I continued to listen to the Peterson-Zizek debate to the end, and now I'm more confident that this belongs here.
Zizek continued to emphasize his belief that environmental issues are the primary challenge facing civilization today. He says some sort of cooperative international response is necessary. He attacks Peterson's emphasis on personal growth and individual responsibility on that basis.
A rough transcript of the debate is available at this link:
The closest thing I could find to a reply on Peterson's part, is this at 2:12:48:
I believe that a central psychological message of the biblical corpus fundamentally is ... the idea that it's necessary to... confront the devil, and to accept ... the unjustness of your tortured mortality. If you can do that, ... and ... it's a challenge, as you just pointed out, that is sufficient to challenge even God himself -- that you have the you have the best chance of transcending it, and living the kind of life that will set your house in order and everyone's house in order at the same time.
I think this is perhaps the essence of the difference between the Left and the Right, at least as far as Peterson and Zizek are concerned. That is, Peterson's Right is primarily concerned with personal freedom, responsibility, and growth, combined with a strong recommendation to let politics take care of itself. (Of course, in practice that means leaving politics to authoritarian politicians.) Whereas Zizek's Left is looking incoherently to some sort of collaborative social response to civilization's problems, combined with a dearth of effective ideas of how to accomplish that.
I will compromise as follows: I'll combine those other two threads, and copy some of these posts over to that combined thread. I recommend that specific discussion of Climate Science and Technology continue in the other thread, while discussion about Peterson and/or Zizek's criticism of Peterson, should be posted here.
The new combined "Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal" thread is at this link: