[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / feet / hdi8 / hydrus / imouto / lds / lewd / maka / orbg ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Expect frequent attacks during the next two weeks as we approach the US midterm elections.
September 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

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.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: bae0ba965e92564⋯.png (593.33 KB, 579x600, 193:200, 1.png)

 No.2396045

 No.2396053

File: 7ab0205dd1069b9⋯.png (85.54 KB, 760x462, 380:231, 2.png)

File: 2aa8a08b125b3a8⋯.png (89.74 KB, 682x462, 31:21, 1.png)

File: a1f82778a1e3405⋯.png (32.57 KB, 674x214, 337:107, 4.png)

File: 72664bfaa43b14b⋯.png (34.35 KB, 682x207, 682:207, 3.png)

Peterson Defense Force is in.


 No.2396056

>>2396053

>#itsoktobewhite

fuckin lol

also love that they don't even know who Zizek is


 No.2396059

File: 2baa61c71db2aed⋯.png (79.59 KB, 679x582, 7:6, 1.png)

File: a8d5df026ee5a11⋯.png (59.38 KB, 612x590, 306:295, 2.png)

File: 7ebeaeb0212e5eb⋯.png (56.27 KB, 612x509, 612:509, 3.png)

A fucking goldmine, the comment section.


 No.2396060

>>2396056

Several factors: very low reading comprehension skills ("did just Zizek call Peterson a nazi?!"), loyal fanboism ("Peterson has 10 PHDs, how many does this journalist have?"), and the failure to even google the writer produced a hilarious cocktail.


 No.2396061

File: 248e20030f84804⋯.png (91.14 KB, 641x571, 641:571, 1.png)

I'm dying.


 No.2396062

File: 0d3e154dec43f28⋯.png (34.99 KB, 599x281, 599:281, 1.png)


 No.2396063

Decent article apart from everything else, the classic sniffman take on how liberalism can't and won't counter fascism because it produces it.


 No.2396065

File: a27806fbf0ce5b9⋯.png (54.76 KB, 497x364, 71:52, 1.png)


 No.2396067

>>2396060

>the failure to even google the writer

Unable so so much as google the subject they're trying to talk about before pontificating about it, they're truly men after Peterson's own heart.


 No.2396069

File: c7106bb03ec504f⋯.png (71.85 KB, 508x422, 254:211, 3.png)

File: 9824221b1039bf8⋯.png (26.52 KB, 603x176, 603:176, 2.png)

File: 6881a2991e018e3⋯.png (78.71 KB, 596x401, 596:401, 1.png)

>I don't understand the article, but here's what I misunderstood

>+9 updemocracies

>Let me explain it to you.

>-9 downdemocracies


 No.2396070

>>2396069

btw, Peterson & his fanbois really think that this is Zizek's personal twitter account: >>2396047


 No.2396072

>>2396069

Zizek doesn't have twitter does he?


 No.2396074

He doesn't. There's a twitter bot grabbing short and random sentences from his books.

>>2396072

>>2396070


 No.2396075

Thing coming across most from the comments on the article and twitter is:

>painful to read

>didn't understand lol

>didn't read

But this article isn't even challenging. Peterson fanboys have definitely never read anything that required thinking/contemplation for even a second to understand.


 No.2396076

File: 8022da01911da90⋯.png (242.78 KB, 252x320, 63:80, Warcraft_-_Orcs_&_Humans_C….png)

File: 24f373eab500d66⋯.png (78.38 KB, 498x490, 249:245, 1.png)


 No.2396086

File: 0af5ca44517e856⋯.png (213.27 KB, 436x1443, 436:1443, 1.png)

>I, like most of the commenters here, know how to read.

The self-awareness of these people, holy fucking shit.


 No.2396091

File: 4805ebfd614a3f9⋯.png (48.23 KB, 505x312, 505:312, 1.png)


 No.2396093

File: 61aee7c58c06782⋯.png (51.14 KB, 512x308, 128:77, 1.png)


 No.2396095

File: f35630963860143⋯.png (84.05 KB, 462x581, 66:83, q.png)

(can't read for shit)


 No.2396096

File: 1d53ec27c3a3976⋯.png (37.12 KB, 422x293, 422:293, 2.png)


 No.2396098

File: 2c643dda4b60738⋯.jpg (45.81 KB, 333x470, 333:470, slime.jpg)

>>2396086

>Zizek also makes a corresponding marxist argument (…), but its not really relevant. No general reader could be reasonably expected to understand it


 No.2396100

File: a26c3d22ea2a55b⋯.png (121.12 KB, 486x491, 486:491, 1.png)

GO BACK TO TUMBLR, ZIZEK!!!!!

I'm dying


 No.2396102

File: 2f27b2d2cddca0e⋯.png (21.17 KB, 410x182, 205:91, 1.png)

Reading is for old people and communists.


 No.2396104

File: 5f637d3d72f0b18⋯.png (96.78 KB, 457x522, 457:522, 1.png)

File: ebd844267ac07f9⋯.png (33.41 KB, 423x228, 141:76, 2.png)

File: 083fab0dbc30387⋯.png (104.3 KB, 432x600, 18:25, 3.png)

Some serious BTFO


 No.2396109

File: 737b901d3cbf07b⋯.jpg (339.63 KB, 885x497, 885:497, IMG_0922.JPG)

>none of Jordan Peterson's fans know who Zizek is

>Peterson probably doesn't either

>He probably thinks he's a nobody journalist

>He has no idea he just challenged a world-famous philosopher to a debate

Will Peterson's habit of pontificating about subjects he hasn't so much as googled about to catch up with him? Has he flown too close to the sun?


 No.2396118

File: ddf3f2d13ab0bc3⋯.png (531 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 1490503538711.png)

>>2396109

I-is this the moment? Is this where everything turns around? Is this peak leftist entryism?


 No.2396119

File: a2c4e588f74a393⋯.jpg (55.55 KB, 600x600, 1:1, a2c4e588f74a393011e9b8be4a….jpg)

Was there any reaction to this article by him or his cronies? https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

It seems to thoroughly BTFO the notion that this man has read anything he's talking about.


 No.2396145

File: 801acc3fb29ac52⋯.png (508.58 KB, 1027x494, 79:38, d52bb36507188aab578e2295eb….png)

File: 9b1054d250e9be7⋯.png (336.56 KB, 600x399, 200:133, e371d6aa14c82ae1deb449c26b….png)

>all these peterson fanboys


 No.2396164

>>2396119

I have to agree somewhat. Post-modernists like Derrida BTFO marxist paranoia (this does not mean that their work has not been absorded back into cultural marxism) while resentful cultural marxists like Adorno expand marxist paranoia (everything i don't like is akshually capitalist domination!). The problem with anchoring the works of said authors into said authors is that such a view renders a conception of the ideological realm in which they have formed a congruence impossible.

Marxists are linguistic ancaps of sorts, nothing upsets their symbolic order more than a stranger setting foot on their lawn. If only for this reason the term cultural marxism should be used, it reminds them that they aren't pure observers, that their sacred texts are not serene.


 No.2396165

>>2396164

>I have no idea what I'm talking about


 No.2396169

>>2396165

I'm talking about cultural marxism.


 No.2396173

>>2396169

And you have no clue what you're talking about.


 No.2396180

>>2396169

Leftypol is not the place for discussing conspiracy theories.


 No.2396181

>>2396173

You have no clue what talking-about constitutes.


 No.2396187

>>2396169

>muh cultural marxism

go back to /pol/reddit you fucking amerimutt.


 No.2396189

>>2396180

I too am sick of hearing about how the DNC conspired against bernie.

>>2396187

I just arrived and you're becoming racist already..

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2396192

petershon is a scam artist and the final proof anglos can't into philosophy


 No.2396193

>>2396189

>racist

alright, you amerimutt whatever you say

you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger


 No.2396194

>>2396189

Since you are not going to fuck off we might as well laugh at you: care to define "cultural Marxism" for us? What is it? How, where is it done? By whom? To what end(s)? Can you name 10 living "Cultural Marxists?"


 No.2396197

>>2396181

t. has never read Derrida or Adorno


 No.2396199

>>2396189

>HUH DEMCORACTS /LEFTYPOL FUCKING BTFO LMAO STUPID LIBERALS MAGA HAHA YOU TRIGGERED XDDDDDDDD

why the fuck do you even come here? Seriously, why the fuck can't you just stay in your shitty circlejerk of a board you stormfaggot


 No.2396200

File: 5446ae6b1377621⋯.png (143.13 KB, 511x615, 511:615, 1509756671571[1].png)

>>2396169

>cultural marxism


 No.2396201

>>2396199

It's the only way they can achieve orgasm.


 No.2396202

>>2396197

reading/writing is for idiots see >>2396102


 No.2396205

File: bb84e5a2eb31975⋯.jpg (17.46 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

>>2396100

>one of the most widely academically cited phsychology professionals


 No.2396210

>>2396169

cultural marxism is just a buzzword invented by CIA in their psyop to confuse the people's mind.

What you call "cultural marxism" is american globalism. The mcdonald's, the coca-colas, the hollywood garbage, the cancerous pop music, the "lgbt culture" all of itt comes from USA and promotes severe retardation.

Hence why former USSR countries are so much more "woke" according to /pol/, because their societies are only being exposed to american globalism since 1991.


 No.2396211

>those fucking comments

Jesus christ. If these are representative of the average person, we're all absolutely fucked. Somebody just fucking end this.


 No.2396212

>>2396053

>>2396059

>slovoj

>slovaj

>slovo

It's only 6 letters long. Jesus.


 No.2396214

>>2396211

These people aren't representative of the average person, they are above and beyond the average person because they have cleaned their room. When's the last time you cleaned your room?


 No.2396216

>>2396211

Reminder that compared to comments sections on news articles (BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc.), Youtube comments appear an enlightened community.


 No.2396221

>>2396211

Thankfully, only the most pathetic worms find the need to comment on news articles.


 No.2396224

>>2396211

chill out man…the average people just likes to vent on comment sections, don't take them seriously. they are the product of people who got screwed up and fucked all through out their lifes.


 No.2396230

>>2396193

Stop it, you're debasing yourself.

>>2396194

The cultural theories which descend from marxism and use marxist paradigms.

This however should not be taken as definitive, as words do not gain their meaning from other words, no definition can be.

>>2396197

Stop projecting. I know you didn't, if you did you wouldn't have let go of the opportunity to prove me wrong with a textual reference so that you could earn your internet points.

>>2396210

>What you call "cultural marxism" is american globalism.

Why would those things be mutually exclusionary? Don't you know things contract into each other? Haven't you even read Deleuze?

Marxism comes to America, marxism leaves its traces on America, America leaves its traces on marxism, the contraction spreads over America's borders… and so on, and so on..

If you have any serious argument for your epistemological idealism, I'd be happy to take knowledge of it. Please leave the gay people out of it though, they've suffered under marxist xenophobia for too long already.


 No.2396233

>>2396230

Allow me to highlight the question you conveniently forgot to answer.

>>How, where is it done?

>>By whom?

>>To what end(s)?

>>Can you name 10 living "Cultural Marxists?"

After answering these you must answer these questions as well: What are these "marxist paradigms?" What are these cultural theories about?

That's 6 questions in total. Can you manage that, sweetheart?


 No.2396236

>>2396060

To be fair, do you google every random journalist you read an article from?


 No.2396240

>>2396236

When it comes to public criticism of intellectuals I always google the writer of the article, yes. Usually even before reading past the first two paragraphs. I'd go as far to say this should go without saying. I'm interested in the qualifications, perspectives, some published work titles before I continue to read just to get a context of the debate.

It's the same reason why intellectuals before their lectures or debates have introductions as well. It just makes sense.


 No.2396243

communism is when you wag your finger at kids saying swear words online

cause uhhhhhhhhh yeah the iww

and stuff


 No.2396273

>>2396233

>What are these "marxist paradigms?

This is the central question, the one that cuts to the epistemological heart of the matter. The paradigm in question is that of the master-slave relationship as being constitutive to social life, to which all else is rendered an instrumentality. Religion? Merely the opium of the people. Stirner? Just a petty-bourg rationalizing his class interest. Marriage? Little more than a bourgeois property-relationship. To be, is to be dominated; marxism is sado-masochistic to the core. As this paradigm found itself in conditions other than the rigid and nearly ethnically homogeneous class society of 19th century Germany, subjects other than bourgeois and worker began to fill the roles of the paradigm. This contraction is what is commonly understood as cultural marxism.

The rest of your questions are besides the point.


 No.2396274

File: 43c9dc048a331b0⋯.jpg (49.41 KB, 540x720, 3:4, 43c9dc048a331b030de7a81349….jpg)

>>2396273

>The paradigm in question is that of the master-slave relationship as being constitutive to social life

That pre-dates Marxism, you fucking dolt


 No.2396277

File: 2d95c0988d9fd2b⋯.jpg (261.1 KB, 937x1024, 937:1024, IMG_0025.JPG)

>>2396273

>Religion? Merely the opium of the people.

"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

t. Marx

PS - Read a book.


 No.2396283

>>2396274

No paradigm is without its predecessor, if this would render said paradigm non-marxist, all of marxism would be rendered non-marxist.

>>2396277

Marx didn't even read the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, book of the dead, book of the mormom and so on and so on.. the guy had no idea what he was talking about. Truly the Jordan Peterson of his time.


 No.2396285

>>2396283

That's irrelevant. You said that's what specifically distinguishes Marxist paradigms.


 No.2396287

>>2396283

Also this

>if this would render said paradigm non-marxist, all of marxism would be rendered non-marxist.

Is pure gibberish.


 No.2396291

>>2396285

It is relevant since you seem to believe that a paradigm having a predecessor means that it can not be named as epistemological tenet of marxism (and to logically conclude from this, anything else for that matter). Whatever you might be referring to, it doesn't change a thing about said paradigms role in marxism.


 No.2396294

>>2396291

No. Stop moving the goalposts. You specifically stated that the belief in a master/slave hierarchy being central to social life was what specifically distinguished Marxism from other worldviews. That is demonstrably false. It is a central tenet, but it is not what specifically makes it a distinct school of thought.


 No.2396295

>>2396294

>central tenet

Wouldn’t even say this. The master-slave thing is more neitzche than Marx.


 No.2396297

>>2396295

You know, I was gonna bring that up. By the logic of this guy's claim, fucking Nietzsche would be "Marxist", which is one of the dumbest possible things you could say about Nietzsche.


 No.2396298

>>2396287

No, it's just that you don't know shit about epistemology and semiotics and are therefor unaware of the consequences of your "gotcha!".


 No.2396299

>>2396298

Knowing big words doesn't make your claims more valid.


 No.2396301

>>2396298

Also, point to me where your claim even invoked semiotics.


 No.2396308

File: 5a08cff37c883ab⋯.png (733.22 KB, 1200x600, 2:1, anticommunist propaganda.png)

>>2396230

>Marxism comes to America, marxism leaves its traces on America, America leaves its traces on marxism, the contraction spreads over America's borders… and so on, and so on..

You'd imagine that the USSR would be far more degenerate than the US if that was the case. You really have no idea what the fuck you're on about. Pic related.


 No.2396309

>>2396273

Marx’s main criticism of Stirner was that he was an idealist, not that he was a petty borg. I don’t even completely agree with all of his criticisms of Stirner, but you still got it wrong.


 No.2396312

File: 9df7bacb387431e⋯.jpg (68.95 KB, 625x473, 625:473, laughing imperialist pal.jpg)

>>2396053

>>2396059

>>2396061

LAUGH HARD

IT'S A LONG WAY TO THE BANK


 No.2396313

LMAO despite how much Zizek professed a hatred for being referred to as Elvis Presley, he's clearly jealous of Peterson's meteoric rise. I've never seen him write so lucidly before- he really wants people to know where he stands here.


 No.2396317

>>2396294

>No. Stop moving the goalposts

Stop acting like a cornered Stefan Molyneux. By all means, share me your beliefs, as if you have nothing to prove.

>You specifically stated that the belief in a master/slave hierarchy being central to social life was what specifically distinguished Marxism from other worldviews.

<This is the central question, the one that cuts to the epistemological heart of the matter. The paradigm in question is that of the master-slave relationship as being constitutive to social life, to which all else is rendered an instrumentality.

As you can see, I stated that this paradigm is the epistemological heart of the matter when it comes to marxism. I did not state that a paradigm involving the two has never been central (central and constitutive are not synonyms) to any other worldview, of which I've never found one that held this paradigm as constitutive of social life as it is in marxism. What is your point then, that we should not see marx's conception of the master-slave paradigm as being constitutive as epistemologically distinct enough from aristoteles writings on the natural slaves to be considered a marxist tenet? Are you not a marxist, but an aristotelian?

>That is demonstrably false. It is a central tenet, but it is not what specifically makes it a distinct school of thought.

There is not one thing, one tenet, that specifically makes marxism, marxism. Much like there is not one specific thing that makes reindeer, a reindeer.


 No.2396319

>>2396313

>valid criticism

<you’re just jealous

Absolute state of discourse from the right.


 No.2396321

>>2396076

>stop being mean to us right-wing establishment fascists!

>stop it! insults are mean! it hurts our feelings!

>j-just stop you're so m-mean

when did the righties become such whiny soyboys?

also i thought that all universities were marxism communism jewish indoctrination facilities? now suddenly a hack fraud guy has a PHD and they adore him? being anti-intellectual is their whole thing, why do they respect a so-called intellectual?


 No.2396324

I think this is the first time I've agreed with Zizek in these articles.


 No.2396325

File: 3297dc6c2533ed6⋯.mp4 (13.45 MB, 470x360, 47:36, IMG_0752.mp4)

>>2396283

>Marx didn't even read the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, book of the dead, book of the mormom and so on and so on.. the guy had no idea what he was talking about. Truly the Jordan Peterson of his time.

You could have just told me you hadn't read the quote, my man.


 No.2396327

>>2396317

>What is your point then, that we should not see marx's conception of the master-slave paradigm as being constitutive as epistemologically distinct enough from aristoteles writings on the natural slaves to be considered a marxist tenet?

Marx’s entire argument against capitalism is as a system, from the perspective of dialectical materialism. He even points out that it affects not just the proles, but the borgouis as well. They are both beholden to certain laws of motion of the economy whether they want to be or not. The master slave dialectic is one that’s narrow in scope compared to Marx. You could just as easily say the bourgeoisie are as beholden to capitalism as any slave.


 No.2396329

>>2396309

Marx's main criticism of stirner was that stirner refused the role of the philosopher as servant of history, marx judged that stirner acted in such an idealist manner because he was a petty-bourg rationalizing his class interest. Like anyone who disagreed with marx really, the man was a neurotic mess.

>>2396313

The article is lazily written on order, consisting of recycled cliché's. If Peterson really got to him, Zizek would have gone into Lacanian minutae, like when Sam Kriss decloaked him.


 No.2396339

>>2396329

> Like anyone who disagreed with marx really, the man was a neurotic mess.

Well first of all agreed.

But as for the way the article is written - that is, unfortunately, Zizek's style. My guess is that he doesn't actually put that much effort into these articles.


 No.2396343

>>2396329

Stop ban evading


 No.2396344

>>2396343

not an argument


 No.2396345

>>2396344

Stop ban evading


 No.2396348

File: 34b215f923d6e01⋯.jpg (307.43 KB, 1200x1192, 150:149, DKtWjTtXkAA2Po0.jpg)

File: dbe8957c49a20d7⋯.jpg (262.19 KB, 754x1024, 377:512, DLdaLhYVoAAP8fw.jpg)

File: 24a32331e9382f3⋯.jpg (111.2 KB, 720x960, 3:4, DLeBu88U8AAc08u.jpg)

File: 25649b59667ab20⋯.jpg (122.16 KB, 1014x1024, 507:512, DLGrcG_VAAABjz4.jpg)


 No.2396349

>>2396344

>>2396329

If you're going to evade your ban, you ought to at least honestly respond to the quote from Marx rather than reading the first line and shitposting.


 No.2396355

File: 1291f0672b90870⋯.gif (1.81 MB, 390x261, 130:87, 7556565.gif)

>>2396169

>cultural marxism.


 No.2396364

>>2396329

He relates Stirner's "lamentations" to the bourgeois , but it still wasn't his main point. It was rather to illustrate that his egoism could be used to serve borg interest. This was more of an aside. He also doesn't bring his class interest into it, as whether he was or not a petty borg was beside the point. He viewed the idealism itself as flawed. There were things wrong with Marx's critique, but you're doing a poor job representing them.


 No.2396367

File: 85f2c048e666865⋯.jpg (48.06 KB, 870x864, 145:144, 26a0e564a6d4dbcf2ac2095e4c….jpg)

>>2396348

>"Beast inside"

>"Trust"

>"Honor"

>"Loyalty"

>"Respect"

>"Family"

>"White" "debil"

>The fourteen words

>Eighty-eight

>Cross

>"Pack"

>Mjölnir

>Over 9000 sculls and flames

That first image frankly managed to crack my smug sense of superiority for a passing moment. I did not believe such a concentration of spooks could be found in a single image.

Hell, does that man even have any free will or individuality, or is he just cruising along on auto-pilot as an automaton programmed by expectations, beliefs, and assumptions?

To restore a fragment of faith in man within me, I choose to see that as parody – against my better knowing.


 No.2396368

Capitalists are just too bitter to admit that Capitalism is the cause of the current soulless consumer culture. They have to constantly blame others or outside factors because god forbid they actually look at the current system that is currently responsible for the current changes in the world.


 No.2396370

File: 930c0401ea8be72⋯.jpg (105.94 KB, 776x776, 1:1, 930c0401ea8be724161bb65719….jpg)

File: cd7b5bf1327fc0b⋯.jpg (129.9 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, DOfNEkIW4AMuOoj.jpg)

File: e2fd26efb00e087⋯.jpg (159.79 KB, 911x1200, 911:1200, DOHriczUEAAAFMe.jpg)

>>2396367

/pol/ facebook is its own mess


 No.2396373

File: 0e566565c4b248e⋯.jpg (8.29 KB, 217x233, 217:233, 0e566565c4b248eb98e84ac892….jpg)

>>2396053

> Mr Slovaj


 No.2396380

>>2396091

>Hey pol pot whatcha doin

>lacanian psychonalysis


 No.2396381

>>2396091

POL POT IS LACAN GANG


 No.2396384

>>2396327

Which leads to the conclusion that all will always be beholden, that there is no point where history will negate itself from iron law into an everlasting global harmony where it has ceased to command. The fantasy of communism will always be -1, there can be no authentic being for a being that in his heart of hearts only knows a material interest as species essence, as the cleverest of ants.

Marxism is a brutally pessimistic ideology.

>>2396339

For ages now he has been complaining about his editor wanting him to do this or that, about his fans, about his students, about anyone that enters his presence really .. as the years go by he has become more and more idiot and less and less savant, dreaded by a lack of agency.

>>2396352

I'm fairly certain that he did call stirner a petty-bourg merely acting in his petty-bourg class interest, perhaps in the style of a jibe, but still, marx simply not leaving it at that (how could he, all who dare challenge marx must be ideologically crushed) doesn't mean that he did not truly conceive of people in such a manner; disagreeing with marx rendered one void of subjectivity.


 No.2396386

>>2396069

> That third image

Now that's some deluxe boot-licking. Reminder, these people are convinced they are "anti-establishment".


 No.2396387

File: 9abdf0aed0be010⋯.jpg (200.59 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 2d051e61bacd5fa254dcc21a09….jpg)

>>2396384

Stop ban evading to say nothing


 No.2396388

>>2396385

>>2396387

Check the ban list, redditors.

(...)

 No.2396391

File: aabe90b4197cebc⋯.jpg (159.07 KB, 960x960, 1:1, DT6ai5mUMAAg5Dg.jpg)

File: d4c88ccf67c7545⋯.jpg (194.54 KB, 958x959, 958:959, DT6ai5mVMAAbqpq.jpg)

>>2396388

You got banned in this very fucking thread


 No.2396393

>>>/cow/330288

he's here.


 No.2396395

>>2396053

Shit they found out we want to force Marxism on everyone.


 No.2396396

>>2396389

>>2396391

I see, didn't even notice the ban. Guess I'll be off then so that you people can enjoy yourself with cringy pics and memes without being violated by my voyeurism. I wouldn't want to hinder such revolutionary momentum with my presence, now would I?


 No.2396397

>>2396393

They have a shitty wordfilter.


 No.2396399

>>2396393

What an embarassing board.


 No.2396402

File: 01204b494b84851⋯.jpg (801.2 KB, 3600x2400, 3:2, 62d867fc7c454fe915b9e75193….jpg)

>>2396393

This is less active than fucking leftpol


 No.2396403

File: 895cd09b0f9c7e2⋯.jpg (153.32 KB, 995x1200, 199:240, DQnjMRxU8AE3iEN.jpg)

>>2396396

Thanks


 No.2396404

>>2396399

tbh i find that particular thread embarrassing since everyone in it looks like they're personally invested in the politics of it (while trying poorly to hide it and stay on what they think is common ground) rather than actually holding any interesting content. there's an assumption that (a) leftypol is outside and alien to imageboard culture in general, and (b) that leftism to leftypol is leftism as they already understand it (i.e. pro-Democrat liberals.)

