Zizek: Why do people find Jordan Peterson so convincing?

Because the left doesn't have its own house in order.

Other urls found in this thread:


Peterson Defense Force is in.

fuckin lol
also love that they don't even know who Zizek is

A fucking goldmine, the comment section.

Several factors: very low reading comprehension skills ("did just Zizek call Peterson a nazi?!"), loyal fanboism ("Peterson has 10 PHDs, how many does this journalist have?"), and the failure to even google the writer produced a hilarious cocktail.

I'm dying.


Decent article apart from everything else, the classic sniffman take on how liberalism can't and won't counter fascism because it produces it.


Unable so so much as google the subject they're trying to talk about before pontificating about it, they're truly men after Peterson's own heart.


btw, Peterson & his fanbois really think that this is Zizek's personal twitter account:

Zizek doesn't have twitter does he?

He doesn't. There's a twitter bot grabbing short and random sentences from his books.

Thing coming across most from the comments on the article and twitter is:
But this article isn't even challenging. Peterson fanboys have definitely never read anything that required thinking/contemplation for even a second to understand.


The self-awareness of these people, holy fucking shit.



(can't read for shit)




I'm dying

Reading is for old people and communists.

Some serious BTFO

Will Peterson's habit of pontificating about subjects he hasn't so much as googled about to catch up with him? Has he flown too close to the sun?

I-is this the moment? Is this where everything turns around? Is this peak leftist entryism?

Was there any reaction to this article by him or his cronies? viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

It seems to thoroughly BTFO the notion that this man has read anything he's talking about.


I have to agree somewhat. Post-modernists like Derrida BTFO marxist paranoia (this does not mean that their work has not been absorded back into cultural marxism) while resentful cultural marxists like Adorno expand marxist paranoia (everything i don't like is akshually capitalist domination!). The problem with anchoring the works of said authors into said authors is that such a view renders a conception of the ideological realm in which they have formed a congruence impossible.

Marxists are linguistic ancaps of sorts, nothing upsets their symbolic order more than a stranger setting foot on their lawn. If only for this reason the term cultural marxism should be used, it reminds them that they aren't pure observers, that their sacred texts are not serene.


I'm talking about cultural marxism.


And you have no clue what you're talking about.

Leftypol is not the place for discussing conspiracy theories.

You have no clue what talking-about constitutes.

go back to Holla Forumsreddit you fucking amerimutt.

I too am sick of hearing about how the DNC conspired against bernie.

I just arrived and you're becoming racist already..

petershon is a scam artist and the final proof anglos can't into philosophy

alright, you amerimutt whatever you say
you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger you're a nigger

Since you are not going to fuck off we might as well laugh at you: care to define "cultural Marxism" for us? What is it? How, where is it done? By whom? To what end(s)? Can you name 10 living "Cultural Marxists?"

t. has never read Derrida or Adorno

why the fuck do you even come here? Seriously, why the fuck can't you just stay in your shitty circlejerk of a board you stormfaggot


It's the only way they can achieve orgasm.

reading/writing is for idiots see


cultural marxism is just a buzzword invented by CIA in their psyop to confuse the people's mind.
What you call "cultural marxism" is american globalism. The mcdonald's, the coca-colas, the hollywood garbage, the cancerous pop music, the "lgbt culture" all of itt comes from USA and promotes severe retardation.
Hence why former USSR countries are so much more "woke" according to Holla Forums, because their societies are only being exposed to american globalism since 1991.

Jesus christ. If these are representative of the average person, we're all absolutely fucked. Somebody just fucking end this.

It's only 6 letters long. Jesus.

These people aren't representative of the average person, they are above and beyond the average person because they have cleaned their room. When's the last time you cleaned your room?

Reminder that compared to comments sections on news articles (BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc.), Youtube comments appear an enlightened community.

Thankfully, only the most pathetic worms find the need to comment on news articles.

chill out man…the average people just likes to vent on comment sections, don't take them seriously. they are the product of people who got screwed up and fucked all through out their lifes.

Stop it, you're debasing yourself.

The cultural theories which descend from marxism and use marxist paradigms.

This however should not be taken as definitive, as words do not gain their meaning from other words, no definition can be.

Stop projecting. I know you didn't, if you did you wouldn't have let go of the opportunity to prove me wrong with a textual reference so that you could earn your internet points.

Why would those things be mutually exclusionary? Don't you know things contract into each other? Haven't you even read Deleuze?

Marxism comes to America, marxism leaves its traces on America, America leaves its traces on marxism, the contraction spreads over America's borders… and so on, and so on..

If you have any serious argument for your epistemological idealism, I'd be happy to take knowledge of it. Please leave the gay people out of it though, they've suffered under marxist xenophobia for too long already.

Allow me to highlight the question you conveniently forgot to answer.
After answering these you must answer these questions as well: What are these "marxist paradigms?" What are these cultural theories about?

That's 6 questions in total. Can you manage that, sweetheart?

To be fair, do you google every random journalist you read an article from?

When it comes to public criticism of intellectuals I always google the writer of the article, yes. Usually even before reading past the first two paragraphs. I'd go as far to say this should go without saying. I'm interested in the qualifications, perspectives, some published work titles before I continue to read just to get a context of the debate.

It's the same reason why intellectuals before their lectures or debates have introductions as well. It just makes sense.

communism is when you wag your finger at kids saying swear words online
cause uhhhhhhhhh yeah the iww
and stuff

This is the central question, the one that cuts to the epistemological heart of the matter. The paradigm in question is that of the master-slave relationship as being constitutive to social life, to which all else is rendered an instrumentality. Religion? Merely the opium of the people. Stirner? Just a petty-bourg rationalizing his class interest. Marriage? Little more than a bourgeois property-relationship. To be, is to be dominated; marxism is sado-masochistic to the core. As this paradigm found itself in conditions other than the rigid and nearly ethnically homogeneous class society of 19th century Germany, subjects other than bourgeois and worker began to fill the roles of the paradigm. This contraction is what is commonly understood as cultural marxism.

The rest of your questions are besides the point.

That pre-dates Marxism, you fucking dolt

"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
t. Marx
PS - Read a book.

No paradigm is without its predecessor, if this would render said paradigm non-marxist, all of marxism would be rendered non-marxist.

Marx didn't even read the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, book of the dead, book of the mormom and so on and so on.. the guy had no idea what he was talking about. Truly the Jordan Peterson of his time.

That's irrelevant. You said that's what specifically distinguishes Marxist paradigms.

Also this

Is pure gibberish.

It is relevant since you seem to believe that a paradigm having a predecessor means that it can not be named as epistemological tenet of marxism (and to logically conclude from this, anything else for that matter). Whatever you might be referring to, it doesn't change a thing about said paradigms role in marxism.

No. Stop moving the goalposts. You specifically stated that the belief in a master/slave hierarchy being central to social life was what specifically distinguished Marxism from other worldviews. That is demonstrably false. It is a central tenet, but it is not what specifically makes it a distinct school of thought.

