The Zizek, Peterson Pill

Contact: [e-mail]

[@JustChadC]

This channel was so god damn good dude. This channel was SO good. I miss it so much.

[@NuanceBro]

The lobster gliding around the toilet was pure visual ASMR

[@terrordactyl5016]

Heathen

[@Paid2Win]

What kind of memeing is that Like dude this is real life

[@fozc]

Love you Nuance Bro!

[@sturam30]

Nuance Bro! What up!!

[@TheReaper569]

whats ASMR

[@andrasbraten2475]

DAFFY DOOK VS KERMIT THE LOBSTER

[@juls5347]

More like ZLOVENIAN RACOON. The real daffy dook is Dave Mustaine :)

[@cumswag1222]

Or Sylvester

[@2013branth]

Do you also enjoy the simple pleasures of daffy dook?

[@stevencox3930]

Anthony I love ze Betty boop myself

[@danielrichards6081]

@@2013branth Hallo Hans

[@josephk1589]

It was a good conversation but not much of a debate

[@Chronically_ChiII]

The fanboy crowd seems to think otherwise.

[@vandenbos6401]

Zizek is incapable of real debate. I've watched many of his "Debates". He always uses same pre-made jokes and phrases, and then hes asked something off the wall he goes into confusing rambling interrupted by his ticks and repeated jokes, changing topics thus never even touching the core of the question, just meandering around semantics.

[@CarlosCMTF]

It's pure philosophy, what did you expect?

[@mirsad96]

I kinda liked that. Iv had it with the mindless screeching of internet trolls.

[@alessandronavone6731]

Yes, and it was truly needed.

[@CC-xw6jr]

Was Peterson truly trying to debate Zizek, or was the debate simple a vessel for presenting a valid counterargument to his own? Zizek is a compliment to Peterson, not a foil.

[@jacarandaplus7594]

Agreed.

[@conoroates]

It wasn't even a debate, it was a pretty engaging conversation between two people who broadly agree on a lot of things, think 1791 has been a bit harsh on Peterson here.

[@GenderDork]

I was confused because I didn't see Zizek form an argument for anything. Zizek aligned himself against capitalism but didn't offer any alternative.

[@ianbenjiman]

I saw it as a discussion that was intended to further the conversation on crucial issues of the free market to make the public aware, while also claiming that it is the worst economic system that was ever developed aside from all of the other systems.

[@eldermillennial8330]

GenderDork Has Zizek ever discussed Pope Leo 13’s “The New Laborer” or the “ChesterBelloc Mandate” that arose from it? His arguments seem almost more like a secular argument for Distributism just short of mentioning it. He’s definitely not bound to the Economic Binary, and neither is Peterson, fundamentally. I’d love to see a THIRD man talk with both, particularly Dale Alquist.

[@Chronically_ChiII]

This was the worst crowd imaginable. Just an obnoxious partisan crowd who were only looking for one liners.

[@possummagic3571]

Unfortunately so many debates nowadays are filled with crowds like that.

[@morgoth2425]

@@possummagic3571 it's been that way since the inception of the public debate. whereas rules and and point limits curtail and monitor academic competitive debate, the public forum is, and always will be, unruly, at least while we still have the freedom to be so.

[@ruthlessgriz3340]

Gladiator fight

[@painandpyro]

Couldn't agree more, I've always wondered why these sort of discussions arent somehow shielded from the noise of the crowd, or at least a no-applauding-until-the-end-of-the-discussion rule be put in place - especially, during debates, it's extremely derailing for your opposition. It's hard enough to come up with a cogent counterattack on the spot, but now I've got fight through the noise of your crowd of overly enthusiastic seals too? It makes discussions like these almost embarrassing to watch, sounds more like a basketball game, than people "working together to uncover the truth"

[@brennanmonaghan5049]

amazing how people seem to ignore context - the crowd was full of uni students on a friday. The debate itself was advertised as a clash of titans, no shit it was going to be loud.

[@Walterdecarvalh0100]

The audience DESTROYS any type of chance towards a reasonable debate with CLAPPING and CHEERING.

[@mathieuleader8601]

and hallering

[@MrOreo2010]

Honestly, I think at this point audiences ought to be CANCELLED They turn every conversation into a competition where they have chosen their team beforehand. Imagine left/right discussions on Bill Maher with the entire audience being individuals behind screens who have to think for themselves

[@MrOreo2010]

@dandagod official you have read the comments right? I mean nobody is saying people don't clap at the right moments, it's that the obnoxious behavior of audience is at the expense of the larger audience of people who watch it to learn something and not to think their side DESTROYED the other side to validate their egos When I say I think they should be canceled I don't say there should be a law, I'm saying if programs were to start doing that for a change I'd prefer to watch that and I think most people would. I don't see how saying how you would like things to be is policing, but okay freedom fighter

[@MrOreo2010]

The audience has every right to clap and other people have every right to criticise it. I mean, if we can't say we find the audience embarrassing, isn't that thought policing?

[@MrOreo2010]

@dandagod officialCancel culture does suck. How am I authoritarian? Because I say I think it would be better if in a polarized world serious debates are done without a live audience? Again, I'm not asking for laws and bans or anything. I am starting to see that you come from a political persuasion where things you disapprove of are not things that can be talked about but things that must be banned but that is not my approach. Did I say the audience should be enslaved, burned, raped, killed, banned, etc? All you do is prove that it is hardly possible to have a decent conversation about issues because your opponent cannot just have a different opinion, but has to be a crazy authoritarian who disregards basic human rights. Let's make this simple: The initial comment was pointing out that the audience made the conversation a little worse, because it drove it away from conversation and made it about GET-REKT-mentality where the other side had to be DESTROYRED because they're bad - a mentality you exhibit as well if you think people on the right want to rape, kill and burn everything. My comment was about how I think audiences just should not be part of those types of programs for a while, because of their negative effect on the conversation overall. At no point did anyone say it should be illegal. I think doing drugs is harmful and I will tell you so, but that does not mean I think they should be illegal. Your response was that we were thought-policing and butthurt. At no point did you make the case that we were wrong, not once did you give any argument as to how the behavior of the audience is beneficial, you just insinuated we wanted to take away human rights and thereby DESTROYED your opposition. If you actually want to win an argument you have to know what you're arguing against, instead of beating a strawman to feel like you have the moral high-ground. Maybe some day you engage with what people are actually saying, until then you'll be playing team-politics and making everything about how you're fighting for human rights and progress and how, if you frame it that way, everyone who disagrees by definition must be against these things. But please, go ahead and tell me how I should not have an opinion on how people behave because judging is tyrannical, and how everything I just said proves how I am just a sensitive Right-Wing-SJW who did not like that the audience disagreed with him, despite the fact that I was making my case about audiences in general, regardless of what side they're on. As I said, the problem is that they make it about what side they take, see it as a verbal boxing match, and feel like they somehow won an argument if their representative made a good point during a conversation. At no point did I say left-wing audiences. Ben Shapiro audiences are obnoxious as hell. So, either you just learned that you mischaracterized my opinion across the board, and you're not still "worried abput how authoritarian we are", or you'll come up with an argument about how the audience behavior is actually a good thing, or you'll just ignore everything I said and just regurgitate the nonsensical "OMG you guys are like basically fascists if you think we should burn audiences and rape people with different opinions and kill those who disagree with us online"

[@lukeinvictus]

Zizek sounds like he's enjoying a bowl of soup while he's talking.

[@CaptCutler]

It sounds like he's eating soup, but I can assure you that he does not enjoy it.

[@Exevium]

You get used to his voice after a couple of minutes. Takes some effort, but it's worth it since he's got some really great points.

[@lukeinvictus]

Sander Kamp don't worry I like soup

[@chesq-1557]

don't we all enjoy soup?

[@XBLArmory]

@Derick Smith You really should give him a try, he's worth listening to for anybody, especially those people who cling to marx, because his primary work is in disarming them. Anybody who misunderstands zizek and sees him in some real adversarial light hasn't listened or is a fool.

[@AABB-zb6dv]

The pessimist sees only darkness. The optimists sees the light at the end of tunnel. The realist realize the light at the end of tunnel is an approaching train. The train driver sees three idiots standing in the middle of the railway.

[@smeminem1258]

Sooo... doomers

[@gotworc]

@@smeminem1258 no a doomer is a pessimist someone who only sees the worst in life and when they try to face reality they cannot

[@JimmyBOnYouTube]

The moment we expect the government to save us from ourselves is the moment we have lost freedom.