In consequence anything that would obviously be a joke, or at least self-aware on any other board ("please let that be a penis") is somehow read as being worth posting in a lolcow thread.

I honestly expected better from /cow/. Users being /pol/ and /pol/-lite I took as a given, but I expected they'd find something worth posting rather than circlejerking in a fashion little better than /r/T_D


 No.2396410

File: 77cbb94a039ab32⋯.jpg (24.65 KB, 209x203, 209:203, 77cbb94a039ab32a226d53fbcd….jpg)

File: 4b8cac2319a642e⋯.jpg (8.23 KB, 255x254, 255:254, 740db415e6fcc4e09b194546d4….jpg)

File: c1e0c7ea06fd12e⋯.jpg (69.83 KB, 970x1117, 970:1117, c1e0c7ea06fd12e8b34d9433cb….jpg)

File: 4b9b5efc4ac0c85⋯.png (61.42 KB, 235x207, 235:207, 4b9b5efc4ac0c85d191628222f….png)

>>2396086

>>2396091

>>2396093

>>2396102

>>2396100

>Zizek also makes a corresponding Marxist argument, which you've so kindly outlined for us

>But it's not really relevant. No general reader could be reasonably expected to understand it.

>Lol Lacan caused Pol Pot BTFO lmao

>Rational Centrist Skepticism™

>Muh books

>RRRRREEEEEE stop critiquing people you tumblrite bigot!

Depressing tbqh.

>>2396273

>The paradigm in question is that of the master-slave relationship as being constitutive to social life

Marx was much more nuanced than that and even argued beyond the master-slave dichotomy. Capitalism as a mode of production exploits of everyone.

Be it the executive that neglects their family, the manager working overtime until they literally drop dead (see Karoshi), the wall street trader wasting the best years of their life, etc. It exploits even those that reap the rewards of that exploitation.

>Lol I don't have to explain myself xDDDD

Hopeless.

>>2396384

>that there is no point where history will negate itself from iron law into an everlasting global harmony where it has ceased to command.

>Marxism is a brutally pessimistic ideology.

On the contrary, Marxism is optimistic, seeing humanity's triumph over the law of value as inevitability. It asserts that no matter what, eventually the conditions created by capitalism will lead to it's overthrow. I've never read Marx argue that capitalism can go on into perpetuity, or even entertain a scenario where capitalism isn't overcome and humanity perishes as a result.

>The fantasy of communism will always be -1, there can be no authentic being for a being that in his heart of hearts only knows a material interest as species essence, as the cleverest of ants.

How does any of this follow follow? Where does Marx argue this? How did you reach this conclusion?


 No.2396413

>>2396273

> ethnically homogeneous class society of 19th century Germany

Before unification in 1871 "Germans" were warring with each other on a regular basis. Bavarian Catholics and Prussian Protestants hated each other.


 No.2396415

>>2396393

I particularly find their thought that Alunya getting fucked by Porky is playing on some sort of subconscious leftist desire to be cucked to be hilarious. It's clearly meant to rile up and "upset" people as a joke.

But no, apparently that's just not the same as the endless BLACKED threads you see on /pol/, featuring REAL people and up-close photographs of BBCs buried in pure Aryan girls.


 No.2396416

>>2396393

>Hoochie tried to make a point dumping his /pol/book folder

>Once cornered comes out as a goon and tries to sound menacing

>gets banned either way

JFC hoochie is so disgusting


 No.2396420

>>2396045

B-but I thought Zizek was in league with the JP, Sargon, and the rest of the skeptics / aut right? Have the resident intersectionalist marxists been feeding me lies?

>>2396384

>Marxism is a brutally pessimistic ideology.

Not an argument. You have to face the world as it is, not invent dragons to sustain your fragile psyche. Grow the fuck up, of kill yourself.


 No.2396422

>>2396416

I'm not Hoochie


 No.2396423

File: 4776d1bd3d92f6e⋯.jpg (16.64 KB, 367x388, 367:388, 4776d1bd3d92f6e7f193044964….jpg)

>>2396370

>>2396348

Damn…

What's up with these Neonazis stealing the look of Chicanos.


 No.2396440

Jordan Peterson is The Secret for people who feel they should have accomplished a lot, did not, and are mad that their identity group was criticized


 No.2396451

>>2396384

>there can be no authentic being for a being that in his heart of hearts only knows a material interest as species essence

What are you talking about? Marx only regarded only regarded the immediate self-interest of the proletariat important because he viewed that it would drive them towards abolishing capitalism.

>marx simply not leaving it at that

Ok so you admit that Marx did not criticize Stirner for being a petty-bourg (which in itself would be a pretty hypocritical argument since Marx was funded by a capitalist)

>(how could he, all who dare challenge marx must be ideologically crushed)

Yeah I mean how can Marx have the audacity to argue against people he disagrees with?

>doesn't mean that he did not truly conceive of people in such a manner

Where are the proofs? I remind (You) that you haven't provided an actual counterargument to posts like >>2396327

>disagreeing with marx rendered one void of subjectivity.

Holy shit you admitted in the previous sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism. How can you still reassert your shitty narrative?


 No.2396454

>>2396420

I mean even in an article criticizing Jordan Peterson and his aut-right audience, he still couldn't resist bringing in PC leftists either. Maybe save that for another time.


 No.2396456

>>2396451

Holy shit you admitted in this sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism*


 No.2396472

>>2396456

Well he certainly tried to. He also tried to criticize Proudhon for supporting things Proudhon never supported. Marx attempted to criticize a lot of people for a lot of things, and most of them don't work.


 No.2396536

>>2396440

He preaches responsibility for those that can never take it

more evidence for the 'the right is a political projection machine' pile


 No.2396552

>>2396410

>seeing humanity's triumph over the law of value as inevitability

I would agree that Marx is optimistic, as he sees capitalism creating the possibility of communism, but I believe Marx is explicitly non-deterministic as to the realization of the communist mode of production. There might be some discrepancy between communism (movement), which will emerge alongside capitalism inevitably, and the communist mode of production, which must be consciously established by the proletariat as a unified whole. I'm not 100% completely sure about this interpretation, though.

I think this makes sense intuitively, even without reading Marx. Why would Marx be actively engaged in organizations and write letters (to Russian revolutionaries for example) how to possibly establish communism if he thought it was inevitable?

The thought of history being deterministic can be traced back to """Orthodox""" Marxists in the Second International.


 No.2396583

>>2396119

peterson always says "feel free to debate or challenge me!", ignores all requests and then pretends the marxists are too scared

it happened to doug


 No.2396590

>>2396451

Holy shit you admitted in the previous sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism.

Are you sure you meant to respond to me?


 No.2396597

>>2396384

>abandons master slave argument and moves the goal post

Why are Nazi s such slippery shits?


 No.2396675

And to no one's surprise,these fucks are proven once again to have 0 intellectual integrity, just a couple of years ago they were acting like autistic STEMfags shitting all over social sciences, especially psychology, as they were not real sciences, findings were bullshit, muh Freud, the usual retarded tirade and academia was maxist indoctrination anyway so fuck everything that came out of it. Now they find this one hack psychologist (basically a glorified self-help author) who agrees with them, gives them some sort of justification for being failsons and is willing to reinforce their prejudice to give their horseshit a veneer of academic credibility and they ride his dick like he's their fucking messiah.

And they're fucking everywhere, too, can't say anything negative about this motherfucker online without being swarmed by his cultist. Seriously how do we even begin to purge the internet from this reactionary blight?


 No.2396681

File: 000a87cf198132f⋯.png (207.25 KB, 604x582, 302:291, Capture.PNG)

THE MASTER DEBATER


 No.2396684

File: 33dda8b651d3833⋯.jpg (70.72 KB, 330x319, 30:29, 1372231333538.jpg)

>>2396681

>mfw

Imagine being so fucking retarded to think Zizek has a twitter account.

>>2396675

>And they're fucking everywhere, too, can't say anything negative about this motherfucker online without being swarmed by his cultist.

This so fucking much. It's hilarious how they always leap to defend him.


 No.2396686

File: c85a4b1c0719cfc⋯.png (99.88 KB, 258x330, 43:55, c85a4b1c0719cfcf15f485004d….png)

>>2396681

>Using emoticons in public discourse


 No.2396762

File: 385048dfb567737⋯.png (41 KB, 577x311, 577:311, 1504401273093.png)

File: 2f8f223cb8cf2b5⋯.jpg (319.95 KB, 1427x444, 1427:444, s5p1v2gf8eb01.jpg)

>>2396681

I have since late January considered Jordan Peterson a lolcow. (Not that I ever liked the guy). This, however, confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>>2396683

>1st pic

Swap "Jew" with "Peterson cultist" and it applies 100%.

>>2396684

<Imagine being so fucking retarded to think Zizek has a twitter account.

One should at least seek some confirmation before putting one self to pasture my arguing with meme accounts.

>>2396686

pix related is Peterson trying (and failing) at proof theory. Source: https://archive.fo/khKVm . If you ever encounter a Peterson fanboi, post pix related to trigger them hard. Also note that he called him Godel [sic] [recte Gödel] at least three (!) times.


 No.2396774

File: 481a378e302e69a⋯.jpg (39.74 KB, 560x400, 7:5, 1325806621696.jpg)

>>2396762

>pix related is Peterson trying (and failing) at proof theory. Source: https://archive.fo/khKVm . If you ever encounter a Peterson fanboi, post pix related to trigger them hard. Also note that he called him Godel [sic] [recte Gödel] at least three (!) times.

<Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.


 No.2396795

File: 3600e629d792dac⋯.png (126.22 KB, 1891x209, 1891:209, 72ef13376481045c7f1a9fc90d….png)

>>2396774

Not to mention that he chickened out and fucking DELETED the tweet out of pure cowardice, so if you go to the original: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554 you are met with

<Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

<You can search Twitter using the search box below or return to the homepage.

A very brave intellectual we are faced with here, who totally doesn't shy away from admitting mistakes.


 No.2396808

File: 5b6706d166a0c2e⋯.png (221.48 KB, 571x828, 571:828, content1_v2.png)

File: cc5a02685cc186a⋯.png (243.71 KB, 572x828, 143:207, content2_v2.png)


 No.2396822

The simple fact that Peterson is getting himself red, mad and nude online at a fucking bot just says everything that needs to be said about our cultural moment right now.


 No.2396823

Peterson has the following he does because he provides basic bitch male advice to young men who have never had a father figure (quite a lot of those around these days) and also provides a normie-friendly gateway to the most mild flavors of political incorrectness, allowing frustrated young men without spines to engage in social rebellion without becoming pariahs. He's an absolute joke of an "intellectual" and his facebook-tier cult of personality is honestly just pathetic.

Good article by sniffles too.


 No.2396859

File: 84096009724073c⋯.jpg (23.37 KB, 646x720, 323:360, 84096009724073c144f27eaa03….jpg)

Oh god Zizek PLEASE anahiliate this faggot


 No.2396869

https://twitter.com/shujaxhaider/status/963820282527014917

Jordan Peterson tries to pick a Twitter fight with a Žižek quotes account


 No.2396876

>>2396869

whoops, already mentioned up thread. oh well enjoy the direct link


 No.2396882

>>2396869

The man really needs to pull himself up by his lobster straps.


 No.2396885

>>2396091

>Pal Pot

>>2396053

>Slovoj


 No.2396889

>>2396859

I really hope he has JUST started. Considering how sloppy Peterson can be, Žižek should have a field day, ripping him a new asshole, where none thought possible.

>>2396869

>>2396876

Thanks for the direct link.

>>2396885

His followers are dumber than your average Trump supporter, and that's quite a feat.


 No.2396897

>>2396889

>I really hope he has JUST started. Considering how sloppy Peterson can be, Žižek should have a field day, ripping him a new asshole, where none thought possible.

Inb4 Peterson self-destructs and actually propels Zizek into the limelight of the modern zeitgeist.

I look forward to the gulags with a human face.


 No.2396902

>>2396681

>>2396859

it's a shame Zizek hates debating.

I doubt he'll participate given his last experience arguing with a right nut.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=PM0I5k50XsY


 No.2396906

Rationalism is challenging a fake Zizek account to debate on twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/963536145215733760


 No.2396907

File: 29b43e6e3be1a3d⋯.png (80.36 KB, 300x319, 300:319, BA.png)

>>2396902

Speaking of which, did Zizek debate Bob Avakian in the end?


