Marxism: Zizek/Peterson: Official Video

I posted this yesterday, but the volume was too low, so now it's been raised.
On February, April 19, 2019, I debated Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek in Toronto, April 19 at the Sony Centre. Dr. Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher and professor at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, whose works on cultural studies, psychoanalysis and, above all, for the purposes of our debate, Marxism, are world-renowned. The topic? Happiness: Marxism vs Capitalism. This is the official video. Many bootlegs have already been released, but that seems inevitable given our current state of technological capability.
I started with a critique of The Communist Manifesto, which is the central revolutionary document of the Marxist movement (rather than addressing, say, Zizek's work, which wasn't what the debate was about).
It wasn't so obvious for the rest of the discussion that Marxism, per se, comprised the central topic of discussion.
Watch for yourself.
A good article, I think, on Zizek: www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/#H2
-- SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL --
Donations: www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbp...
-- BOOKS --
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
-- LINKS --
Website: jordanbpeterson.com/
12 Rules for Life Tour: jordanbpeterson.com/events/
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog/
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/
Reading List: jordanbpeterson.com/great-books/
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
-- PRODUCTS --
Personality Course: www.jordanbpeterson.com/perso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com/
Understand Myself personality test: understandmyself.com/
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/jordanbp...

[@Porcay]

Peterson the Archetypal Dad vs Zizek the Archetypal Uncle

[@MrChi31]

Porçay this was hilarious. Zizek does seem like that uncle that always makes shit hit the fan at family gatherings

[@alpucar4342]

Aga sen burda napiyon la

[@johnford902]

PERFECT

[@NelsonStJames]

Brilliant analogy !

[@TheMomochan13]

BRILLIANT

[@Greg0516]

The audience seems to think this was a rap battle.

[@ceterfo]

Bring back ebr

[@sauliussh]

Greg0516 It’s just a cat’s opinion.

[@MesoScale]

What a disgrace to debate culture and maybe science in general

[@delta-9969]

Both of these guys have a cult of personality that follows them around everywhere... this was bound to happen

[@okaysoundsgreat]

So true. That’s because the media has basically turned politics INTO that.

[@davidkurniadiweinardy9603]

Zizek basically telling Peterson to tell more jokes is so wholesome 😂

[@ratm23471]

I wish zizek had more facts

[@blondwithnoe]

@@ratm23471 so youre one of the trashy audience members huh?

[@baibai3175]

@@ratm23471 the more facts doens't mean your argmuent the more cohenrent and relevant.

[@SeanMacdonald_CodeMonk]

i'm not sure that's possible. Peterson strikes me as someone without a sense of humor

[@benogden6483]

@@SeanMacdonald_CodeMonk his podcasts with Theo Von or his podcast episode with his son reveals it quickly. Quite a shame that the intellectual conversations rarely bring it out of him.

[@TheGrenadier97]

This is gold. It wasn't a debate, but more of a talk between two points of view that may be able to work together. The loser there was the childish audience.

[@ddmddmd]

The childish audience and Petersons credibility. He’s never studied communism in his life. That was terrible

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@ddmddmd What's wrong with Peterson's idea of communism?

[@jasonphilc]

@@raccoonduck5406 That's not was his post stated. Peterson here uses classic arguments against China, N Korea, Russia & Cuba but fails to acknowledge modern successful socialist states. Socialism is evolving like capitalism but he missed on some positive points. He's also Canadian & should make mention of beneficial social programs adopted outside of the US by capitalist allies.

[@MutenRoscher]

@@jasonphilc what? give me an example of "successful" socialist countries, please?

[@MutenRoscher]

@@ddmddmd WHAT!? yes he did.. what are you talking about? have you ever watched anything from jbp?

[@jonolas1626]

The conclusion is clear: We live in a society

[@starless5668]

Now who would have thought?

[@theauntless]

We do, if you think about it...

[@lynxakiraka3626]

@@theauntless And we don't, if you think about it lol

[@deadfIag]

Boomers react to memes in this thread

[@aorusaki]

Hahahha

[@JoeyHumble]

People who whoop during a philosophy discussion will be sent to the gulags.

[@souljacem]

Joey Humble The Whooplag Archipelago

[@VelkanAngels]

I think it's because it's gone from being considered dry and boring (like politics), to being a form of entertainment and team-competition (like politics, although in some places, that was almost always a team-competition), so it will attract a much wider audience. Kinda like how gaming used to be something "losers" and nerds did, but with the implementation of online multiplayer and gaming generally becoming a larger and larger industry, it suddenly began attracting extraverted people, who could now use the games as means to socialize while having fun, soooo... again, much wider "audience" in that now too... For better and for worse, lol.

[@ktrigg2]

Wow that made me literally laugh out loud.

[@bottomendbliss]

Bloody slack jawed hippies.Not a beret among them.

[@bottomendbliss]

Lmao

[@boalollal242]

On behalf of the human race. I'm so sorry these thinkers had to endure this audience.

[@milansvancara]

@@Element905 Well, he is one of the few Peterson respects and I'd go as far as to say admire, despite having such a different agenda. Peterson even often quotes Zizek in a ''I've learned a point from him, he really made me reconsider stuff'' way

[@milansvancara]

@@Element905 I guess I don't completely get your point because of a language barrier. However, Zizek is on of the few that never settles at a final verdict and keeps asking more questions and digging deeper and not being satisfied with any answer. Altho it's not very appealing to most of the people, because people loves final verdicts and simple resolutions, this is what philosophy is. It really reminds me of Aristoteles (I mean, the most from all the modern-day well known similar speakers)

[@user-rb8bl3gs9k]

On behalf of insulting half of humanity, don't call zizek a thinker in any capacity.

[@Astali_]

@@user-rb8bl3gs9k what would you call him?

[@iki12737]

peterson is not a thinker😂😭

[@FarhatKCh]

It was quite a shock to to know that Heinrich Himmler, the architect of the holocaust, carried the Bhagvad Gita everywhere he went. Zizek mentions how Hemler used the eastern concept of detachment from this material world as a tool to make German soldiers do horrible things without feeling remorseful. Military powers in Japan used Zen Buddhist techniques to do the same. Zizek mentioned the book Zen at War where this issue is discussed. Prof. Zizek humor is infectious and so spot on.

[@FarhatKCh]

@@FG-fc1yz I wouldn't have minded it though, but thanks again

[@milanmarinkovic2382]

Could you please give some source material? Would appreciate it

[@FarhatKCh]

@@milanmarinkovic2382 Zen at War by Brian Daizen

[@Theflowoflove]

Detachment adaptive behaviour is inherent in children of neglect or abuse. It is not the books that caused the dehumanisation. It was the faulty perception & the inability for the reader to understand nuance & allegory.

