• Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        18
        edit-2
        11 months ago

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

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

        • @Cruxifux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1111 months ago

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

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

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

        • @apollo440@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          811 months ago

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

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

      • @Impassionata@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        11 months ago

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

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

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