 No.2396910

can we get him to debate phil greaves


 No.2396915

>>2396910

even phil greaves is far too in touch with reality to remain patient


 No.2396919

>>2396317

>There is not one thing, one tenet, that specifically makes marxism, marxism. Much like there is not one specific thing that makes reindeer, a reindeer.

Holy shit, a nazi pseudo-intellectual. Does your camouflage work among your kind?


 No.2396920

File: 6d2227edd64ab60⋯.jpg (108.68 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 6d2227edd64ab608c001d364d1….jpg)

>>2396897

<gulags with a human face.

>mfw

>>2396902

That interview/debate/whatever was quite lulzy. Žižek basically trolled Horowitz into spending the entire "debate" screeching

<It's the left! It's the left! It's the left! It's the left! It's the left! …

over and over while Žižek in his discussion with Assange told him he was going into the gulag first with the other liberals.


 No.2396924

>>2396384

>Which leads to the conclusion that all will always be beholden, that there is no point where history will negate itself from iron law into an everlasting global harmony where it has ceased to command. The fantasy of communism will always be -1, there can be no authentic being for a being that in his heart of hearts only knows a material interest as species essence, as the cleverest of ants.

This is nonsense. Marx didn't believe material interest was species essence but the teleological nature of human consciousness where through negating Capitalism, humans have freedom in a new double sense. Free from personal and material dependence who are a true association of individuals and can self determine themselves as such.

Also lmao, as if Hitler's lolcow racism was optimistic when compared to Marx. Hitler was a failed intellectual and leader who performed the first modern experiment in systematic extermination.

>>2396317

>master-slave paradigm

>paradigm involving two

>what is the trinity forumula

>what is the Brumaire

You do realize the Phenom is not an influence on Marx's work post German Ideology? The Logic is.


 No.2396925

File: aeb3c52a8319f51⋯.jpg (48.87 KB, 500x367, 500:367, lacan1972.jpg)


 No.2396926

>>2396919

>Nazi read the Communist Manifesto which Marx shitposted one night when he was drunk after delaying it for weeks and thinks that the crude approach to class struggle and class history which we find in the opening is constitutive of the entire Marxist Canon

Imagine being this retarded.


 No.2396932


 No.2396935

File: 5144f1f5473ca76⋯.jpg (78.99 KB, 634x538, 317:269, tilting.jpg)

>>2396681

Don Quijote!


 No.2396936

File: 2d5793a2340a56b⋯.mp4 (783.83 KB, 480x360, 4:3, Gulag_with_a_Human_Face-FG….mp4)

>>2396932

Sorry for not getting it.


 No.2396941

File: c39eae5ed13c9ba⋯.jpg (62.54 KB, 432x768, 9:16, tilting.jpg)


 No.2396950

File: 226a9caa0ca7ac4⋯.png (39.11 KB, 800x212, 200:53, 1.png)


 No.2396956

File: 37560e3e7c2b4f2⋯.jpg (61.53 KB, 1280x544, 40:17, 37560e3e7c2b4f26c5477b8343….jpg)

>>2396935

>>2396950

>yelling at bots

>being a professor at an accredited university

>>2396941

>C:/Users/jorda/Downloads/RFT intelligence pilot study.pdf

>using Windows 10 in CY+any natural number

>not using sharutils and posting the binary as hundreds or thousands of shell scripts in tweets

>mfw


 No.2396970

>>2396941

I've got nothing.


 No.2396973

File: aee135d6dead98c⋯.jpg (149.89 KB, 600x900, 2:3, 255.jpg)


 No.2396980

>>2396973

The Eternal Boomer is the documentary we don't deserve, but nonetheless need.


 No.2396990

These Comments are so stupid it makes me want to kill someone.


 No.2396994

File: de6da53583f3c7b⋯.mp4 (2.78 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, PeterNorway_-_Frozen_is_re….mp4)

← Jordan Peterson screeching about Frozen propaganda. See the responses here: https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/962949423499239424

>>2396990

Petershill detected!


 No.2397004

File: 46b7be016093165⋯.png (232.81 KB, 644x620, 161:155, 1495412481300.png)

>>2396994

>Grown ass man with a PhD talks about a children's movie like if had something to it beside selling toys and being a pacifier


 No.2397042

File: 3612a187da35151⋯.mp4 (1.9 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, PeterNorway_-_@BretWeinste….mp4)

>If you wear make up, and someone gropes you, it's all your fault

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/962197738438975488


 No.2397052

>>2396283

I have seen a lot of strange reasons to be angry online, but this is the first time I've seen someone get mad at Karl Marx for not having read the Book of Mormon.


 No.2397060

File: 00c6793909edad1⋯.jpg (26.2 KB, 512x384, 4:3, 00c6793909edad1eeb518b3a7c….jpg)

>>2397052

>fuck Karl Marx for not reading a blatant 19th-Century forgery


 No.2397066

>>2396273

Read origin of the family private property and the state.


 No.2397087

File: c875b8c270831d5⋯.png (25.17 KB, 739x203, 739:203, discourse.png)

quantum discourse


 No.2397097


 No.2397104

>>2397087

lmao next thing you know ther's 5 zizek bots tweeting back at him about a debate tommorow moring


 No.2397105

>>2397104

I want to make this happen


 No.2397112

>>2397087

Jordan Peterson angrily flailing at his keyboard at Zizek bots and Zizek impersonators is the perfect encapsulation of his career.


 No.2397127

>>2397087

perfect


 No.2397139

File: eea482cb5cd1fa7⋯.jpg (206.19 KB, 1920x1040, 24:13, wuttt.jpg)

>>2397087

>>2397104

>>2397112

Is Zizek the master programmer of human AI interaction? Really makes one wonder…


 No.2397142

File: cf3bcc80ef3e7f8⋯.png (75.43 KB, 175x287, 25:41, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2397139

>tfw to intelligent too fail the turing test


 No.2397170

>>2397087

>when even Zizek impersonators roast you


 No.2397315

File: c332db01e4ef63c⋯.jpg (87.39 KB, 624x516, 52:43, DUJ0XTWWkAAmay_.jpg)

>Jordan Peterson fantasizes about beating up a two year old boy

How this man is still licensed boggles my mind.


 No.2397318

>>2397315

We really do live in a uniquely stupid and absurd moment in history, don't we


 No.2397333

>>2397315

>He had already concluded that adults were contemptible, and that he could safely defy them.

Or he'd seen the bit from looney tunes and thought he was being funny, and he didn't know you were the father, just an audience. This guy's career is psychology?


 No.2397343

>>2397315

>two years old

Lmao yeah a two year old has already gotten a serious ideological position on adults


 No.2397467

File: 819e60985d138e0⋯.jpg (28.9 KB, 640x480, 4:3, lTU3eup.jpg)

>>2397333

good point


 No.2397580

>>2397315

You seriously want a guy fired over that?

It's family over a little devious shit, and he's saying some discipline is in order to prevent a sociopath. Chill the fuck out dude


 No.2397620

File: 9b80533b3a08a4d⋯.jpg (125.71 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 9b80533b3a08a4da0e7985f158….jpg)

>>2397580

>beating the (alleged) psychopathy out of a 2 year is proper therapy

This is how braindead Peterson fanbois are.


 No.2397625

>>2396583

Did he actually respond to Doug, or did he just disappear?


 No.2397661

>>2397315

A two year old boy was walking on the rungs of the monkey bars? Nimble little bastard.


 No.2397807

>>2397580

>me literally beating this child will stop him from being a sociopath!

That's not how it works


 No.2397875

>>2397315

He writes like an absolute faggot, the typical flowery bullshit you get in bad newspapers


 No.2397880

File: 8d62cbab09e9540⋯.jpg (182.52 KB, 749x527, 749:527, intellectual snake oil.jpg)

>>2397625

According to Doug on Facebook, Peterson's people haven't given him a new date for a debate yet and Peterson himself doesn't respond directly. Plus (from Doug):

>They've been saying they're going to give me a date AND he's been saying no Marxist ever invites him to debate.


 No.2397881

>>2397620

He is teaching future psychologists.


 No.2397889

File: cbd178f69af6b72⋯.png (122.85 KB, 640x360, 16:9, stefan_molyneux_by_neetsfa….png)

The /argument/ boi made a video 'bout this thing:

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=UDGlSkJb_FM


 No.2397891

>>2396273

Marxism and anarchism fights against domination, fascism and liberalism rationalises it.


 No.2397892

>>2397889

>Molyneux taking on Zizek

didn't he get cucked enough in his 'debate' with Chomsky?


 No.2397893

File: b328da8cf588875⋯.webm (6.57 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Stefbot gets a lesson fro….webm)


 No.2397894

File: d175f0c5605c310⋯.jpg (157.62 KB, 1052x1200, 263:300, molymeme book.jpg)

>>2397889

Absolute STATE of Molymeme and those comments


 No.2397895

>>2397889

TL fucking DW, plz!


 No.2397896

>>2397881

That's why no one ever treats them seriously.


 No.2397899

File: 5970fe3b9a287d9⋯.png (85.03 KB, 883x300, 883:300, 4.png)

File: 183679b7bd2d270⋯.png (13.3 KB, 563x84, 563:84, 3.png)

File: 14b32e86426c1f3⋯.png (20.08 KB, 846x93, 282:31, 2.png)

File: 6a8c7568b17d122⋯.png (29.78 KB, 886x106, 443:53, 1.png)


 No.2397901

File: 0042e91484f693d⋯.jpg (22.2 KB, 525x348, 175:116, elvin jones and eric dolph….jpg)

>>2397899

Oh my dayz. Keep them coming.


 No.2397902

>>2397899

What am I even reading..?


 No.2397903

>>2396045

Zizek did nothing wrong. Peterson is being increasingly annoying.


 No.2397904

>>2396380

my sides


 No.2397907

File: c1842a2d53a69d8⋯.png (49 KB, 348x642, 58:107, molyneux.png)

>>2397895

>"Peterson uses cold hard facts! Not paranoid."

>"We are a long way from "art of the argument". Buy my book!"

>"That's not an argument, it's a snarkument!"

>"Zizek is strawmanning"

>Lacan is some crazy sjw

>some gibberish about toilet paper

>something about refugees not being desperate because dental records

>King Kong

>"Zizek is projecting!"

>"Zizek thinks he can diagnose people on the spot!"

after that I stopped, because I can't be bothered to listen to more rambling.

Seriously, the guy is turning into a cartoon.


 No.2397908

File: 304c94e66411104⋯.png (18.75 KB, 383x185, 383:185, 1.png)

File: 1395b0a2db14ac9⋯.png (32.77 KB, 933x173, 933:173, 5.png)

File: 1f72b5f66544fc2⋯.png (25.52 KB, 936x232, 117:29, 3.png)

File: e773a70462e95d6⋯.png (9.11 KB, 472x80, 59:10, 2.png)

File: 5970fe3b9a287d9⋯.png (85.03 KB, 883x300, 883:300, 4.png)

>I can't understand Zizek, he a charlatan

ok, whatever

>I can't understand Chomsky, either

>>2397889

Can't view all comments on that site for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDGlSkJb_FM

>>2397907

thx


 No.2397912

File: 7cf25ac09224f76⋯.png (25.95 KB, 895x184, 895:184, 5.png)

File: 63e2b16ec229b75⋯.png (15.59 KB, 898x100, 449:50, 4.png)

File: dbe94e30fb10376⋯.png (28.06 KB, 563x260, 563:260, 3.png)

File: b81e7c539e7ebee⋯.png (10.5 KB, 562x87, 562:87, 2.png)

File: cb1052c6ec4dc19⋯.png (29.11 KB, 920x112, 115:14, 1.png)


 No.2397914

File: 336b035d4e6e4f4⋯.jpg (328.72 KB, 1232x2384, 77:149, 838294de45bc8019d34f885131….jpg)

>>2397907

>the guy is turning into a cartoon.

Ad hominem. Not an argument!

>>2397908

I understand not being able to make sense of some of Zizek's work. Tried to start reading Absolute Recoil but I'm a brainlet so I didn't get anything from the first few pages.

…but not understanding Chomsky? Jesus.