Wouldn’t even say this. The master-slave thing is more neitzche than Marx.

You know, I was gonna bring that up. By the logic of this guy's claim, fucking Nietzsche would be "Marxist", which is one of the dumbest possible things you could say about Nietzsche.

No, it's just that you don't know shit about epistemology and semiotics and are therefor unaware of the consequences of your "gotcha!".

Knowing big words doesn't make your claims more valid.

Also, point to me where your claim even invoked semiotics.

You'd imagine that the USSR would be far more degenerate than the US if that was the case. You really have no idea what the fuck you're on about. Pic related.

Marx’s main criticism of Stirner was that he was an idealist, not that he was a petty borg. I don’t even completely agree with all of his criticisms of Stirner, but you still got it wrong.


LMAO despite how much Zizek professed a hatred for being referred to as Elvis Presley, he's clearly jealous of Peterson's meteoric rise. I've never seen him write so lucidly before- he really wants people to know where he stands here.

Stop acting like a cornered Stefan Molyneux. By all means, share me your beliefs, as if you have nothing to prove.


when did the righties become such whiny soyboys?
also i thought that all universities were marxism communism jewish indoctrination facilities? now suddenly a hack fraud guy has a PHD and they adore him? being anti-intellectual is their whole thing, why do they respect a so-called intellectual?

I think this is the first time I've agreed with Zizek in these articles.

You could have just told me you hadn't read the quote, my man.

Marx’s entire argument against capitalism is as a system, from the perspective of dialectical materialism. He even points out that it affects not just the proles, but the borgouis as well. They are both beholden to certain laws of motion of the economy whether they want to be or not. The master slave dialectic is one that’s narrow in scope compared to Marx. You could just as easily say the bourgeoisie are as beholden to capitalism as any slave.

Marx's main criticism of stirner was that stirner refused the role of the philosopher as servant of history, marx judged that stirner acted in such an idealist manner because he was a petty-bourg rationalizing his class interest. Like anyone who disagreed with marx really, the man was a neurotic mess.

The article is lazily written on order, consisting of recycled cliché's. If Peterson really got to him, Zizek would have gone into Lacanian minutae, like when Sam Kriss decloaked him.

Well first of all agreed.

But as for the way the article is written - that is, unfortunately, Zizek's style. My guess is that he doesn't actually put that much effort into these articles.

Stop ban evading

not an argument

Stop ban evading


If you're going to evade your ban, you ought to at least honestly respond to the quote from Marx rather than reading the first line and shitposting.


He relates Stirner's "lamentations" to the bourgeois , but it still wasn't his main point. It was rather to illustrate that his egoism could be used to serve borg interest. This was more of an aside. He also doesn't bring his class interest into it, as whether he was or not a petty borg was beside the point. He viewed the idealism itself as flawed. There were things wrong with Marx's critique, but you're doing a poor job representing them.

>"White" "debil"
That first image frankly managed to crack my smug sense of superiority for a passing moment. I did not believe such a concentration of spooks could be found in a single image.
Hell, does that man even have any free will or individuality, or is he just cruising along on auto-pilot as an automaton programmed by expectations, beliefs, and assumptions?
To restore a fragment of faith in man within me, I choose to see that as parody – against my better knowing.

Capitalists are just too bitter to admit that Capitalism is the cause of the current soulless consumer culture. They have to constantly blame others or outside factors because god forbid they actually look at the current system that is currently responsible for the current changes in the world.

Holla Forums facebook is its own mess




Which leads to the conclusion that all will always be beholden, that there is no point where history will negate itself from iron law into an everlasting global harmony where it has ceased to command. The fantasy of communism will always be -1, there can be no authentic being for a being that in his heart of hearts only knows a material interest as species essence, as the cleverest of ants.

Marxism is a brutally pessimistic ideology.

For ages now he has been complaining about his editor wanting him to do this or that, about his fans, about his students, about anyone that enters his presence really .. as the years go by he has become more and more idiot and less and less savant, dreaded by a lack of agency.

I'm fairly certain that he did call stirner a petty-bourg merely acting in his petty-bourg class interest, perhaps in the style of a jibe, but still, marx simply not leaving it at that (how could he, all who dare challenge marx must be ideologically crushed) doesn't mean that he did not truly conceive of people in such a manner; disagreeing with marx rendered one void of subjectivity.

Stop ban evading you autist.

Now that's some deluxe boot-licking. Reminder, these people are convinced they are "anti-establishment".

Stop ban evading to say nothing

Check the ban list, redditors.(...)

Yeah, its you. Ban evading as usual.

You got banned in this very fucking thread

he's here.

Shit they found out we want to force Marxism on everyone.

I see, didn't even notice the ban. Guess I'll be off then so that you people can enjoy yourself with cringy pics and memes without being violated by my voyeurism. I wouldn't want to hinder such revolutionary momentum with my presence, now would I?

They have a shitty wordfilter.

What an embarassing board.

This is less active than fucking leftpol


tbh i find that particular thread embarrassing since everyone in it looks like they're personally invested in the politics of it (while trying poorly to hide it and stay on what they think is common ground) rather than actually holding any interesting content. there's an assumption that (a) leftypol is outside and alien to imageboard culture in general, and (b) that leftism to leftypol is leftism as they already understand it (i.e. pro-Democrat liberals.)
In consequence anything that would obviously be a joke, or at least self-aware on any other board ("please let that be a penis") is somehow read as being worth posting in a lolcow thread.

I honestly expected better from /cow/. Users being Holla Forums and Holla Forums-lite I took as a given, but I expected they'd find something worth posting rather than circlejerking in a fashion little better than /r/T_D

Depressing tbqh.

Marx was much more nuanced than that and even argued beyond the master-slave dichotomy. Capitalism as a mode of production exploits of everyone.
Be it the executive that neglects their family, the manager working overtime until they literally drop dead (see Karoshi), the wall street trader wasting the best years of their life, etc. It exploits even those that reap the rewards of that exploitation.


On the contrary, Marxism is optimistic, seeing humanity's triumph over the law of value as inevitability. It asserts that no matter what, eventually the conditions created by capitalism will lead to it's overthrow. I've never read Marx argue that capitalism can go on into perpetuity, or even entertain a scenario where capitalism isn't overcome and humanity perishes as a result.

How does any of this follow follow? Where does Marx argue this? How did you reach this conclusion?

Before unification in 1871 "Germans" were warring with each other on a regular basis. Bavarian Catholics and Prussian Protestants hated each other.

I particularly find their thought that Alunya getting fucked by Porky is playing on some sort of subconscious leftist desire to be cucked to be hilarious. It's clearly meant to rile up and "upset" people as a joke.

But no, apparently that's just not the same as the endless BLACKED threads you see on Holla Forums, featuring REAL people and up-close photographs of BBCs buried in pure Aryan girls.

>Hoochie tried to make a point dumping his Holla Forumsbook folder
JFC hoochie is so disgusting

B-but I thought Zizek was in league with the JP, Sargon, and the rest of the skeptics / aut right? Have the resident intersectionalist marxists been feeding me lies?

