[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / kocsog / pol3 / revel3 ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: dbd59649cd56247⋯.jpg (84 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, zizekpeterson.jpg)


Now that the dust is starting to settle, what do you think we should do to capitalize on this debate?

Here are my impressions of how various people are viewing it:

>Peterson got BTFO by Zizek who showed the audience how intellectually unprepared Peterson was to talk about the topics

This view is prominent among the leftist circles on Youtube, especially clearly seen in the comments section of Muke's video of the debate.

>it wasn't a debate, it was a civil discussion between two intellectuals who agree a lot with each other

I can see this in the comments section of the most popular video of the debate. I think this is how most regular people are framing the debate.

>this "debate" was a disgrace and the "intellectuals" who participated in it should be ashamed of themselves

I've seen a couple of articles describing the debate this way. I think they're correct but I don't think they know that Zizek fully intended never to debate in an academic manner, instead opting to win over Peterson's fans through SLICK ENTRYISM. I think Zizek pulled this off masterfully (which shocked me, he was more coherent than usual and completely controlled the debate).

How should leftists on Youtube approach this in order to win over people and get them interested in leftist thought? Of course there's the angle of showing how much Peterson is a hack and how he badly he did in the debate but there's another angle to consider.

Take that moment in the debate when Peterson was listening to Zizek as if he's fascinated by him. That I think is representative of some of Peterson's fans who just got introduced to Zizek who was expecting someone else entirely, probably some caricature of a marxist. If we play our cards right and approach in a friendly manner, showing how much we hate the idpol obsessed SJWs and how they're not representative of our side I think we have a good chance of winning people over.


Do what Zizek did and say the entire time "nonono me not a marxist you see? btw here's real marxism pretty cool aye"


I really like the part where they brought out toilets equipped with microphones and Zizek and Peterson took turns shitting greasy shits into the toilets while the sound of their asses was blasted directly at the audience.



Peterson got BTFO by Zizek at the end because his argument was to "live a meaningful life" and Zizek pointed out that people can live very misguided lives based on false meaning derived from ideology and religion.



>Literally tells Peterson to read Marx and says he agrees with his critique of political economy

>Not a Marxist

This is why I think some people are too dumb for debates


File: 1df3bff57d627db⋯.png (537.83 KB, 1920x926, 960:463, 1.png)



The debate was mutlifaceted, some point where "good", some where "wrong", some where "useful", etc. YouTubers should avoid having reviews or discussions about the whole debate and should instead focus on topics or sections.



There are many moments like when Zizek subtly called Peterson an idiot and told him to read more that would constitute a "BTFO". My favorite moment though is at the end when Zizek said not to be too hasty to call people fascists and this is directed to the SJW leftists but you could also apply this to the right wingers who are also calling the SJWs fascists.


Zizek Exposes Defect In Jordan Peterson's Beliefs



Zizek vs Peterson on “Postmodern Neo-Marxism” (Highlight)



Jordan Peterson Debates Slavoj Zizek




God Peterson was so fucking cornered here. I wish there was a recording with the chat so I could experience the moment when the chat blew up. Shame that Zizek didn't completely nail Peterson when he said that Derrida and Foucalt were marxists but I suppose he didn't want things to get too heated.


[historical vacuum intensifies]

Jordan Peterson: How Have You Prepared For Your Debate With Zizek?



>Although Jordan Peterson is far from being a member of the Alt-Right, they do share in common a belief in something called "cultural Marxism". In this clip, Zizek discusses cultural Marxism as a mere conspiracy theory on the right side of the political spectrum.



Slavoj Zizek smacks Jordan Peterson down on the flaming issue of what 'The Lion King' was all about.



I think Zizek really ingratiated himself to JP fans and made JP look retarded. The consequence (probably intended) is likely going to be a bunch of JP fans turning Asserite.


File: 4de5cadaaa7509d⋯.mp4 (4.82 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, the Zizek VS Peterson deba….mp4)



This is a discussion of the debate from the "rational skeptic" side of Youtube.

I remember Friended from the second Jack Angstreich vs The Academic Agent debate. It's a good debate if you haven't watched it but only the first part is up (because TAA deleted the second part the sneaky bastard). A completely different style from Zizek where the marxist absolutely clinically dismantles the anti-marxist.



