I thought a few of these comments concerning the recent Peterson-Zizek debate were informative:
Peterson got ass raped on every argument vector he tried to use. It’s like a 110 IQ was trying to take it against a 150 IQ.
I know nothing about Zizek, but you may recall that I eventually concluded Peterson tops out around 120. But you can probably imagine how well a debate with me would go.
How are debates won? Does the person that doesn’t have a comeback during it lose it even thought he was right? Is it all about talking to yourself in your room for week thinking “I should’ve said that when he said that!”
Can you spell Gamma?
Peterson failed at the very first step: literature research. I mean, why am I even surprised? I don’t know.
Of course he sabotaged himself. That’s what Gammas who fear defeat do in order to give themselves an excuse. They weren’t really trying, you see.
I’m watching it right now. 30 minutes in and it is as if Peterson is a freshman in Physics who tried to read Griffiths to then go on and debate a Professor on the subject. It’s ridiculous that he would think that even appropriate. But I guess that is what happens when you have so little respect for the subject. He should maybe question his own behavior. Why does he think he can take on an expert in a field where he is a layman? Instead he is trying and failing to lecture us on the behavior of people that he does not know about because he never bothered to acquiesce himself with them.
Hey, it worked for him in his Bible lectures. The difference is that he was addressing people who didn’t know anything about it either and they weren’t given the opportunity to talk back.
Also a very funny thing happened when Jordan Peterson said that Marx was not making a simple argument, but his manifesto was a call to a ‘bloody, violent, revolution’… hundreds of leftists in the audience started cheering and clapping. Peterson was shocked, not used to this kind of reaction, he went quiet for a few seconds then went like… uhhh? ok?…
If Peterson wasn’t a leftist himself, he would have understood this as a genuinely pathological example of group identity. How very strange that, for once, he did not call it out and criticize it.