Not an argument. You have to face the world as it is, not invent dragons to sustain your fragile psyche. Grow the fuck up, of kill yourself.

I'm not Hoochie

What's up with these Neonazis stealing the look of Chicanos.

Rightists will steal a lot of things they claim to hate. Looks, music, all kinds of crap.

Jordan Peterson is The Secret for people who feel they should have accomplished a lot, did not, and are mad that their identity group was criticized

What are you talking about? Marx only regarded only regarded the immediate self-interest of the proletariat important because he viewed that it would drive them towards abolishing capitalism.
Ok so you admit that Marx did not criticize Stirner for being a petty-bourg (which in itself would be a pretty hypocritical argument since Marx was funded by a capitalist)
Yeah I mean how can Marx have the audacity to argue against people he disagrees with?
Where are the proofs? I remind (You) that you haven't provided an actual counterargument to posts like
Holy shit you admitted in the previous sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism. How can you still reassert your shitty narrative?

I mean even in an article criticizing Jordan Peterson and his aut-right audience, he still couldn't resist bringing in PC leftists either. Maybe save that for another time.

Holy shit you admitted in this sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism*

Well he certainly tried to. He also tried to criticize Proudhon for supporting things Proudhon never supported. Marx attempted to criticize a lot of people for a lot of things, and most of them don't work.

He preaches responsibility for those that can never take it

more evidence for the 'the right is a political projection machine' pile

I would agree that Marx is optimistic, as he sees capitalism creating the possibility of communism, but I believe Marx is explicitly non-deterministic as to the realization of the communist mode of production. There might be some discrepancy between communism (movement), which will emerge alongside capitalism inevitably, and the communist mode of production, which must be consciously established by the proletariat as a unified whole. I'm not 100% completely sure about this interpretation, though.
I think this makes sense intuitively, even without reading Marx. Why would Marx be actively engaged in organizations and write letters (to Russian revolutionaries for example) how to possibly establish communism if he thought it was inevitable?
The thought of history being deterministic can be traced back to """Orthodox""" Marxists in the Second International.

peterson always says "feel free to debate or challenge me!", ignores all requests and then pretends the marxists are too scared
it happened to doug

Holy shit you admitted in the previous sentence that Marx criticized Stirner for his idealism.
Are you sure you meant to respond to me?

Why are Nazi s such slippery shits?

And to no one's surprise,these fucks are proven once again to have 0 intellectual integrity, just a couple of years ago they were acting like autistic STEMfags shitting all over social sciences, especially psychology, as they were not real sciences, findings were bullshit, muh Freud, the usual retarded tirade and academia was maxist indoctrination anyway so fuck everything that came out of it. Now they find this one hack psychologist (basically a glorified self-help author) who agrees with them, gives them some sort of justification for being failsons and is willing to reinforce their prejudice to give their horseshit a veneer of academic credibility and they ride his dick like he's their fucking messiah.
And they're fucking everywhere, too, can't say anything negative about this motherfucker online without being swarmed by his cultist. Seriously how do we even begin to purge the internet from this reactionary blight?


Because they're projecting, and not very dissimilar from the jewish stereotype they peddle everywhere.

Imagine being so fucking retarded to think Zizek has a twitter account.

This so fucking much. It's hilarious how they always leap to defend him.


I have since late January considered Jordan Peterson a lolcow. (Not that I ever liked the guy). This, however, confirms it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Swap "Jew" with "Peterson cultist" and it applies 100%.

>pix related is Peterson trying (and failing) at proof theory. Source: archive.fo/khKVm . If you ever encounter a Peterson fanboi, post pix related to trigger them hard. Also note that he called him Godel [sic] [recte Gödel] at least three (!) times.

Not to mention that he chickened out and fucking DELETED the tweet out of pure cowardice, so if you go to the original: twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554 you are met with

Sorry for not providing sauce for that:

(sage for self-reply)

The simple fact that Peterson is getting himself red, mad and nude online at a fucking bot just says everything that needs to be said about our cultural moment right now.

Peterson has the following he does because he provides basic bitch male advice to young men who have never had a father figure (quite a lot of those around these days) and also provides a normie-friendly gateway to the most mild flavors of political incorrectness, allowing frustrated young men without spines to engage in social rebellion without becoming pariahs. He's an absolute joke of an "intellectual" and his facebook-tier cult of personality is honestly just pathetic.

Good article by sniffles too.

Oh god Zizek PLEASE anahiliate this faggot

Jordan Peterson tries to pick a Twitter fight with a Žižek quotes account

whoops, already mentioned up thread. oh well enjoy the direct link

The man really needs to pull himself up by his lobster straps.


I really hope he has JUST started. Considering how sloppy Peterson can be, Žižek should have a field day, ripping him a new asshole, where none thought possible.

Thanks for the direct link.

His followers are dumber than your average Trump supporter, and that's quite a feat.

Inb4 Peterson self-destructs and actually propels Zizek into the limelight of the modern zeitgeist.
I look forward to the gulags with a human face.

it's a shame Zizek hates debating.
I doubt he'll participate given his last experience arguing with a right nut.

Rationalism is challenging a fake Zizek account to debate on twitter: twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/963536145215733760

Speaking of which, did Zizek debate Bob Avakian in the end?

can we get him to debate phil greaves

even phil greaves is far too in touch with reality to remain patient

Holy shit, a nazi pseudo-intellectual. Does your camouflage work among your kind?


This is nonsense. Marx didn't believe material interest was species essence but the teleological nature of human consciousness where through negating Capitalism, humans have freedom in a new double sense. Free from personal and material dependence who are a true association of individuals and can self determine themselves as such.

Also lmao, as if Hitler's lolcow racism was optimistic when compared to Marx. Hitler was a failed intellectual and leader who performed the first modern experiment in systematic extermination.

You do realize the Phenom is not an influence on Marx's work post German Ideology? The Logic is.


Imagine being this retarded.


Don Quijote!

Sorry for not getting it.




I've got nothing.


The Eternal Boomer is the documentary we don't deserve, but nonetheless need.

These Comments are so stupid it makes me want to kill someone.

← Jordan Peterson screeching about Frozen propaganda. See the responses here: twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/962949423499239424

Petershill detected!



I have seen a lot of strange reasons to be angry online, but this is the first time I've seen someone get mad at Karl Marx for not having read the Book of Mormon.


Read origin of the family private property and the state.

quantum discourse


lmao next thing you know ther's 5 zizek bots tweeting back at him about a debate tommorow moring

I want to make this happen

Jordan Peterson angrily flailing at his keyboard at Zizek bots and Zizek impersonators is the perfect encapsulation of his career.


Is Zizek the master programmer of human AI interaction? Really makes one wonder…



How this man is still licensed boggles my mind.

We really do live in a uniquely stupid and absurd moment in history, don't we

Or he'd seen the bit from looney tunes and thought he was being funny, and he didn't know you were the father, just an audience. This guy's career is psychology?