[@tylermassey5431]

Thank you! Elon talking about the travisty of how long it took to get seatbelt laws passed is so arrogant and entitled it's sickening. "Guess what dude, it's not your job to keep stupid people from killing themselves, keep your grubby mitts off of other people's lives.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

@@tylermassey5431 exactly. Glad you two realize this. I'm worried about this channel and its fanbase right now!

[@DodgerBL]

How would you propose the average consumer combat the dangers of AI in application to driving, law enforcement, healthcare/insurance screenings, and other applicable fields then?

[@HCFederation]

Thank God the awful government isnt controlling my actions now I can truly be happy as I pump heroine into my arm and watch pornography all day. Fuck libertarians, and fuck you.

[@EdwardsComment]

@@HCFederation Your choice is what you made of it.

[@tukkerking3055]

Zizek's voice is hilarious, but this can be a barrier for some to really understand him

[@Jesalllll]

Yeah I stopped watching the debate because I just couldn't understand him at some points

[@TheGreatHsilgne]

The lisp is noticeable, but he's remarkably articulate and intelligent, so it's easy to look past it and listen to what he's saying, at least in my opinion.

[@paintballthieupwns]

It's sad that a proper professional sound engineer did not kill the freq's that cover the lisp - it is a solvable problem

[@armwrestlingfan6804]

I've watched every video with Slavoj on youtube. There's like thousands of talks. I understand him because his way of talking pulled me in 😂

[@nsmsrex8337]

Agree, but I wish more ppl could be less babyish about that kind of stuff and just listen

[@nova3k]

I went into this a Peterson fan, and came out with an appreciation for zizek and still a Peterson fan. You have to understand Peterson came into the debate with a different idea, so when people say he seemed like an idiot, it's because of the expectations after seeing how it turned out. Neither "owned" the other, but as others have said had a really good discussion for both. I enjoyed the "debate" because it turned into a lively discussion

[@RazinShaikh]

I think Peterson and the audience came for one debate while Zizek came for a completely different debate. Ignoring the validity of the label Zizek gives himself, this debate introduced me to a very interesting thinker.

[@nova3k]

@@RazinShaikh I agree. An important thing to point out is when Peterson realized what was happening, he had to clarify that he isn't a complete supporter of capitalism, and he needed to clarify that because people often misunderstand how debates work. Part of a debate is you get assigned a topic to argue for or against, even if you don't entirely agree with it. Peterson knew he was arguing for capitalism, even though he didn't agree with it 100%. He assumed Zizek was arguing for Marxism, even though Zizek may have not agreed with it 100%. This is why when peterson prepared, he didn't read that much of zizek, but read more of marx' work. The unfortunate thing is most people thought it would be a Peterson vs Zizek debate, when Peterson thought it was a Capitalism vs marxism debate. All in all the discussion ended and I was left with warm and fuzzy feelings because the 2 seemed to become new friends and interesting intellectuals to each other.

[@professorplum2531]

@@tactics40 I don't think Peterson came unprepared for the debate. Zizek changed the topic. It's not up to Peterson to know all of zizeks positions when they came to debate a certain topic. Zizek conceded the debate on the topic at hand, then started a new one, it's not fair to expect Peterson to be prepared for multiple arguments at zizeks whim.

[@sunandablanc]

You're allowed to like both. In fact, it's probably a sign of good mental health to be able to appreciate and criticize both. Or maybe I'm just apeshit crazy.

[@aliasjones6381]

@@sunandablanc You're apeshit crazy. Now we need to have a cage knifefight to determine which side is 100% correct.

[@u.kw1461]

Revisited this channel again and it's great to see you discussing Zizek, as I've been introduced to him by a friend

[@Isaiah99002]

I should be studying right now

[@nickthegreek5124]

Me too, best get back to it.

[@GrubKiller436]

You should. This video won't change your life.

[@Tyrese28]

It's true. We have finals. What are we doing with our precious time?

[@paperEATER101]

it's ok; you can get away with avoidance for a good twenty years. Ocasio Cortez said we'll all be dead in twelve, so feel confident about just letting it all go

[@jdstarek]

If you’re watching this...you are.

[@canopeaz]

"A man's self-interest isn't always apparent to him" - 1791L. “The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded by the purity of their intentions. Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what’s good for you and by heaven is going to make you do it whether you like it or not.” -- Milton Friedman

[@dudefromcanada3317]

Always love a Milton Friedman quote.

[@jakedee4117]

"They fell for the most terrible of delusions, the belief that they were righteous and so they were consumed by the evil that they themselves had unleashed" Kenneth Clarke (on the revolutionaries of 1855)

[@michaelhand4246]

"We need the State to force you to do the right thing because you don't know what you need but we do." - Left and Right wing statists

[@kohlscunty]

interesting friedman would say this considering his opposition to democratically elected leftist governments in favor of authoritarian right wing coups

[@commentconnoisseur1001]

Friedman is spinning off a CS Lewis essay here

[@siblilngs101]

This is my gripe with philosophies like Ziezek and MacIntyre and the like. They always place a huge emphasis on "happiness" and the apparent problem that humans are incapable of distinguishing between happiness, desire, and purpose. They think that humans *can't* know what they desire because they haven't been *told* what makes them happy and that they're being corrupted by commercialism, consumerism, and capitalism, and that the only was to overcome this is basically listening to what they have to say... Kind of arrogant to assume that philosophers are the only ones with the answers to the problems of the human condition. Just my opinion.

[@ryan.1990]

That's a natural fallacy of socialism. Patronising and treating people as children whilst simultaneously engendering a child like dependence on the State

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Exactly. Perhaps we choose to live like this and enjoy it!

[@paperxplane1]

That observations misses the point of his warnings. He neither makes the assumption that philosophers are the only ones with the answers to the problems of the human condition nor personally emphasizes happiness. Happiness was the topic of debate, so Zizek gave his two cents and Petersen gave his.

[@siblilngs101]

@@paperxplane1 perhaps not Ziezek specifically but Plato, Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse are some that I just don't agree with because they consistently reject the notion that individuals can pursue their own happiness or desires in life because it may run contrary to their own or against the social group they are apart of. Not claiming to be an expert on philosophy and maybe I'm misinterpreting what they're saying but it sounds like elitist philosophy to me. "Only I, an ivy league scholar, have unlocked the meaning of life and you're doing it wrong."

[@normaaliihminen722]

''This year we explored the failure of the democracies how the social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos''

[@joelfooxiangjie]

This video misses the point, and misinterpretes the outcome of the debate, as especially since it was apparent that both had taken the time to clarify the other's stances. Both, however, whether they knew it or not, were addressing the question of ideology. Zizek's main thrust is to criticize the critique itself - never fall prey to easy answers and rigid positions. On the subject of actual solutions, he does not propose anything new other than, "We need oversight." Peterson claims that the solution lies within the individual - there is a part of the individual that is beyond ideology, though we cannot consciously understand it, and that we should foster and strengthen that part so that every individual has his or her own unique solutions (and dispenses with the need for lazy regurgitation of their preexisting ideology). That said, I wish they'd delved more into the issue of China. We might argue that in the long run, their model of capitalism isn't sustainable... but that isn't clear either.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Thanks for one of the few sane replies in the comment section. Not sure how he missed what you said.

[@Silvarret]

I agree - this video misconstructs what Zizek's quotes were really related to. Zizek never mentioned technology, AI, etc., and was concerned more with ideology itself. And I remember him pointing out growing economic inequality under neoliberal capitalism and the , which I interpreted as foreshadowing real metaphorical train at the end of the tunnel.

[@naughtyfred1]

Joel Foo it seems like it can be sustainable if the sustainability attempts match those to make profit. China has been obsessed with production so much it destroyed most of their natural enviroment, air quality and water supply - so much they started recently to plant planned forests and use a social credit system to make people to be useful to their community. Obviously Im not defending China at all, nor do I think these measures will work, but we have to acknowledge that they try

[@mattbell555]

He is deforming the debate to fit to his own narrative.

[@shrikesavadhitya3841]

There is free trade in China but way too much government overview and censorship and land issues. Poly matter goes in on this with highly detailed and researched video essays if you want. It is a form of capitalism that will not last. But to what degree it is can be discussed

[@ImperfectWeapons]

In Peterson's defense, Zizek did implicitly agree to "Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism" and then proceeded to not have that discussion at all. If that wasn't where he planned on taking the discussion, then it shouldn't have been framed as such from the start, or Zizek should've had it corrected. They are excellent talkers, but this event was a total misfire.