Has Jack Angstreich done anything else other than that debate? I would definitely watch his YT channel if he made videos


Rightists embrace post-modernism as their rightful ideological clay (remember that Jacobin article). A whole new wave of "NazBols" read up on Zizek, Foucault, Baudrillard.



That really is the best Zizek video ever.


File: 932b313b0fee705⋯.jpg (21.79 KB, 300x360, 5:6, 932b313b0fee705255ce8c6cfa….jpg)

Finally got around to watching the debate. I'm 20:47 into the stream and it is obvious that Peterson doesn't understand what Marx was trying to say. Now he started saying "Marx believed all the good is on the side of the proletariat, and all the bad is on the side of the bourgeoisie." but that's not true at all. Marx believed that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were oppressed in capitalism, there was no "good guys" or "bad guys". The Humans are the "good guys" and the system of capitalism that makes us behave in bad ways is the "bad guys". The bourgeoisie doesn't do what it does because they are "evil", the bourgeoisie does it because that is their role in the system. If a CEO is expected to post profits for every quarter, and the sales aren't doing that well, then the CEO will fire employees to save money and make the company profitable in that quarter. The CEO isn't necessarily a "bad" person (although it helps if you're a psychopath or without scruples), the CEO fulfills the role of the head of the company with a task. If the CEO doesn't do it, they will be replaced by someone who will. The nature of the person, and their agency, doesn't matter that much. If the CEO is a "good person" and doesn't do it, then the company might lose the confidence of its shareholders, people might sell their shares, it might lead to failure of the company. This framing into good/evil Peterson is doing is very infantile and I'm wondering if I should even continue watching the debate if I just have to sit through ANOTHER misreading of Marx. I'm sick of hearing right-wingers create strawmen and misrepresent arguments to then arrive at gotcha moments. If the premise of your argument isn't correct then your conclusions aren't correct. This is literally logic 101.



>Marx believed that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were oppressed in capitalism

holy fuck, read Marx you idiot



>How should leftists on Youtube approach this in order to win over people and get them interested in leftist thought?

Make theory digestible by making it relatable to people's experience of social structures and explain it in a clear, concise and fun way.


File: 02752b6e1819e37⋯.jpeg (136.92 KB, 990x658, 495:329, baby.jpeg)


>While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 4

>As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour. Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.

Marx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 10

>In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto

I'm not arguing that they are oppressed in the same way. Clearly the life of the bourgeois person and the proletarian are vastly different and the life of the former is much nicer than the life of the former. It is in the interest of the former to keep the latter down, as it were, to employ the State to continue the existence of classes, and thereby the existence of the bourgeoisie class. I'm saying they don't do this because every single member of the bourgeoisie is evil and does this for joy, they do it for self-preservation, of themselves and of their class, because that is how the system is set. It is in their interest to keep the class system, because when the class system is destroyed the bourgeoisie stop existing as a class. This constant need for self-preservation, protection against the proletariat, is also no way for a human being to live. To end the class system it means to liberate both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie from their respective lives of torment. The proletarian's life is much harder and her liberation that much sweeter, but that doesn't mean that it isn't liberation for both.

Try and think before you comment and start insulting others. Does it make you feel good to call others idiots? If that is so, think about why that is and fix it. You have a lot to learn, young grasshopper.



The later back-and-forth where they're sitting later in the debate is worth watching in parts because Peterson shits his pants really hard.



It's kind of disingenuous to say this and turn around and say "the values of our society reinforce capitalism and must be destroyed in order for capitalism to end"



The guy in the video pretty much spoke my mind. One of the few people who understood what Zizek was trying to accomplish with the debate.



literally none of those quotes says porkies are oppressed. are you retarded?


File: 36514085ea3a581⋯.png (1.27 MB, 2419x1166, 2419:1166, opposum meme magic.png)


Peterson's cult will continue to worship him, but his ability to ensnare more young men has been destroyed because Zizek revealed him as a Wikipedia theorist.