>>2397912

>"Jacques Lacan wrote…"=NOT AN ARGUMENT

lel


 No.2397915

File: fc1af7958de6bd4⋯.jpg (54.78 KB, 792x558, 44:31, fc1af7958de6bd41b2b30d19ed….jpg)

>>2397912

>alinsky tactics


 No.2397917

File: ee158fc22b1a64e⋯.png (52.55 KB, 924x196, 33:7, 5.png)

File: ae0cfdef852ebcc⋯.png (15.74 KB, 912x104, 114:13, 4.png)

File: 0a5af77b8c37b55⋯.png (18 KB, 895x101, 895:101, 3.png)

File: 8a18900cdec2050⋯.png (16.81 KB, 913x95, 913:95, 2.png)

File: 131452259a271df⋯.png (9.2 KB, 335x87, 335:87, 1.png)

>ziggy

>Slobby Zizek


 No.2397918

File: ba99259e1d36c19⋯.png (7.03 KB, 261x125, 261:125, 1.png)

File: b0fc7a34c2c3352⋯.png (20.26 KB, 456x165, 152:55, 2.png)

Apparently Molly compared himself to Socrates in the vid.


 No.2397921

File: 2e5831ec78735f8⋯.png (38.06 KB, 951x174, 317:58, 4.png)

File: 8fa1493989104d2⋯.png (13.42 KB, 602x91, 86:13, 3.png)

File: a31deb8c9360f2b⋯.png (72.94 KB, 938x308, 67:22, 2.png)

File: c8df2d3c67e29e0⋯.png (19.4 KB, 913x110, 83:10, 1.png)

>>2397918

"Jordan advocates hitting kids, otherwise he's ok in my book."


 No.2397922

The pro-Peterson brigade are annoying idiots. The anti-Peterson brigade are euphoric, dishonest, self-important and annoying idiots.


 No.2397923

File: b48651ead0e1bf6⋯.jpg (47.89 KB, 870x864, 145:144, zizek hades.jpg)

>>2397921

>Zizek, who worships that self hating masochist Foucolt


 No.2398038

>>2396990

welcome to america


 No.2398041

File: 158b00c544bf1de⋯.jpg (211.91 KB, 800x969, 800:969, 158b00c544bf1de9561ed28fe2….jpg)

>>2397922

Hi, /pol/.


 No.2398047

File: bd18443d964f1e6⋯.jpg (74.2 KB, 587x389, 587:389, Tech cringe 9.JPG.jpg)

Jordan Peterson TOTALLY OWNS left-wing Stalinist MANIAC professor on postmodernism and Nietszche using FACTS and LOGIC


 No.2398048

File: a06183edc749934⋯.jpeg (50.31 KB, 720x548, 180:137, a06183edc749934d1b3454e7b….jpeg)

>Molymeme and Peterson think they can take on the Sniffman

Do they even understand the level of BTFO they are bringing on themselves?


 No.2398051

>>2398041

Sure, the /pol/redditors are bad but don't you think the libtards getting mad at free speech are worse?


 No.2398059

File: 306258cbfee56e2⋯.png (74.47 KB, 625x423, 625:423, 1506786636491.png)

>>2398051

>le libtards getting mad at free speech meme

>anybody who get irritated at hacks bullshitting gullible young people is "against free speech"


 No.2398063

>>2398059

…I wasn't being serious, m8.


 No.2398070

>>2398063

I won't lie, you did a pretty convincing impression


 No.2398083

>>2396410

>On the contrary, Marxism is optimistic, seeing humanity's triumph over the law of value as inevitability. It asserts that no matter what, eventually the conditions created by capitalism will lead to it's overthrow. I've never read Marx argue that capitalism can go on into perpetuity, or even entertain a scenario where capitalism isn't overcome and humanity perishes as a result.

And that is why communism is bullshit. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

>>2396924

>Hitler was a failed intellectual and leader who performed the first modern experiment in systematic extermination.

>Hitler performed the first modern experiment in systemic extermination

the gall of communists, not a few posts above accusing nazis of accusing bolsheviks of their darkest desires. Seems like there's something to this hooman natur thing. I wonder if liberating humans from commodities and such will prevent this sociobiological predisposition.


 No.2398084

>>2398083

>Sophism: The Post


 No.2398095

>>2398084

>I'm a materialist, except when I'm not

socialists are mentally ill.


 No.2398103

File: 30f777d083146a9⋯.jpg (53.69 KB, 991x902, 991:902, Laughing-Meme-02.jpg)

>>2398095

Okay, kid.


 No.2398113

>>2398083

> there’s no guarantee

Your impotent insecurity issues aren’t an argument.


 No.2398116

>>2398083

>no gaurantee

Marxism isn’t your own security blanket. Not seeing the problem


 No.2398130

>>2398083

>the gall of communists

Watching nazis pearl clutch is the funniest shit


 No.2398552

>>2398048

Zizek is not going to respond to them.

I wish he would, but I know he won't


 No.2398620

File: 877d97e6394f404⋯.png (139.06 KB, 634x356, 317:178, retard.png)

>>2397889

>uh… liberal conservative? what does that mean?

>Marxism tried to destroy the West through class struggle, now it's trying through gender

I guess Stefan was right, child abuse does lower I Q.


 No.2398685

>>2398041

Thanks for proving my point. I'll leave you to your tribalism and autistic screeching.


 No.2398692

>>2398685

>being this mad


 No.2398707

>>2398620

goddamn that was awful, Stefan is either a clever businessman cashing in on the idiocy of (mostly) Americans or either his I Q is in the double digits. Does he suffer from dementia? How could he possibly have such terrible reading comprehension.


 No.2398725

File: e53877fb7d60a5e⋯.gif (562.39 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Seinfeld-Laughing-with-Cig….gif)

Amazing. That was amazing. Zizek is literally smarter than Molyneux, that mick literally can't comprehend an opinion piece, he complains that an opinion piece on a news site wasn't philosophical enough, or as he laments - "this is what passes for philosophy today". "Where's the arguments?? That's not an argument! Why aren't you disproving him!" Gee Stefan, maybe because Peterson has far too many claims to condense in a short article? Every single so-called rebuttal in Stefan's video is littered with nonsense and misreading. No one was comparing Peterson to Nazis, there is no reason for him to graphically describe the British Paki rape cases - because apparently it bothered Stefan that Zizek said it was only a "sexual abuse scandal", he isn't there to debunk Peterson in the first place but to give a perspective on why Peterson is popular and what the left should do. Besides Molyneux's infantile impersonations and behavior, the guy has absolutely no clue what he's even arguing against.

Tho I must say that it wasn't Zizek's best, it was very rudimentary in its morals yet far too obscure in its content (seriously, if I hadn't been familiar with Lacan's methods beforehand the whole neurotic/psychotic thing would surely go over my head).


 No.2398752

>>2398692

These threads consistently stink of butthurt and "the smug style in American politics" because those denigrating them are mad? Say what you like about Peterson but he has rapidly managed to attract a popular following among the masses. That's something scofflaw psueds on leftypol and elsewhere (such as yourself) desire more than anything for the revolution and fail at. Endlessly.

Zizek at least has the sense to express rumination on this. All you've done is openly mock the intelligence of the proles you say you wish to lead and bask in dim glow of your reflected superiority.

Keep saying other people are mad. Perhaps you might persuade someone for a change.


 No.2398894

>>2398752

>calling out an anti-marxist and his teenage fanbase on their retardation is "openly mocking the intelligence of the proles"

hurr


 No.2398915

>>2398083

>Nothing is ever guaranteed

fucking postmodernist. look up predisposition and incentive


 No.2398916


 No.2398937

File: cda25a4d99975cf⋯.jpg (32.61 KB, 443x605, 443:605, 1315105144183.jpg)

Is nobody going to mention that Peterson is mad because the article isn't actually about him and simply uses his as a device for a more general argument?


 No.2398998

>>2398937

yeah, I don't think he notices that. Zizek has already studied Peterson and uses offhand assumptions as examples in order to target leftists rather than Peterson himself.

really, all this shitty e-celeb drama boils down to is his poor reading comprehension. they didn't have to respond, but instead him and his fans cry "not an argument" towards an article that deliberately chose not to argue with him. it really displays how, deep down, these people are just looking for trouble and nothing else.


 No.2399062

>>2398725

If we're just going off of academic success, Zizek clearly outclasses Molyneux and Peterson. It's not even close.

Apparently his political essays are something his publishers push him to do - so he doesn't put a lot of effort into them. In this article alone, I already recognize some sentences seemingly lifted directly from his books.


 No.2399084


 No.2399100

File: a9c2839c17e1c20⋯.png (227.66 KB, 605x445, 121:89, 6753745.png)

>>2398725

Read, egh, fughen book!


 No.2399319

>>2398894

>I'm calling things out. I'm not sneering at people!

duhhhhhhh


 No.2399337

>>2398752

>>2398894

Say what you want–the essay is good, but it does seem kind of petty to laugh at retards. They're pretty easy-picking, and it's not like we don't have our own retards to point and laugh at.


 No.2399353

i just watched the video where he talks about women wearing makeup or high heels in the workplace

you can truly become an intellectual in the normie community by saying anything at this point


 No.2399382

>>2399353

>normie

i think that's kinda missing the point. the reason peterson's so revered is just because he affirms all the basic, poorly conceived, idpol-riddled resentments internet-addicted failsons and then waves his phd in their face to remind them that everything he just said (what they thought in the first place) must be objectively true


 No.2399385

>>2399382

Of course you're right, but the other anon is too. Most of Peterson's fanbase is comprised by absolute normalfags.


 No.2399408

>>2399084

Pretty good. Further reading material for those interested: https://mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g

Start with 1997.


 No.2399409

>>2397899

>I think said Marxist philosopher is bitterly jealous that he's a relative nobody compared to Professor Peterson

holy shit


 No.2399415

>>2399409

Reminder that it's what they actually believe


 No.2399416

>>2399409

Building personal pathologies upon their disregard for factuality is the common theme of all these comments ITT. When people say that "Peterson's followers are the worst" they point exactly to the other side of the formula: unquestioning devotion.


 No.2399430

>>2398752

The amount of butthurt in these threads is pretty spectacular. I like Peterson for all the Jungian archetype fun times but even I get pretty annoyed at his everything is cultural marxism criticisms. I'd join in on bashing his normie followers but the smug screeching from some of the people around here who just can't imagine why someone who believes different things from them would be popular pisses me off.

>>2399353

Peterson is objectively correct in that video, reddened lips is a fertility signal in mammals and women do that shit on purpose including in office environments because they are aware of the effect it has on men.

>so what you're saying is sexual harrassment is ok because women are asking for it?

No you dumb motherfucker, wanting attention from men does not mean they want your attention. Like I understand if you're gonna strategically misrepresent the guy to make him look stupid but you've got to stop drinking your own koolade.


 No.2399439

>>2399430

>but the smug screeching from some of the people around here who just can't imagine why someone who believes different things from them would be popular pisses me off.

Where are you getting this from? Most laugh at him for exactly what you said:

>I get pretty annoyed at his everything is cultural marxism criticisms


 No.2399461

>>2399416

They're not that bad really; we've got more than a billion people on this planet who react much more harshly when their prophet is challenged.

>>2399382

You're in his audience too.


 No.2399471

>>2399439

This thread is the best so far tbh, probably because zizek is involved. The last few were so obnoxious my rage may be overflowing onto this one unfairly.


 No.2399496

File: 20b35ee50f05ec8⋯.gif (22.31 KB, 128x128, 1:1, 20b.gif)

>>2399430

>Peterson is objectively correct in that video, reddened lips is a fertility signal in mammals and women do that shit on purpose including in office environments because they are aware of the effect it has on men.

This is why Peterson is a fucking retard for saying that: First of all humans are quite different from animals(not only in our biology, but also in our culture)and humanity has managed to overcome far bigger obstacles than makeup and/our sexual harassment in the workplace why wouldn't we be able to get over this one? However, there is also the fact that humans are able to resist their impulses, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live, work or even exist in our current society so why wouldn't we be able to resist the impulse of sexually harassing someone who dresses a bit provocative?

Second of all: Women and men working together isn't such a new phenomenon as JBP would like to make out. Women and men working together in factories was the norm in at least the industrialized parts of Europe in the 18th century. That is to say: women and men working together is an integral part of capitalism. The notion that women and men have only been working together for 50 years or so is simply a daydream of the bourgeoisie.

Third: Most women in the workplace don't even wear lipstick, let alone red. Why? Because lipstick is extremely unpractical, it gets smudged whenever you take a drink, it leaves a mark on your cup, etc. Even if they wear lipstick it's usually something far more neutral than red. Then there's also the argument about women only wearing makeup because they want to 'attract men'. The reasons for women wearing makeup are many but could generally be summed up in these three basic reasons:

1. Women get punished if they don't wear makeup.

It's not at all uncommon for women to receive comments about their looks, and they get worse if they don't wear make up

2. They want to look good

Just like men like to wear nice clothes, women also like to look good, pretty simple.