[@str8skeptic]

He agreed to that format indeed. He did stick to that format and discussed all three. The problem was peterson had no idea what Zizeks view on communism was and ended up arguing against a position Zizek didn't even hold. How on earth is that Zizeks fault. I genuinely want to know...

[@ImperfectWeapons]

@@str8skeptic The title pretty explicitly suggests that the discussion will be about pitting Marxism against capitalism in terms of their effects on human happiness. Zizek didn't defend Marxism in this capacity at all so much as he just pointed out the effects of unchecked capitalism- which wasn't really something most people would argue with. I like both of those men a great deal, but Zizek could've prevented that miscommunication from the start by requesting the event's title be modified to better reflect what he actually wanted to talk about. Check out his bibliography, Zizek's written a lot of shit. If they were going to make this happen anytime in the near future, Peterson couldn't be expected to know him front to back. I'm surprised that neither of them really talked about this at all beforehand, honestly. Felt like a rushed waste.

[@str8skeptic]

@@ImperfectWeapons The fact that from the title "Communism, capitalism, happiness". Peterson managed to interpret a debate on the merits of the commnuist manifesto, is truely what was surprising to me here. Any brief research of Zizek would let you know that he certainly does not support the communist manifesto. I was actually embarrassed for Peterson when I saw him start off like that.

[@5starview]

(Insert Sylvester the cat vs. Kermit the frog joke here)

[@arcguardian]

Underrated.

[@bums009]

Hey bro

[@AfroGaz71]

Deadly😂

[@theelderscrollsfan8451]

Best YT Video I have seen in my entire life.

[@hardwood6927]

I seen Peterson apologize after the first time z man spoke, he did his best to reassemble his thoughts. Both men did very well. Peterson is fantastic I still align more with him.

[@Ruffgi]

Yeah, I agree

[@soapbxprod]

Zizek is a fraud. He talks about capitalism being regulated- but who regulates? And who regulates the regulators? And he talks about a "true Utopia"? HUH? A true NOWHERE? And he pretends to know anything about climatology and biology? UGH. I've had enough of this Asperger's jackass.

[@joep4life]

@@soapbxprod stop copy-pasting this everywhere. And who offended you? The guy just has an opinion. Triggered much?

[@hardwood6927]

@Desiree Silva well I watched the video, realistically it would be best for him to answer as I am not able to, other than some of opinion. A lot in this to address. Firstly he is a flawed individual. We all are. The video could be right, no question about it, but splicing together his idea's in edited conversations, easily allows for construct of criticism of the creator of the piece. I do find the first part of the video the most disturbing of the potential connection to Soros and the UN and would like to hear a response from Peterson himself. Some of the video is a little more grey. He would disavow anyone's tribal identity. I think it is his belief we all share the DNA of the common ancestors so why do we let political systems divide us on that? I have always disagreed on him on the IQ stuff as I have always said that needs to be part of the discussion, no big deal, I have never me anyone I agree entirely with. On the subject of the self I differ totally from this video. I am a constitutionalist, so the self is the most important start to a healthy society, in my opinion. It is not a perfect system but it is the best system. So is Peterson corrupt? I don't know. A lot of what he says makes sense to me, some of what he says does not. The last part of the video when he states how much he makes, more power to him. I stand by a hundred percent on that. The whole world is corrupt in some shape or manner, very sad.The freedom to live our lives the way we want is the one great solace to the evil of what people can do if you let them have power over you, like the power of government. Thanks for the video Outofthisworld!!

[@hardwood6927]

jacob yeah, well I am an individualist. The self has to come first for a healthy society.

[@mirsad96]

You almost make Zizek sound like a defender of capitalism. But the fact remains, that he is a Marxist and would pick socialism over capitalism in a heartbeat. So instead of trying to paint him as something he is not, just admit it, leftism, when removed from the identitarian hysteria, is very attractive to anyone with a brain.

[@lolcatjunior]

Marxism is influenced by Hegalianism which argues that people develop alongside the people around them. Its similar to behaviorism that states that environment shapes human behavior.

[@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542]

You do relise identitarianism exist in the right as well right

[@aintgotnoname6548]

Attractive to those who fetishize intellectualism.

[@tyronef1798]

Morella Forest what is that supposed to mean

[@kohlscunty]

@@aintgotnoname6548 "fetishize intellectualism" is this satire

[@stormtroopavk81]

Peterson started to debate Marxism, not Zizekism. The subject of the debate was Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism, not Capitalism vs Zizekism.

[@lwithstage3cancer800]

>Well-known well read leftist defends traditional leftism >Well-known psychologist argues against marxism after he read the manifesto

[@lwithstage3cancer800]

Sounds pretty fucking shitty as a timeline, glad we got this one.

[@nickmarquez4794]

He did have pretty lackluster criticisms about Marxism.

[@PuddingAtheist]

I need to stop reading KZbin comments.

[@kazul333]

Yeah, it seemed like Peterson made this long speech about the problems with communism and the logical fallacies of the Manifesto and Zizek just said 'yeah I totally agree' which basically ended any idea of it being a debate. After that I didn't particularly enjoy it as a debate but as a joint lecture more or less

[@TheControllPanel]

1791, I’ve enjoyed many of your videos, but this particular video struck me as misrepresenting both Zizek and Peterson. Zizek’s primary points were about the dangers of the “politically correct” crowd and their ideology, as well as the careful regulation of free market capitalism through the “principles”, if you will, of Marxism. Neither of these thoughts seemed to be fueled by a fear of AI, or fear of a future Orwellian dystopia. On the same note, Peterson didn’t enter the debate using, as you said, the failures of the communistic regimes such as the SVU, as his primary argument. His opening argument focused almost entirely upon the criticisms of Marxism, which was one of the three topics of the “debate”. For example Peterson called into focus the underlying and incorrect assumptions Marx had made. When Zizek agreed with Marx’s failings, Peterson did in fact adjust his approach. He would ask Zizek why he supported Marxism, having acknowledged its shortcomings, presented much of his own original thought, and used Marxism only in principle to criticize Capitalism. Around this point the “debate” turned more-so into a very thought-provoking discussion, and the two found much in common. Peterson would also present his viewpoints of finding happiness through the adoption of responsibilities and living a life of meaning, despite and in the face of struggle. Zizek agreed with much of this, and even asked questions and raised points to expand upon it.

[@kaan-kaant]

- If you go and read some of Zizek's work then you'll probably notice that he has large concerns of AI within the contexts of the free market neoliberal capitalism. - Peterson's opening argument focussed on criticisms of marxism, yes. But his entire argument was based around a pamphlet authored by Marx prior to pretty much any of his more serious work. Also, as Zizek notes, he is far more Hegelian than he is Marxist. One of Zizek's friends, Alain Badiou notes in a book from 2010, called 'The Communist Hypothesis' that - "Slavoj Zizek is probably the only thinker today who can simultaneously hew as closely as possible to Lacan's contributions and argue steadfastly and vigorously for the return of the Idea of communism. This is because his real master is Hegel, of whom he offers an interpretation that is completely novel, inasmuch as he has given up subordinating it to the theme of totality." (page 178) The point is that Zizek is only a Marxist if you consider anyone who reads Marx and doesn't disagree with him 100% of the time to be a Marxist.

[@randomrfkov]

I am only here for the Vaporwave/Synthwave aesthetics.

[@j-dawgdebowshi5324]

same, honestly been liking this channel less and less, especially as I drift further left, but the aesthetics are still good

[@rainer2471]

J-Dawg Debowshi How tf are you drifting left with information like this?

[@j-dawgdebowshi5324]

@@rainer2471 There's better information out there.

[@JaneDoe-ju3kw]

Where?

[@tiagovasc]

@@j-dawgdebowshi5324 like?

[@nub9688]

Finally after 9 months, an ad from Ashley Furniture before your video.

[@imnotbuddha]

See, all they had to do was attack Peterson. That' all KZbin wanted. That wasn't so hard no was it, 1791? Keep it up and the bank will open up.

[@beenasfarastodecidetouseve6733]

@@imnotbuddha Lol, pathetic. Memeservatives strike again.