Lmao yeah a two year old has already gotten a serious ideological position on adults

good point

You seriously want a guy fired over that?
It's family over a little devious shit, and he's saying some discipline is in order to prevent a sociopath. Chill the fuck out dude

This is how braindead Peterson fanbois are.

Did he actually respond to Doug, or did he just disappear?

A two year old boy was walking on the rungs of the monkey bars? Nimble little bastard.

That's not how it works

He writes like an absolute faggot, the typical flowery bullshit you get in bad newspapers

According to Doug on Facebook, Peterson's people haven't given him a new date for a debate yet and Peterson himself doesn't respond directly. Plus (from Doug):

He is teaching future psychologists.

The /argument/ boi made a video 'bout this thing:

Marxism and anarchism fights against domination, fascism and liberalism rationalises it.

didn't he get cucked enough in his 'debate' with Chomsky?


Absolute STATE of Molymeme and those comments

TL fucking DW, plz!

That's why no one ever treats them seriously.


Oh my dayz. Keep them coming.

What am I even reading..?

Zizek did nothing wrong. Peterson is being increasingly annoying.

my sides

after that I stopped, because I can't be bothered to listen to more rambling.
Seriously, the guy is turning into a cartoon.

ok, whatever

Can't view all comments on that site for some reason.



Ad hominem. Not an argument!

I understand not being able to make sense of some of Zizek's work. Tried to start reading Absolute Recoil but I'm a brainlet so I didn't get anything from the first few pages.
…but not understanding Chomsky? Jesus.




Apparently Molly compared himself to Socrates in the vid.

"Jordan advocates hitting kids, otherwise he's ok in my book."

The pro-Peterson brigade are annoying idiots. The anti-Peterson brigade are euphoric, dishonest, self-important and annoying idiots.


welcome to america

Hi, Holla Forums.

Jordan Peterson TOTALLY OWNS left-wing Stalinist MANIAC professor on postmodernism and Nietszche using FACTS and LOGIC

Do they even understand the level of BTFO they are bringing on themselves?

Sure, the Holla Forumsredditors are bad but don't you think the libtards getting mad at free speech are worse?


…I wasn't being serious, m8.

I won't lie, you did a pretty convincing impression

And that is why communism is bullshit. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

the gall of communists, not a few posts above accusing nazis of accusing bolsheviks of their darkest desires. Seems like there's something to this hooman natur thing. I wonder if liberating humans from commodities and such will prevent this sociobiological predisposition.


socialists are mentally ill.

Okay, kid.

Your impotent insecurity issues aren’t an argument.

Marxism isn’t your own security blanket. Not seeing the problem

Watching nazis pearl clutch is the funniest shit

Zizek is not going to respond to them.
I wish he would, but I know he won't

I guess Stefan was right, child abuse does lower I Q.

Thanks for proving my point. I'll leave you to your tribalism and autistic screeching.


goddamn that was awful, Stefan is either a clever businessman cashing in on the idiocy of (mostly) Americans or either his I Q is in the double digits. Does he suffer from dementia? How could he possibly have such terrible reading comprehension.

Amazing. That was amazing. Zizek is literally smarter than Molyneux, that mick literally can't comprehend an opinion piece, he complains that an opinion piece on a news site wasn't philosophical enough, or as he laments - "this is what passes for philosophy today". "Where's the arguments?? That's not an argument! Why aren't you disproving him!" Gee Stefan, maybe because Peterson has far too many claims to condense in a short article? Every single so-called rebuttal in Stefan's video is littered with nonsense and misreading. No one was comparing Peterson to Nazis, there is no reason for him to graphically describe the British Paki rape cases - because apparently it bothered Stefan that Zizek said it was only a "sexual abuse scandal", he isn't there to debunk Peterson in the first place but to give a perspective on why Peterson is popular and what the left should do. Besides Molyneux's infantile impersonations and behavior, the guy has absolutely no clue what he's even arguing against.

Tho I must say that it wasn't Zizek's best, it was very rudimentary in its morals yet far too obscure in its content (seriously, if I hadn't been familiar with Lacan's methods beforehand the whole neurotic/psychotic thing would surely go over my head).

These threads consistently stink of butthurt and "the smug style in American politics" because those denigrating them are mad? Say what you like about Peterson but he has rapidly managed to attract a popular following among the masses. That's something scofflaw psueds on leftypol and elsewhere (such as yourself) desire more than anything for the revolution and fail at. Endlessly.
Zizek at least has the sense to express rumination on this. All you've done is openly mock the intelligence of the proles you say you wish to lead and bask in dim glow of your reflected superiority.
Keep saying other people are mad. Perhaps you might persuade someone for a change.


fucking postmodernist. look up predisposition and incentive


Is nobody going to mention that Peterson is mad because the article isn't actually about him and simply uses his as a device for a more general argument?

yeah, I don't think he notices that. Zizek has already studied Peterson and uses offhand assumptions as examples in order to target leftists rather than Peterson himself.
really, all this shitty e-celeb drama boils down to is his poor reading comprehension. they didn't have to respond, but instead him and his fans cry "not an argument" towards an article that deliberately chose not to argue with him. it really displays how, deep down, these people are just looking for trouble and nothing else.

If we're just going off of academic success, Zizek clearly outclasses Molyneux and Peterson. It's not even close.

Apparently his political essays are something his publishers push him to do - so he doesn't put a lot of effort into them. In this article alone, I already recognize some sentences seemingly lifted directly from his books.

Peter Rollins wants in on the action:

Read, egh, fughen book!


Say what you want–the essay is good, but it does seem kind of petty to laugh at retards. They're pretty easy-picking, and it's not like we don't have our own retards to point and laugh at.

i just watched the video where he talks about women wearing makeup or high heels in the workplace

you can truly become an intellectual in the normie community by saying anything at this point

i think that's kinda missing the point. the reason peterson's so revered is just because he affirms all the basic, poorly conceived, idpol-riddled resentments internet-addicted failsons and then waves his phd in their face to remind them that everything he just said (what they thought in the first place) must be objectively true

there was supposed to be an 'of' in there. oops

Of course you're right, but the other user is too. Most of Peterson's fanbase is comprised by absolute normalfags.

Pretty good. Further reading material for those interested: mega.nz/#F!DJdkhYTR!gNrR2Hm7we5O0dyfwBHG0g

Start with 1997.

holy shit

Reminder that it's what they actually believe

Building personal pathologies upon their disregard for factuality is the common theme of all these comments ITT. When people say that "Peterson's followers are the worst" they point exactly to the other side of the formula: unquestioning devotion.

The amount of butthurt in these threads is pretty spectacular. I like Peterson for all the Jungian archetype fun times but even I get pretty annoyed at his everything is cultural marxism criticisms. I'd join in on bashing his normie followers but the smug screeching from some of the people around here who just can't imagine why someone who believes different things from them would be popular pisses me off.