[@farsa.658]

The National socialists party members were not reading the Bhagwat Geeta, they were reading into it. Seeking to cloak their murderous fury and rage at the, to some extent justifiably, raw deal the German people got after ww1, they went insanely Arya-n. (There is no word called Aryan in the entire Sanskrit literature btw; the word is Arya [ आर्य ] meaning 'noble', 'elevated one', 'cultured', 'civilized', 'principled' etc in being, actions, thoughts, deeds etc.) Then they twisted it. Just as they whacked the Hindu symbol of Swastika, an ancient symbol of 'good fortune' or 'dharma' (in common mundane level understanding) but actualy a deeply mystical symbol and key or code at the esoteric level that in the pre christian times was plastered all over world, everywhere from Arabia to Europe to Latin America to Japan, often with a different orientation. (Now, ask yourself how and by whom? A whole different hidden (or suppressed?😊) world will open up before you. The Swastika is a very powerful symbol nevertheless. It was also messed with, they mixed it up with the european hakenkreuz. A VERY bad idea for those who are not initiated into its meaning. They further sought to mess around with all kinds of occult groups in order to invoke 'spirits' to aid them to vent their 'righteous' fury. Everyone knows the rest. Even communism, made up of actually their 'blood brothers in red caps' (hence while overtly fighting; there was also on a different, elite level cooperation and howdys and money and material exchangex going on😂, something rarely publicly discussed) who are also socialists, is in reality an occult group enterprise. Hence, despite the 'colour difference' BOTH groups have always, in any part of the world, lead to exactly similar malevolent consequences. Simply put, Socialism itself IS a CULT...of martyrdom, or 'mater'dom. It is an O-cult, with several progeny, some going around as secret societies, some as political groups...all looking for their lost 'father', whom the Abrahamic religions 'killed'--and buried--centuries ago and then built their 'temples' on it. They have been martyrs to 'mater'ialism ever since. Now they are inescapably locked in. ....

[@maxparish3563]

Finally something that the left and right can agree on. Worst debate audience ever.

[@hanz2904]

**agrees in fascist**

[@kennyomegapushcesaropushhe4184]

Ýyty8yu7u879yt9y8y York uttermost die in 9ten that Yutaka truthster yttrium. The trittst, I 7ten 8ten mit der technischen Tschüß trotz tt

[@Felicidade101]

Canadian Chads

[@Horny_Fruit_Flies]

@@hanz2904 He already said "right"

[@hanz2904]

@@Horny_Fruit_Flies oh i thought he was reffering to moderates lol.

[@andrewsquest8901]

8:35 - host's speech 15:03 - Peterson's speech starts Review on Communism Manifesto: 20:29 - on viewing history as economic class struggle 25:57 - on unclear division between social classes 28:48 - on dictatorship of the proletariat 32:12 - on why decentralized economy seems more effective 33:51 - on idea of critisizing profit 36:48 - on idea of super-productiveness of socialist society 39:32 - on notion of the manifesto, that capitalism is the most productive documented system 42:24 - breaking argument, that rich get richer and poor get poorer 46:31 - Zizek's speech starts 47:21 - on state of modern China 48:30 - on finding higher cause in life 49:57 - on the fact, that we can't appeal to traditional athority anymore 51:48 - on ideology making people do horible things 53:29 - on not making suffering instant justification of your personal philosophy 54:38 - on need for jealousy to sustain self identity (precisely, making up stories about external intruder, to justify your own failues/drawbacks/etc.) 1:00:26 - on renunciation (not letting others have something; also, Zizek claims, that modern capitalism is incorporated the wrong egalitarianism) 1:03:53 - critique of capitalism's evaluation of competency and it's hierarchical system (also, discussion of natural evolution) 1:06:58 - on unwilling of democracy to give up power to a group of competent experts 1:08:20 - on master figure, that pushes people to be free; on pain of freedom and choice; on autority as something, not tied directly to competence; on separation of expertise and political power 1:10:30 - speech about incompetency of large groups of people and inability of modern democracy and capitalism to solve global problems (e. g. ecological issues, modern apartheid, etc.) 1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition 1:20:53 - Peterson's response starts 1:22:09 - on problems of capitalism 1:23:30 - on capitalism pushing everyting to economical competition (also, claim that earning more money past the certain level won't make a person happier) 1:25:33 - on possibility, that capitalism contains a fatal threat for humanity 1:28:53 - quick notions on a lot of Zizek's claims 1:30:32 - on necessity of individual responsibility in a healthy society 1:33:08 - Zizek's response starts; notion on deep subjectivity of hapiness 1:38:52 - on Comunist Manifesto 1:40:00 - on egalitatianism, global ecology problems, modern apartheid 1:42:52 - on pessimism, and unreliable human nature 1:45:36 - story about slovenian farmer (top!) 1:46:46 - Peterson's question about why Zizek, given his originality of thought, so strongly binds himself to marxism 1:49:10 - Zizek's defense of Marx 1:50:48 - claiming himself as Hegelian 1:53:22 - Peterson's and Zizek's debate on if today's radical leftists can be called marxist 2:04:47 - host's question about true human hapiness; Peterson's response about adopting responsibility and expanding your own capacities Zizek: 2:10:00 - on authentic love as sudden catastrophy 2:11:06 - on divinity in christianity and christian God as an atheist 2:13:31 - critique of Peterson's individualist ideas Peterson: 2:16:09 - mercifullness of idea of God as an atheist 2:18:08 - on agreement in pshychiatric society, that exposure to upleasancy deeply helps individuals 2:19:30 - defense of individualism through pessimistic picture of life 2:22:03 - on solving global soscietal problem when adressing personal one Zizek: 2:24:57 - about ideology even in slightest things 2:27:49 - on doublethink of modern ideology Peterson: 2:29:55 - finding deep feeling of doing things right 2:32:10 - on not lying as a way of improoving life Zizek: 2:36:00 - on ideology of alienating yourself from reality (in order to be able to do horible things) 2:40:58 - host's question about what will people incorporate out of this debate and response from both doctors

[@upstateNYfinest]

Thanks

[@nodelonate]

Bravo!

[@OathBoy_562]

Andrew's Quest u the goat 🐐

[@MrVictorPhineas]

+ +

[@Gpovse]

I've not watched much of it, but thank you .

[@effoffutube]

This is beautiful. Imagine if our "democratically elected" representatives actually had to debate their worth in this manner.

[@corndogsauceman5495]

the problem with democracy is no one would be bothered enough to listen

[@sirllamaiii9708]

Funny thing is, they used to do it. The JFK vs Nixon debate was like that. But you still had people being complete dicks in debates, even back then. There was this one clip but I can't find it. Really as long as you have a good moderator, it's possible. But media companies think it runs on too long lol.

[@kennethguitarfiend4493]

It should be expected and normal…

[@obineg5752]

that is how it should work in theory: communists, liberals and conservatives, all highly motivated to serve the society, struggling for hours and witth good arguments to find the best compromise for how things should be done tomorrow - and then actually do what they decided (and not the opposite or nothing) so far the theory...

[@pdestefano]

@@kennethguitarfiend4493 Damn right, but hey... I remember a time where I couldn't access anything like this. At least there's that.