3. They want to attract men/women

That doesn't mean it's ok to harass them though

I.e. JBP is a fucking autist


 No.2399499

>>2399430

>women do that shit on purpose including in office environments because they are aware of the effect it has on men

Every woman wearing red lips signals sexual arousal and wants to attract men? Really? No wonder I'm a virgin.


 No.2399520

>Using muh biology to excuse shitty behavior

Peterson pls go


 No.2399544

>>2398752

>apeal to popularity

low bar.

Dr. Phil is popular

Sam Harris is popular

Deepak Chopra is popular

The self-help circuit is popular


 No.2399586

File: f526536a079099b⋯.jpg (17.89 KB, 409x393, 409:393, 547658970.jpg)

>>2397899

>That painfully obvious aut-right false-flag in the first image


 No.2399616

File: 977c3c1e210a123⋯.png (12.33 KB, 837x84, 279:28, ClipboardImage.png)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

FUCKING KILL ME WHAT THE SHIT

I used to consider myself anti-violence. Never advocated for killing people. But holy shit these people just can't be helped. Just fucking shoot hem for their own sake.


 No.2399644

>>2399616

>FUCKING KILL ME

Just walk into an american school and wait.


 No.2399648

File: 1207b3a796bed6a⋯.png (659.69 KB, 698x840, 349:420, 1207b3a796bed6a910a5ea1514….png)

>>2399616

Our culture is irredeemably stupid and cruel and I eagerly await the inevitable meteor strike that wipes us all out.


 No.2399663

File: fad92072dfa562c⋯.jpg (110.94 KB, 1024x1008, 64:63, fad92072dfa562cc3b56ce5bad….jpg)

>>2399616

<Fucking hypocrit, look at this Cultural-MARXIST making a living by speaking. REEEEEE!

>criticizing capitalism means you have to do it for free

These Peterson fans are fucking morons. If my followers (not that I have any, but that's besides the point) had behaved as stupid as JP's fanbois, I'd an heroed a long time ago.

pic related: it's what Peterson cultists should do


 No.2399673

So at the end of the day, after the layers of arguments and rhetoric, what is Peterson really saying about makeup and heels and shit? That women should not wear them? That they should suck it up and deal with the harassment from doing so, what? Gimme the cliffsnotes on this.


 No.2399694

>>2399673

He's saying that makeup and heels are explicitly used to make yourself more attractive, which is basically true


 No.2399701

>>2399673

>>2399694

>He's saying that makeup and heels are explicitly used to make yourself more attractive

He literally claimed make-up is sexually provocative, man.


 No.2399727

>>2399701

Yes, that's what it's designed to be. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because we've been so socialised to think that it's just "normal."


 No.2399750

>>2399727

Well, maybe because nowadays it is just normal.


 No.2399765

>>2399750

There's no such thing as "normal" dude. There's only socialization.

Most people will say "Thank God" when something goes right, even if they're not religious. It's "normal." That doesn't mean the phrase itself doesn't very explicitly mean to thank God for the events that have unfolded.


 No.2399766

>>2399765

Well then make-up isn't "designed to be" and just once was, wouldn't you say?


 No.2399799

>>2398937

Good point!


 No.2399842

>>2399766

Once was, and still is. Society will always be full of things considered "normal" which actually have a much different connotation when carefully thought about.


 No.2399857

>>2399842

m8, you're saying make-up is sexually provocative nowadays.


 No.2399880

Yes, that's because it is. Why do people wear it? There's no need for it. 100 years ago it was virtually unheard of.

We live in an incredibly hyper-sexualised society. This isn't really a controversial idea, it's just one a lot of people have a hard time swallowing because so much of our identity is built around sexualising ourselves.


 No.2399882

>>2399857

And it is, but that level of sexual provocation is now more-or-less typical. To remove sexual provocation entirely you'd have to render women completely unattractive.


 No.2399884

>>2399880

>>2399882

…fucking hell, m8.


 No.2399890

>>2399882

Speak for yourself, give me a natural hippie chick any day


 No.2399891

>>2399884

That first one isn't me; my first post ITT is the second one you quoted. The other guy is a flailing regard.


 No.2399899

>>2399890

There is no single kind of sexually provocative behavior, as it is informed by cultural mores. Any woman looking to attract a certain kind of mate deliberately sets herself up to do so and even those not actively seeking a mate often present an image that will passively attract the attention of a certain kind of mate.

I'm not trying to set women up as evil masterminds or something, but finding the best mate possible by hook or by crook is what women do and have been doing since before we left the trees.


 No.2399968

>>2399496

Reddened is not the same as red. Pink colored lip glosses also have a reddening effect. The longer history of men and women working together is an interesting point but as far as I'm aware that was mostly a working-class phenomena. What changed in the last 50 was the gender integration of white collar offices. So good point there but notice Peterson never said anything about why women wear make up, he posed the question, you're imagining him saying it's ok to harass women. He never says it.

>>2399499

Fertility isn't the same thing as arousal buddy.


 No.2399996

>>2399673

Heels aren't even sexy, it's just that stature is power and women are biologically shorter than men.

Short men also get paid less money on average iirc.


 No.2399998

>>2399996

>Short men also get paid less money on average iirc.

>tfw ultramanlet

Glad I'll commit suicide soon anyway.


 No.2400003

>>2399996

Have you never looked at womens asses when they walk in heels?


 No.2400064

>>2399998

Don't kill yourself, that way you'll literally never learn.


 No.2400121

>>2399968

He says it’s hypocritical to complain about being harassed, which is just like saying they deserved it. It’s the same sort of victim blaming you’d find with rape victims where rape is condoned via gaslighting. He doesn’t have to say “it’s okay to harass women”, he can imply that.


 No.2400151

File: a790bd9b0785a2c⋯.webm (9.31 MB, 640x360, 16:9, videoplayback.webm)

>>2400121

It makes me pretty happy that the philosopher that's here to save western civilization has the same talking points as low-tier islamic preachers and third world divorcees.


 No.2400153

>>2400151

I meant clinical psychogist, not philosopher, of course.


 No.2400168

>>2400121

>>2400151

It's hilarious how some people are trying to put those comments in a normal, or even positive, light.


 No.2400248

>>2400151

>implying only homofags engage in anal sex

>implying heterofags don't engage in anal sex

>implying homofags can't enjoy missionary position

WEW LAD!


 No.2400252

>>2400151

itta pupu


 No.2400261

>>2400151

>>2400121

>>2400153

>>2400168

Here's the thing that a lot of people in the gender wars debates fail to recognise - humans are way, Way (WAY) more influenced by their surroundings than we care to admit. We are adamantly NOT rational beings, and the more stress you put on someone to stay rational for seemingly no benefit to them, some on them are going to break.

Why do you think there are so many dishelved, bitter men these days who call all women "whores" and "roasties" and post rape fantasies online? Is it because young men are just naturally fowl creatures? No, it's because they've grown up in an environment that simultaneously flaunts sexuality practically everywhere, whilst then also denying access to that sexual intimacy due to all sorts of factors involving alienation, a status-obsessed culture, etc.

Does that give them "free reign" to try and grope, harass and rape any girl they come across who comes across and even vaguely provocative? No, of course not. But we have to ask ourselves, *how the fuck did we get into such a scenario in the first place?* What were the conditions that led to about a trillion sexual harassment allegations coming out as soon as Harvey Weinstein was exposed?

I'm frankly rather sick of how little we as a society respect the sexual drive in humans. Outside of survival, it is the STRONGEST biological urge the human psyche possesses. We can't brush it off as just "each person's individual problem" and expect not to have society-wide malaise because of it.


 No.2400292

Just like clean your room dude.


 No.2400374

>>2400121

That's a real stretch, saying people are hypocritical is really not the same as saying they deserve it.


 No.2400447

>>2396440

pretty much this. The Secret/Eckhart Tolle shit was the liberals way of dealing with late stage capitalism


 No.2400475

>>2399968

LMAO your so fucking clueless. None of your counter-arguments actually dispute mine, fuck off to /pol/ you fucking rat


 No.2400606

>>2400252

ehnole likking


 No.2400777

>>2400261

what is your proposed solution


 No.2400838

>>2399496

>However, there is also the fact that humans are able to resist their impulses, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live, work or even exist in our current society

Except your assertion is demonstrably wrong. Look how full the prisons are. A small minority of the actively malignant aside, the imprisoned are there exactly because they could not resist their impulses.


 No.2400847

>>2400838

The prisons are full because it's a fucking industry m8, at least in the US.

Furthermore, less than 1% of adults are imprisonned so you can't really take prisoners as representative of human behavior.


 No.2400855

>>2400003

yes, when i was a teenager of course. Have you ever talked with women who wear heels on a daily basis tho?


 No.2400973

>>2400838

lol. Imagine being this naive. The prison industrial complex is lucrative. But let's say it wasn't. Is your basis for how everyone behaves just centered around the U.S.? There are other countries that don't have mass incarceration.


 No.2401021

>>2400838

What's your argument here? Honestly. That committing crimes is part of human nature? How would you then explain the varying degree of incarceration across the world? People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, not just because they 'can't resist their impulses'. Is your argument that people actually can't control their impulses? Because that's the craziest thing I've heard all year.

>>2399968

I was drunk when I wrote my first reply to you, anyway:

>Reddened is not the same as red. Pink colored lip glosses also have a reddening effect

This doesn't really dispute my argument, women (1) don't really wear lipstick in the workplace(it's impractical) (2) rarely wear wear red and/or pink, lip gloss even less. Have you ever met a woman?

>The longer history of men and women working together is an interesting point but as far as I'm aware that was mostly a working-class phenomena. What changed in the last 50 was the gender integration of white collar offices

How does this matter?

>you're imagining him saying it's ok to harass women. He never says it.

It's heavily implied, why else would he say that it's hypocritical of a woman to wear makeup and complain about sexual harassment?


 No.2401092

>>2400847

>>2400973

>>2401021

If people could control their impulses, most of the law breaking in society would evaporate. Speaking as someone who has committed lots of crimes and got away with them, I think pointing to the ones stupid enough to have got caught is instructive.


 No.2401226

>>2399882

That's what is pernicious about Peterson. He is either retarded and doesn't know the implications of what he is saying, or he is discretely pushing the envelope until we inevitably have to say women can't work anymore.

Women in general are sexually provocative in this thinking. Men are naturally attracted to women, the reason most men aren't constantly jumping women in the office is because we are used to women existing so we don't ALWAYS look at them as opportunities for sex, and we have other responsibilities that can involve cooperating with women. Even tho it is a liberal meme show I have to wonder if Peterson wants all women to be modest all the time like in Handmaid's Tale. If you say they can't wear makeup in the office, what about outside the office? Wouldn't the modesty as a veil over the immodesty of makeup create a fetishization of the inner "naughty" girl that actually wants sexual attention? What if coworkers simply looked up somebody on Facebook to see them when they were at their peak of "sexual provocation"? Or what if they saw them outside of work? Would women begin to become ashamed of a coworker accidentally seeing them wearing heels in public? Would we start to extend he new accepted logic of the workplace and say women being sexually provocative outside of the workplace was rendering them as not serious, working people?

I'm sort of surprised he thinks this way at all. He is the guy always talking about the flip side of archetypes, the "enlightened king" and the "despot", for instance. Our society has a dual character of formal and informal interaction. We exist as sexual and non-sexual creatures even though at all times there can inevitably be a tension between both because the features of your sex aren't ever completely gone, even if you try to hide it behind a burka, though you may be wearing lingerie underneath for your husband because that is considered "kinky".

You can't STOP sexual assault or harassment completely, of course, but I don't see the point beyond being politically provocative of claiming that not wearing makeup/certain clothing would reduce harassment when makeup and clothing in the office already tend to be pretty modest, and are mainly used by women to look a way they consider presentable or clean. Girlfriends I've had have always been more nervous that they will look sloppy if they don't at least put on some foundation to even out their skin tone. I wouldn't even say lipstick is supposed to make your lips look like you're sexually aroused, they just effect how pronounced your lips appear in your face overall. At night women wear all kinds of lipstick. Black lip stick, purple tones, flesh colored, stuff that glistens like they have plastic on them.


 No.2401261

>>2401092

Some laws are unjust and shouldn't be followed. But the real issue with your statement is that you seem to ignore that most people can control their impulses and will never go to jail.


