Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[Carl Emerson]

It seems that Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk are particularly motivated by the issues expressed here...

Elon Musk denounced so-called 'gender affirming care' as 'child mutilation and sterilization,' noting how he 'lost' his own son, Xavier, after being 'tricked' into permitting him to take puberty blockers.

Elon Musk has said that he was “tricked” into agreeing to give his son puberty blockers and noted that was the reason he vowed to “destroy” what he calls “the woke mind virus.”

In a wide-ranging, 2-hour-long interview, Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Musk discussed gender ideology leading to the sterilization and mutilation of children.

During the conversation, Musk said that so-called “gender-affirming care” is a euphemism for “child mutilation and sterilization” and called the procedures “evil.”

When Peterson asked Musk why he was willing to bring the issue to the forefront, Musk opened up and said that one of his sons took sterilizing puberty blockers in order to have a so-called “gender transition.”

“I was essentially tricked into signing documents, for one of my older boys, Xavier,” he recalled. “This is before I had really any understating of what was going on, and we had COVID going on and there was a lot of confusion.”

“I was told, you know, Xavier might commit suicide if you don’t [take puberty blockers].”

“That was a lie right from the outset,” Peterson interjected.

 

[IceJad]

If you think that the right to insult someone and the right to incite violence or the right to intentionally spread misinformation are all the same, then I guess it doesn't matter who you listen to or what they say.

If only the power be enforce it equally across the political spectrum. How many time have we heard the "progressive" side in Canada, US, Europe and Australia say things which are equally unhinged go unpunished. Then the mildest remarks from the "conservatives" (or people perceived as conservatives) get disproportionate punishments.

UK going after people who repost videos of the riot. Gets a police visit and cuffed. But armed anti-riot protestors get caught on video with police presence gets nothing. And I'm saying protestors ARMED with knives and bats. And the powers be say there is no two tiered policing in the UK. Obviously gaslighting.

At this point there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Because the laws only applies to one side of the society regardless of what free speech or hate speech is.

 

[Bradskii]

At this point there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Because the laws only applies to one side of the society regardless of what free speech or hate speech is.

Free speech is me saying something that hurts your feelings. That you think is insulting. Hate speech can be an incitement to harm. When the one crosses over to the other then you have a problem.

 

[timothyu]

Free speech is me saying something that hurts your feelings. That you think is insulting. Hate speech can be an incitement to harm. When the one crosses over to the other then you have a problem.

Many with hurts feelings don't see the difference

 

[Bradskii]

Many with hurts feelings don't see the difference

They're part of the problem.

 

[Arcangl86]

For those who don't want to watch a 27 minute video, here is my understanding of the case. In Ontario, the practice of psychology is governed by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, which is sort of a combination of trade association and regulatory body. They found that several of his public statements have been made in an unprofessional manner, one that impacted the practice as a whole. So they asked him to work with a coach on moderating his public image. If he refused to do so, then they may consider that misconduct and start a formal disciplinary process, but afaik it wasn't a given. So he decided not to abide by their decision and tried to get it overturned. It wasn't and he appealed at multiple different levels. IT finally made it to the Supreme Court, which chose not to decide the case at all.

So it's just a case of a profession trying to regulate itself, and the worst case scenario for Peterson is loosing his license, which isn't really an issue since he hasn't practiced as a psychologist in years.

 

[BCP1928]

If only the power be enforce it equally across the political spectrum. How many time have we heard the "progressive" side in Canada, US, Europe and Australia say things which are equally unhinged go unpunished. Then the mildest remarks from the "conservatives" (or people perceived as conservatives) get disproportionate punishments.

UK going after people who repost videos of the riot. Gets a police visit and cuffed. But armed anti-riot protestors get caught on video with police presence gets nothing. And I'm saying protestors ARMED with knives and bats. And the powers be say there is no two tiered policing in the UK. Obviously gaslighting.

At this point there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Because the laws only applies to one side of the society regardless of what free speech or hate speech is.

Do you think free speech laws should prevent professional associations from disciplining their members?

 

[Nithavela]

I wish somebody would silence him. There are a lot of self-important windbags out there, but man does he stand out among them, and not just because of his ridiculous suits.

I have seen him being described as a dumb person's idea of a smart person. I think that shoe fits.

 

[Bradskii]

I have seen him being described as a dumb person's idea of a smart person. I think that shoe fits.

Heaven help any court that had to adjudicate on the matter. I really can't remember the last time I saw him give a straight answer to a straight question.

'Could you please state your name for the record'

 

[timothyu]

Do you think free speech laws should prevent professional associations from disciplining their members?