[@danielstatler954]

Towards the 2 hour mark, the debating was just so cooperative and so civil it gave me the fuzzies. Wish I could find a debate club to join but there are none

[@breadman5048]

They should have done this as a pure conversation with no crowd

[@TransRoofKorean]

@Zooman to be fair to Zizek, JBP charges more than twice as much in speaking fees. to be fair to JBP, he's more than twice as in demand as Zizek (plus was / is more ill, thus theoretically it costs him more). to be fair to everyone, Zizek's the anti-capitalist who still is willing to profit heavily from capitalism when it benefits him. Which is fine: that's the idea! He's just a lying capitalist. and to be fair to the aware, JBP gets called Red Skull [read: "literally Hitler"] by the media, while it simultaneously begs for more Zizekism. to be fair to the truth, not that Zizek is bad or Peterson is perfect it just is: they're capitalists

[@Vertutame]

Sad part about politic, you go to talk to another party, you're traitor to that group. and this video is trying to say please don't do that, it's jsut lazy way to judge anything without thinking. But people are like that for the most part.

[@mrvoltem9379]

@I Must Bust i humbly disagree. You can't take part in a system you disagree with and not be a hypocrite, with the exception of not having a choice. Example: you are a hypocrite if you claim to be pro-liberty but you support an authoritarian regime, unless of course that regime is forcing you to support it by threat of force. You are a hypocrite if you claim to be against handouts but you take government subsidies, unless of course the alternative is starving, or some other severe consequence. You are a hypocrite if you claim to want to help the poor, but personally make no effort of helping them, out of nothing but convenience. (Say, if you could donate 1000$ without endangering your financial situation, which includes savings for the future, but instead you choose not to because you only said it to look good on twitter) you are a hypocrite if you claim to be against capitalism but you don't redistribute your wealth to others more deserving, unless it would endanger your own survival.

[@Simone-xe9cw]

@@degamispoudegamis People live in things called societies, the fact that some try to change them doesn't imply that they should live with solar energy while they do. It's a very very simple concept.

[@Nn-3]

@@TransRoofKorean The capitalism that Zizek opposes is not about people making money from ticket sales. The capitalism that he opposes is the one in which a person can be born into wealth, sit on the couch their whole life contributing nothing to society, and yet earn millions of dollars annually from other people's work. It's the element of worker exploitation that is the focus.

[@cogithefool4284]

I would pay for the non-clap version of this

[@AleksanderFras]

in this case even communists would

[@user-fo8lz6om7l]

Or for them to edit the damn thing at all.

[@strangelove344]

The worst case would be that our official desires come true.

[@bachanator]

... or nationalize the non-clap version

[@terrymcanalen3031]

I would pay you to go back to sleep

[@Sunny-gj6mh]

I watched it in its entirety. Thank you both for existing and presenting this to me. I don't worry too much about the crowd. The crowd will be the crowd. Listeners will be listeners.

[@skinindagame_]

*A very useful and necessary debate. Apart from the audience a pleasure and very civilized.*

[@xioracky]

Wow this years wrestlemania has gotten really academic.

[@wilmerfudd4133]

Underrated comment

[@klumaverik]

HAH! A PERSON OF CLASS IS UPON US! 🤭🤭

[@heavenlyweather117]

Lmaoo

[@barbikinkin]

One looks like he rolled out of bed... the other looks a professional

[@shadearca]

@@barbikinkin Judging books by their covers is not the smartest thing to do...

[@mitchsullo]

i want a sitcom where these two live together

[@koalasquare2145]

TIDY YOUR ROOM! don’t you mean OUR room?

[@mitchsullo]

Khrishan Solanki magic

[@carazo321]

Underrated comment.

[@user-vr5zk9ox8d]

Zizek: I will share half of this lobster with you for supper, even though I caught it.

[@hoopla2671]

Bert and Ernie?

[@anaone7923]

They truly are an odd couple that seem to enjoy each other’s company. That was beautiful . Thank you to both

[@mbart]

Difficult for non native speaker, but one of the most intriguing and fascinating discourses on youtube. Respectfull, no personal offences, listening to each other, delightful. Zizek was to my opinion the most open-minded of the two. If these two men would work together, they could produce some beautiful books. Chestertons 'Orthodoxy' is one of my favorites. Finding peace with God through the cross of Jesus is an eternal blessing. I wish this to both men, and all viewers!

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

Audience: WOOOO!!! Zizek: please, dont turn this into a simple minded competition, we are here to debate serious issues Audience: WOOOO!!!!

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Jaques Studly yeah, zizek handled the debate terribly, but so did Peterson. Pretty much every single general point Peterson made on marxism in his opening statement was completely wrong or totally misrepresentative, which isnt a suprise really since the most preparation he did for critiquing an entire ideology was reading a pamphlet.

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Covington Bigglesworth nope

[@confusedarmchairphilosopher]

@Covington Bigglesworth neither has peterson. His arguements sucked and he doesnt know anything about marxism

[@brysiek5579]

@@confusedarmchairphilosopher maybe you're right, but you definetly aren't lucky, because i saw your comment was posted 10 hours ago. Give me some examples, that confirm your opinion on both the participants.

[@brysiek5579]

By "you aren't lucky" i mean that i will ask you questions now and i won't stop until your anwsers will satisfy me.

[@KoldAsFire]

Producers: So how many bottles of water do you guys need on stage? Peterson and Zizek: Yes

[@SiboWoW]

It feels so weird to me to see all those bottles on the table: the green ones' brand is an italian one (I'm italian as well). This the magic of globalization.

[@sadieperry]

SiboWoW always wondered if peterson requested pellegrino specifically (instead of evian) since there weren’t any on zizek’s side 🧐

[@vs2132]

@@sadieperry he drinks it a lot

[@Foxyways]

"Yech"

[@Frankincensedjb123]

That's your only takeaway? You deserve to be in the audience.

[@barrymccarthy6514]

One of the greatest conversations that I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to, and very respectful of each other’s point of view. Definitely how we all should represent ourselves in life.

[@BrothersByBud]

Shame peterson can't act like this anymore. Daily Wire fucked him up good.

[@gregorydiasmusic]

Ahhh the worst thing about this debate is that it was entirely too short and Jordan and Zizek need to have a podcast episode or 3 together. Wow. I love seeing JP get challenged by an honest and respectful intellect so he can articulate his ideas clearly.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

JP got challenged? He is a fraud.

[@sharoonaftab8894]

@@wirdjadochnichts proof?

[@wirdjadochnichts]

@@sharoonaftab8894 Thats a stupid question, if u think he is not do your own research. The comment above was written by another person mistaking petersons intellect and his articulacy for academic qualities. Thats why i call him a fraud. For someone who constantly calls himself a sientist he got very poor skills in understanding and using sientific studies. He got an opinion and then he looks for studys to somehow justify it.

[@sharoonaftab8894]

@@wirdjadochnichts and he finds the studies out of thin air ?

[@wirdjadochnichts]

@@sharoonaftab8894 There all kinds of studies. What he does ist cherry picking the ones that help with his argument and ignoring studies that dont. Also he has misinterpreted a lot of studies and ignored the conclusion that was drawn by the sientists that conducted the study. That is not what a sientist does, or at least not what a sientist should do if he takes his work seriously.