Peterson is objectively correct in that video, reddened lips is a fertility signal in mammals and women do that shit on purpose including in office environments because they are aware of the effect it has on men.
No you dumb motherfucker, wanting attention from men does not mean they want your attention. Like I understand if you're gonna strategically misrepresent the guy to make him look stupid but you've got to stop drinking your own koolade.

Where are you getting this from? Most laugh at him for exactly what you said:

They're not that bad really; we've got more than a billion people on this planet who react much more harshly when their prophet is challenged.

You're in his audience too.

This thread is the best so far tbh, probably because zizek is involved. The last few were so obnoxious my rage may be overflowing onto this one unfairly.

This is why Peterson is a fucking retard for saying that: First of all humans are quite different from animals(not only in our biology, but also in our culture)and humanity has managed to overcome far bigger obstacles than makeup and/our sexual harassment in the workplace why wouldn't we be able to get over this one? However, there is also the fact that humans are able to resist their impulses, otherwise we wouldn't be able to live, work or even exist in our current society so why wouldn't we be able to resist the impulse of sexually harassing someone who dresses a bit provocative?

Second of all: Women and men working together isn't such a new phenomenon as JBP would like to make out. Women and men working together in factories was the norm in at least the industrialized parts of Europe in the 18th century. That is to say: women and men working together is an integral part of capitalism. The notion that women and men have only been working together for 50 years or so is simply a daydream of the bourgeoisie.

Third: Most women in the workplace don't even wear lipstick, let alone red. Why? Because lipstick is extremely unpractical, it gets smudged whenever you take a drink, it leaves a mark on your cup, etc. Even if they wear lipstick it's usually something far more neutral than red. Then there's also the argument about women only wearing makeup because they want to 'attract men'. The reasons for women wearing makeup are many but could generally be summed up in these three basic reasons:
1. Women get punished if they don't wear makeup.
It's not at all uncommon for women to receive comments about their looks, and they get worse if they don't wear make up
2. They want to look good
Just like men like to wear nice clothes, women also like to look good, pretty simple.
3. They want to attract men/women
That doesn't mean it's ok to harass them though

I.e. JBP is a fucking autist

Every woman wearing red lips signals sexual arousal and wants to attract men? Really? No wonder I'm a virgin.

Peterson pls go

low bar.
Dr. Phil is popular
Sam Harris is popular
Deepak Chopra is popular
The self-help circuit is popular


I used to consider myself anti-violence. Never advocated for killing people. But holy shit these people just can't be helped. Just fucking shoot hem for their own sake.

Just walk into an american school and wait.

Our culture is irredeemably stupid and cruel and I eagerly await the inevitable meteor strike that wipes us all out.


So at the end of the day, after the layers of arguments and rhetoric, what is Peterson really saying about makeup and heels and shit? That women should not wear them? That they should suck it up and deal with the harassment from doing so, what? Gimme the cliffsnotes on this.

He's saying that makeup and heels are explicitly used to make yourself more attractive, which is basically true

He literally claimed make-up is sexually provocative, man.

Yes, that's what it's designed to be. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because we've been so socialised to think that it's just "normal."

Well, maybe because nowadays it is just normal.

There's no such thing as "normal" dude. There's only socialization.

Most people will say "Thank God" when something goes right, even if they're not religious. It's "normal." That doesn't mean the phrase itself doesn't very explicitly mean to thank God for the events that have unfolded.

Well then make-up isn't "designed to be" and just once was, wouldn't you say?

Good point!

Once was, and still is. Society will always be full of things considered "normal" which actually have a much different connotation when carefully thought about.

m8, you're saying make-up is sexually provocative nowadays.

Yes, that's because it is. Why do people wear it? There's no need for it. 100 years ago it was virtually unheard of.

We live in an incredibly hyper-sexualised society. This isn't really a controversial idea, it's just one a lot of people have a hard time swallowing because so much of our identity is built around sexualising ourselves.

And it is, but that level of sexual provocation is now more-or-less typical. To remove sexual provocation entirely you'd have to render women completely unattractive.

…fucking hell, m8.

Speak for yourself, give me a natural hippie chick any day

That first one isn't me; my first post ITT is the second one you quoted. The other guy is a flailing regard.

There is no single kind of sexually provocative behavior, as it is informed by cultural mores. Any woman looking to attract a certain kind of mate deliberately sets herself up to do so and even those not actively seeking a mate often present an image that will passively attract the attention of a certain kind of mate.

I'm not trying to set women up as evil masterminds or something, but finding the best mate possible by hook or by crook is what women do and have been doing since before we left the trees.

Reddened is not the same as red. Pink colored lip glosses also have a reddening effect. The longer history of men and women working together is an interesting point but as far as I'm aware that was mostly a working-class phenomena. What changed in the last 50 was the gender integration of white collar offices. So good point there but notice Peterson never said anything about why women wear make up, he posed the question, you're imagining him saying it's ok to harass women. He never says it.

Fertility isn't the same thing as arousal buddy.

Heels aren't even sexy, it's just that stature is power and women are biologically shorter than men.
Short men also get paid less money on average iirc.

Glad I'll commit suicide soon anyway.

Have you never looked at womens asses when they walk in heels?

Don't kill yourself, that way you'll literally never learn.

He says it’s hypocritical to complain about being harassed, which is just like saying they deserved it. It’s the same sort of victim blaming you’d find with rape victims where rape is condoned via gaslighting. He doesn’t have to say “it’s okay to harass women”, he can imply that.

It makes me pretty happy that the philosopher that's here to save western civilization has the same talking points as low-tier islamic preachers and third world divorcees.

I meant clinical psychogist, not philosopher, of course.

It's hilarious how some people are trying to put those comments in a normal, or even positive, light.


itta pupu

Here's the thing that a lot of people in the gender wars debates fail to recognise - humans are way, Way (WAY) more influenced by their surroundings than we care to admit. We are adamantly NOT rational beings, and the more stress you put on someone to stay rational for seemingly no benefit to them, some on them are going to break.

Why do you think there are so many dishelved, bitter men these days who call all women "whores" and "roasties" and post rape fantasies online? Is it because young men are just naturally fowl creatures? No, it's because they've grown up in an environment that simultaneously flaunts sexuality practically everywhere, whilst then also denying access to that sexual intimacy due to all sorts of factors involving alienation, a status-obsessed culture, etc.

Does that give them "free reign" to try and grope, harass and rape any girl they come across who comes across and even vaguely provocative? No, of course not. But we have to ask ourselves, *how the fuck did we get into such a scenario in the first place?* What were the conditions that led to about a trillion sexual harassment allegations coming out as soon as Harvey Weinstein was exposed?

I'm frankly rather sick of how little we as a society respect the sexual drive in humans. Outside of survival, it is the STRONGEST biological urge the human psyche possesses. We can't brush it off as just "each person's individual problem" and expect not to have society-wide malaise because of it.

Just like clean your room dude.

