• @Cruxifux
    link
    141 year ago

    I wish Zizek had went harder on that fool.

    • Hot Saucerman
      link
      fedilink
      19
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I felt like Zizek understood that debating Peterson directly wouldn’t benefit him, and instead took his case to the audience, sort of bypassing Peterson himself and focusing on the ideas he wanted to share.

      However, I don’t disagree. I wanted to see more of Zizek shaking is head in his “my god” disbelief at the bullshit Peterson was peddling.

      • @Cruxifux
        link
        111 year ago

        Oh I know. It’s just frustrating because I really wanted to see an intellectual destroy Peterson and I thought this was gonna be my chance to do it.

        Like fuck man, I’D debate Peterson and am confident I would wreck him, and I’m just a fucking carpenter working in camps.

        I like watching crowder get destroyed sometimes but he’s not smart enough for me to give a shit when it happens.

      • @apollo440
        link
        81 year ago

        Zizek actually said as much in an interview some time before (or after?) the debate. He was well aware that debating Peterson directly would be extremely difficult due to the “techniques” he uses. So Zizek focused on getting a message to the audience.

        The few times he did engage were hilarious smackdowns though (“where are all these ‘postmodern marxists’???”)

    • @Impassionata
      link
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As far as I’m concerned Zizek went the right amount of hard, considering how effortlessly, utterly, and thoroughly he dunked on Peterson without Peterson ever having any idea what had happened.

      In no way was that fair play. That was the rudest thing I’ve ever seen done to a person where I yet personally applauded the maneuver. I love Zizek.

      Peterson left that debate believing discourse had happened and that’s just hilarious.