He's officially lost the plot

youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c

youtube.com/watch?v=x1Xj2YtQzqg

youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA&t=1564s

youtube.com/watch?v=35rBW0ojg40

youtube.com/watch?v=zANk3UbrmRg

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc
youtube.com/watch?v=8-ZjtXXZ2co
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

haha, i won't be tricked into watching moly for nothin'

Watching Stefan with Whittle, for the first time, he really speaks to me. He makes sense, he's angry people like me have missed out on the high point of capitalism, and he wants people to have decent lives again. People say he just nods along to his guests (like with Chomsky), but I feel he's genuinely respectable of people with opposing views and hates people stamping down on freedom of speech in any form. Off this one video of him (beside the Noam clip floating around here) I feel he genuinely has the best interests of people at heart.

Could we get him to talk to Slavoj any way? I feel they are both calm and pragmatic enough for it to be a multitude of times more informative than Mehdi's more recent interview with the Z.

Stefan and Zizek debate when?

Lol nah. He's closet fashy and will hang one day as his daughter is pressed into service for the State.

Not an argument though, is it? Why shouldn't they debate rather than have this ideological cold war? Because he did some stupid shit you dislike?

Stefan is respectable to other speakers and wants to hear what they have to say, as does Slavoj. They're also both ideologically opposed, well read and have a decent following. Give me one good reason why they shouldn't debate? There is none. Boohoo, Stefan did this, did that. But what about Slavoj the Zizek, notorious member of the YPA, who went on to kill 100 billion people?

Holla Forums thinks Molyneux knows his shit, as do we Zizek. We should see what comes out of it.

Slavoj is a decorated philosopher, Molyneux is an opinionstube autist. It's beneath Zizek to debate him, a debate with a respected lolbert economist or philosopher makes much more sense.

TL;DW?

This. SisyphusRedeemed already gave Molly all the attention that any philosopher of any merit ought to give him. Holla Forums would just go "huehuehue muh cocaine" no matter what the outcome is; they'll never get past Zizek's tics and on the the substance of his works.

In one of them he says that the reason Japan rebuilt after the war is because they had a high Autism Level. And then he said the reason afghanistan and iran havent rebuilt is because they have low Autism Levels. He then says that libertarianism requires populations with high Autism Levels.

He sat around getting browbeated by Mehdi Hasan the other day without a single point made. He obviously wants to make reach and we aren't helping him by allowing him to struggle in a field he doesn't know.

...

Reminder

...

uuuuuhm
ok?

...

whoopsie the word filter replaced I Q with autism level

Not an argument.

god bless BO

IQ

I'm watching the interview now and Zizek isn't doing bad. He's making his normal Zizek points.

youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc

STOP POINTING OUT WORDFILTERS I SWEAR TO GHGOUFFD

I guess it was only for my post or something

IQ
IQ score
IQ Score

The issue is Mehdi not shutting the fuck up tbh

...

Thanks, autist who felt the world would be a better place if we knew what filter you tripped rather than continued pushing for debate between two board symbols.

Afterall it's very important, and we're all so much newer than you and completely lacking in originality or humor to guess what it was.

Zizek is doing fine. I still think he's above Molyneux.

Mehdi would not stop interrupting during that interview, he asked a bunch of loaded questions as well. I can say for certain Zizek is a good debater considering he was even able to make his point at the end under that heat.

I'm sad because i think the autist broke the word filter, all i want is for BO to put it back…

IQ

Autism Level

It's an argument in that I wouldn't expect actual intellectuals to waste time debating televangelists or Jim Jones.

Raising Moly up to that level is completely unwarranted, and it debases philosophy. He's a two-bit failed actor televangelist without the whole God kick, he's hypnotized his followers to break from their families, and hopefully in 5 years they're all drinking Flavor Aid in some shithole.

Couldn't agree more. Zizek is a university professor, he has nothing to gain from talking to Moly, so why should he?

Well, one criticism of him is that he seems like a big self-promoter

I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but there ya go. I do think that demanding that Moly be taken seriously by legit thinky types is ridiculous

Molyneux had a theory called UPB, this was thoroughly debunked by a philosophy student on his forum. Molyneux, being a narcissist who actually believes that he is the greatest philosopher of all time, was enraged this and concluded that because the person who debunked him was "condescending" he didn't have to listen to any of his arguments.

It's impossible to debate with Molyneux because to him, everything is centered around his own ego, when you hurt it, you're a piece of scum who lacks virtue which renders all your arguments invalid.

I thought Holla Forums was better than being won over by the glib charm of a failed actor.

What was the UPB?

It's the kantian imperative rehashed in a very incoherent and fallacious matter to make it support UPB.

Stefan Molyneux believes it is the greatest philosophical theory of all time and that it provides objective prove for morality.

youtube.com/watch?v=8-ZjtXXZ2co

To make it support anarcho-capitalism*

Lurk moar friendo, he's our resident punching bag

...

Why do people take this guy seriously, even going so far to suggest Zizek should debate him? He's just a very very poor internet ideologue, like any other kid with a video camera. If you want to understand your enemy then read texts from Chicago boys, like Gary Becker who is known as the most radical of American neoliberals.