That's a real stretch, saying people are hypocritical is really not the same as saying they deserve it.

pretty much this. The Secret/Eckhart Tolle shit was the liberals way of dealing with late stage capitalism

LMAO your so fucking clueless. None of your counter-arguments actually dispute mine, fuck off to Holla Forums you fucking rat

ehnole likking

what is your proposed solution

Except your assertion is demonstrably wrong. Look how full the prisons are. A small minority of the actively malignant aside, the imprisoned are there exactly because they could not resist their impulses.

The prisons are full because it's a fucking industry m8, at least in the US.
Furthermore, less than 1% of adults are imprisonned so you can't really take prisoners as representative of human behavior.

yes, when i was a teenager of course. Have you ever talked with women who wear heels on a daily basis tho?

lol. Imagine being this naive. The prison industrial complex is lucrative. But let's say it wasn't. Is your basis for how everyone behaves just centered around the U.S.? There are other countries that don't have mass incarceration.

What's your argument here? Honestly. That committing crimes is part of human nature? How would you then explain the varying degree of incarceration across the world? People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, not just because they 'can't resist their impulses'. Is your argument that people actually can't control their impulses? Because that's the craziest thing I've heard all year.

I was drunk when I wrote my first reply to you, anyway:
This doesn't really dispute my argument, women (1) don't really wear lipstick in the workplace(it's impractical) (2) rarely wear wear red and/or pink, lip gloss even less. Have you ever met a woman?

How does this matter?

It's heavily implied, why else would he say that it's hypocritical of a woman to wear makeup and complain about sexual harassment?

If people could control their impulses, most of the law breaking in society would evaporate. Speaking as someone who has committed lots of crimes and got away with them, I think pointing to the ones stupid enough to have got caught is instructive.

That's what is pernicious about Peterson. He is either retarded and doesn't know the implications of what he is saying, or he is discretely pushing the envelope until we inevitably have to say women can't work anymore.

Women in general are sexually provocative in this thinking. Men are naturally attracted to women, the reason most men aren't constantly jumping women in the office is because we are used to women existing so we don't ALWAYS look at them as opportunities for sex, and we have other responsibilities that can involve cooperating with women. Even tho it is a liberal meme show I have to wonder if Peterson wants all women to be modest all the time like in Handmaid's Tale. If you say they can't wear makeup in the office, what about outside the office? Wouldn't the modesty as a veil over the immodesty of makeup create a fetishization of the inner "naughty" girl that actually wants sexual attention? What if coworkers simply looked up somebody on Facebook to see them when they were at their peak of "sexual provocation"? Or what if they saw them outside of work? Would women begin to become ashamed of a coworker accidentally seeing them wearing heels in public? Would we start to extend he new accepted logic of the workplace and say women being sexually provocative outside of the workplace was rendering them as not serious, working people?

I'm sort of surprised he thinks this way at all. He is the guy always talking about the flip side of archetypes, the "enlightened king" and the "despot", for instance. Our society has a dual character of formal and informal interaction. We exist as sexual and non-sexual creatures even though at all times there can inevitably be a tension between both because the features of your sex aren't ever completely gone, even if you try to hide it behind a burka, though you may be wearing lingerie underneath for your husband because that is considered "kinky".

You can't STOP sexual assault or harassment completely, of course, but I don't see the point beyond being politically provocative of claiming that not wearing makeup/certain clothing would reduce harassment when makeup and clothing in the office already tend to be pretty modest, and are mainly used by women to look a way they consider presentable or clean. Girlfriends I've had have always been more nervous that they will look sloppy if they don't at least put on some foundation to even out their skin tone. I wouldn't even say lipstick is supposed to make your lips look like you're sexually aroused, they just effect how pronounced your lips appear in your face overall. At night women wear all kinds of lipstick. Black lip stick, purple tones, flesh colored, stuff that glistens like they have plastic on them.

Some laws are unjust and shouldn't be followed. But the real issue with your statement is that you seem to ignore that most people can control their impulses and will never go to jail.

I have met women, they use makeup to enhance their appearance more than you'd think. It's a little rare for a woman to wear heavy, showy, makeup in an office setting since that'd be viewed as not quite work appropriate. But look closely next time, bet you 10 bucks half the women you think aren't using makeup have on light 'natural makeup', bit of foundation, bit of something on the lips, bit of something on the eyes. And the fact that the last 50 years were when women moved into white collar middleclass jobs and that was considered the birth of the modern feminist movement tells you that modern feminism is a strictly middle class white collar movement. They don't give a shit about women, they give a shit about middle class women. How much have you heard about rapes on college campuses vs rapes in service jobs?

literally hallucinating

Don't expect Petersonfags actually addressing your arguments. They didn't become Petersonfags through reason to begin with. Peterson offered them a very sketchy rationalization of their own insecurities and hatred (like this lipstick shit) which in turn makes them feel good about their own insecurities by externalizing the cause: "it's not me (who is shit with people, etc.), it's the wymyn's fault!"

This is the ultimate secret behind Peterson's success. Only on the surface does he motivate you to be responsible for yourself ("clean your room!"). Most of his arguments are exactly about rejecting responsibility: it's the Cultural Marxists' fault, it's wymyn's fault, biology preordained it, argumentum ad lobsterum, kids are bad because parent's don't hit them hard enough, we've fallen from the good old days, etc."

Strictly speaking his is not a self-help book. He wrote a bible of (perceived) victim hood. He "helps" you by telling you that the responsible thing to do is to reject responsibility.

I'm not him, but no hes not. It's heavily implied because Peterson engages in victim blaming saying its hypocritical for women to complain about being sexually harassed if they wear makeup in the office. This is similar as to when people say its hypocritical for a woman to complain about being raped when she was wearing a skimpy outfit. You are hallucinating.

Could you explain what does "complaining about sexual harrassment while wearing make up is hypocrite "means then?

Which has nothing do to with sexual provocativeness and everything to do with how capitalism makes the majority feel like shit if they don't conform to certain heavily marketed standards.

this. Men wear foundation too, especially in show business.


literally hallucinating

Heavily implied by what? The phrase we're analyzing here is literally a one word agreement with a question. There's no necessary connection between hypocrisy and someone deserving harassment. The only way you can possibly draw the conclusion that Peterson means women deserve harassmen is using your own ideas about his character as assumptions.

Notice the phrasing on this here was entirely from the vice journalist trying to nail the guy with a loaded question so he could make the case that Peterson is a bad guy to dupes. Peterson literally just says yes. Hypocrisy just means having moral standards to which your own behavior does not conform.

It being hypocritical only makes sense if they were doing something to invite it. Like I said before, rhetorically he is making the same use of victim blaming that people who defend rapist make. "Maybe she didn't consent but she was wearing a skimpy outfit in his apartment" etc. Does it outright justify rape? No, but it normalizes it as something which can hardly be blamed entirely on the perpetrator, as something which is to be expected if one dresses or acts a certain way. You are entirely deluded and trying to jump through loops to try and justify Peterson engaging in the same sort of apologism for patriarchy he says isn't really a problem.

Lmao, all he has to say is "No" like someone who isn't a misogynist would do.