[@Brian-on1zo]

“So on and so on” vs “roughly speaking “

[@SeledBeats]

virtually

[@MisterCaco]

it's something like that

[@readtheory772]

More like *grunt grunt sniff sniff*

[@cameronroot]

It's more complicated than that.

[@Pedro_eqw]

"As far as I'm concerned".

[@mostawesomestnamever]

"we have a strict zero-tolerance policy for any heckling or disruptions." Audience: WOoOooOoOO

[@WillyJunior]

The audience need to clean their rooms and get their bloody acts together

[@fawnieee]

They're beyond annoying.

[@calebt4yahweh210]

@@fawnieee so r you commenting ur lousy intolerance to simple cheering... Get a life BUDDY!

[@arobot4398]

@@calebt4yahweh210 Sooo Y r YOUUUU commenting ur LouZy OpiNiOn DUUUUUH....Talk about hypocrisy.

[@AmphiStuG]

@@calebt4yahweh210 Oh mY GUouHD, cAN’t yOu TAkE a CoMmEnt uN-SeRIoUsLy?

[@markogrbavac1197]

I felt so happy after hearing this. Thank you both!

[@soycamilotoro706]

Respect for both of them. This was the most beautiful conversation I have seen. It was pure beauty. This is truly art. We are so lucky to share the same moment in life with them, to have them alive to enlight our minds.

[@AhhsvsvHhehe]

You should read the republic

[@camilotoro4151]

@@AhhsvsvHhehe Absolutely!

[@MasterZiomekPL]

god bless those people who did not applause throughout the talk..

[@filipmartinovic4594]

I clapped at the computer screen

[@s0be2266]

@@LETSTALKENTERTAINMENT it interrupts the flow, can be started before the statement is finished, and can be used as a weapon to suck time out of the debate/speech. It's just annoying for people at home who are not part of the energy in the room and can see the time being wasted.

[@MasterZiomekPL]

@@j_freed I just didn't want any precious discussion time to be wasted.. Never asked for an essay on human behaviour

[@drewp2787]

That is why Bill Marh show is so bad

[@spyguythesamurai]

I was there and clapped at appropriate times. You're welcome, for what it's worth hahaha

[@leontorywalker8374]

No shirt is too itchy for Slavoj, No tie too tight for Jordan.

[@georgebotelho288]

Ziz..k is an opiate abuser. That's very clear to me, as having been a heroin addict for over two decades.

[@FarEastUranus]

I was thinking exactly the same mate!

[@bottomendbliss]

@@georgebotelho288 Hes OCD. Rafael Nadal does exactly the same thing

[@David-zy1lr]

@@georgebotelho288 he has tics my guy

[@zonunralte4742]

Lols

[@vanessali1365]

So glad I found this, it's so very enjoyable 1st class. They have the same body language that shows they are genuinely appreciate each other.

[@VS-pu8mw]

So beautiful to read here all the comments and Realising how many intelligent people are here watching and talking about it

[@Wilqu6]

Slavoj and Jordan: Let’s talk People: this standup is hilarious

[@bleack8701]

They got introduced like boxers and you expect people to treat this like a class debate. The tone is set at the start and the tone was a weird one

[@rhelferstay]

Right? When Slavoj bashed Trump the crowd cheered like a bunch of trained seals. It's like a Bill Maher audience.

[@quinceymorris4692]

many dumb hypster kids thinnking they are attending some kind of show.

[@victormgv]

Right tho, like what happened? It was really weird. I understand these guys need to get paid, but gawd I wished it was recorded Joe Rogen podcast style. Though I concede Joe doesn’t do a good job with moderating multiple divergent views among guest. These guys would be good one on one with each other.

[@Retrostar619]

@@bleack8701 I think it's because you get more bums on seats that way, which is telling.

[@AlexSBTM]

"So on and so on" vs "It's something like that"

[@GirlWithnail]

Haha, yeah! "..and so on and so on.." vs "..because that's technically impossible.."

[@cordsman]

“Roughly speaking”

[@gborsonello]

This conversation is one of those graces you've both mentioned. Thank you.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

One might think that. Jordan Peterson is a fraud. The fact that some people still mistake him for an intellectual still baffles me. Talking about a large variety of topics and being articulate doesnt make u an intellectual. Also constantly calling yourself a sientist and reading one or two studys doesnt make you a sientist. He may be a good psychiatrist (i cant tell), but he should stay away from economics and politics. If you read this and disagree because you bought one of his books and feel enlightend, do a 30 min research and then comment.

[@gborsonello]

@@wirdjadochnichts Firstly, a person who is not capable of some proper spelling shouldn't be lecturing on what is academic or what not. Secondly, I haven't read his books, but those of Zizek. You might not be aware of, but both gentlemen are academic thinkers and have been at some point lecturing at prestigious universities. You may think what you want about them, you're entitled to your opinion, it's just that facts won't change because of that.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

@@gborsonello Iam from germany and still learning english, but i have no trouble understanding them. I wasnt claiming that he is not academic and i dont think that only academics should be allowed to talk about these topics. What bothers me is his poor unserstanding of how to interpret sientific data. People seem to be so impressed by his titles that they dont bother to question his methods. Also the topics he often talks about are not relatet to what he is teaching at universities.

[@gborsonello]

@@wirdjadochnichts so, again, you are entitled to your opinion. Anyone can decide where and how to engage in the subjects they want. Just like you are doing. Grussen aus Niederland.

[@Taboomix]

@@gborsonello bro tried to be dunk of his spelling and nothing else lmao

[@EdgePitSwing]

What an enlightening listen. They seem to agree on so much, but the core disagreement wasn't even about structure or economy or theology. It really felt like it was optimism vs pessimism, which is fascinating.

[@LizardCrewSweden]

A very astute observation! I also agree with the message of your KZbin-handle. 🙂🦎

[@wolfgangallanalhazred802]

"Guys stop clapping this is serious!" *claps in agreement*

[@biggerguy3092]

This kind of debate just didn't need an audience

[@Patrk38]

that wasnt a debate. Dude wrote his entire speech on a piece of paper and read it out loud.

[@MOperator]

@@Patrk38 i think this shouldn't affect the value of one's arguments

[@NateB]

@@MOperator it shows that he is more interested in making a speech than having a conversation or a debate.

[@beau_de_jour]

@@MOperator love when someone use the mind, good answer. You must heard the format, not see it as you don’t have ears. Ear the ideas.

[@itstoogooditswaytoogood3211]

@@MOperator @Nate_B Did either of you watch the video at all and have either of you ever watched a real debate in your lives? This is literally how you do a formal debate: you have a topic, both speakers first give their case in relation to the topic (i.e. not to each other, i.e. a speech) and then there is discussion afterwards. They even explained the format of the debate IN the video and yet you still both somehow ignore it.. and speaking of ignorance, even if you both missed that part of the video, it is still very ignorant to assume that just because JBP gave his speech first that Zizek has to immediately respond to it.

[@davidjohn3533]

How did nobody offer Zizek a tissue in 2 hours?

[@wll6777]

Please ! Could we have more conversations like this !!!

[@tantalus44]

Damn audience. They dare interrupt the king lobster and the intelligent seizure.

[@utfxstew2916]

Edward Black one of the funniest comments I’ve seen, well done.

