Comedy

i put this post here because ‘zizek vs peterson’ can only be a comedy act.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BFFq_8XvM[/youtube]

i’m not surprised that zizek let peterson live, even considering the dangerous popularity that amateur windbag has among millennial college students. it’s due to zizek’s generally congenial nature and his lack of hostility… or perhaps a recognition that peterson’s rivalry wasn’t something to be taken very seriously. the disconnect between the audience and the debate occurs when it’s realized that zizek’s ideas are something to be chewed on and digested, while peterson’s diatribe alway consists of shallow, quick blanket statements that have profound effects on the listeners. he simplifies what cannot be simplified (but must be chewed on for more time that is allowed)… and for that very reason he is better received by the audience; he is more easily understood because he says nothing substantial.

peterson turns a subject that belongs to a more technical environment into something like a pop-theory, continues to systematically misrepresent marxism, and repeats the same old informal fallacies in his criticism of the failed ‘communist’ (in parentheses because they weren’t true marxist states) countries while conveniently avoiding any mention of the atrocities committed by capitalistic imperialism. but this is to be expected; this is all the right has ever done, and can ever do. i think zizek realizes this and rather then devoting much time to defending marxism, he instead just let’s peterson have it as a friendly gesture.

but really, it’s painful to listen to peterson talk. i cringe at least once every 27 seconds and can barely manage to keep up with the number of ambiguous comments he fires off one after the other.

i guess it was decent though, if only because i got the opportunity to watch zizek play with peterson a little bit.

i fear there will be more of these pop-philosophers like peterson in the decades to come. philosophy itself as an institution has been finished for a century, so all that is left are these post-modern caricatures and sophists who’s rhetoric contains nothing but pathos and ethos. the express purpose being to persuade and convince a generation who’s confusion is really irrelevant anyway.

lol go to 1:46:50. finally zizek smacks that asshat. we had to wait almost two hours to see it. that’s crazy. zizek could’ve been doing this the entire time.

I guess you didn’t wait for Petersons answer.

No wonder, as Zizek has to repeat his question four times so he can understand it himself. Or just harvest some more laughter from the imbeciles (Marxists) in the room.

He did write one good book, Zizek. I read through six of them, mostly its repetitive trash. But he had some sane things to say about Heidegger in one of them.

Commendable how Peterson always manages to be the adult in the room with these spasmodic Marxists. They’re more worrisome than Christians speaking on tongues.

vocaroo.com/i/s0FdD1BTToql

Zizek’s mind is too fast for his mouth, that’s all. But his spasmodic demeanor is one of his greatest features, I think. The guy loves what he does. He gets into that shit.

Well it gets him a lot of money.

In his life he said one interesting couple of three things. That was in this one book I won’t mention as someone will shit on it.

Ive read through about six of his works and they got increasingly Hegel-like.
Ever read the Phenomenology of the Spirit? Zizek just copied the method and kept going doing the exact same thing like twenty times.

I never found any sense when the guy talks. He is really a simpleton. He just got some bad but infectious ideas from Hegel and a few good ones from Heidegger and, admittedly, Lacan too. That was quite cool. What he did to Lacan.

That Marxist shit is like, when someone shoots some one dead, and someone says “he used a Smith & Wesson”, and Zizek goes: “well tell me, where, where, where, where itch this Shhhcmitssh, and where isscchch this Wessssschcon?”

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFy_X6IVmkc[/youtube]

Soros is not the Ouroboros. But he is also from Hungary.

Heres your Marxists… and your comedy

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ2ojjgTEh4[/youtube]

You have to stick around for the “oppression map”.

That probably hurt marx more than me, even if he’s rolling in his grave right now. These ‘modern’ so called marxists are even worse than the modern nietzscheans. My sympathy for ol karl just went up a couple notches after watching that video. Poor bastard. He was a couple hundred years too early… or too late.

Well Im glad I showed you.
Now you know what we’ve been dealing with.

Forget about poor Karl, think of the children.

That’s what we’re doing… trying to unfuck history so that more children have a better quality life. The masses, the rabble, the mediocrity… that’s the bulk of mankind, so that’s what we’ve got to work with. The disease of capitalism is just a dialectical stage that’ll take a while to get past, that’s all.

There is no hope if even these examples don’t make you see that there is something you need to look at, as a Marxist.

I really can’t fathom how Marx could be as blind as to address the production process by completely ignoring what is being produced, and why. That really reeks of deliberately messing up peoples minds and value systems.

Marx: 1+1= not 2, that is evil oppression, 1+1 is actually -8674895698357987. Now avenge yourselves on the ones who work with 1+1=2!

and then people start actually DOING that.

Ugh.

This is like watching 90 year olds trying to use a computer
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OADXNGnJok[/youtube]

The title of this article

reuters.com/article/us-athl … CY20101009

.

Now that Trumpianism has lost the sharp edge that cuts BOTH ways, and has apparently cut the emperor’s clothes diagonally, being shifted from politics as art to another partially disguised out fit, ( the center cut, revealing too much distinction between finger size and the one which exposes too much of women’s true definition of ‘love’);

The cut between the usefulness of appealing aspects of imperialistic cuts into the ‘other races’ -indicating the transcendence of truth behind equinimical racial boundaries which dare not support America as first and foremost, THIS: could be real funny, if it wasn’t really so true!
Reality takes a real bite out of humor, never the less there is some deep seated effect here, that tickles the funny bone:

The Trump Impeachment
Unfit To Lead
Donald Trump is challenging Nancy Pelosi to a game of impeachment chicken
By Mark Sumner / Daily Kos (06/11/2019) - June 11, 2019548

Donald Trump’s attorneys have filed their brief contesting a congressional subpoena seeking Trump’s financial records, and the contents of that filing might as well be titled “We double dog dare you to impeach.” Short of impeachment, Trump’s attorneys argue, Congress has no authority to investigate criminal behavior on the part of the executive … and yes, that includes Watergate and Whitewater.