You know the majority of women who are in physically violent relationships are physically violent themselves. Nobody is entirely without sin but it hardly justifies damage or malice towards them. You might want to rethink your whole patriarchy, misogny, sjw world view. Makes you stupid.

????? What?? What does this have to do with anything I just said. My argument is that Peterson is engaging in victim blaming, I explained why and drew up an analogy. I'm sorry that calling out misogyny makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should think about why that is. Makes you stupid.

Even assuming the Stat you used is true, what does this tell us? Nothing about cause and effect, maybe the women are defending themselves and not instigators. If they were instigating violence, they would "deserve" it insofar as they invited a response of self defence from the partner. In short, utterly irrelevant to what I said.

Wew. Women frequently initiate physical domestic abuse, but they're injured more frequently because they're smaller, and probably because the violence men use is more severe. Supposedly women are more likely to use weapons, but I can't find much on that. I'm not so bold as to tell you that women initiate the MAJORITY of physical domestic abuse, but the discrepancy is small enough that I wouldn't be shocked if they initiated the majority. I would also avoid using language like "physically violent." It is, strictly speaking, an accurate term, but when I think of physical violence I think of stabbing, burning someone severely, shooting someone, etc. For what user to say to be true, "physical violence" would probably have to include slaps, scratches, and so on.
Source: reading

Since crypto-libs love making ridiculous inferences when I post shit like this, I'll just say in advance that I'm in no way complaining about women or feminism in general. I'm not implying that domestic violence against men worries me as much as domestic violence against women.

We are not discussing the rare case of the individual who makes a premeditated choice to commit a crime. No, many people will fail to control their impulses and simply evade detection.

I'm assuming this refers to Western domestic abuse because on face-value when extrapolated to the whole world, this seems absurd. Even then, what does this have to do with Peterson using the same rhetoric those who defend rape do?

I can't watch this guy, I just cant. His whole style is fucking obnoxious, the way he smugly laughs etc.

Afaik almost all men are stronger than almost all women. That fact alone should tell anyone who can usually abuse who violently.

You are oversimplifying a very complex issue. There's also age difference (an 18 yrs old woman can easily beat up a 13 years old boy), taboos (violent wife, while physically weaker, gets a pass on terrorizing her husband and kids), double standards on what constitutes pedophilia, just to name a few.

It's mostly based on data from the US afaik. My comments weren't about Peterson. Fuck Peterson. My comment was pointing out how your liberal idpol made you infer incorrect information about the details of domestic violence from high level trends.

Except it doesn't. Studies have been done on hundreds of surveys of domestic abuse. I addressed women being weaker. That's why they're the ones who suffer serious injuries from domestic abuse more frequently. A significant number of abusive relationships are abusive.

Both of you need to read up before you open your mouths about shit you don't understand. If you don't, you're essentially preparing young (lol) virgins to be redpilled. Some smelly, 23 year old fuck is going to feel like his misogyny is justified when a reactionary propagandist first tells him how often women hit first in abusive relationships. He's gonna feel like someone just told him where the Ark of the fucking Covenant is. And it's going to be in part because people like us fill in gaps in our knowledge with intuitive liberal idpol instead of reading. Even the retards at Jezebel realized that this data needs to be explained. Congrats. You're better at being liberal feminists than the most liberal feminists on the planet.

Are you actually thick in the skull? it's designed to enhance appearances or cover perceived imperfections, regardless of social context and individual use (or over-use) it is designed with the broad purpose of making the wearer LOOK BETTER, THUS GENERALLY MORE ATTRACTIVE.

Can't believe this is even up for discussion.

the guy is a retarded conservative who wants to live in pleasantville
unfortunately he's also a slippery snake with a degree in being a slippery snake which makes him worse

The only people who aren't critical of Peterson are the goons using him as a surrogate father. And anyone who listens to him beyond his overviews of behavioral psychology (a field to which he has contributed nothing of value anyhow) is a fool.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating with "nothing of value" but his bibliography isn't anything exemplary.

Clearly, he unknowingly recognizes the divine truth of the noble Qu'ran

I never said women don't wear makeup in the office, i actually said the opposite. I did however say that women today don't really wear red lipstick, lip gloss etc., especially not in the workplace since, as you said, it's viewed as inappropriate. This is an important fact to stress since JBPs argument hinges on the assertion that lipstick is used to redden women's lips to simulate arousal. You seem to forget this fact, probably because you realize that JBP is wrong

This is wrong on so many levels, anyway the 'proof' you offer is nowhere near substantial enough to make that assertion

I don't, i just think this is fun

The user was saying it's designed to be sexually provocative.

This. It's pure ressentiment.

what difference is there between attractiveness and sexual provocation? jesus christ, if you see something pretty do you not want to fuck it? at least the more primitive side of your brain does.

When you're attracted to someone its because somehow, somewhere along the way you'd like to fuck them if possible, even if you do not actually *want* to fuck a woman in particular you might say "oh she looks very attractive" as a generalization, which means that even if you yourself have no interest in her, someone else REALLY does.

I don't see what the problem is here, this isn't even objectifying towards women, humans groom themselves to look better, even if they are not actively looking for mates they are definitely sending out signals that others may read as sexual desirability. Make up is certainly designed to make women more desirable, it covers up skin imperfection and things such as rouge and lip-stick exaggerate the physiological signals of deep sexual arousal in a female's face (such as blushing).

There's no conflict in admitting this either, it doesn't make you a Peterson shill or a misogynist or whatever is it that you think it does.

Again, I don't even see what is up for debate.

We just fundamentally disagree then.

Okay genius, then what is modern make up designed for, then?

To look pretty. I'm just saying that it's odd to say it's sexually provocative. Maybe I'm just too triBBered over the phrase.

Everything to hide boils or awful complexion for self esteem so you can go on with your day not being looked at for "not being attractive enough", not necessarily asking for sex.

You're either stupid for begging for sex, or ugly for not wearing make up.

Men are so stupid.

I don't really understand how this is relevant to the discussion tbh

But friend, it is simple biology. Sexual attractiveness in general is tied directly to how "pretty" -as you put it- someone looks. Again, take foundation for instance, it gets rid of perceived skin imperfections, which makes skin look arguably healthier and more uniform, things which are generally signals of over-all good health and good genetics, which In turn can be read as sexual desirability by some if not most men.

Why does the fact that something is generally considered sexually attractive is so necessarily "dirty" or bothersome? As long as we can only reproduce sexually, sexual codification will be transmitted through sensory signals, smell, looks etc.

A given woman may not feel like she's "putting on a show" for men by wearing make up, and perhaps she most certainly isn't, but that does not diminish the fact that a man (or another woman) may find her attractive for this. I can guarantee you that NOT wearing make is also sexually attractive for some, I personally find women who do not obsessively iron or dye their hair to be generally more desirable than women who do, I favor this when I look at a girl.

Wow the amount of baggage is astounding. I never said women who put on make up are asking for sex, that never factored in my posts. I'm talking about how it's perceived, how the signal reaches, not the intention of the wearer.