[@Darkcreeper555]

Good one

[@saintsrefuge]

the intelligent seizure, oh wow 😂😂

[@sammanekshaw5730]

stole emre bothers comment

[@vineet101]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ElAntroDeDager]

Destiny got destroyed in this debate.

[@martymcfly88mph35]

Well yeah, Destiny... idk. He'd be a lot smarter if he wasn't a social dem, the most pathetic type of politics. He'd be a cool libertarian.

[@marczuccismywaifu]

pepeLaugh

[@hithanks6186]

@@martymcfly88mph35 no lol

[@yamnaya88]

@@martymcfly88mph35 what's your ideology?

[@fabear4022]

Destiny is the type of lib Slavoj constantly rants about

[@JordanPaul.M]

"Never presume that your suffering, is in itself, proof of your authenticity". Amen Zizek, amen.

[@blabiluigi9549]

Do you have a timestamp for this quote ? Thanks a bunch !

[@briang.2218]

I legitimately think it would be wonderful to see a continuation of this conversation on Peterson's podcast without the added twist of a debate audience. Very interesting discussion.

[@FreeSpeechClub]

Welcome and rules: 7:50 Introductions: 8:30 Jordan B. Peterson's opening statement: 14:59 Slavoj Zizek's opening statement: 46:16

[@rorycolgan]

Thanks for the time stamp!

[@highfive6095]

You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks for your efforts.

[@jlb6070]

>tfw the opening statements are 30 minutes apart

[@kennystreet1163]

Thank God you did this sir

[@tohopes]

Blessed are the ones who put the timestamps.

[@mikeybuzzkill3681]

I was watching this whole thing waiting for Ben Shapiro to jump on the stage and scream "let's say, hypothetically, we live in a society!" as security rushes the stage

[@emmanuelhurtado8123]

take the commas out lol. he doesn't make any pauses.

[@jeffhughes7104]

Gold. Though I don't think Shapiro is in the same league as these guys.

[@Charles-gk7xx]

@@jeffhughes7104 Shapiro is way younger tho. 50 year old Shapiro might be in the same league

[@axelflores5404]

@@Charles-gk7xx no fucking way, he's kinda smart but he's not nearly as smart as either peterson or zizek

[@he-mememan359]

@@Charles-gk7xx Nah, Shapiro falls short of most intellectuals that he would care to consider peers. He's far too dogmatic, you never see him trying to learn from an exchange that isn't with someone who doesn't already agree with him.

[@MikeB-ng3ol]

A wealth of ideas that transcend the conversation.

[@beaconhousepechsfilm-makin8187]

I like how both of these men have so much respect for each other

[@kainkabil6393]

1:19:55 - Zizek shames audience of treating debate as some kind of cheap competition and literally says dont applause audience applauds hysterically

[@lewisner]

They are part of the applauding hierarchy.

[@period5304]

audience is the reason...good debates don't exist

[@00hn34]

@@period5304 They do, are called podcasts!

[@period5304]

@@00hn34 yeah

[@gnomie2.0]

kain kabil at 12:20 he’s already visibly irritable about the applause.

[@kaiserreichtangle7103]

Zizek: "Don't treat this as a cheap competition, we're trying to confront some serious issues here" Audience: WOOOOOOOOOO **CLAPPING INTENSIFIES**

[@kaelbjudah331]

Lol

[@Mrflowerproductions]

@Stuart Murphy same, how about that left tho lolololololol jk tho I hate both of them but I'm not a centrist I dont know what I believe oh god please help me

[@price2pay490]

💯 😂

[@iwannabethekid34xc]

@Hannibal B Isnt that what a bunch of rich (___)ish people have been trying to do to Trump the last 4yrs?

[@baconbacon6128]

@@iwannabethekid34xc which ones are you talking about zo base your claim on? Can you give names and sources to support your claim?

[@TruthSubjective]

Thank you so much for everything you do! Imagine having opposing views and still being polite gentlemen to each other; this is a world I'd like more of!

[@wirdjadochnichts]

You can man, just be around wealthy people :)

[@francescoielmoni3702]

2:30 S.Z. “I want solicited from you to tell a joke “ After two years I think I will watch once in a while this debate for the rest of my life, like a piece of art and profound knowledge.

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@attor90]

"Don't fall in love with your suffering. Never presume that your suffering in itself is a proof of your authenticity." - Zizek

[@lucabaar1]

His first ques of speech impediment were brutal but he has a voice for sure

[@reallymadmaso]

One of the most insightful things I've ever heard... ironically from a Marxist (or Hegelianist, or whatever Zizek thinks he is!)

[@iqdusk5551]

what does he mean by authenticity in this quote? i think i need a better understanding. I jut heard about Zizek and that quote is actually quite interesting.

[@attor90]

@@iqdusk5551 I think, If u suffer that doesn't mean you are authentic.

[@iqdusk5551]

@@attor90 yes but what would be another word for that? real, or genuine. which authentic?

[@flopinvictus5646]

The most reddit audience in existence

[@flopinvictus5646]

@Hungry Microwave Yes 100%, but can we really pretend to be a perfectly rational observers? Personally I dont rate action against me and mine the same as the other side of the horshoe. Also Im not actually nazbol lmao

[@trevor_pruett]

Underrated comment.

[@RiseAndFall_]

Reddit is unironically a Marxist medium.

[@flopinvictus5646]

@@RiseAndFall_ I dont think they would like marx's social opinions very much

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

@Olli Koskiniemi Ironically as Zizek says 'this is serious' the audience not accepting his directing the audience to do something and clapping anyway is exactly the kind of thing Zisek would himself do.

[@wolfiefink]

The Communist Manifesto was intended as a short read meant directly for industrial workers so the fact that Peterson chooses to focus most of his argument about Marx on this while claiming things about Marx’s work(such as certain classes are good and bad or ignoring that the prologue to Marx’s thoughts on labor IS that of human existence and thought beyond economics) is either disingenuous or he simply just never read Marx at all.

[@sym9266]

Even if he didn’t-It would’ve been superfluous in this day and age. At the end of the day, you know a tree by it’s fruit. And Quite frankly, there *is* no decoupling Marxism from it’s continual horrible failure as an ethical philosophy. Honestly it should humble the Marxists if they’d only take the hint instead of projecting ignorance- *it’s them that don’t understand.* we know what you believe, it’s despicable and absurd. The end

[@ysfknn]

Gulag? Cultural Revolution un Red China? North Korea, China, Soviet famines? Death Farms in Cambodia? Do you have any empathy to the ones who lost in communist countries for nothing?

[@andyzhang7890]

I love how the two differ so greatly yet have they take the time to actually think and ponder and assess what they've been confronted with rather than desperately trying to rebuttal and roast. Debated should be like this, working to figure out a higher truth rather than simply tearing the other down for the audience like some show. The audience on the other hand... not only is the constant applause a sign of the toxic tribalism at work here, it basically shows that none of them are really thinking, or even listening for that matter. Shame.

