Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

I've seen a couple of interviews and 'evenings' with Zizek. He's a very excitable, even scattered character, so I'm worried there may be a problem of talking past each other. Peterson's going to have his patience tested. Here's a sample clip from Slavoj Zizek's appearance at the Cambridge Union. :

 
This was great IMO:


Very touching and inspiring story. Jamil fought his way out of the criminal mind, and I found his honesty very refreshing and this made for a great dialogue between the two that goes deeper than ideological issues.
 
This was great IMO:

luc, that was amazing. The battle is through you, indeed.

As JP notes, Jamil had his crisis of consciousness - the gun. And then the work going forward, the chance profesor encouraging him to apply, Yale, and his general STO inspired nature, and now his cancer (his new battle).

Thanks Jamil and to you, luc!
 
This was great IMO:


Very touching and inspiring story. Jamil fought his way out of the criminal mind, and I found his honesty very refreshing and this made for a great dialogue between the two that goes deeper than ideological issues.


Just finished watching. Thanks Luc. A formidable young man who not only affected JP emotionally but myself also.
 
Here he is speaking at Liberty University, which is a Christian school. This is the first I've seen Peterson speak at this kind of engagement. He was very emotional during this talk and seemed to really struggle to find the right words and be as externally considerate as possible to their belief systems considering the interviewers on-stage and the audience take the stories in the Gospel literally and as historical fact. It seemed like the interviewer on his right missed the crux of the conversation and couldn't comprehend what Peterson was attempting to convey.

 
Just got myself the pass for the debate taking place tonight.

In the website it says that if you purchase it, you can watch it live and then for 30 days afterwards also. So if you can’t watch tonight then perhaps still buy the pass and watch tomorrow?

Inviting a few people over and will probably have a philosophical fight night.
 
Don’t want to spoil the debate for anyone who is still looking to watch it.

But I did and it was rather good, it was unexpectedly good, I left with the feeling that this is the debate that JBP deserved, it started very well and then it got really interesting.

I have a feeling that this will be repeated as they left with much more to say. I think I’ve never seen JBP in quite a position anywhere before with interviews or debates.

Well worth the watch.
 
Great debate. A debate where they agree on almost everything :)

Indeed. It turned out to be more of a dialogue rather than a debate, and in that sense the title Capitalism vs. Marxism is a bit misleading considering how it turned out. Zizek didn't come out as a full-on defender of Marxism, and the same goes for Peterson and his view on capitalism. Overall I got the impression that Peterson was more articulate in the points he was trying to make.
 
Thanks for posting @aragorn, it was a good debate. I think they both did a good job elucidating their perspectives, though they did take long winding roads to get there, and yeah, their disagreements were minor. A glance at the online comments/news regarding the debate shows that at least a few people did not like this fact: they mock them for coming out of the debate respecting each other and not disagreeing more.

Zizek is quite the character, but like Peterson, I don't understand why he self-identifies as Marxist, and Zizek's reply to that question was not particularly convincing to me. Peterson draws from Jung and Nietze, and a host of other philosophers/psychologists, but he doesn't self-identify as Jungian or whatever.
 
The debate, or should I say discussion, was much better than I had anticipated – based on the comments and 'analyses' on social media I read before watching. This was a good example of how the hype and advertising of the event were completely off the mark; Peterson and Zizek didn't follow everyones expectations of doing a 'battle'. When Zizek pointed out how the audience shouldn't see the discussion as a competition, which was nice, I'm sure some people in the audience were taken by surprise and some might have got disappointed, since based on the oddly timed laughters some of the audience consisted of leftists who were there to witness the 'slaughter of Peterson'.

From the timing of laughters and applauding, I got the impression that for some in the audience (my guess is leftist SJW-types) the discussion was too complex to follow. For instance, at one point when Peterson was explaining something, Zizek shook slightly his head, just as a nervous movement, part of the audience started laughing because they clearly interpreted this as a disproving signal from Zizek, which from what I could tell (also based on his comments straight after) wasn't the case at all.

As others have pointed out, it remained unclear why Zizek affiliates himself with Marxism, since his views are quite far from it. As Peterson pointed out, he has some good original thinking going on. My guess is, that he has later come to realize the madness of Marxism, but his followers pressure him to still carry that label and/or if he'd abandon the label, he'd loose legitimacy as an expert. He might even be scared of the reaction of the radical leftists.

As I listened them talk, I couldn't help thinking how they are missing perhaps the most important piece of the puzzle, that could make their analyses more complete: ponerology, and the influence of psychopaths. I hope that they some day read Lobaczewski. Since they are talking about Marx, and Marx clearly was a schizoid personality (at least according to L.), the whole movement and influence of these ideologies can't fully be understood without the knowledge of ponerology, OSIT.

Not surprisingly, the commentaries and articles after the event were completely missing the content of the discussion. It's mind boggling to see how people and journalists (like the one in The Guardian) write about how "...Peterson was googling the meaning of postmodern Neo-Marxism" and "...Peterson came unprepared". What the *** are they talking about?! Didn't they understand anything of the content, the important stuff?
 
Zizek is quite the character, but like Peterson, I don't understand why he self-identifies as Marxist, and Zizek's reply to that question was not particularly convincing to me.
His response is basically that he's a Marxist but not quite a Marxist. What I find fascinating is how he (Zizek) more or less calls the neo-Marxists of today (SJWs etc.) idiots. It didn't came from Peterson but from Zizek who they thought was their champion.
 
Back
Top Bottom