As USA Today reporter Brad Heath details, the argument from Trump’s lawyers is that the Constitution gives the authority to investigate criminal matters exclusively to the executive branch. That would be the same people who have already said that they are not allowed to bring charges against Trump. Which is handy.

In this filing, Trump’s attorneys are claiming it’s not a matter of whether or not Trump broke the law. The argument here is that even if he did, Congress can’t do anything about it, because “Congress is simply not allowed to conduct law-enforcement investigations of the President, and the district court’s invocations of Whitewater and Watergate do not suggest otherwise.”

Actually, Whitewater and Watergate would seem to be pretty good indications that the Congress can launch just such an investigation. Except, argue Trump’s attorneys, those cases did not involve subpoenas issued by Congress that were “resisted” or “litigated.” In other words, Watergate and Whitewater aren’t good examples, because Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are wusses who didn’t fight hard enough to obstruct the progress of congressional investigations. Or, as Trump declared when talking about Nixon, “He left. I don’t leave. Big difference. I don’t leave.”

The fact that Trump’s attorneys note that Congress could also seek to examine the accounting records of Supreme Court justices is a good indicator that the White House isn’t about to stop before Justice Beer gets a chance to comment on this case, but there’s one point that the documents make even more clear: Everything they’ve said about Congress’ power to subpoena or investigate Trump goes by the wayside if the House opens an impeachment inquiry.

This argument is, not at all coincidentally, the one that was being pressed by Republican Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan at recent House hearings. Because Trump is convinced that an impeachment inquiry would be a good thing. And his actions are designed to make it happen.

The argument that opening an impeachment inquiry would guarantee a better reception of congressional subpoenas in court has also been one of those ideas pushed by the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler. And he’s not wrong. As Trump’s attorneys point out in their filing, the one absolutely clear ruling showing that Congress does have the authority to seek testimony and documents in an investigation came during Watergate, and in that case, the D. C. Circuit Court was explicit in saying that the Congress had opened an impeachment inquiry. The court did not say that, had there not been such an inquiry underway, the subpoena would have been rejected. But because it was noted, everyone seems to accept the idea that this single unchallenged example is enough to prove, “Want investigative authority? First open an impeachment inquiry.”

As Politico reports, Trump’s “trash talking” of Congress and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is intended for the same purpose: to goad Democratic leadership into signing on to beginning an inquiry. Because Trump has seized on the fight between Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led Republican House and “how a cascading series of investigations helped propel President Bill Clinton to a second term in 1996 and then led to historic setbacks for House Republican[s] in the 1998 midterms when they ran on a platform to impeach the Democratic president.” According to the people around him, Trump is convinced that Democrats won’t be able to come up with anything that the Republican Senate can’t dismiss with enough scorn to turn any inquiry into a “big win” for Trump.

So Trump isn’t just obstructing the House investigation into his actions and throwing every possible roadblock in the way of anyone seeing his financial records. He’s also actively taunting Democrats, implying that they don’t dare impeach someone as popular, and successful, and handsome as Trump … while getting both his attorneys and his congressional proxies to dangle “start an inquiry if you want to learn anything” candy in front of them.

There are only a few things wrong with this plan.

First, just because Trump is convinced something is true does not make it so. See the climate crisis. See trade policy. See … anything at all. An impeachment inquiry wouldn’t even have to generate new material. If it could simply get enough of the public to tune in to what has already appeared in the Mueller report, it might move the public opinion dials far enough that even the Mitch McConnell-led Senate would have a hard time closing its eyes.

Second, pushing Democrats into opening an inquiry because their subpoenas are proving ineffective without it first requires that those subpoenas be ineffective. And, so far, that hasn’t been the case. After all, Trump’s attorneys are making their “Congress can’t do nuttin’” argument as part of an appeal. Short of being thrown a life preserver through the intervention of the court McConnell helped him stack, Trump is likely to find that no federal court is going to be in agreement with the position taken by his legal team. William Barr may believe in an all-powerful autocrat with a license to rob, cheat, and kill. No one else does.

Third, Trump doesn’t understand the nature of impeachment. Opening an inquiry isn’t the same thing as bringing articles to the floor of the House. If Nadler and others sway Pelosi into saying the I-word, it doesn’t mean that Trump is going to get to take a seat in the Senate while Republicans conduct a roast of the House speaker. It only means that any argument that congressional subpoenas lack authority will no longer be an argument. And those financial records will all come tumbling out.

And fourth … there’s always the chance they could impeach the bastard.

And finally, in the humble opinion of this author (me) the overall popularism, may be judged retroactively, more swayed by the generated foam of this turbulent sea of political adventurism posing as black humor, then by the reality of failed pseudo platform’s comimg through, in the works.

=D>

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-1bhZ8Ho00[/youtube]

The best (imho) vampire movie ever made, mixing humour with horror… this scene is too funny

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IQwOSlVkg[/youtube]