[@detailed8962]

*Zizek to crowd* : please don't clap *Crowd* : proceeds to clap

[@thegreataugust327]

@Comrade ChernobylKathy Newman : so.....um...... .....are you saying you want women to be silent?!

[@DVHeld]

Makes sense cause you should generally do the opposite that a communist says you should.

[@thegreataugust327]

@@DVHeld wisdom for the ages

[@YanPagh]

@@thegreataugust327 its Zizek so she would probably be on her knees saying yes daddy.

[@lulutwins5657]

@Comrade Chernobyl LOL

[@erdfgdvrefdvewdghebs7520]

"so on" vs "that's that"

[@roye6961]

that can be translated into "im too dumb to understand anything so i waste my time picking these catch phrases and comment about it here so everybody else knows im dumb"

[@user-vx1up7ty7z]

@@roye6961 rude

[@Yourebeautyfull]

No not rude, not politically correct either, but the truth.

[@bystreetsky]

Such a pleasure to listen to both charismatic thinkers. Thank you for your dialogue! It's a treasure ❤️

[@primate90]

What an amazing debate. Absolutely loved it!

[@primate90]

@Kamil S hahahahaha totally agree

[@shishka67]

The audience wanted a fight that was never going to take place. Instead what ensued was a polite and well thought-out discussion.

[@jaredmello]

Jack Klachian yes, they wanted blood in the same way the Roman’s wanted to see blood in The Coliseum.

[@kylealita9905]

Audience can't reach the level

[@guiseppeperceval4930]

So great with these two, who, you can imagine, could well have spent the next four hours continuing this discussion over a few cognacs.

[@josiahward4236]

Everyone in the audience: “dude, I swear the tickets said ‘Dave Chappelle and Joe Rogan’!”

[@OttoKuus]

@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong Are you racist or are you funny?

[@metaldude55ify]

@@OttoKuus he thought he was being funny by being racist.

[@OttoKuus]

@@metaldude55ify Well i thought that was pretty funny.

[@OttoKuus]

@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong It wasn't, but it kinda tilts in that direction.

[@lustyghost6397]

@Bryce ‘Sen. Ted Cruz Ate My Son’ Furlong by touching their fragile and sensitive nerve XD

[@MrAlexoe2000]

how great is to cheer for doctorates , a great time to be alive and learn , thanks

[@menyjackets593]

Never fall in love with your suffering ... one of the best quotes i've ever heard

[@iampiyushsingh7544]

Life is suffering

[@menyjackets593]

@@iampiyushsingh7544 you missed the point

[@Blufall]

7:50 For the beginning of the event. You're welcome.

[@waynet2165]

I don't know either one but before they even spoke I could tell which one was the the socialist and which was the capitalist just by their hair cut and attire.

[@GeoffreyHellington]

@@waynet2165 why is this not a main comment but a reply?

[@waynet2165]

@@GeoffreyHellington Not sure - I hope this is not a problem

[@GeoffreyHellington]

@@waynet2165 I'm sorry, but it is simply inexcusable

[@feralmode]

Why on earth did they leave 7 minutes of nothing.

[@ChristianPretorius]

It's weird how this felt too short. I hope they do something like this again!

[@Mahaveez]

I react-reviewed this debate with pauses, in two sections, and it took five hours as a result. And yet I too feel shorted--like we've only just begun this exploration.

[@tonyasylum32182]

Agreed, I could have watched another 3 hours or even more of this but with more questions from the audience or online questions and also to see where the divide between their thinking and so on really lies

[@AtticusStount]

I wish others had such great attention spans.

[@tonyasylum32182]

I normally don't and I'll admit I was doing other things while watching this but it was still holding my attention the entire time. I was rather captivated by the entire discussion especially because it never devolved into a mud slinging childish argument like Peterson's discussion with Michael eric Dyson's did, that guy is just an asshole trying desperately to be an intellectual

[@nemnoton]

Far too short - it started with 30 minute speeches, nice, but after that they only had 1 hour and 20 minutes left to discuss those three subjects - happiness, marxism, communism, without any underlying question, the "vs" word implied something polemic but I think they sacrificed some potential by choosing an ambiguous title that would create interest among people, but as a discussion, where do they start, how are they expected to combine happiness with marxism or capitalism?

[@crystalkeara8868]

Can I invite these men to a dinner party? Great conversations are definitely something people take for granted!

[@luck3yp0rk93]

Just started studying psychology this year after watching my this when it came out, apparently there is a fair amount of evidence that happiness will rarely come if you actively pursue it, meaning Zizek was probably correct in his second remarks.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

Look up some of his interviews. He often says, that happiness is something to be afraid of.

[@luck3yp0rk93]

@@wirdjadochnichts what why?

[@wirdjadochnichts]

@@luck3yp0rk93 "Happiness was never important. The problem is that we don't know what we really want. What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Happiness is for opportunists. So I think that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves.” Zizek

[@TheCuratorIsHere]

I don’t think you’re familiar with Peterson who state to pursue responsibility and happiness comes as a byproduct. Same. Exact same.

[@daviddawson1718]

@@TheCuratorIsHere so true, happiness should be pursued indirectly. I get immeasurable happiness/joy/pleasure in making my wife, nieces, and dogs happy.

[@aisforairborne]

8:35 starts introductions 14:25 debate rules 15:10 JBP opening remarks 46:14 Zizek opening remarks 1:19:50 end of Zizek. Begin JBP reply 1:27:30 The Simon-Ehrlich wager 1:33:00 Zizek returns! 1:46:20 Speakers ask each other questions 2:04:45 Moderator asks question about happiness (both speakers say happiness is a byproduct of action, not a state of being) 2:10:20 Zizek says love is the same as happiness, a byproduct of action, not a state of being 2:41:00 Speakers state what they hope the audience got from the conversation

[@fsuCS]

People like you are the real mvps💪🏾

[@Cybernaut551]

Thank you! Useful info.

[@caraj5054]

thank you!

[@percsaturn6963]

Best comment here

[@subejus]

Real MVP.

[@hillelpash2121]

I was waiting for the part the moderate will say :"but first,a word from our sponsor, Raid Shadow Legend"

[@Bufekana]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@saumius460]

I laughed so hard I woke up my roomate at 3 A"M good job

[@GardenGuy1943]

He says it towards end of video

[@allanox]

killed it!

[@danielluna9141]

XD

[@greendog105]

3 years later and this debate still means to me more than a thousand FIFA world cups. And I'm a Brazilian, take that into consideration.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

I did and im sad to hear that u havent done proper research on Peterson after 3 Years. He is a fraud and Zizek is not taking him seriously. Hes just there because people want him to be.

[@bboyswitch22]

The fact that you used that example was a dead giveaway 😉

[@jjrc7424]

u'd trade your world cups for this debate? highly doubt that

[@abdulrahmansultan-mt6bb]

@@jjrc7424 football is meaningless

[@bozdogan_]

I was like yeah that is normal, but then I read Brazilian part than I was like, anime level shocked.

[@rexvs_]

This is like Aristotle vs Diogenes debate and I'm so grateful it happened during my lifetime.