[@darthstigater6642]

So Jordan failed because he thought that he was going to argue against communism, but Zizek calls what he is talking about communism in order to provoke... and you didn't say anything about Zizek using his own definitions. I think that's a failure on your part.

[@gabrielonibudo5710]

I think 1791's fear of a dystopian AI future gives him a bias whereby anyone not blatantly trying to save humanity is in the wrong on whatever situation it is.

[@martymcfly88mph35]

Good post Darth.

[@anthonyd6555]

Agree fully. Zizek played Baily and Motte (as always). When you try to talk with Marxists, the chief problem is that what they really want to do is bash capitalism, so they end up playing these truly impressive games of baily and motte. Saying that you're a Hegelian is just a way to maintain using marxist dialectics (and in particular being able to be critical of Modernity/capitalism), without ever having to take responsibility for the failure of Marx's prescriptions. Zizek did exactly that here. He can be critical, but thats it, and all that he wants to do is maintain the ability to be critical--stay safe in the pre-marx source material, and hope everyone forgets what that source material led to.

[@ntwstn]

Wow, what a deep take on the ideas he tackled in the video. Hurr Durr, muh definitions

[@MontajBlaze]

The structure of the debate basically left it open for Zizek to change the topic and then others to point at Peterson for failing to discuss the same topic. I actually hated the format of this. My major issue with Zizek is that when all of this first started, with the initial request to debate over a year ago, Zizek gave no impressions of having a legitimate debate. He trash-talked Peterson in a way that implied any debate they had would have been on par with a 'Cathy Newman' levels of respect...ie, 0. Thankfully, it appears they had more respect for each other going into this second debate, but it still seems to have an 'air' of that in it.

[@calholli]

I miss this channel.. I wish you guys would make a comeback

[@cyprinuscarpio4541]

*_Sniff_* ...and so on and so on...

[@byronquandary]

Let's not forget a mandatory *tug at the shirt*, and the occasional *wandering tongue*.

[@TheRealCaptainFreedom]

And on and on ‘til the breakadawn. Werd.

[@str8skeptic]

Finished this video with a new found admiration for 1791. Despite the fact he clearly had an admiration for Peterson and his work in stopping us from falling into nilhlism. If you've been following 1791 for any period of time you would know he liked peterson. This channel is genuinely on the path of the pursuit of truth. 1791 truely not afraid to challenge the views of his audience and encourage them to imagine the world in a more complex manner. Outside the historical 'Communism vs Capitalism' binary dichotomy. Peterson came into the debate with this cold war mindset and ended up missing the oppurtunity to engage with the real fundemental issues of our era. Respect to 1791 for making a video that he knew would part with the views of much of his audience, and tolerating the temper tantrums from fans of Peterson that are not able to critique his clear poor performance in this debate.

[@metamodern409]

Yes. Subbed.

[@thephonomen6933]

true but "binary dichotomy" cmon man

[@Natalie-wr3iz]

"Binary dichotomy" aw bless x

[@str8skeptic]

@@thephonomen6933 Fair enough man, could have expressed that better. Strict dichotomy maybe? Appreciate the pedantry though.

[@klemson5742]

Insanely well put together. I havent seen this high of production value in QUITE some time. The way you ended on the Žižek's train 'saying', is also very orgasmic. Love it

[@Reveal_City]

Lmao Zizek has always been critical of Soviet totalitarianism and Stalinism in particular, how anyone could be so ill-informed as to expect him to defend the USSR is beyond me.

[@raquetdude]

@@Flyingclam I believe it is basic Marxism, the original form that Karl devised

[@caramelconundrum9280]

Most people are ill-informed about most things.

[@FallingApplesVids]

TBH, in the modern political climate, Zizek holds little in common with the majoritarian understanding of communism and Marxism. He isn't a contemporary Marxist, but labels himself with that ideology; Peterson expected, rationally, that he would pose views pertaining to the ideology he (and many others Peterson has debated) drapes himself in- but he didn't. As Zizek says, he uses terms like communism to be provocative. He knows that they are stupid ideals as they have been expressed in modern history, so it's more a tactic of Zizek's to brand himself a Marxist (but actually hold a much weaker form of Marxist ideology himself) then a short coming of Peterson's understanding of said ideology.

[@Gew219]

Maybe Peterson saw that picture of Zizek's bedroom with portrait of Stalin over his bed and bust of Stalin on his lampstand. This one: oggito.blob.core.windows.net/images/full/2019/4/Slavoj_Zizek1.jpg Just a thought.

[@chano176]

Zizek is a Hegelian and also subscribed to Lacan’s psychoanalysis while agreeing with a good amount of Marxist analysis. Remember that Marxism is an analysis of economy.

[@werthersoriginal]

I hope that Zizek and Peterson become friends because it was an interesting conversation. But my problem with the "debate" was on the title that they both knew going into it. Zizek got up on stage and basically was like "I was only having fun & trolling, but now that I have your attention let's change the direction of the debate?". WTF? Peterson had every right to end it right there, but instead, he was gracious enough to converse. Now 1791 is calling him ill-prepared?

[@Taloss]

The Problem was that Peterson came into the debate only reading the Communist Manifesto. Zizek read Peterson's books and has a wide array knowledge about different Marxist theories. Peterson's problem was that he approached the debate in the fashion: I'll defend capitalism from the totalitarian Marxist models that exist; Zizek on the other hand was ready to approach and answer possible psychoanalytical ideas that Peterson would present. Seemingly this weakened Peterson. Imo

[@Mahaveez]

It's my understanding that he initiated the debate as well. So the fact that it wasn't a complete blowout as would be foreseen with this game plan, is a fair if not glowing testament to Peterson's ability to adapt. Also, 1791 is referencing the most certifiably trite of Peterson's arguments while utterly dismissing the validity of the pursuit of meaning and of the sad result of there not being a known trustworthy method of solving human problems beyond either democratic-voting (in most times) or dictatorial-socialized (in the most dire/crisis times) implementations of capitalism.

[@David-ps1rz]

Agreed. Peterson went out guns blazing against the 20th century communist model...which he had every right to think he was going to be challenged on because that IS THE ONLY MODEL HE GENUINELY CRITIQUES. Then Zizek shows up like "JK lol, I'm just you're typical European blend of reformed socialism." Peterson's never really fussed over that! It was rather disingenuous on Zizek's part to ask for a debate in the first place.

[@crowstakingoff]

David Rubin I kind of agree with this

[@kaan-kaant]

He was incredibly ill-prepared for the debate though. Because the reality of Debates is that they are about 5% reason, and are about 95% performance art - And anyone who goes into a debate without that in mind is ill-prepared for a debate. That is in addition to the fact that Peterson did a livestream prior to the interview about how he 'was' going to read some of zizek's work with A SINGLE DAY left before the debate. Before obviously ditching that idea entirely and instead decided to read a 170 year old pamphlet that barely any of Marx's strongest contemporary supporters even take seriously.

[@jigzo78]

Thank you for this video, illuminates and frames the debate better for me. I will have to watch it again.

[@TheMikeyyyy]

Sneering at human progress statistics while pointing at depression statistics is the new woke apparently

[@JodyBruchon]

Some men want to watch the world burn, and those men are huge soy consumers.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

I know!! Seriously, what has happened to this channel?

[@perrymaria01]

Must promote & convince others of their victimhood. How else will we have challengers in the oppression Olympics?

[@TheMikeyyyy]

RightRealist.com how about a conversation defining our terms first then. Instead of this sneering embrace of a new narrative.

[@TheMikeyyyy]

@@SPQR_14 I wasn't talking about you. I dont even know who you are?

[@Ohwhataguy]

I think one of the big things that a lot of you guys are missing is simply that Peterson isnt equipped to debate Zizek on the stuff that most of Zizeks work consists of. Hes not a thinker like Zizek is, and hes not an intellectual like Zizek is. Peterson talks about people, events and movements almost exclusively, and his conceptions are mostly repackaged and repurposed. Zizek is a largely novel thinker. Not to say Peterson is dumb, but he was never going to challenge Zizek in a meaningful way.

[@byronquandary]

I think Peterson is just too freakin' busy. He's taken on wayyy too many things.

[@oz8853]

he had months to get ready for this. Also if you dont have a grasp on what actually is marxism and postmodernism, you should not build a career on talking about "postmodernist cultural marxist" or some shit.

[@Austintatious1096]

@@oz8853 It's a good thing he didn't build a career on "postmodernist cultural Marxism".