>I think they're correct but I don't think they know that Zizek fully intended never to debate in an academic manner, instead opting to win over Peterson's fans through SLICK ENTRYISM.

This was my opinion also. This makes even more sense when you consider Zizek's remarks about Kierkegaard and 'authority.' Any other leftist could have made a better case for Marxism, but Zizek went in with his best hits to win some fans. But then again, this whole thing was full of modern liberal arts pseudo-speak that I could be mistaken.


File: 22fc6a612fc38ba⋯.jpg (86.8 KB, 960x954, 160:159, 54278987_10217321099646948….jpg)


Do you really not understand what I'm trying to say? Let me try again…

We're among a few people just chilling in a living room, having a beer and shooting shit. All of a sudden armed men break in and put guns to our heads and say "Play monopoly! Play monopoly until you die, then your children will inherit what you have and they will play until they die, or we will kill you all."

So we start playing, and during the course of the game, naturally some people will have more land and money in monopoly than others (fun fact: the actual monopoly game was invented to show this). As the game progresses you decide that you no longer want to play monopoly, despite your better position in the game, you want to go play dungeons and dragons, or ride your bike, but tough shit, you're playing monopoly. You can't stop playing monopoly. So you continue playing to win (because why would you play to lose). You continue buying properties, collecting rent, etc. even though it's something you no longer wish to do, you don't have a choice. You're playing monopoly and that's that. It has been decided for you. You're a slave to the game, no matter whether you're winning or losing, or have a lot of land or no land, you're trapped in the game.



Zizek pretty much said in a couple of interviews that "nothing substantial will come out of the debate" and the only reason he agreed to the debate was to make young people who would be attracted to the alt-right to vote for Bernie instead. Zizek knew what he was getting into.



You're right, the bourgies aren't exempt from the rules of capitalism. Not sure the word "oppression" fits into this context, though. It's just liable to cause misunderstandings, like with that other poster.



mark the right side up plate please



for me it was the one in the bottom left corner. now they're all right side up.


File: 00529c371d50830⋯.jpg (57.42 KB, 600x576, 25:24, how capitalism is bad for ….jpg)


File: 1a78a7b1188af2a⋯.jpg (553.89 KB, 950x1438, 475:719, km.jpg)


>Not sure the word "oppression" fits into this context, though. It's just liable to cause misunderstandings, like with that other poster.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I didn't use the word oppression in this post: >>2874028


>the bourgies aren't exempt from the rules of capitalism

Yes. And I think that in terms of Human self-actualisation Humans don't want to acquire possessions and work and "play a game" only to acquire "better" (more expensive possessions).


>As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

>Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions.

While Marx is talking about the worker here, I see no reason why it cannot be applied to all Humans living in capitalism. The bourgeoisie ultimately don't do anything more than workers, they also consume, eat, drink, fuck, dress up, live in dwellings. It's just that because they are the bourgeoisie and have more capital they can enjoy more expensive and grandiose versions of those things. But they also have to "play the game", rather than do what Humans can do. We're much more than calculating animals trying to own as many things as possible, drink the best alcohols, eat the best food, make the most money (which is a silly end in itself, a pursuit of something that isn't really there). The bourgeoisie also do not create in and from nature, and fulfill their role of a part of nature. They are also estranged from their "species-being".

There's that quote by Jim Carrey: "I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it's not the answer." Fulfillment of your base desires for drink, food, sex, is not what fulfills you as a conscious, thinking being capable of so much more. Or at least that's how I see it.

This is one of my favourite bits of Marx's writing. Because it shows Marxism for what it is, a truly humanist philosophy:

"Man is a species-being [20], not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species (his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being.

The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.

In estranging from man (1) nature, and (2) himself, his own active functions, his life activity, estranged labor estranges the species from man. It changes for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and individual life, and secondly it makes individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form."

(Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Karl Marx)



stop mang, you got BTFO out beyond all reasonable doubt


Make webms of key moment and post them onto 4chan's /wsg/ and /gif/ boards


File: 1567a2a700e7720⋯.png (200.72 KB, 1339x228, 1339:228, Screenshot (20).png)

File: 4ae2e91e41f373d⋯.png (117.78 KB, 1296x232, 162:29, Screenshot (21).png)

File: c36e82fde137893⋯.png (160.15 KB, 1225x236, 1225:236, Screenshot (22).png)

File: 3b9b8299aae3e9a⋯.png (61.79 KB, 1102x283, 1102:283, Screenshot (23).png)


Muke made a video on the debate. Also it looks like the alt-right responses are dropping in. I'm not liking how some of them are trying to spin Zizek.



What "right wing ideas" is Zizek supposed to have used?



Wow the guy in the last image has more sense than most of the zizek cocksuckers on this board.


File: 90996432bdd7b95⋯.png (243.74 KB, 720x720, 1:1, 1547899473512.png)


Dunno I haven't seen the video just glanced at the comments section but I'm guessing it must have something to do with Hegel. The video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQfEUeCZt8M


>reactionaries and redkahinafags trying to push the reactionary label on Zizek





Mein gott let's not do this here.



Why not? Fuck Zizek and his hipster "left" lemmings.



My guess is him saying we shouldn't just accept refugees and immigrants en masse into Europe, but fix the issues that create refugees and emigrants in the first place, namely ending all the wars, proxy wars and regime changes the 'West' has been involved in in the past few decades. He also instructed leftists not to be afraid to be politically incorrect, because we need to solve issues and the only way to do it is by free thinking, and not putting ourselves into ideological boxes where we're afraid to say stuff and self-censor.


File: 431a8a42671cde8⋯.png (74.84 KB, 1028x290, 514:145, Screenshot (24).png)


>what do you think we should do to capitalize on this debate?

Let them believe his guru wasn't exposed and hopefully they will watch Zizek's film about ideology and get tankpilled.



That's what I got from it too. Žižek kept mentioning books, citing thinkers, theologians and philosophers. Žižek was telling jokes and at one point he said to Peterson "I want you to tell a joke!" Peterson had his usual life or death attitude, when people cheered for a violent revolution he paused for a while and looked sad as if to say "Look how lost these people are. There's danger of another 100 million dieing from communism." Žižek looked and talked like a real intellectual, academic, while the moderator piled on accomplishments and accolades on him, Žižek just waved it all away humbly, because none of that mattered except his ideas. Peterson attacked Marxism, because all Peterson knows how to do is construct dichotomies and present everything in a black and white, good v evil sense. Žižek showed that critiquing something isn't necessarily taking the opposite position then attacking the other one. I enjoyed the 'debate', mostly because Žižek showed that the frameworks we have inherited from the 19th and 20th century are not adequate to explain and tackle problems of the 21st century. Peterson was shown to be stuck in those frameworks, a fossil of the past, while Žižek posed questions and challenges to be resolved without presenting any solutions, in the true Marxist sense. Cause Marx himself never indulged in fantasies and theories of what a utopia might look like, just that we have to create the material conditions where a social system that works for all may develop and thrive.


This is a debate worth having, but the pro-capitalist side deserves better-informed anti-Marxist representatives than Jordan Peterson.



File: 067a0510eff2d19⋯.jpg (101.34 KB, 550x696, 275:348, ipnb7.jpg)


>Marx Deserves Better Critics



Great article tbh.

>Ben Burgis

Who is this guy? I believe he has been on the Michael Brooks show a lot lately.


File: 37e50983a98c7a0⋯.png (102.81 KB, 350x243, 350:243, 89469456.png)





Philosophy/logic professor afaik who turns up a lot recently on Zero Books.



He's a professor in formal logic at some university. Wrote a book with Zero Books proposing that leftists should work to construct formally sound arguments, as a way to dispel reactionary gesturing that leftists are all a bunch of whiny SJWs.

The Michael Brooks Show post-game has a weekly segment where he debunks some right-wing ideological construction. These segments afterwards gets published for free as a standalone video on the YouTube channel. He also does videos for the Zero Books channel.

I feel like he isn't that great at presenting himself. It probably would be worthwhile to translate his analyses into a more digestible form.



>These segments afterwards gets published for free as a standalone video on the YouTube channel.

I've seen these in my subscription feed but haven't watched any. I'll check them out.


>Peterson: we should come up with something better!