 No.2401298

>>2401021

I have met women, they use makeup to enhance their appearance more than you'd think. It's a little rare for a woman to wear heavy, showy, makeup in an office setting since that'd be viewed as not quite work appropriate. But look closely next time, bet you 10 bucks half the women you think aren't using makeup have on light 'natural makeup', bit of foundation, bit of something on the lips, bit of something on the eyes. And the fact that the last 50 years were when women moved into white collar middleclass jobs and that was considered the birth of the modern feminist movement tells you that modern feminism is a strictly middle class white collar movement. They don't give a shit about women, they give a shit about middle class women. How much have you heard about rapes on college campuses vs rapes in service jobs?

>its heavily implied

literally hallucinating


 No.2401316

>>2401021

Don't expect Petersonfags actually addressing your arguments. They didn't become Petersonfags through reason to begin with. Peterson offered them a very sketchy rationalization of their own insecurities and hatred (like this lipstick shit) which in turn makes them feel good about their own insecurities by externalizing the cause: "it's not me (who is shit with people, etc.), it's the wymyn's fault!"

This is the ultimate secret behind Peterson's success. Only on the surface does he motivate you to be responsible for yourself ("clean your room!"). Most of his arguments are exactly about rejecting responsibility: it's the Cultural Marxists' fault, it's wymyn's fault, biology preordained it, argumentum ad lobsterum, kids are bad because parent's don't hit them hard enough, we've fallen from the good old days, etc."

Strictly speaking his is not a self-help book. He wrote a bible of (perceived) victim hood. He "helps" you by telling you that the responsible thing to do is to reject responsibility.


 No.2401321

>>2401298

>literally hallucinating

I'm not him, but no hes not. It's heavily implied because Peterson engages in victim blaming saying its hypocritical for women to complain about being sexually harassed if they wear makeup in the office. This is similar as to when people say its hypocritical for a woman to complain about being raped when she was wearing a skimpy outfit. You are hallucinating.


 No.2401327

>>2401298

>literally hallucinating

Could you explain what does "complaining about sexual harrassment while wearing make up is hypocrite "means then?


 No.2401329

>>2401298

>bet you 10 bucks half the women you think aren't using makeup have on light 'natural makeup', bit of foundation, bit of something on the lips, bit of something on the eyes.

Which has nothing do to with sexual provocativeness and everything to do with how capitalism makes the majority feel like shit if they don't conform to certain heavily marketed standards.


 No.2401336

>>2401329

this. Men wear foundation too, especially in show business.


 No.2401338

>>2401336

>be businessman

>wear suits and cologne all the time

>be clean shaven, fresh haircut, and fit

>women Peterson appears and rapes me

>I was asking for it

;_;


 No.2401377

>>2401316

literally hallucinating

>>2401321

Heavily implied by what? The phrase we're analyzing here is literally a one word agreement with a question. There's no necessary connection between hypocrisy and someone deserving harassment. The only way you can possibly draw the conclusion that Peterson means women deserve harassmen is using your own ideas about his character as assumptions.

>>2401327

Notice the phrasing on this here was entirely from the vice journalist trying to nail the guy with a loaded question so he could make the case that Peterson is a bad guy to dupes. Peterson literally just says yes. Hypocrisy just means having moral standards to which your own behavior does not conform.


 No.2401383

>Heavily implied by what? The phrase we're analyzing here is literally a one word agreement with a question. There's no necessary connection between hypocrisy and someone deserving harassment. The only way you can possibly draw the conclusion that Peterson means women deserve harassmen is using your own ideas about his character as assumptions.

It being hypocritical only makes sense if they were doing something to invite it. Like I said before, rhetorically he is making the same use of victim blaming that people who defend rapist make. "Maybe she didn't consent but she was wearing a skimpy outfit in his apartment" etc. Does it outright justify rape? No, but it normalizes it as something which can hardly be blamed entirely on the perpetrator, as something which is to be expected if one dresses or acts a certain way. You are entirely deluded and trying to jump through loops to try and justify Peterson engaging in the same sort of apologism for patriarchy he says isn't really a problem.


 No.2401391

>>2401383

Also

>the vice question is loaded

Lmao, all he has to say is "No" like someone who isn't a misogynist would do.


 No.2401425

>>2401383

You know the majority of women who are in physically violent relationships are physically violent themselves. Nobody is entirely without sin but it hardly justifies damage or malice towards them. You might want to rethink your whole patriarchy, misogny, sjw world view. Makes you stupid.


 No.2401432

>>2401425

>You know the majority of women who are in physically violent relationships are physically violent themselves.

????? What?? What does this have to do with anything I just said. My argument is that Peterson is engaging in victim blaming, I explained why and drew up an analogy. I'm sorry that calling out misogyny makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should think about why that is. Makes you stupid.


 No.2401450

>>2401432

Even assuming the Stat you used is true, what does this tell us? Nothing about cause and effect, maybe the women are defending themselves and not instigators. If they were instigating violence, they would "deserve" it insofar as they invited a response of self defence from the partner. In short, utterly irrelevant to what I said.


 No.2401453

>>2401435

>unironically believing the liberal feminist mythology surrounding domestic abuse

Wew. Women frequently initiate physical domestic abuse, but they're injured more frequently because they're smaller, and probably because the violence men use is more severe. Supposedly women are more likely to use weapons, but I can't find much on that. I'm not so bold as to tell you that women initiate the MAJORITY of physical domestic abuse, but the discrepancy is small enough that I wouldn't be shocked if they initiated the majority. I would also avoid using language like "physically violent." It is, strictly speaking, an accurate term, but when I think of physical violence I think of stabbing, burning someone severely, shooting someone, etc. For what anon to say to be true, "physical violence" would probably have to include slaps, scratches, and so on.

Source: reading


 No.2401456

>>2401453

Since crypto-libs love making ridiculous inferences when I post shit like this, I'll just say in advance that I'm in no way complaining about women or feminism in general. I'm not implying that domestic violence against men worries me as much as domestic violence against women.


 No.2401463

>>2401261

We are not discussing the rare case of the individual who makes a premeditated choice to commit a crime. No, many people will fail to control their impulses and simply evade detection.


 No.2401484

>>2401453

I'm assuming this refers to Western domestic abuse because on face-value when extrapolated to the whole world, this seems absurd. Even then, what does this have to do with Peterson using the same rhetoric those who defend rape do?


 No.2401492

>>2397889

I can't watch this guy, I just cant. His whole style is fucking obnoxious, the way he smugly laughs etc.


 No.2401497

>>2401453

Afaik almost all men are stronger than almost all women. That fact alone should tell anyone who can usually abuse who violently.


 No.2401517

>>2401497

You are oversimplifying a very complex issue. There's also age difference (an 18 yrs old woman can easily beat up a 13 years old boy), taboos (violent wife, while physically weaker, gets a pass on terrorizing her husband and kids), double standards on what constitutes pedophilia, just to name a few.


 No.2401652

>>2401484

It's mostly based on data from the US afaik. My comments weren't about Peterson. Fuck Peterson. My comment was pointing out how your liberal idpol made you infer incorrect information about the details of domestic violence from high level trends.

>>2401497

>That fact alone should tell anyone who can usually abuse who violently.

Except it doesn't. Studies have been done on hundreds of surveys of domestic abuse. I addressed women being weaker. That's why they're the ones who suffer serious injuries from domestic abuse more frequently. A significant number of abusive relationships are abusive.

Both of you need to read up before you open your mouths about shit you don't understand. If you don't, you're essentially preparing young (lol) virgins to be redpilled. Some smelly, 23 year old fuck is going to feel like his misogyny is justified when a reactionary propagandist first tells him how often women hit first in abusive relationships. He's gonna feel like someone just told him where the Ark of the fucking Covenant is. And it's going to be in part because people like us fill in gaps in our knowledge with intuitive liberal idpol instead of reading. Even the retards at Jezebel realized that this data needs to be explained. Congrats. You're better at being liberal feminists than the most liberal feminists on the planet.


 No.2401663

File: 9cc27b7bb2f7160⋯.png (557.16 KB, 625x469, 625:469, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2399766

>Actually claiming make up is not designed to make the wearer more attractive?

Are you actually thick in the skull? it's designed to enhance appearances or cover perceived imperfections, regardless of social context and individual use (or over-use) it is designed with the broad purpose of making the wearer LOOK BETTER, THUS GENERALLY MORE ATTRACTIVE.

Can't believe this is even up for discussion.


 No.2401725

the guy is a retarded conservative who wants to live in pleasantville

unfortunately he's also a slippery snake with a degree in being a slippery snake which makes him worse


 No.2401770

>Peterson

>loved by the alt-right

The only people who aren't critical of Peterson are the goons using him as a surrogate father. And anyone who listens to him beyond his overviews of behavioral psychology (a field to which he has contributed nothing of value anyhow) is a fool.


 No.2401780

>>2401770

Perhaps I'm exaggerating with "nothing of value" but his bibliography isn't anything exemplary.


 No.2401819

>>2400151

Clearly, he unknowingly recognizes the divine truth of the noble Qu'ran


 No.2401843

>>2401298

I never said women don't wear makeup in the office, i actually said the opposite. I did however say that women today don't really wear red lipstick, lip gloss etc., especially not in the workplace since, as you said, it's viewed as inappropriate. This is an important fact to stress since JBPs argument hinges on the assertion that lipstick is used to redden women's lips to simulate arousal. You seem to forget this fact, probably because you realize that JBP is wrong

>And the fact that the last 50 years were when women moved into white collar middleclass jobs and that was considered the birth of the modern feminist movement tells you that modern feminism is a strictly middle class white collar movement.

This is wrong on so many levels, anyway the 'proof' you offer is nowhere near substantial enough to make that assertion


 No.2401846

>>2401316

>Don't expect Petersonfags actually addressing your arguments.

I don't, i just think this is fun


 No.2401848

>>2401663

The anon was saying it's designed to be sexually provocative.


 No.2401849

File: 819182b00cb84b5⋯.png (251.43 KB, 660x486, 110:81, IMG_0876.PNG)

>>2401316

This. It's pure ressentiment.


 No.2401984

>>2401848

what difference is there between attractiveness and sexual provocation? jesus christ, if you see something pretty do you not want to fuck it? at least the more primitive side of your brain does.

When you're attracted to someone its because somehow, somewhere along the way you'd like to fuck them if possible, even if you do not actually *want* to fuck a woman in particular you might say "oh she looks very attractive" as a generalization, which means that even if you yourself have no interest in her, someone else REALLY does.

I don't see what the problem is here, this isn't even objectifying towards women, humans groom themselves to look better, even if they are not actively looking for mates they are definitely sending out signals that others may read as sexual desirability. Make up is certainly designed to make women more desirable, it covers up skin imperfection and things such as rouge and lip-stick exaggerate the physiological signals of deep sexual arousal in a female's face (such as blushing).

There's no conflict in admitting this either, it doesn't make you a Peterson shill or a misogynist or whatever is it that you think it does.

Again, I don't even see what is up for debate.


 No.2401985

>>2401984

We just fundamentally disagree then.


 No.2401987

>>2401985

Okay genius, then what is modern make up designed for, then?


 No.2401991

>>2401987

To look pretty. I'm just saying that it's odd to say it's sexually provocative. Maybe I'm just too triBBered over the phrase.


 No.2401993

>>2401987

>Okay genius, then what is modern make up designed for, then?

Everything to hide boils or awful complexion for self esteem so you can go on with your day not being looked at for "not being attractive enough", not necessarily asking for sex.

You're either stupid for begging for sex, or ugly for not wearing make up.

Men are so stupid.


 No.2401999

>>2401987

I don't really understand how this is relevant to the discussion tbh


 No.2402014

>>2401991

But friend, it is simple biology. Sexual attractiveness in general is tied directly to how "pretty" -as you put it- someone looks. Again, take foundation for instance, it gets rid of perceived skin imperfections, which makes skin look arguably healthier and more uniform, things which are generally signals of over-all good health and good genetics, which In turn can be read as sexual desirability by some if not most men.

Why does the fact that something is generally considered sexually attractive is so necessarily "dirty" or bothersome? As long as we can only reproduce sexually, sexual codification will be transmitted through sensory signals, smell, looks etc.

A given woman may not feel like she's "putting on a show" for men by wearing make up, and perhaps she most certainly isn't, but that does not diminish the fact that a man (or another woman) may find her attractive for this. I can guarantee you that NOT wearing make is also sexually attractive for some, I personally find women who do not obsessively iron or dye their hair to be generally more desirable than women who do, I favor this when I look at a girl.

>>2401993

Wow the amount of baggage is astounding. I never said women who put on make up are asking for sex, that never factored in my posts. I'm talking about how it's perceived, how the signal reaches, not the intention of the wearer.

