merge peterson3

destruction/peterson.md

@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ A neuroscientist is a medical scientist who studies the nervous system, includin
 
 Nobody has to be an expert in anything to comment on it of course, but simultaneously, the value of their interpretation and/or arguments should be based off of whether or not what they were saying stands to reason, is not self-contradictory (a sound argument) and if the premises are true (a valid argument). For example, I watched a Joe Rogan episode where him and Peterson spoke, and in that episode they spoke broadly on psychology and neuroscience for most of the episode. Later, Peterson spoke about how a carnivore diet of simply meats and greens, no carbs, had had a profound effect on his and his daughter's life. Before he began, he paused the dialogue to say, in no uncertain terms to the audience, that he was now exiting the realm of his expertise as a Psychologist, and entering the realm of an uninitiated citizen scientist. I also recall him making a similar remark in one of his lectures when he merely mentioned astrophysicists, he basically brought it up so he could be clear that he knew nothing about it. So that pretty clearly demonstrates an acknowledgement that he may be speaking in pseudoscientific, non-holistic terms on certain topics outside the realm of his expertise. Did Peterson say this before he spoke in the clip about climate change, climatology, and public policy? Well, who the hell knows? The dishonest host didn't give us that. How convenient that he doesn't have to present any contradictory evidence to his narrative. He couldn't poison the well so effectively that way. It's rich to say that Peterson was being obtuse in that clip with his usage of the word "everything," when the host himself is so damn obtuse that he thinks nobody who isn't credentialed gets to speak on a certain topic. Should he should shut the fuck up too, then? Or can we drop the dishonest charade and take people's arguments a priori? This is effectively a fancy way to do ad hominem. I don't have to prove his argument wrong, I can just point to the fact that he doesn't have a degree on that topic! Alright, so where's your degree? Yet I don't hear a single leftist or liberal object to when an astrophysicist like Neil Degrasse Tyson runs his mouth on climatology and public policy. Because they don't disagree with his judgements, they see no need to discredit him based on his mismatched credentials. Forget that he effectively agrees with Aristotle's Dictatorship of the Wise, and loves the idea of the creation of a State called Rationalia, potentially to be created on another planet; see the Cult of Rationality during the French Revolution and see how that went. All of the elite and political class do this; see Billie Eilish and Woody Harrelson pushing radical climate action as well. This is a cheap trick of a religious dogma, and moral people would do well to recognize it, and abandon it. The idea that some ill-defined group of Experts™ gets to decide all matters of public policy based off of their so-called expertise, and more importantly, that they get to be the arbiters of all truth, is a dogmatic, religious principle. Such principles based on a dogmatic, religious faith in mankind, are destined to lead to institutional oppression. Especially when the argument is "well the Experts™ have a lot of things to say on what we should do!" Yes, they certainly do, and they're shit ideas. Fuck the frackers, fuck the workers who labor for oil, fuck the peasants who would go bankrupt if they had to pay $10.50/gal for gas and can't afford a prius or tesla. Our Moral Betters™ and our Experts™ say it's time for climate action! We don't have to balance public policy with any other needs! Oh but I'm not a climatologist, am I? So I guess I shouldn't vote for people who disagree with them either, perhaps I shouldn't have the right to vote at all if I disagree with them. Do they believe this? Well, maybe if they took their arugments to their logical conclusion. They wouldn't argue this way if they actually had intellectual discourse with others, and they wouldn't need to be dishonest.
 
+<!--Ultratrepidarianism... The left seems only to value the opinion of people who agree with them. They will only bring up credentials or expertise when it's convenient for them. They won't ever do it with every dumbass actor in hollywood [ricky gervais railing hollywood] mouthing off about every sociopolitical issue, because they AGREE with all those leftist elites. But even then, for some reason, the only "experts" they, and perhaps America at large, seem to care about, are so-called scientific experts. They don't care about religious experts, philosophical experts, humanities experts. https://www.youtube.com/live/Dk6j_M_bge8?si=mP8ZEm8Hr_bUYvDR&t=1515 It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE who are to be the experts on these things, not unelected beauraucrats that have their own interests and know nothing of the individual experiences of anybody but their own. I've never thought about it that way before... By any metrics, Peterson is an expert in the humanities. Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Biology, Psychoanalytics. He's absolutely an expert. The only reason you don't think he should have a say is because you don't like what he has to say. That's fucking it. Stop trying to hide the ball here. All you're trying to do here is discredit him, because you don't like him, because you disagree with him. Though I'm not certain you even know WHY you disagree.-->
+
 So a Psychologist can't talk about "trans issues" either? Why not? There's no scientific inquiry to be made from his field of expertise on the subject? Or is this because people don't like what he has to say about the topic, given his field of expertise?
 
 In essence, everyone should be able to speak on whatever topic they please. There's a responsibility in doing so, in that there are people who disagree who are going to voice their disagreement. If all they do is counter speech with dissentful speech, there's no problem. But the side for which you are arguing for wants to legislate to punish you, through force of law, which inevitably will be backed up with the government gun, for the language you use. Other than his psychological analysis, the only reason he's ever spoken on "trans issues" is because of such totalitarian law as Canada's Gender Identity Rights Bill C16. And for the same reason, he's famous; people were outraged, and that outrage drove a lot of people to hear what he was saying.