<socialists: *come up with something better*

>Peterson: No! Not like that!



File: 5c8ec5727c1efd5⋯.gif (952.75 KB, 1173x582, 391:194, 1.gif)


Anything that's not mainstream liberalism is a "right wing idea" to these brainlets.



gif related



I like how he just dismisses the idea that imperialism is the reason why large parts of the world are fucked up without even offering an argument. I also like how it ignores the millions of eastern european migrant workers who are trying to get away from the post soviet neoliberal rape of their home countries.

What I massive fucking idealist, people don't move half way across the world for "muh fundamental truths", they move because they want higher wages and comfier standards of living. Things that is a fuck in large parts of the world due to imperialism.


File: 6a5dc7916210435⋯.png (405.47 KB, 965x694, 965:694, 1.png)

So chapo invaded the peterson subbreddit after the debate. This is how they cope, apparently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM-gZintWDc




<his rectum



> but fix the issues that create refugees and emigrants in the first place

any idiot knows that this is just empty jargon. The only time it becomes anything but empty words, is when the finger is pointed at the Jews who run the US and Israels agenda to destabilize Israels enemies in the Middle-East. You can't change a foreign policy if you run around pretending we are invading foreign countries for oil we don't need (most of this board does not know that the US has become a net exporter of oil due to fracking)



>You can't change a foreign policy if you run around pretending we are invading foreign countries for oil we don't need (most of this board does not know that the US has become a net exporter of oil due to fracking)

The US doesn't need Middle-Eastern oil, but China does. The US isn't seeking to control the supply of energy resources like gas and oil for its own sake, but because it gives it great leverage over the one country that's threatening to surpass it in the international system. A lot of people don't consider this angle at all and so they often point to Israel or whatever, but it's really just common sense if you think about it. You can't really understand US foreign policy in the Middle East without taking into account the vast fight for global supremacy between the US and China, IMO.



Another thing people forget about is that the US is not entirely a rational actor. Its elite and bureaucracy are run by people who have a zealous and sincere belief that their system of liberal democracy and capitalism is the greatest thing ever and 100% true and good and that the military machine is magical and cannot be challenged this was especially true in 2003. They thought that they could go in to Iraq and Afghanistan and transform them into liberal capitalist democracies that would be aligned with the US as their patron and that way the US controls the entire region and have it be another Europe because they read about shit like the Martial plan from textbooks where US spending money somewhere lead to democracy and prosperity so they poured hundreds of billions of dollars into not even military shit but democratic institution and prosperity building type shit. Once they realized they failed they attempted the second phase with the Arab spring to just scorch earth the entire place with Islamists and warfare to deny their potential rivals and re-route Saudi and Qatari oil and gas into the EU to cut off Russia this plan also failed


File: e237cb561e84913⋯.jpg (139.04 KB, 1200x1173, 400:391, jordan-peterson-lobster-co….jpg)

File: 924efebbd9f878c⋯.jpg (48.47 KB, 1199x564, 1199:564, jordan-peterson-lobster-co….jpg)

File: b6648743715ab84⋯.jpg (69.72 KB, 1200x571, 1200:571, jordan-peterson-lobster-co….jpg)


>Now that the dust is starting to settle, what do you think we should do to capitalize on this debate?

You should acknowledge that you have dirty rooms, and purchase some fine Jordan Peterson clothing.



Lmao, is this fucking real? What a complete quack



>(most of this board does not know that the US has become a net exporter of oil due to fracking)

This isn't true at all. The only thing even close is reports saying that if exponential growth continues they will be a net exporter by 2020 but those reports were paid for by Exxon and conducted not by independent academics but by the industry for the purpose of investor advertisement.


File: 4fb26430f1af762⋯.jpg (130.89 KB, 866x594, 433:297, nat_gas_production_1990-20….jpg)

File: 8544c3fb04c056d⋯.gif (25.61 KB, 617x395, 617:395, Liquid_Fuels_By_Source2.gif)

File: 9fe6c835f9baa02⋯.png (146.88 KB, 1320x881, 1320:881, EIA_Shale_Charts-1320x881.png)

File: bc944348d3885ea⋯.png (94.43 KB, 923x690, 923:690, AEO2019-USExportImport.png)

File: 56527a0cc2a2af6⋯.jpg (657.6 KB, 640x494, 320:247, us-gas-growth-eia-projecti….jpg)


literally every report is "projections" and they are fucking insane





imagine being this liberal



>poltards confusing alt-right with fascism all time.

>call liberal because strawman is easy to use

>burger detected

But it is.



>typical liberal miss identification detected

>calling you a liberal because that is exactly what liberals think and say

>has to call me a burger because the accusation of being a liberal can only make sense in the context of american boomerism

You are the type of stupid leftoid who thinks that Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist, the equivalent of the american right-wing retard who thought Obama was communist.



Peterson is gateway alt-right.



your the liberal arent you





Yes. That was my secret plot all along.


That's like saying AOC is gateway communism.

I think both are a honeypot for normies.



>That's like saying AOC is gateway communism.

She is though.



Uhm, ok. If that makes you feel better. I for one do not think that the anglo-american elite would let her get away with this nor in any way actively supporting someone who has that potentiality.



>typical liberal miss identification detected

Still using the typical strawman, why you're trying to spend the efforts to make 'false acusations' when in the same time you're against of identification falacies 'used' by the lefty with the alt-rigth?

>calling you a liberal because that is exactly what liberals thinks and say.

Hahahahahah so, 'liberal' is not a party of USA, now is a ideology itself, what moron.

Wich are those 'liberal' thougths, what is their philosohy and econocmic thougths. They are near from liberalism like their name suguest, or is another thing in the left, a new form anarchyst liberalism?. Where I can get 'liberal' literature by liberal thinkers.

>has to call me a burger because the accusation of being a liberal can only make sense in the context of american boomerism.

But it is, because liberal is a USA party, nobody in the world, has argument to acusated everyone of be a liberal but americans morons infatuaded whit cocks like you.

Americans rigth-wingers has just the politica knowlege of their country. Is like someone acuseted me of being a PCCh asuming my nationality (venezuelan) instead call me by and idiology base by I said, like comunism, a postmodernism, anarchysm, etc. What idiot you are mate. I had never said nothing of agen of liberals, and boomerism shit.

Strawman again, we never talking of Ben Shapiro, even I did not the mention of him, In fact, I think he is just a liberalist porky. But I don't care about burger polytic though.


Robespierre once went before the Convention claiming he had a list of names of traitors to be tried and executed. However, when asked to name some of them, he refused to do so.

Later, he was guillotined himself.

Zizek asked Peterson to name some of the postmodern neo-marxists he rants about all of the time. He couldn't do so.

That same night, he was absolutely eviscerated.


File: dfe5943f603c24a⋯.png (201.74 KB, 1333x230, 1333:230, Screenshot (25).png)


Doug Lain put out his video on the Zizek vs Peterson debate. Pretty good imo.



one of the better takes i think


>>2876133 (me)

I accidentally pasted the wrong link.




how bout, uh, just not intervening in international affairs? or would that be too liberal for the liberal democracies of the world?



Idealism. Of course we shouldn't meddle in other countries' affairs except for spreading the socialism of course, but that's practically the equivalent of Peterson's appeal to individualist moralism to tackle larger societal issues like climate change etc. Countries will inevitably meddle in eachothers' affairs if it is in their interests to do so. That is the reality we live in.



i'm getting really tired of these stories about cheating wives, coffee without milk and fist fucking



The Communist manifesto isn’t just propaganda, it’s actually a very precise summary of all of the core ideas of Marxism with incredible logical reasoning. I suggest you read it. It’s truly a work of poetry and I think it’s short sighted to dismiss the Manifesto like that


File: 425026c03e7b7b5⋯.jpg (143.19 KB, 1367x1009, 1367:1009, petersonreplace.jpg)

File: 33b27e1714ac286⋯.jpg (246.42 KB, 1342x1222, 671:611, peterson10.jpg)

There's a wikiquote page for Jordan Peterson, but it seems like a parody.


"History is the biography of the human race."

"There is no being without imperfection."

"You can't make rules for the exceptional."