This is very contradictory, why would you feel the need for others to look at you as being attractive while "not asking for sex"?. Are you saying a woman's self esteem so utterly tied to her sexual desirability she cannot function normally even though she's not looking for a mate? if this is the case for women, then surely this can also be the case for men, seeing as both generally feel the need for intimacy, and more often than not wish they could reproduce (or at least their body wishes they could), so it is only natural they'd feel pressured to attract the best possible mate.

I never said anything of the sort, I'm not blaming or putting women down for wearing or not wearing make up, to each their own. This is specially true of individual cases such as people who are most definitely asexual and have almost no sex drive or whoever else one might consider, I've been talking in very broad terms for the bulk of observable humanity here.

Someone claimed Make-up was not designed to make women more attractive/sexually desirable and I think that's flat out wrong. I think the Zizek/Peterson thing ran its course already.

That's fascinating because I think the same think reading your posts in the first place.

No it isn't.

lmao dude

I don't think you really understand what you're saying.

In fact I think you're either underage or an emotionally retarded adult

Just leave the thread

Feel free to actually dispute anything i've said lol.

I already did. It's a self esteem issue. Make up is no different than clothes really.

the second part is not wrong

I'm going to assume here (god forgive me) that you are a normal adult male. are you telling me that all the times you've combed your hair and dressed nice in the morning is because you want to attract women?

two books in 15 years

I'm not a fucking lizard, you idiot. Humans – at least fully constituted ones – are culturally inhibited, their desires socially constructed, and so on.

People are capable of feeling myriad different kinds of attractiveness only some of which end in fucking, but you clearly don't care, because your whole deal is to simplify everything probably to justify your own shortcomings as an adult.

You might, others might read is as something completely different. That's the thing about human language: it's meaning can not be codified. Our messages are not computer codes that have objective meaning. Dressing purty might very well 'mean' the exact opposite on the intentional side and the recipient side.

kek. "wymyn's makeup penetrate something deep in me physiologically, beyond my control"
pic related is you

People don't generally admit other's pathology as truth.

You don't say?

I think he isn't making and judgement on intentions of the person using makeup, but saying that makeup generally is used to make your skin and features look "better", and that this "better" also generally intersects with sexual attraction, so that the observer, despite intentions of the wearer, may end up feeling sexually attracted though the wearer only intended to look presentable.

I don't think that user is even participating in the OP, since the implication of that position would necessarily be that Peterson is literally victim blaming. As in, he would effectively be claiming that, despite all intention, any case in which you sexually provoked a man would be your fault, even if it is totally arbitrary since a man could take whatever you're doing in multiple different ways. I think he is just claiming that trying to look better with makeup is effectively the same as looking more sexually attractive, even if socially we create cultural boundaries on that. Like in the office, most adults understand the roles that are played there and will naturally be driven from thoughts about flirting because they understand that is socially inappropriate and risky.

Though the only way in which I'd disagree is that, while there is more overlap for some, the makeup and hair presentation in an office is usually different, in my experience, from the one for a night out or something like that. So makeup is basically a part of a uniform, and it partially communicates in the office "this is my serious work makeup", and on the street "this is my looking good on a night out makeup".

You are conflating what you think men as a group think while there are only individuals, thinking differently, thus turning your comment into a self-parody.

So when guys where suits to the office, they're trying to look sexually attractive to other men? I don't think so. I think you're unable to see women as people who just want to look good (like everyone else) and assume anything that makes them look prettier is meant to be sexually provocative.

*wear suits*

Infantilism detected.


That is not at all what I am saying, I'm saying that regardless of what I do, there are women out there evaluating me as a possible mate, it's got nothing to do with what I do or for what purpose I do it

this guy's got it right.

I'm not saying anything about women wearing make up to the office, I'm not "victim blaming" I'm saying a very specific thing about the design of modern make up. What Each person does based on their own motives is entirely independent on how others percieve them.

Well, congratulations, fucko.

I'm not disagreeing with this and It's what I have been saying all along, My whole point is not that women are advertising themselves sexually through make-up. I'm saying that Looking a certain way or not has that effect whether the wearer's intention aligns with that or not, in a sense wearing make up is no different than getting visible tattoo, that it is sending out a signal that is Open for interpretation on those on the receiving end and that is completely independent on your part.

You say our desires are socially constructed, yet you fail to realize that what we commonly see grooming and make up on the part of women is generally regarded as a positive thing in our societies and that there is an implicit sexual-selective bias towards women who "take care of themselves" like this instead of those who dont.

I'm even accounting for those who do not feel that way, I'm accounting for the fact that some people do not find make up sexually attractive, I'm not saying it's some goddamn inescapable paradigm nor am I saying women who wear make up do so ONLY or even partially to be sexually desirable.

I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying that it is impossible to contain and condition (culturally inhibit as you put it) my actions and social attitudes towards others, I do not see a woman with red lips and straight up ask her if she wants to fuck, I'm not a caveman… but do you seriously believe we're entirely in control of what we find sexually appealing? Do you think Homosexuals and asexual can change their preferences at a whim? Be attraction socially constructed or not, I do not know of any single piece of evidence to suggest that we're entirely in control of *everything* what we find desirable, although we can certainly exert self-control and even discipline to stop thinking about things and so on, that's besides the point.

For fucks sakes you people are misreading me hard. I repeat myself one more time: I'm not saying women who wear make up necessarily want to be sexually provocative, I'm saying that that is a byproduct and it has nothing to do with their intention.

When a woman wears sandals it may have nothing to do with sexuality, but a footfag might find this far more sexually appealing than a cleavage or red lipstick, this of course doesn't mean that sandals themselves may be objects designed with sexual attraction in mind and that certainly they may not be used with that intention, but the result is still the same, I.e: Someone else is seeing it as sexually attractive.

No. It is you who doesn't hear what he himself is saying. It is also you who is diverting the thread, so fuck off. Go start your own "biology = everything" thread, and leave this one alone.

Nice reductionism faggot, that's just what you want to read out of it because you're a recalcitrant little cunt unable to read anything other than threats to your own ideological spooks.

Zizek responds to peterson fanboys.

Oh shit. He’s gonna throw down the gauntlet?


The fish-hook theory isn't just a meme?

wait, 4/pol/ is pro-zizek? or do they just hate peterson so much? which level of irony is that?

I was referring to his clinical papers actually. I don't give a rat's ass about his self help tripe.

If only user…

Sargon doing a Brutal take down of Zizek with his near infinite Autism Level points.
Pointing out that Peterson's critique isn't against Marxist thought, but Neo-marxist thought. Bam

Zizek didn't even attack Peterson really. He just said that he was a brainlet who was capitalizing on the left's impotence in the west (which is 100% correct.)

It’s like he didn’t even read zizeks response

*2nd response

He lumps them all together, anyway.

can we just kill all the liberal right fucking now?


-Crowd yawns-
-Crowd yawns-
-Crowd cheers-

liberals get the bullet too

it's weird seeing my comments posted somewhere else