[@MASJYT]

@@oz8853 Jordan knows both very very well, but didn't know much about Zizek's work. Zizek's stance is neither postmodernist nor marxist, he even said he uses it as a sort of provocation so I don't know why even frame the debate on that if he didn't even believe in it.

[@dtothee8730]

I'd like him to tackle this debate in a future podcast or something. Doesn't have to be fancy. Just want to hear more ideas exchanged between them. I'm not satisfied.

[@stormtroopavk81]

@@MASJYT Yeah. The debate was Happiness: Capitalism vs Marxism. Peterson isn't an pure capitalist, but he began the debate trying to explain why capitalism was better than marxism. Zizek spent his time explaining why both suck. That's not really how debates work.

[@__julio__]

The "ruthless free-market" competition leading to destructive technologies, is not a problem in free markets, freedom or capitalism in itself. The market will compete in what there's demand, if society demands destructive things that's a problem in its morals. By asking for government regulation (to save us from ourselves), what we're doing is outsourcing our morals to a State, that's the last entity you want to actually do that, just look at the last century history. Who the hell you think is most interested in surveillance technology?

[@AntiTheBird]

Julio Lopes The private sector has created far more surveillance tech than the public sector at this point, every smart device has a built in camera and microphone that can be turned on remotely. Also do you really believe that if humans can’t change our morals in time we just all deserve to go extinct?

[@eusebiusthunked5259]

@@AntiTheBird I didn't see anyone suggest we deserve to go extinct. You should really try addressing what was actually said, your comment is almost a non-sequiur, except for the tautology that the public sector is less productive than the private sector.

[@harpsdesire4200]

The problem with your argument is that if you were to get rid of the big bad "gubmint," large multinational firms would simply take it's place. Instead of a government you'd just have a McGovernment.

[@AntiTheBird]

Eusebius Thunked It’s the logical conclusion to this line of thought. If coorperations don’t care about destructive externalities then either we change our morals and refuse to buy from companies that reduce costs through destructive means or the government regulates them. The former I think is completely absurd to expect from people, so either we get the government to regulate these exturnalities or we pray that people change their morality before the market kills us all.

[@__julio__]

If you think it's completely absurd to expect people to change their morality (for example, to not go extinct as you mentioned previously), how can you expect that "we get the government to regulate these externalities"?

[@stevewall7044]

This is truly a great channel.

[@4138channel]

These animations just get better & better, keep it up!

[@werquantum]

Aside from the excellence of the material and production quality, it occurs to me that I also love this channel for the Rod Serling-ish voice of the narrator. Instant hook. Bravo.

[@gotworc]

My problem with people who blame everything on capitalism is that it doesn't address the root of the issue(s) it only addresses the way people use capitalism because of these underlying issues in society

[@brutalasbucs9719]

In Peterson’s defense he probably couldnt understand him

[@encinoman903]

I saw a vid of Zizek doing a presentation about 3 years ago where he kept wiping his nose every 30 seconds. He's a hard man to listen to.

[@onimaxblade8988]

I had no issue whatsoever understanding the man. Only one word I had to rewind for, and it was "cursed" when he called Communism such.

[@wayne7055]

Saeric That is literally the stupidest shit I’ve read this whole month, congratulations

[@mrkrabappleson]

Lil Wayne - What's stupid is pretending Zizek is NOT extremely difficult to understand! - He has an extreme and constant lisp/speech impediment.. - He has a very strong accent... - He uses words cleverly making his ideas dense and complex like his use of the word communism "only provocatively" making his definitions obscure. His use of words this way may be a great credit to his intellect but we're talking about how he communicates that intellect here... - He speaks very rapidly... - If you're watching him while he speaks you're bombarded by physical tics along the lines of a coke-head (constantly wiping his nose and adjusting his clothes and shifting)... To deny that these things make understanding him much more difficult is..... "the stupidest shit I've read this whole month, congratulations".

[@wayne7055]

@@mrkrabappleson that isn't really the point I was responding to though is it? "you lose the debate instantly if people wish for you to finally stop talking" No, you lose a debate instantly when you're too stupid to hear someone out just because you don't like how they speak. You know, by virtue of being unable to properly debate them. Congratulations to you too, for writing out so much and arguing a point I never even addressed in the first place, it was the second stupidest shit I've read this whole month.

[@lookatmego95]

Thanks for your beautiful, amazing, well thought out hard work.

[@tentonmotto6779]

Disagree. Peterson actually sticked to and talked about the central topic of the debate: capitalism vs marxism and their relationship with happiness. As such he was very much correct to look into history and dissect marxism. He did not even praise capitalism in Randian style, he even said that it is the worst economic system, except for all of the alternatives. Few ideologies and economic systems produce as much unhappiness and misery as marxism, so he argued that capitalism is clearly preferable even just from simple happiness perspective. Peteron's position was very clear and coherent. Zizek, on the other hand, read an essay on how everything sucks: capitalism, marxism, capitalist marxist fusion, and happiness itself. He did not defend marxism, did not actually explain why he is still a marxist and what is a good alternative to capitalism. He was also not deep when talking about happiness and psychology, Peterson solidly outclassed him on that territory even if they mostly agree that pursuit of happiness on its own is not meaningful. Criticizing and acting as an alarmist is way easier and lazier, than producing ideas that may help and move humanity further. For that reason, and because Peterson was way more on topic and logically sound, I consider him to be the winner here.

[@professorplum2531]

Thank you, this seems so obvious. I think people just want to feel smart by talking down on peterson. They been reading zizek for years and the guy couldn't even debate a pro Marxist position.

[@str8skeptic]

Yeah communism was one of the themes. We all agree there. Does not explain why he presumed zizek would defend communism?

[@HapaxLegomenon]

Trying to speak Zizek's name make me sound like he speaks.

[@southafricanizationofsociety20]

“Welcome tooo the Machine.” Technocracy.

[@choppacast]

Conservatives miss the point when they blame "ruthless" capitalism for our society illnesses, opening the door for even more ruthless state monopoly on regulation Free markets are as bad as the people acting on it. Help people improve instead of pushing for more state power

[@maxscribner1743]

“objectively good economic systems like capitalism”

[@kuelapfortress1687]

It should be "the best possible until now"

[@danielbrooks7764]

That was a pretty fair take on the debate. I think these two need about 5 good discussions, like JBP and Sam Harris had, with a moderator as knowledgeable and uncommitted to an economic theory, like Bret Weinstein was on evolution and religion.

[@Litcheck]

I feel like I saw the result of this debate miles away. Peterson discusses issues on an entirely different praxis, foundation, than those who argue in support of more Zizek-esk ideas. Without the time to explore the fundamental basis of his points, they don't stand up nearly as well as the easier 'answer to' style format of Zizek's thinking. This is the reason Peterson dominates the podcast space and why he resonates so beautifully well in the more long form conversation style presentation. It's also the reason why Zizek is touted so often in ideological spaces- very concise explanations that play off of the more standard contemporary understandings that the public holds today. Peterson's ideas are just genuinely too deep and well developed to take hold in a constrained line-by-line format. I loved the idea, but knew from it's announcement that it was doomed to further the preconceptions held by people who hate Peterson. Not sure how this will ultimately impact the movement he's started, but in the end, I'm sad to say that I don't think it will help much at all.

[@samgibson1683]

I agree. At least to me, Peterson's ideas seem to require a lot more context, that in podcasts he provides, but in debates he doesn't have enough time to articulate well enough to come across as clearly as Zizek or similar. I think this context is often needed because his ideas are being pulled from many different sources. If that makes sense

[@Litcheck]

@@samgibson1683 Exactly! I mean, the thesis of his arguments are that there are an infinite number of resolutions to view issues, and without time to really discuss his archetypal understanding of things- he's left to argue one resolution. Which isn't what he even believes himself

[@Litcheck]

@@t6v4l968 lol fair. I'm not 100% sure that Zizek was thinking that- I think he just thinks that he's so damn correct that he wanted to bring up 1000000 different things meant to prove his point. He prioritizes breadth over depth.