"If they're on fire and you have water, then you can sell it to them."

"People do not care whether or not they succeed; they care about whether or not they fail."

"Income inequality is increasing, and you might ask yourself: 'Why is that?' Well, that's what income does."

^ this is my favourite.

>it's just what income is, all unequal n shit

"Here's a rule for whether or not you should take an opportunity: Will taking that opportunity teach you something that you can use to get other opportunities?"

"Just cause you are a failure does not mean you are an artist"

"When you know that the snake is in you – that's wisdom."

>what does that even mean?

"Do not try to rescue someone who does not want to be rescued, and be very careful about rescuing someone who does want to be rescued."

>fuck people, I guess

"Some things are obvious. Well, why?"




"If religion was the opium of the masses, then communism was the methamphetamine of the masses."


File: d9b7dbe6c3f0838⋯.jpg (29.59 KB, 968x681, 968:681, jordanpeterson.jpg)


"Look at you people in here – what the hell is wrong with you? Nothing. So you could probably have what you want, if you could figure out what the hell it was and you diligently pursued it."

I can't stop laughing at these morsels of wisdom. The most important thinker of the 21st century.



Is this suggesting that Peterson fans aren't children?


Haven't watched it yet but FinnBol made a video about the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PyMlyq7MQ


File: a58a1eca63eb939⋯.jpg (10.25 KB, 210x215, 42:43, a58a1eca63eb93943c2bb39233….jpg)



>if it is in their interests

>not disregarding their interest for the group interest



"Income inequality is increasing, and you might ask yourself: 'Why is that?' Well, that's what income does."

Clearly a reference to "econophysics" research showing that money follows an entropy pattern analgous to the distribution of gas molecules. Once again comrade Petersonski cuts through the bullshit of bourgeois ideology with the power of stochastic structuralism. Sometimes I wonder: Is he going to far? He's such a hard materialist he makes Das Kapital look like The Gift.

"When you know that the snake is in you – that's wisdom."

>what does that even mean?

Trouser snake.



this post is a work of art


Hey I guess this is sort of off topic but do you guys think JBP is anorexic? I think that would explain a lot of his behaviour and personality


File: 2d71623fa5ee64b⋯.jpg (201.49 KB, 1920x1152, 5:3, 4909.jpg)

File: 1286fdef138179b⋯.jpeg (33.04 KB, 567x296, 567:296, 1 FMS7Dv2P6Q22UfgymthrDw.jpeg)

File: 812c2346fcec154⋯.jpg (222.94 KB, 1920x2156, 480:539, 49092.jpg)


Does this look like someone who plays around, bucko?



Imagine actually willing to waste money on this

What a mind set.



A gorilla mindset, even.



Insert your hot and throbbing snake into my rectum, Jordan senpai!



Liberalism (and Marxism) are universalist ideas born out of the universalism of Christianity. It is literally impossible to ask people who hold universalist views of historical development and ethics to not interfere in the affairs of others. In otheer words, liberal internationalism isn't a *bug*, it's a *feature*.

The only rational framework whereby internationalism gets rendered moot is non-irredentist nationalism.



But how then are we to compare lengths?



didn't know tatsuro yamashita retroactively made ride on time as a response to the debate but good to know anyway



But we have iPhones now!!!



It's my bad I posted the wrong link. On another note I would like to see a Zizekian analysis of the resurging popularity of city pop and the neo-80's fad. The genre is a guilty pleasure for me.



Cuck Philosophy did a good video on the subject



File: f59e53be272b9f5⋯.png (149.41 KB, 1156x638, 578:319, le marxists everywhere.png)



Peterson is familiar mostly with liberal gross misinterpretation of conflict theory. Remember he's a toronto professor, he's inundated with room temperature Autism Level "discrimination plus power" sociology professors


A Pakistani Marxist professor also made a response to Jordan Peterson's criticism of the Communist Manifesto https://youtu.be/42eJu22scY8



>if you say you're a marxist you're a marxist, even if you were an active anti-revolutionary in the 90s



>If the premise of your argument isn't correct then your conclusions aren't correct. This is literally logic 101.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / dempart / kocsog / pol3 / revel3 ]