Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
What is the difference between criticizing opposing viewpoints and "de-platforming" opposing viewpoints?
|
In the one, you allow the opposing viewpoint to be expressed and then you criticize it. In the other, you do everything in your power to prevent the opposing viewpoint from being expressed at all. Seems a pretty clear distinction to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
I find that Peterson frequently says things very authoritatively when he has no expertise whatsoever about the topic. What does he know about corporate HR departments? Has he done peer-reviewed research on the subject? Has he even spent significant time working in human resources? Or is he talking out of his ass to sell more copies of his book?
|
So what? Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have public intellectuals at all - everyone should stay in their narrow academic lanes of expertise.
Curious that we don't see this kind of standard applied to David Suzuki for speaking authoritatively outside his narrow expertise in zoology and genetics. The Canadian left doesn't seem to have any problem with Suzuki opining about climate change, or calling the entire field of economics "brain damage." Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics and a revered figure on the left, has made a career out of criticizing American foreign policy. Let's disregard everything he says in Manufacturing Consent because he doesn't have any formal credentials in communications and media. Ta-Nehisi Coates has no academic qualifications of any kind, and yet he's paid well to express his opinion on all sorts of social matters. Where's his history or sociology degree? Same with Naomi Klein - she's a college drop-out who drafted a plan to fundamentally re-structure the economy of Canada, and the CBC gave her a national platform to espouse these plans. Where are her peer-reviewed papers?
The money thing is one of the feebler accusations against Peterson. First, he was saying all this stuff long before anyone besides the university was paying him. Second, where is all this tut-tutting about Canadian intellectuals making money when it comes to David "I own four homes and have a net worth of $25 million" Suzuki? Part of the motivation on the part of Suzuki, Chomsky, Coates, and Klein when they write a book and go on tour to publicize it is to make money. Does that discredit their arguments in your eyes?