[@gamer-lysolman]

Everytime the crowd cheers Zizek dies a little on the inside

[@kaboomcanuck2]

... The crowd also cheered for Zizek point of view for at least 50% of the time. It was a very good debate and discussion.

[@b0dab9]

@@kaboomcanuck2 yes but he didn't like how their disscution was transformed into a show

[@vmidge9807]

@@b0dab9 yet he willingly particicpated. Feigned

[@b0dab9]

@@vmidge9807 so?

[@deanlejeune5005]

@@vmidge9807 he wanted to have a debate without audience participation 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@sethfisher6469]

The bravest moment was when Peterson shook Zizek's hand after watching him wipe his nose with it for two and half hours. But I guess that was pre-covid.

[@sethfisher6469]

@@Gizmo1869 lol

[@emergencyexit1120]

@@Gizmo1869 why is the idea that it's a global conspiracy more believable than the idea that china's shit treatment of animals lead to a virus?

[@Gizmo1869]

Emergency Exit because it’s about more than just the virus, it’s about crashing the economy, it’s about social conditioning, mandated shutdown of many businesses deemed “unessential” but Walmart stays open, mandated masks, and probably mandated vaccines eventually with mandated immunity identification, it’s all part of a new world order power move, many people see it

[@emergencyexit1120]

@@Gizmo1869 the reason walmart is open is because they're a huge multinat that doesn't give a fuck, and how the hell would any of that be useful to this new world order

[@sethfisher6469]

@@Gizmo1869 Sorry I thought you were joking. Didn't mean to make fun of you. I think it's a laughable idea, but I don't want to demean anyone personally for sharing their ideas, no matter how silly they may seem.

[@7th-Son-Of-A-7th-Son]

How refreshing it is to see 2 adults with different views on a topic be polite to one another and be willing to hear the other out and have an intelligent discussion without the incessant bombardments of ad-hominems, and other such childish bullshit that we see all too much nowadays when 2 opposing views clash with one another. If all conversations we had were devoid of this narcissistic, self-righteous one-sidedness, we could perhaps start taking steps forward and mature as a society, but alas, we are humans and thus imperfect; to expect this wishful-thinking to come to fruition any time soon is futile at best.

[@MrMajsterixx]

There is nothing more beautiful then two intelectuals from the opposite sides of the political spectrum finding moments of agreement

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital, Marx opus Magnum. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@85MasterV]

I was waiting for Zizek to do my favorite move, the double handed sniff followed by facepalm combo

[@stefan8795]

wow

[@mindfulselfindulgence]

*IL VENTO D ORO PLAYS FURIOUSLY*

[@Yetipfote]

That comment is so much under the belt line yet so comical.... I cried laughing!

[@usmanparker9183]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@georgebotelho288]

@@Yetipfote does anyone else notice that it is indicative of opiate abuse?

[@darcybhaiwala7057]

Peterson and Zizek should have a buddy cop show

[@ToastytheG]

Oh my god this would be INCREDIBLE. Like Miami Vice mashed up with the Wire. Peterson can be a character mashup of Face from the A-team with the more self destructive stylings of Riggs from Lethal Weapon. He carries a Browning High Power produced by Inglis. Zizek is always going undercover for drug busts and the bad guys always fall for his disguise. He carries the standard issue .38 snub but has never used it. Oh and he's always 2 weeks away from retirement.

[@aguspuig6615]

@@ToastytheG the idea alone was already nice but this comment made it borderline real inside my head

[@waylanddavick9459]

I'd love to see a more private conversation between these two. Truly.

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@alisonthomson439]

Thank you , Dr Jordan Peterson , for posting this video. I do not have the means to attend your lectures or debates in person … yet. 🙏🏽👋🏽

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@RomanovYunging]

@@sandrocosta479 Sandro mírate el debate, anda, que han puesto a China por los suelos

[@jooplin]

I love that the moderator doesn't interrupt the awesome flow of this discussion and doesn't care about audience questions, because the audience sucks anyway

[@christopherweaver9934]

I agree, I was annoyed that he seemed to play up the audience at the beginning, but after that he did a good job.

[@halea41]

Lawfy D. Ace that’s the beauty of formal debates as opposed to the conversations peterson usually has with Harris.

[@LS-rc4py]

I'm a Canadian/Toronto resident. Thank you for this thoughtful debate and for a well spent 3 hours. I applaud you. Silently. In my head.

[@samschweblin1992]

Very underrated comment

[@floatingsara]

WHAT A TREAT ! Both of them have seriously challenged my point of view in some of my key beliefs/convinctions. I've bookmarked some points: 1. Zizek: religion/philosophy can be used to make good people do horrible things (ex. Himmel used to read Zen books) 2. Zizek: Jesus suffered so much he reached atheism 3. Peterson: trying to change the world before changing yourself/your situation can be a form of escaping your personal responsibilty and delegating your problems to other people 4. Peterson: Post-modernist philosophers of the 1960s like M. Foucault and J. Derrida replaced the bourgeois class with a more vague identity group, but the narrative that there are bad oppressors and good oppressed has never changed. (My comment to n. 4: in the Ancien Régime the hierarchical relationship was not denied at all, anyone who reads medieval texts understands very well that hierarchy is told in many different ways, the difference is that it is justified with different motivations, especially religious ones. The break is the French Revolution, which started from the idea that the aristocrats had lost all credibility as leaders and had become parasitic oppressors).

[@bzznz]

This was a good start, Now all watchers need to keep it growing.

[@chyngyzkudaiarov4423]

changed my political views ten times during the debate

[@Canadian_Eh_I]

Oh man, I laughed at your comment because I know exactly what you mean despite it being a joke. I think its part of being intellectually honest and being willing to follow an argument that doesnt agree with an existing belief to its logical conclusion. Along the way, it can seem that a convincing argument is correct. But its this leaving room for allowing the possibleity you might be wrong that lets in the light of truth.

[@chyngyzkudaiarov4423]

@@Canadian_Eh_I Yeah, I agree:) Also, it's quite easy to be open-minded with them because you naturally assume that they both have fine things to say

[@Mitch-Cumstein]

@@Canadian_Eh_I no it just means you have no truly thought out opinion of your own so you can pursuaded by any argument for any side as long as it sounds right.

[@JuiceBarMEIGHT]

@@Mitch-Cumstein hella cringe comment bro, you'll rejoice when you finally understand that you don't just have to stick to one black and white viewpoint your whole life. Acknowledging and understand and even agreeing with someone when they explain their reasoning for a certain issue or topic is the beauty of politics and social discussion

[@Mitch-Cumstein]

@@JuiceBarMEIGHT ok bro

[@michaelruiz9499]

Moderator: It's pretty clear I think to all of us that you both have quite a bit to say to each other. Zizek: And to ourselves.

[@brajat5538]

egoless pessimism is cool

[@shadows-xn3ed]

Speaking I’d thinking out loud, some times you will say things and completely change how you think about that topic after.

[@ojshah1228]

I've seen many of professor peterson's debates but I've never seen him so much enjoying the opponent.