[@fahim-ev8qq]

LitCheck you do understand Peterson is the one trying to reinstate traditional norms. Zizek is the one whose ideas are legitimately revolutionary and radical as well as too complex for a line by line discussion. He interwove nazi propaganda with the ontological self of Buddhism even lmao. Peterson offers basic self-help tips while Zizek actually tries to psychoanalyze various societal mores; for example Peterson would never make a statement as controversial as “the true harbingers of fascism are the neoliberals such as Clinton and macron as opposed to the la pen’s and trump’s. This analysis of neoliberal economics as being diametrically opposed to the conventional understanding of capitalist ethics as being based in the Protestant work ethic is much more insightful than anything Peterson has ever offered, and was presented as an aside by Zizek as opposed to any great thesis. Also it literally did become a discussion at the end, with both jumping in and out yet understandably lead to Zizek lecturing Peterson on basic ideas in psychoanalysis, ontology, and philosophy of identity and self. The fact you would even think Peterson embarrassed himself here because “his ideas are too complex” is reminiscent of lacans sense of the pathological subject. Even in truth, such as that Zizek is more well read and sophisticated than Peterson, there seems to be a need on the side of Peterson fans (admittedly I’ve only read 12 rules for life and not maps of meaning while I’ve read many of zizeks works) to then conversely use this to claim Peterson has some great spiritual intelligence that he is just hiding, because it allows you to maintain the narrative that he isn’t a Charlatan. Many times Peterson was left absolutely speechless and in terms of depth, it takes more background understanding of general postmodern, poststructuralism, Hegelian etc thought to understand Zizek than it does for any background knowledge for Peterson’s works. Peterson didn’t even seem to know who hegel was lmao and couldn’t even engage in a basic discussion regarding the initial shift away from German idealism. Regardless, if you still think Zizek is the less complicated one I doubt you’ll ever change your mind (was a Peterson fan myself a few years ago) as clearly the pathological need to uphold the image of the psychoanalytical father is more important than recognizing his clear castrations by a homeless Slovenian man.

[@Litcheck]

@@fahim-ev8qq I think reading Maps of Meaning would change your mind a bit. Mixing a couple of the most simple philosophical doctrines to make a point is literally nothing compared to the work that Peterson has done. Not at all am I saying Zizek hasn't done similar work himself, but that's literally what Maps of Meaning is about- drawing the connections between dozens of higher-order systems of thought and mythology- so that's hardly a sign that Zizek is arguing with more depth... I have read 9 or 10 of Zizek's books- I just finished 'The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto' for example, and I still think that you're looking at this a bit backwards. You would think that Zizek is acting as the revolutionary here, but in a world that has increasingly accepted his frame of ideas into the mainstream, I would wager that Peterson is arguing much further against the grain here. To think that Peterson is nothing more than a self help guru is to show a misunderstanding of the man. He's an incredibly established academic with an amount of scientific literature behind his belt that explodes the limits of what Zizek has likely ever read, let alone produced. I think Zizek has done a phenomenal job of analyzing history, religion, psycho-analysis, and mythology- but his understanding of the psychology that underlies the themes that interplay between the sacred and the world we live in is so underdeveloped that I think it would take years for him to catch up to Peterson on the level of pedagogy and ontology in which he discusses his ideas. The way Peterson incorporates true psychology into the discussion is what has made the difference for me in my understandings of these types of issues- and what got me to lean more Peterson that Zizek as I did in the past. (I used to be a Zizek fanboy tbh) I think we probably will continue to disagree- but I think you've got to give a lot more credit to Peterson as an peer to Zizek and stop looking down on him before you're ever going to bring something constructive to this conversation. But what do I know? I'm just a idiot Jordan Peterson fan

[@moved2bitchute779]

Nope. You're missing the argument entirely (IQ). Capitalism in itself isn't "the best" economic system, it's the ONLY principled system (doesn't require theft). The rest are modes of redistributing wealth (by theft) to those that can't compete, and/or those that would rather steal than compete.

[@tylermassey5431]

Right!? Whether or not it makes people happy or keeps stupid adults alive is irrelavent. You're not allowed to take other people's stuff. Period.

[@moved2bitchute779]

@The Objective Theist "Materialism" is a meaningless term. If you see the world through the lense of biology, you will see that our desire for everything is primarily just basic biology. It is that desire that has built Civilization (men's ambitions for resources to attract women, and women choosing the most capable men). Sure, it's not good when someone puts obtaining "stuff" above virtue, but high IQ societies generally ostracize/punish/shun those people (smart ppl don't need to be "virtuous"--it is in THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST to act as if they are). "Materialism" is like "Gentrification" (if you think about the terms for two seconds, you realize they're just political terms that don't mean inherently anything--just weapons to galvanize the low IQ, emotionally-governed, groups). The actual threat, empirically, is the low IQ/third world populations (with very significant "in-group preference") overtaking civilization from within their own systems, then voting themselves the resources and rights of the producers. We're seeing this already in Europe, which is only being propped up by debt. When the borrowing inevitably stops, and/or automation brings low IQ unemployment past the breaking point, THEN we're in trouble. The only reason we haven't had Civil War in America is because welfare is essentially bribing people not to riot, or worse. Btw, you might want to reconsider your name. Those that call themselves objective, rational, etc, are usually the opposite.

[@Oompa-dn9jm]

Zizek's output is incomparably better than Peterson's, having grappled with the problems of postmodernity and neoliberalism for decades. Having been trained in psychoanalysis, as well as the post-Marxist and postmodern philosophers, Zizek did an excellent job at rebuffing the attacks of Peterson. Nonetheless, I was still surprised that Peterson didn't read anything by Zizek, even a couple foundational texts like The Ticklish Subject or The Sublime Object of Ideology. Peterson didn't prepare for this debate, and was wrecked in the process. He fell victim to the ideological problems that permeate his own critiques of the left, failing to grapple with even the idea that Zizek might agree with him on several points. I like both of these guys, but the debate was extremely disappointing.

[@VisualFeast7557]

l would like to see video on neo-marxists who claim that neo-marxism is different from "old marxism". That's one of their points against critics of marxism. Not to mention, that their main point always is: "You don't understand Das Kapital" 😂

[@CaesarBest]

Neo-marxists generally brush off neo-marxism as a conspiracy theory, so there's not much of a debate to be had with them.

[@prenuptials5925]

I don't have much ideas by way of short KZbin summary, but the book "Idea of Socialism" is very short and outlines the problem with orthodox Marxism. Basically neo-Marxists are naturalists who basically believed Marx was right on how economic relations determine much of the direction of society, but abandoned everything else which was just clearly wrong.

[@expressionofwill5307]

It's strange that they always pull the "you don't understand" card, and then never explain what it is I don't understand. As a Christian I make the "I don't think that's a correct interpretation" argument a lot, so I don't blame them for the initial claim (a Marxist probably has a better knowledge of Marxism than me I'm happy to admit), but I always explain why I think differently.

[@ianbenjiman]

Neo-marxism (closely linked to post-modernism) is a religious cult, which is ingrained with indoctrination through a planned media-wide campaign and I have yet to hear any self-identified marxist who can explain their positions logically. The only way they can explain is with feelings, which are illogical. They were instructed, so they do. These people are the corporate media's lemmings. My point being that the original form of Marxism was an individual's belief system. Specifically, Karl Marx's. He believed in what he was supporting, right or wrong. It is the people further down the road who adopted and misconstrued his intentions, simply because they wanted to feel more important and belong to a group, and to change it to conform with the "current year". Their lives, in their own perspective, do not have meaning. These are observations, not statements of fact. Although, some of them could be.

[@badcarlos551]

Neo-Marxists academics -like Zizek- tend to reject certain arguments made in classical Marxist theory, but still utilise his critique of capitalism to help explain the functioning of contemporary society. Easy really.

[@Friendznco]

Wonderfully edited like always.

[@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874]

Peterson outed Zizek as "not a real Marxist".

[@Chronically_ChiII]

He could have taken that position to not have to defend hos ideology.

[@xXWorldgamefunXx]

You haven't read a single book by Zizék then.

[@DevotedDisciple-x]

1791, I don't think there was much of a debate going on between the two as they tend to agree on most issues. Lately I feel like you're just making things controversial for the sake of controversy.

[@targetisstrong9180]

Nothing Left Then you aren’t getting the message

[@anubislee36]

What was controversial between Jordan and Zizek? Are we watching the same video? This essay had little to do with the debate, and even mentioned that the two agree on many things. It's not like this was clickbaited "Zizek and Peterson DESTROY each other in SCANDALOUS debate." 1791 is about learning the nuance of complex issues, as far as I can tell. If anything I think they dispel controversy. The thesis presented here is about progression and politics.