>Everything to hide boils or awful complexion for self esteem so you can go on with your day not being looked at for "not being attractive enough", not necessarily asking for sex.

This is very contradictory, why would you feel the need for others to look at you as being attractive while "not asking for sex"?. Are you saying a woman's self esteem so utterly tied to her sexual desirability she cannot function normally even though she's not looking for a mate? if this is the case for women, then surely this can also be the case for men, seeing as both generally feel the need for intimacy, and more often than not wish they could reproduce (or at least their body wishes they could), so it is only natural they'd feel pressured to attract the best possible mate.

>You're either stupid for begging for sex, or ugly for not wearing make up.

I never said anything of the sort, I'm not blaming or putting women down for wearing or not wearing make up, to each their own. This is specially true of individual cases such as people who are most definitely asexual and have almost no sex drive or whoever else one might consider, I've been talking in very broad terms for the bulk of observable humanity here.

>>2401999

Someone claimed Make-up was not designed to make women more attractive/sexually desirable and I think that's flat out wrong. I think the Zizek/Peterson thing ran its course already.


 No.2402018

>>2402014

>Wow the amount of baggage is astounding

That's fascinating because I think the same think reading your posts in the first place.

>This is very contradictory

No it isn't.

>Are you saying a woman's self esteem so utterly tied to her sexual desirability she cannot function normally even though she's not looking for a mate

lmao dude

>I never said anything of the sort

I don't think you really understand what you're saying.


 No.2402020

>>2402014

In fact I think you're either underage or an emotionally retarded adult


 No.2402021

>>2402014

>Someone claimed Make-up was not designed to make women more attractive/sexually desirable and I think that's flat out wrong

>I think the Zizek/Peterson thing ran its course already.

Just leave the thread


 No.2402027

>>2402020

>>2402018

Feel free to actually dispute anything i've said lol.


 No.2402031

>>2402027

I already did. It's a self esteem issue. Make up is no different than clothes really.


 No.2402040

>>2402021

the second part is not wrong


 No.2402042

>>2402014

I'm going to assume here (god forgive me) that you are a normal adult male. are you telling me that all the times you've combed your hair and dressed nice in the morning is because you want to attract women?


 No.2402044

>>2401780

>his bibliography

two books in 15 years


 No.2402059

File: f7bb821102ed472⋯.jpg (31.09 KB, 600x434, 300:217, b4f.jpg)

>>2401984

>jesus christ, if you see something pretty do you not want to fuck it?

Nope.

>at least the more primitive side of your brain does.

I'm not a fucking lizard, you idiot. Humans – at least fully constituted ones – are culturally inhibited, their desires socially constructed, and so on.

>When you're attracted to someone its because somehow, somewhere along the way you'd like to fuck them if possible

People are capable of feeling myriad different kinds of attractiveness only some of which end in fucking, but you clearly don't care, because your whole deal is to simplify everything probably to justify your own shortcomings as an adult.

>they are definitely sending out signals that others may read as sexual desirability

You might, others might read is as something completely different. That's the thing about human language: it's meaning can not be codified. Our messages are not computer codes that have objective meaning. Dressing purty might very well 'mean' the exact opposite on the intentional side and the recipient side.

>lip-stick exaggerate the physiological signals of deep sexual arousal

kek. "wymyn's makeup penetrate something deep in me physiologically, beyond my control"

pic related is you

>no conflict in admitting this either

People don't generally admit other's pathology as truth.

>Again, I don't even see what is up for debate.

You don't say?


 No.2402061

>>2402042

I think he isn't making and judgement on intentions of the person using makeup, but saying that makeup generally is used to make your skin and features look "better", and that this "better" also generally intersects with sexual attraction, so that the observer, despite intentions of the wearer, may end up feeling sexually attracted though the wearer only intended to look presentable.

I don't think that anon is even participating in the OP, since the implication of that position would necessarily be that Peterson is literally victim blaming. As in, he would effectively be claiming that, despite all intention, any case in which you sexually provoked a man would be your fault, even if it is totally arbitrary since a man could take whatever you're doing in multiple different ways. I think he is just claiming that trying to look better with makeup is effectively the same as looking more sexually attractive, even if socially we create cultural boundaries on that. Like in the office, most adults understand the roles that are played there and will naturally be driven from thoughts about flirting because they understand that is socially inappropriate and risky.

Though the only way in which I'd disagree is that, while there is more overlap for some, the makeup and hair presentation in an office is usually different, in my experience, from the one for a night out or something like that. So makeup is basically a part of a uniform, and it partially communicates in the office "this is my serious work makeup", and on the street "this is my looking good on a night out makeup".


 No.2402063

>>2401993

You are conflating what you think men as a group think while there are only individuals, thinking differently, thus turning your comment into a self-parody.


 No.2402069

>>2401984

So when guys where suits to the office, they're trying to look sexually attractive to other men? I don't think so. I think you're unable to see women as people who just want to look good (like everyone else) and assume anything that makes them look prettier is meant to be sexually provocative.


 No.2402070

>>2402069

*wear suits*


 No.2402071

File: 5094991aa73309e⋯.jpg (438.03 KB, 778x581, 778:581, 509.jpg)

>>2402014

Infantilism detected.


 No.2402124

File: d84b26f29a3a9ac⋯.jpg (13.63 KB, 220x186, 110:93, 220px-GRRM_Ljubljana_(crop….jpg)


 No.2402135

>>2402042

>are you telling me that all the times you've combed your hair and dressed nice in the morning is because you want to attract women?

That is not at all what I am saying, I'm saying that regardless of what I do, there are women out there evaluating me as a possible mate, it's got nothing to do with what I do or for what purpose I do it

>>2402063

this guy's got it right.

I'm not saying anything about women wearing make up to the office, I'm not "victim blaming" I'm saying a very specific thing about the design of modern make up. What Each person does based on their own motives is entirely independent on how others percieve them.

>>2402059

>I'm not a fucking lizard

Well, congratulations, fucko.

>You might, others might read is as something completely different. That's the thing about human language: it's meaning can not be codified. Our messages are not computer codes that have objective meaning. Dressing purty might very well 'mean' the exact opposite on the intentional side and the recipient side.

I'm not disagreeing with this and It's what I have been saying all along, My whole point is not that women are advertising themselves sexually through make-up. I'm saying that Looking a certain way or not has that effect whether the wearer's intention aligns with that or not, in a sense wearing make up is no different than getting visible tattoo, that it is sending out a signal that is Open for interpretation on those on the receiving end and that is completely independent on your part.

You say our desires are socially constructed, yet you fail to realize that what we commonly see grooming and make up on the part of women is generally regarded as a positive thing in our societies and that there is an implicit sexual-selective bias towards women who "take care of themselves" like this instead of those who dont.

I'm even accounting for those who do not feel that way, I'm accounting for the fact that some people do not find make up sexually attractive, I'm not saying it's some goddamn inescapable paradigm nor am I saying women who wear make up do so ONLY or even partially to be sexually desirable.

>kek. "wymyn's makeup penetrate something deep in me physiologically, beyond my control"

I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying that it is impossible to contain and condition (culturally inhibit as you put it) my actions and social attitudes towards others, I do not see a woman with red lips and straight up ask her if she wants to fuck, I'm not a caveman… but do you seriously believe we're entirely in control of what we find sexually appealing? Do you think Homosexuals and asexual can change their preferences at a whim? Be attraction socially constructed or not, I do not know of any single piece of evidence to suggest that we're entirely in control of *everything* what we find desirable, although we can certainly exert self-control and even discipline to stop thinking about things and so on, that's besides the point.

>>2402069

> I think you're unable to see women as people who just want to look good (like everyone else) and assume anything that makes them look prettier is meant to be sexually provocative.

For fucks sakes you people are misreading me hard. I repeat myself one more time: I'm not saying women who wear make up necessarily want to be sexually provocative, I'm saying that that is a byproduct and it has nothing to do with their intention.

When a woman wears sandals it may have nothing to do with sexuality, but a footfag might find this far more sexually appealing than a cleavage or red lipstick, this of course doesn't mean that sandals themselves may be objects designed with sexual attraction in mind and that certainly they may not be used with that intention, but the result is still the same, I.e: Someone else is seeing it as sexually attractive.


 No.2402141

>>2402135

>you people are misreading me hard

No. It is you who doesn't hear what he himself is saying. It is also you who is diverting the thread, so fuck off. Go start your own "biology = everything" thread, and leave this one alone.


 No.2402152

>>2402141

>Go start your own "biology = everything"

Nice reductionism faggot, that's just what you want to read out of it because you're a recalcitrant little cunt unable to read anything other than threats to your own ideological spooks.


 No.2402523

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-reply-to-my-critics-concerning-an-engagement-with-jordan-peterson/

Zizek responds to peterson fanboys.

>I see no necessary link between this line of thought and liberalism. The notion of “cultural Marxism” manipulated by some secret Communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory. And the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a liberal defence of our freedoms says something about the immanent weaknesses of the liberal project. First, there is no unified field of “cultural Marxism”: some of today’s representatives of the Frankfurt school are among the most vicious denigrators of “French thought”; many “cultural Marxists” are very critical of identity politics, etc. Second, any positive reference to the Frankfurt School or to “French thought” was prohibited in Socialist countries where the authorities were much more open towards Anglo-Saxon analytic thought (as I remember from my own youth), so the claim that both classic Marxism and its “cultural” version were somehow controlled by the same central agent has to rely on the very suspicious notion of a hidden Master who secretly pulls the strings. Finally, while I admit (and analyse in my books) the so-called “totalitarian” excesses of Political Correctness and some transgender orientations which bear witness to a weird will to legalize, prohibit and regulate, I see in this tendency no trace of the “radical Left” but, on the contrary, a version of liberalism gone astray in its effort to protect and guarantee freedom. Liberalism was always an inconsistent project ridden with antagonisms and tensions.


 No.2402568

>>2402523

>If he really wants to, I am ready to do it during my next visit to New York next October.

Oh shit. He’s gonna throw down the gauntlet?


 No.2402708


 No.2404141

File: d82bbbc36f386e0⋯.jpg (19.82 KB, 960x640, 3:2, fish hook theory.jpg)

>>2402523

>>I see no necessary link between this line of thought and liberalism. The notion of “cultural Marxism” manipulated by some secret Communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory. And the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a liberal defence of our freedoms says something…

The fish-hook theory isn't just a meme?


 No.2404173

>>2402708

wait, 4/pol/ is pro-zizek? or do they just hate peterson so much? which level of irony is that?


 No.2404857

>>2402044

I was referring to his clinical papers actually. I don't give a rat's ass about his self help tripe.


 No.2411118

>>2396230

>he literally thinks marxists ever hold power or were significant influence in American politic

If only anon…


 No.2411473

File: db0698baf36bb9a⋯.jpg (30.39 KB, 315x330, 21:22, JuJu.jpg)

Sargon doing a Brutal take down of Zizek with his near infinite Autism Level points.

Pointing out that Peterson's critique isn't against Marxist thought, but Neo-marxist thought. Bam

https://youtu.be/ZsLAbOze0kc?t=2m51s


 No.2411475

>>2411473

Zizek didn't even attack Peterson really. He just said that he was a brainlet who was capitalizing on the left's impotence in the west (which is 100% correct.)


 No.2418056

>>2411473

>muh neomarxist

>not using hooktube

It’s like he didn’t even read zizeks response


 No.2418073

>>2418056

*2nd response


 No.2418144

>>2411473

>Peterson's critique isn't against Marxist thought, but Neo-marxist thought. Bam

He lumps them all together, anyway.


 No.2418165

File: 94541e46a4edecf⋯.jpg (52.08 KB, 640x640, 1:1, disgustedbabymask.jpg)

>>2411473

can we just kill all the liberal right fucking now?


 No.2419997

>>2418165

>can we just kill all the right fucking now?

Ftfy.


 No.2420014

>>2401316

>Clean your rooms

-Crowd yawns-

>Clean your rooms, because darwinism!

-Crowd yawns-

>Clean your rooms, because there is a conspiracy to destroy the entire metaphysical underpinning of civilization by an oblivious, resentful, idiotic group - who happen to be people you dislike, marxist feminists!

-Crowd cheers-

>See, people just want to clean their rooms.


 No.2420103

File: c83702dea5a93a6⋯.jpg (78.02 KB, 1023x513, 341:171, SJWs.jpg)

>>2419997

liberals get the bullet too


 No.2420510

>>2396065

>>2396086

it's weird seeing my comments posted somewhere else




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / feet / hdi8 / hydrus / imouto / lds / lewd / maka / orbg ]