A snip at $1500
When I was a kid my brother and I liked to entertain the adults after a large meal with suggestions of gross-out combinations to make them squeal in disgust. Anchovies in chocolate sauce, cherry pie with a scoop of chopped herring; that sort of thing. Here’s another one:
If you want tickets for the forthcoming showdown between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, which will be held later this month in Toronto, better act fast: There are two left — as of this writing, anyway — and they’re $1,500 apiece. The unlikely and unshaven pair will square off at the Sony Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto, which seats about 3,000, where they will debate whether capitalism or Marxism leads to happiness.
Ooooooh no I really don’t. I don’t want tickets, I don’t want to go, I don’t want to hear, I don’t want to see. I’d rather eat anchovies in chocolate sauce.
[I]t’s hard to deny the rubbernecking appeal of the spectacle. How often do two garrulous, ill-tempered, theory-spouting academics fill a venue usually reserved for musicians and comedians?
It’s not hard for me to deny that. I’ve been to enough conferences that included a garrulous, ill-tempered, condescending, smug male academic or two, so I feel zero need to go anywhere to see more of that. Showstopper: two guys peacocking. Nah, thanks, I’m good.
The debate came about after Zizek criticized Peterson in a column for The Independent, poking at “the paranoiac construct which he uses to interpret what he sees as facts” and his “crazy conspiracy theory” that sinister Marxist forces lurk behind progressive social movements. The essay, though, was largely focused on what Zizek views as the failures on the left that help bolster Peterson’s popularity. When it comes to postmodernism, Zizek and Peterson are often singing from the same hymnal.
But prickly narcissistic Peterson was ruffled anyway so he challenged Zizek to a debate. Game on!
While their meeting is more UFC fight night than plenary panel, Zizek and Peterson remain very much creatures of the university. Despite the best attempts of his harshest detractors, Peterson continues to be a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Zizek holds a bunch of academic appointments, including professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School, and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London.
Despite all that respectability though, they both love to brawl.
Then again, it’s a mistake to read any of Zizek’s proclamations as necessarily earnest. His rhetorical style is ironic rapid-fire adamance — he speaks as if he’s trying to squeeze in one last insight before a buzzer sounds — and he obviously loves to provoke.
So does Peterson. He revels in sharp back-and-forth and appears to thrive on eviscerating would-be-challengers. Search YouTube and you’ll find that Peterson has “destroyed” or “obliterated” the following opponents: Overconfident Leftist Interviewer, British Feminist, and Entire Panel on Transgender Pronouns.
Laugh if you want to, but this stuff pays.
Such performances have helped garner a sizable, cult-adjacent following for Peterson. He has not been shy about monetizing that appreciation, recently debuting his own line of merchandise, which includes lobster-themed leggings, socks, and pillows (Peterson used lobsters once in an analogy to explain social hierarchies). For $44.99, you can order a hoodie emblazoned with his much-repeated injunction to “STAND UP STRAIGHT WITH YOUR SHOULDERS BACK.”
Lobster-themed leggings!
collapses in helpless laughter
Surely though the difference is that, by themselves, anchovies and chocolate sauce are fine, and in combination with other foods they can be sublime. It’s just when you combine them that they’re disgusting. I hadn’t heard of Žižek until about two minutes ago, but I think it’s safe to say that Peterson is never not disgusting, alone or in any combination.
Aw go ahead and ruin my analogy. Waaah.
Nah, it’s a good analogy. Any decent analogy should make you think about the differences as well as the similarities.
I will never cease to be amazed at how impressed some people are by utterly banal “words of wisdom.” “Stand up straight” and “clean your room,” really?
And don’t get me started on this Marie Kondo shit… I mean, if you’re inclined to be a tidy person, then by all means enjoy, but don’t act like she’s got some brilliant new insight.
Uhhh…are either of these systems supposed to lead to happiness? They are economic systems, they deal with wealth distribution. I realize there are a lot of people that equate wealth with happiness, and others that equate not having wealth with happiness, but there are too many other factors in play. Seriously.
Yes, I said those to my son often enough, but he never saw them as profound. That’s the thing, though. It’s meant to show that these words have meaning when a man, a manly man, says them. Women? Nah, don’t listen, because they’re bossy, whiny, shrill, nagging, etc etc etc. Peterson is getting press because he is stomping women to the curb even with what might be seen as ordinary, banal, good advice by people. He is showing once again that women aren’t shit, and no one will listen to women, but they will listen to a manly man (who just happens to sound like Kermit the Frog?). It’s misogyny all the way down.
I have never understood the appeal of Žižek. I can kind of understand why the nondiscerning can take on JP as some kind of daddy/role model, but Žižek is a shambling, mumbling mess who, as far as I can determine, has never said or written anything insightful or interesting.
I fancy that about as much as I want to try Heinz’s new mayo:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/03/heinz-creme-egg-mayo-wasnt-an-april-fool-you-can-actually-try-it-yourself-9103236/
@Maroon:
The only problem with your comment is that anchovies are not in any way fine, by themselves or in combination with anything at all, ever.
@Ophelia:
How about anchovies and pineapple? Two substances that no right-thinking person would ever eat under any circumstances whatsoever. Combining them would just multiply their offensiveness I am sure.
In my analogy, Peterson is the anchovy.
Well, latsot, looks like we found another point of commonality.
Funny thing (she said, taking everything literally) – I’ve always thought I hated pineapple but I’ve recently discovered that I hate it only in combination with other things. By itself, I quite like it. Not as much as peaches right off the tree, or several other fruits, but still quite.
We used to be served this absolutely dire canned “fruit salad” in school; I think that was the birthplace of my hatred of pineapple. Everything in it was disgusting – the grapes, the chunks of grapefruit, the chunks of peach [very much not off the tree], the syrup-soaked “cherries”…and the pineapple.
Anchovies would have made it better
Evo-psych and psychoanalysis.
A convention of trashy pseudo-science? A minstrel show of Post Hoc Manly Rationalization?