[@DevotedDisciple-x]

@@anubislee36 I don't know, we could start with the opening statement, "Expectations were understandably high in the debate between.." It wasn't meant to be a debate. If I had more time I could go into much more then this. Also, Im not attacking 1791, as I'm actually a fan, so no need to get triggered.

[@Fwazonly]

Only now I am learning that Zizek is a reformist and not a revolutionary communist with Leninist sympathies. After reading his work for ten years, this is the first time I've encountered it. It basically means ignoring everything he has ever said or written because he said he uses the word "communism" to provoke, as if the word would elicit any other response.

[@coolchamp2902]

Now do a video on Peter Jordanson vs Zlavoj Sizek And Jordan peterson vs Peter Jordanson.

[@davethepants]

..... and throw in Ham Sarris and Roe Johan while you're at it. Srsly, when has this ever been funny? You guys have a really low bar.

[@Nangong123]

@@davethepants who is 'you guys'?

[@DSeeKer]

really enjoy the effort and quality of these video essays, such a breath of fresh air in youtube, when usually all we get is some talkingheads

[@RapidBlindfolds]

'tucker carlson looks at the facts soberly' whether M&M are sexy is truly the great question of our times

[@zachx333]

Top notch production as always. I love this perspective you share on this channel. Thanks for the insights and considerations

[@truthmonster3290]

zizek says global capitalism, I think what the globe has now is far from capitalism

[@kazul333]

Why do you need to edit it in such a manner to impress the mind that what's being said is dangerous? You can trust people to pull out the meaning of your words without trying to subtly manipulate the audience. SMH this is one propagandistic tool of the major media. Quit it. You're better than that, I believe.

[@MoralistaDefinitivo]

I agree that Peterson could have done better, BUT: 1) Elon doesn't even know whether AI will be terrible or great. How does he expect government to regulate it? Absurd. 2) About technology replacing jobs. This is nothing new. People were just as alarmed about cars as some are now about automation. Right now, the US and UK have one of the lowest unemployment numbers in world history. This is baseless, shortsighted alarmism. 3.1) If capitalism can lead to technologies that governments can then use to oppress people, this is ultimately the problem of government, not free markets. 3.2) If capitalism can lead to technologies that are used by people is a way that harms their self-interest (good luck defining that!), this is ultimately a problem of ethics, not free markets. 3) The problems arising from capitalism have to do with how we make use of the fruits of free competition, not with free competition itself.

[@robertorios2032]

I think the issue is hear that people too often apply god-like status to their favorite intellectual- even supporting their opinions in areas in which the thinker is not an expert/well educated. Peterson's clearly very intelligent, but he is not an economist or political theorist, and thus may not have the education and knowledge to approach this problem. Also I it should be stated that in the entire history of mankind we have never faced problems like the ones we are facing today, so we have no framework or blueprint to work off of.

[@RedTrauma]

The right to free speech and the right to bear arms must be protected at all costs during this leap of technology. It will be crucial to future liberty

[@Andoxico]

It's already dying m80

[@WouterCloetens]

And, in the case of AI, the right to unplug the power.

[@tacitustoday3571]

Why communism failed. From a concerned content creator. kzbin.info/www/bejne/moCtq6OMnNZjrdE

[@lostintime519]

Why is there a toilet with a lobster? Are you trying to bring the mighty Zizek (actual philosopher) to your level? Are you trying to caricature him?

[@android61242]

This is likely among the most important videos put out on this platform. You did an excellent job of summarizing the key aspect of the debate and keeping the focus on the issue.

[@yesno8775]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. 1791, misrepresenting Petersons point saying(paraphrasing): "Peterson came into the debate with the expectation of combating the soviet union" If you have actually seen the debate, you would know that JP was addressing Karl Marx from the beginning, not the soviet union. He was doing exactly what he was supposed to. I will also refer to a great comment made by + m jared Swenson "An important thing to point out is when Peterson realized what was happening, he had to clarify that he isn't a complete supporter of capitalism, and he needed to clarify that because people often misunderstand how debates work. Part of a debate is you get assigned a topic to argue for or against, even if you don't entirely agree with it. Peterson knew he was arguing for capitalism, even though he didn't agree with it 100%. He assumed Zizek was arguing for Marxism, even though Zizek may have not agreed with it 100%. This is why when peterson prepared, he didn't read that much of zizek, but read more of marx' work. The unfortunate thing is most people thought it would be a Peterson vs Zizek debate, when Peterson thought it was a Capitalism vs marxism debate. All in all the discussion ended and I was left with warm and fuzzy feelings because the 2 seemed to become new friends and interesting intellectuals to each other."

[@Dread_Not]

Yeah this is pretty clearly a fluff comment. You would have to be an idiot to say he summarize the "debate" when he didn't show a SINGLE clip or quotation of one side of it!

[@alexpetrovich85]

1791 touched on the same themes with the Ben Shapiro/Tucker Carlson Split video; there is fundamental systemic deficiencies that must be addressed. There is a pseudo-religious fervor to these economic systems that are ignorant of reality, and it's not healthy nor is it productive to the overall goals. We shouldn't be blinded and rest our laurels assuredly on "The System". We can notice things and we can do better.

[@Dread_Not]

@@alexpetrovich85 that theme was never adressed in this video. You're just listening to what you assume is highfalutin speak and interpreting it how you want to.

[@alexpetrovich85]

@@Dread_Not Then clearly we weren't watching the same video. I stand by my comment. What was the analysis you took away from this?

[@sophonax661]

Holy shit. Best video referring to the Zizek vs. JP debate I've come across so far. Thanks a lot!

[@markefreet1522]

When you start throwing around this idea that libertarianism fall short, I don't recall you ever doing a video on Ludwig von mises, Murray rothbard, or Hans Herman Hoppa. these were the godfathers of libertarianism whom by the way Ayn Rand hated. Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian nor are the people who follow her philosophy. Yes there are similarities sure, but if you want to make the accusation that human beings are reduced to mere economic transactions throw that at the feet of the objectivists not the libertarians.

[@mr.jayjay2401]

Mark Efreet yes this is the second video he strawmanned libertarianism

[@jaym2112]

Mark Efreet well said

[@markefreet1522]

@PINKYCULTURE there's never been any brand of free-market libertarianism that has any kind of power or that any president has ever listened to. You're certainly not talking about National Review and it's certainly not CATO. Modern-day libertarians of any brand that I've heard consistently point to the federal reserve's monetary policy which tells us that we are secretly taxed at a rate far higher than what's on paper. Why is that never addressed? You accuse us of worshipping the market when I don't even know what you mean by the market. You're the one who thinks he can't point guns at people for the greater good. You worship the state. I worship nothing.

[@markefreet1522]

@PINKYCULTURE and I think a strong government dissolves the cohesiveness of society. It dissolves the family unit, religion, private charity, culture, and race. So why don't we just have your big strong daddy government on your side of the continent and let some of us live free?

[@cezm1161]

Jordan and Zizek share Freud / Lacan as their philosophical base. They're both secularists and, at root, nihilist. Flip the coin, it's Janus.

[@broodjeal-cohol5033]

They're not both nihilist..

[@JDoe-ox6ie]

>Peterson is smarter than this He demonstrably isn't.

[@gypsylips1950]

finally an honest critique of Peterson that doesn't rely on social justice hysteria. holy fuck this is refreshing

[@DP-fq7iy]

This very much reminds me of “debating” my “communist” brother and his wife. In the end, we want the same thing, but the method is different. Individualism vs Collectivism is what it comes down between us.

[@design7054]

Almost always it's been about wanting roughly the same thing, it's absolutely about where we're at now and how you get there that's the bones of contention. There are lots of way to frame it, such as Individualism vs Collectivism. There are plenty of radicals out there though who do not want the same thing.

[@TheRealCaptainFreedom]

If people were more trustworthy, then I would evangelize collectivism. Unfortunately, people are largely untrustworthy dimwitted fuckups.

[@frocco7125]

@@TheRealCaptainFreedom Nicky Case did this great piece on why people tend not to be trustful: ncase.me/trust/

[@Supernautiloid]

False dichotomy. There is a common misconception that takes the form of collectivism vs individualism, as if each concept is mutually exclusive. The reality is that collectivism and individualism are two components of a larger social structure. The individual cannot survive without the collective, and the collective cannot exist without the individual. As Zizek says, the answer to collectivism or individualism should be "yes please". Both are essential to a healthy and complete human experience, defined by meaning and purpose.

[@50centpb7]

@YourNan That sounds nice but I'm pretty sure it's impossible. All collectivism is 'is the suggestion that individuals have responsibilities to other people which may supersede their personal whim. It doesn't matter how those expectations are arranged or how generous they are, they will inevitably come into conflict with individual desires.

[@northernchuck243]

Thank you for these well thought out and produced videos.

[@ExPwner]

At 3:08 it's clear that you don't actually get what is meant by "rational self-interest." You're misinterpreting what it means to act in line with one's interests. A person chopping off a body part is not "rational" in the layman's interpretation of the word, but he would be acting in his own self-interest because the action is by definition in line with one's interest. It is revealed preference. Google "human action."

[@brazlyn123]

I'm amazed at how beautiful the video is edited. I am happy I just found this channel

[@jihadao]

>randian libertarian OH NO NO NO NO NO NO That explain all your strawmans. Rand never ever identified herself as libertarian. She hated Murray Rothbard.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

He seems to be mostly strawmans at this point.

[@jordansheen2571]

@@MeanBeanComedy He means a libertarian that identifies with Rand's views, there are a ton of them. He also says that they are right but that it's hard to know what what is best in your self interest to begin with.

[@thinkngskeptic]

@@jordansheen2571 But I'm not sure Rand ever said that people will act in their rational self interest, only that they should try to do that. It's like saying Christians are deluded because people will never be Jesus.

[@jordansheen2571]

@@thinkngskeptic You misunderstand me, I'm actually a big fan of Rand I never said anyone was deluded and was trying to clear up the point presented in the video not advocate for it. I also agree that Rand said that people will try to act in their self interest not exactly do. Nevertheless I do think there is some validity in the point this video makes when it says it's hard to know what is best for our self interest. This doesn't mean that it's impossible and I personally I disagree with how hard 1791L makes figuring out what your best interest are, but I think it's important to reflect periodically about your motivations because it is common to continue pursuing somethings that aren't worth pursuing anymore or something you never should have pursued to begin with.

[@thinkngskeptic]

@@jordansheen2571 I agree that it's useful to ponder about whether what we are aiming for in life is actually in our best interest or whether we've formed bad habits that are leading us astray. However, I don't see why 1791L would bring up that point as a negative aspect of a free market unless he thinks human flourishing can be legislated, which would be incredibly statist for someone who seems to be relatively individualistic. It's like telling a friend that if they want to travel from New York to London, riding on a plane may result in crashing, but what's the point of bringing that up if there's no better form of transportation?

[@Sharpie951HD]

Your video editing and aesthetic is impeccable

[@superfreshbiltz]

I usually like your videos but criticizing Peterson for actually staying on point to the topic at hand, unlike Zizek, who pretty much threw the topic off course, is not a properly placed critique. If you noticed, Peterson spent a lot of time trying to bring back the topic to Marxism and how it's repercussions need to me addressed. Being familiar with his speeches, I'm sure you know he has many on happiness and purpose and can talk about those, which you acknowledged, but this simply was not the topic.

[@Silvarret]

This was simply not the topic? Happiness was in the name of the debate.

[@xXWorldgamefunXx]

Happiness was the topic of the discussion and Marxism is a critique of capitalism. ???

[@onkz]

Awesome video.

[@benlewies8828]

“The same economic freedoms that spurs prosperity and innovation strengthens the hands of tyranny”. Such as? Can we have any concrete examples?

[@Chronically_ChiII]

China?

[@jordanoneill7052]

How about the good old U, S of A? it's pretty obvious that the free market in the USA has concentrated such an absurd amount of money into a select few successful corporations to the point where they can influence and even control politics. The mega-industries of America are an oligarchy. I'm not against capitalism, but if you can't see what is happening in the USA you are simply blind.

[@evita0118]

@@Chronically_ChiII i read it on donald trump voice

[@benlewies8828]

@@jordanoneill7052 I see plenty of rent-seeking and bailouts in the USA, but this is of course not possible without big government (socialism). And the USA is, for all it's problems at the moment, very far from being a tyrannical state (there is no guarantee, though, that it won't ever turn tyrannical). By every objective measure, that claim is a gross exaggeration. For instance, it is listed at #8 on the WEF's Ease-of-doing-business index, #13 on the Human development index, you had a Gini coefficient of 41.5% in 2016 (which is acceptable and a lot better than most other countries). When you take a step back and look at the facts it paints a different picture than what the media is telling you. However, what flabbergasts me is that socialists often incorrectly jump to the conclusion that strengthening the government's hand is the antidote to this sort of corruption - forgetting conveniently that none of this is possible without the corrupt machinations of the state. The worst thing you could do is put more centralised power in the hands of the state.

[@benlewies8828]

​@@Chronically_ChiII China's tyranny is a result of it's history of communism. Even today the CCCP controls every aspect of life and wields enormous power over society, not fully excluding the economy, which they have transformed to capitalism to some degree and which is responsible for lifting the bulk of their population out of abject poverty. But by which measure does that "strengthen" the hand of the tyrannical government? People used to be poor under the boot of tyranny, and now they are less poor (but still under the boot of tyranny). As a counter example I would like to point out the case of Zimbabwe. There is no economic prosperity in Zimbabwe and yet they have had a completely tyrannical government for decades now. So I fail to see truth to the correlation that Zizek is trying to make here.

[@dereka2882]

Each video 1791 puts out is my new favorite video.

[@cheiften98]

wtf Zizek's voice. i cant listen to him when it feels like he is spitting into the mic.

[@joshualane1716]

Where did you go?

[@votekyle3000]

Sounds like he became disillusioned with Libertarian politics after this debate, and faded away from making this style of content

[@jacobhenley8326]

is it just me or does zizek sound like hes spitting at the end of each sentence

[@KingHumphrey]

It is just you. To everyone else it sounds like's he's spitting before, during and after every word.

[@odude]

You gentlemen are amazing at what you do. Always stunned at the quality of the content and the visuals. An unfortunately rare combination of competence.

[@phazebeam]

Whenever zizek talks, i feel as though a wad of spit is being flung at me

[@akarshadithya5479]

having another existential crisis after watching this video midnight

[@spawnlink]

To claim libertarians fail to address the fact that government will gain access to these technologies is false. Individuals like David D. Friedman has an entire book where such things are discussed. Future Imperfect. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that the market itself may offer government new technologies but the market still has that tech and use said tech to protect itself. Encryption can be used against the State. This isn't a one sided situation. The automation of jobs lowers costs requiring less labor to acquire the same amount of goods. There is a lot more to the conversation that is not discussed by most.

[@stefanwalicord]

Automating is fascinating. Look up Collaborative Robots and the 5th Industrial Revolution. It's not quite a mature technology but it's great.

[@TheGoobsters]

Why is nobody blaming the hosts of the debate for not filling them in on the common objective? It was clearly not communicated to them what specifically was supposed to be discussed

[@djkrptdnb]

Bleak. Great video! Love the soundtrack.

[@jamesbrooks1367]

one of your best videos yet!

[@patavinity1262]

"Zizek acknowledges that his use of the word 'communism' is more of a provocation than any serious alliance with it" Not true at all. He is indeed a communist, and elaborates on this in detail in his work. It's simply that *your* understanding of communism is too infantile to grasp this.

[@michaelgrover8648]

Would love to see a further reading in the info section , or video recommendations. Just wondering how I can go about finding more information on these subjects .

[@fredrickkenley674]

Lost me at 3:40 when you say people don’t always know what’s in their self-interest. That shows you suffer from the same fundamental misunderstanding of the libertarian philosophy you were critiquing that the garden variety collectivist does. Whether an action is in the self interest of an individual can only be determined by the individual, as we don’t all have the same values, desires, or interests. The moment you try to determine what is the best interest for another you fail, are easily seduced into forcing what is actually YOUR OWN self interest into others in the name of doing what is in theres. This is not a difficult concept, it’s weird you would have bungled it so thoroughly. I won’t unsubscribe yet, but you have been putting out a lot of shit lately.

[@soapbxprod]

The issue is not about "happiness". It's about the mitigation of misery. And Dr. Peterson is 100 percent correct about how to accomplish that. Bear as much responsibility as possible for as long as possible. Be EXCELLENT to each other and party on.

[@Nighato]

The Ž is pronounced more like the J in jeep rather than Z