely serious about their foundations of which they base their own ideas on, but yet these are as shallow as they are.

considering that he has just become a reactionary blog-poster and hasn't written anything philosophically worthwhile in the last half-decade, it's not a good sign.

zizek used to be a respected philosopher of lacan and schelling but now he's utterly worthless garbage who relies on clickbait sensationalism

>why don't they make videos and talk about things

probably because they are getting paid to advise graduate students at accredited universities and write books instead of creating fake online universities and pseudo-intellectual podcasts

Now this is some pseudposting.

>But ok, let me try a sincere comment. I think these 'intellectuals' are in fact memes themselves: unsincere and meaningless, only to exist to propagate in this case their ideas.

this in and of itself is an "unsincere" and meaningless statement. i won't even attempt to prove you wrong, but it shall merely suffice to ask you why the fuck should i even listen to you? what experience do you have with professional philosophy at all? i already know the answer to this question--none.

for the record, i am working on my phd in philosophy at the moment and it is very clear to me that you have no idea what professional philosophers actually do.

Probably some of the still living PoMo old guard like Judith Butler but no one really relevant.

>he's utterly worthless garbage who relies on clickbait sensationalism
>read: he's relevant and the academics who hate him aren't

Incredible resentment is directed toward thinkers who actually engage with contemporaneity by the cloistered academics who envy their success. Isn't it funny how every successful and well-known modern philosopher, is just spouting bullshit and lacks rigor, whereas every no name professor knows his or her subject inside out?

>Incredible resentment is directed toward thinkers who actually engage with contemporaneity by the cloistered academics who envy their success. Isn't it funny how every successful and well-known modern philosopher, is just spouting bullshit and lacks rigor, whereas every no name professor knows his or her subject inside out?

literally no one in philosophy gives a shit about zizek being "successful" by becoming a walking buzzfeed article, most people are just shocked that he went from producing great work on german idealism to writing really shitty sloppy anti-immigration and anti-islam articles. the quality of zizek's work has declined immensely. but of course, it's because everyone has penis envy over the fact that neckbeards watch his youtube videos. thanks for your incisive commentary

>Stefan Molyneux

three academics and a youtuber......why would you do this?

Nick Land is too Aspy and Dugin's English isn't good enough. They would bog down the conversation. So would Slavoj actually desu.

Stefan is actually sort of awkward with people he disagrees with as well. He's very aggressive and confrontational and he doesn't really give people a chance to be passive and absorb what he says, which scares people away from conversation. I don't know how interesting a talk between him and another high end intellectual would actually be.

Now the talk between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris is going to be interesting.

Thank you.
>but it shall merely suffice to ask you why the fuck should i even listen to you? what experience do you have with professional philosophy at all? i already know the answer to this question--none.
Yeah sure, I have very little experience with it. Read a few books, asked r/philosophy some questions and recommendations and thought of actually studying it.
All I did so far was spouting empty rhetoric myself. I've found a few philosophers I want to give a chance, but also found a lot of rhetoric masked as something profound. The likes of Peter Sloterdijk, Timothy Morton, Slavoj Zizek and a few Dutch philosophers (who are proud to call themselves folk philosophers).

Historic philosophers are slightly more interesting, I like Tocqueville, Hume and Montesquieu. But of course I rarely read the originals, takes to much effort to get into it when other non-fiction is much more interesting.

>Denigrating the greatest pop philosopher of our time.
>Meanwhile academic philosophers contemplate patriarchy.

Mocking someone is not persuasive

>Mocking someone is not persuasive
Satire works at times,
But in all honesty I failed this thread anyway so not coming back after this last reply

>really shitty sloppy [citation needed] anti-immigration and anti-islam articles

fixed that

Wow. I imagine it so perfectly.
"So, (sniffs and pulls collar) I am going to give you his money, and that is it". He waves his hands violently "it is a matter of principal to me, and you should know, that without my 5 dollars, you will be fine." He quickly stuffs the money in the deliverers pocket and as he's closing the door, gives a half hearted wave through the small gap.

So who's the masc4masc, top, bottom, and switch in this situation

Stefan Molyneux loses his temper, Jordan Peterson cries, Sam Harris acts like a conceited cunt, Zizek thoughtfully strokes his beard before launching into some long and pointless speech which ultimately says nothing.

Harris refuses to discuss the selected subject, instead insisting on steering conversation towards a convoluted 'what if?' scenario he has fabricated to prove his point
When the others object he will sputter impotently about maintaining a civil dialogue

>tfw you cry on youtube once because you're sick and it's been a rough couple of months and it becomes a meme

zizek literally claimed that we need atheism to solve terrorism because islam is stupid and we should ridicule it. if you don't think that's sloppy then i've got a bridge to sell you

seems solid

No it's obnoxiously inane. "Let's rip away the most important thing to these people. That'll solve the extremist issues!" This is exactly what caused the Iranian Revolution.

T. History major who took a class on Iran. My prof went to UChicago for his doctorate