[@sandrocosta479]

He was getting schooled 🙃 Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@MrMusicLuvinMan]

An incredible intellectual discussion conducted in the presence of a crowd of unthinking sheep

[@Heizzer47]

Very true. Shame how mass psychology works. If the audience was smaller then perhaps it would be a ‘cleaner’ debate

[@Gulagify]

JP vs. Zizek vs. the audience

[@stevern94]

More like JP and Zizek vs the audience

[@Zabiru-]

I guess donkey-braying bursts of laughter doesn't qualify as heckling, eh? It honestly made me a bit mad a few times.

[@hugostiglitz1673]

@@stevern94 Peterson fanboys trying to make out like Zizek agrees with Peterson on capitalism & Marxism is funny. Nice damage control.

[@SomeSurvive]

The video just needs a good editor

[@Menaceblue3]

@@SomeSurvive Go home VOX, you're drunk

[@MoJohnnys]

The real star is whoever edited the sound of the video; the original "live" version had an echo.

[@LeviNormandeau]

MoJohnnys the echo comes from the hall, they likely took the audio straight from the soundboard (from their mics)

[@DeadBeatDanny]

As a JBP fan and not knowing what to expect from this debate, this was such an engaging and thought provoking listen. I thoroughly enjoyed this and will have to explore more of Zizek’s thoughts and works.

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@joelrios3704]

Peterson choose to adress a manifesto intended to explain basic concepts to the uneducated sweatshop workers or the 19th century, thats how poor is Petersons understanding of communism.

[@sharkaspree8148]

​@@joelrios3704 I thought you might have known that Communist manifesto was directed at outlining the FUNDAMENTAL tenets of communism. You're so stupid that you didnt even realise that "the uneducated sweatshop workers [of] the 19th century"​ were exactly the people stupid enough to think communism would work lol, guess we know where youd be in the 1800's mate...

[@joelrios3704]

@@sharkaspree8148 nice adhominems buddy, let me know when you have an actual valid point, you might want to educate yourself while you are at it.

[@basvwbehej]

@@joelrios3704 Bro...... Please read the first books on capital by Karl Marx, they can take you 14 hours to finish, but if you do it, you will be mor opened minded

[@davidloera2069]

This needed to be a 1 on 1 podcast \debate . No audience and time limits

[@goncalodias6402]

dude, zizek is 70 here... I never thought he was so much older than Jordan. I wish to have such energy and wit at his age.

[@mutd789hgmlkrt7]

wow i wouldve never guessed he would be that old

[@goncalodias6402]

@@mutd789hgmlkrt7 yup, he is now 72

[@LTEJ]

Crazy! He appears much younger to me.

[@goncalodias6402]

@@Inbraneinthememsane he's not fit, he just doesnt look his age.

[@jamesbaker3153]

Well yeah, the guy dedicated his life to thinking his way out of doing any work. If your only stressor was selling revarnished ideals to college kids you'd be looking younger too.

[@prithvidhyani52]

Watching this after the presidential debate makes me feel like I regained some brain cells

[@tzimiable]

I honestly cant tell how people manage to watch that garbage. I've tried watching a debate between Hilary and Trump, and again with Biden and Trump. It toook a bare 5 minutes to make me switch of in a rage. How the hell people can listen to such idiocy without raging or just plain laughing in contempt is beyond me.

[@youngwolverine4455]

A debate so good you need them to have a conversation in either one's podcast or show. Forget debating, we need the continuation in a more sophisticated space.

[@wirdjadochnichts]

No we dont. Dont waste Zizeks time and dont give Peterson more attention than needed

[@sandrocosta479]

Peterson is a fraud dude Peterson chose to adress the communist Manifesto ( a panflet intended for mostly illiterate workers of the 19th century) instead of das Kapital. That says a lot. His first argument is literally based on idealism, the idea that an idea comes from nothing. (Simplified) Had he studied Marx and dialectical materialism that wouldn't happen 🤡 His second argument is literally a fallacy, he is literally appealing to nature wtf? The class struggle is not a thing exclusive to capitalism "hierto so far the history of mankind is the history of class struggle" Then he appeals to the fact that we are born defenseless and lonely in a harsh environment. Marx literally explained how our environments and our physiological necessities are the force behind our mode of production. Then he says it's hard to divide who's the opressor and who's the oppressed. Its not, if you own the means of production and you employ someone , you're the opressor. Even if small. Then he goes on about historical revisionism about the October revolution . Has nobody sheds tears for the dead confederates nobody should for white army and foreigner invasors . Then he mentions good and evil but had he read Marx would know that he makes no moral judgement at all. Then he distorts what the proletariat dictatorship really is. It means only those who work hold political power. Then he distorts what profit is. Profit is not needed AT ALL. That's capitalist thinking . Profit is theft because the owner takes advantage of the workers fragile position in order to buy their work force for the minimum they can. Marx also shows how the production forces and relationships lead to a lose lose situation for the workers (read lonharbeit und kapital) Then he mentions utopia failing to understand that what Marx proposed is called scientific socialism instead of utopian socialism that preceded Marx Then he mentions Dostoievski as if it was relevant. In socialism nobody will have nothing handed to them. He mentions the violent revolution, Marx also explained why it would be violent. The bourgeoisie class won't give up on their privileges without a fight. That happened in Chile with Allende for example. Then he literally invented facts. Socialist China has lifted 800M people from poverty. Actually if you take China out of the equation, poverty has gotten worse He recurrently uses multiple fallacies. He is an imposter Marx is considered the father of modern philosophy. Let that sink if you think Jordan bs peterson could ever criticize his work. Specially without reading it AT ALL

[@andreaseleftheriades636]

one of the best conversations i would say

[@josephg12345]

You're not supposed to applaud at these kind of debates

[@koppanine3001]

true, unfortunately we are in 2019 the society of the show where most of the people here are for the show like it's a boxing match, after here they will go back to their phones and tweet and put useless information on social media till they are old and die! most of the people here are dead already, they are clapping cause without reacting they don't pay attention to anything even to themselves.

[@shitlordflytrap1078]

@@koppanine3001 interesting how America elected a president that reflects exactly what you've described. I guess that Trump was a good choice after all.

[@shitlordflytrap1078]

@Estwing Bear another day, another conservatard owned epic style.

[@MDSMAZa]

The applauding made me cringe a little

[@AnonURnot]

Estwing Bear I guess you don’t understand context, it’s coo

[@refsland78]

Both of these men are amazing but I laughed out loud when I wondered: What would it sound if a Slavic Daffy Duck and Canadian Kermit had a debate?

[@properplank6729]

that's well funny bro

[@paulwary]

You're dethpicable!

[@MIKE_THE_BRUMMIE]

Reported hate crime

[@justinpaulson411]

That made me laugh out loud as well

[@Bmorgan1220]

Zizek sounds like he has shit in his mouth the entire time. Very hard to understand.

[@arimurakasumi4059]

I don't understand what they both are talking about or how they are trying to explain about the occurance of human behaviour,but i do understand that the way they think is extraordinary thinking, where it's hard for me to grasp what they are or how they are actually trying to implement into our heads . I am just amazed how they both have their own reasoning thinking in such a way that ,they both are so careful about each words they speak.

[@intirp]

'The truth lies outside in what we do'