It depends on the motive for the so called discipline

 

[Gene2memE]

I have seen him being described as a dumb person's idea of a smart person. I think that shoe fits.

I think Peterson is highly intelligent. He's done some very high level thinking on social psychology and personality development and he's capable of clearly and lucidly articulating his points in his field.

I think that this intelligence is only applicable within a fairly narrow set of lanes, and that he's very capable of motivated reasoning.

I also think he has a tendency to attempt to apply the intellectual tools he's developed in the fields of psychology and the social sciences into other fields. Which results in lots of his points dissolving into babbling incoherence and 'not-even-wrong'-ness and has disastrous results for his credibility. See, for instance, his wildly inaccurate stances on climate change, genetics and evolution, quantum mechanics, inter-personal violence, nutrition, sexuality and any number of topics.

 

[PloverWing]

It seems that Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk are particularly motivated by the issues expressed here...

For some additional information, here is an interview that Musk's child gave to NBC News last month: Elon Musk’s transgender daughter, in first interview, says he berated her for being queer as a child

 

[Laodicean60]

Well you say that but if I said something bad about Jesus would you laugh it off?

I wouldn't laugh but would not try to duct tape your mouth from saying it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Dr Peterson is a well known crank. He work on addiction was grounded and valid but when he opines outside of his field is expertise he is clueless.

Psychologists are held to exceedingly high ethical standards. If he cannot or refuses to do so he will lose his licence.

When is similar to an MD struck off for mal practice. The academic world has standards.

I would point out that there's a slight distinction to be made in that regard...

Psychology is a "soft science" and subject to a lot more subjectivity for the areas they cover vs. "hard medical sciences" like, say, cardiology or pulmonology where most things a little more cut & dry and they have a larger degree of consensus.

For instance, I could go to 10 different psychologists/counselors/therapists with the exact same problem, and it's likely I'll get a least a half dozen different opinions and approaches recommended. Where as, if I went to 10 different cardiologists for high blood pressure and cholesterol, the answers and opinions I'd expect to get would be a little more uniform.


When the actual practice itself is centered around subjectivity, so will be the "standards" set by whatever review board is in charge of developing them.

Psychology is a little unique in that it's one of the soft sciences (like economics, with widely varying "schools of thought"), but because it deals with "patients", they try to license and credential it similar to how they would the hard medical sciences.

I have seen him being described as a dumb person's idea of a smart person. I think that shoe fits.

I think that's pretty par for the course for anyone with an advanced degree in the soft sciences or humanities.

They all tend to have an inflated sense of "expertise".

And when you get the combination of "book smart because they have <insert level of advanced degree here>" combined with the subjectivity of field(s) - meaning, you're likely find at least one or two who agree with you without having to look that hard - , they basically are the perfect people for other people to glom on to for reasons of "see, here's this expert who agrees with what I think!"

As I mentioned above, there's parallels with the other soft science of economics, if a person already wants to believe a certain way, they can find an "expert" who agrees with them.

For instance, a right-winger can glom onto Milton Friedman, a left-winger can glom onto to Paul Krugman...and both have the ability to say "look, here's a PhD Nobel Prize Winner who backs up my position" (while ignoring the fact that "their guy" has said some ridiculous things that have ended up being wildly off-base)

 

[Laodicean60]

For instance, a right-winger can glom onto Milton Friedman

We need to look into his ideas a little more closely.

 

[BCP1928]

It depends on the motive for the so called discipline

Do you know what statements Jordan made which the licensing body took exception to?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you know what statements Jordan made which the licensing body took exception to?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845

the Tweets in question were:

• Referring to Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa city councillor, who prefers to use they/them pronouns, as an "appalling self-righteous moralizing thing."
• A tweet in which he used the dead name of actor Elliot Page
• A tweet in which he referred to Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as a "prik".
• His tweet in response to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover of a plus-sized model, in which he said: "Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that."

Also Per CBC:
James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said while he opposes many of Peterson's views, he's "deeply troubled" by the actions of the college.

"There's no reason whatsoever for the College of Psychologists to try to stop him from expressing those views."

"It's really worrisome … in a democratic society when a professional body feels it has a right to censor political speech of all of the members over whom it has regulatory authority."

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As I understand it, Dr Peterson had his license suspended by the Phycological Board, for stating that
the doctor who performed transition surgery and hormone therapy on Elliot Page, who was once a girl,
were butchers and should have their medical licenses removed. In most people's opinion, he was not
wrong on this.

As it is, one of the people who is appointed to reeducate Dr Peterson is Dr Gad Sad, who laughs at the
decision the Canadian bord of psychologists and the court made.

Canada has been against freedom of speech for decades now. Heck, they put a law into place
C-16 which mandated that government workers, teachers and professors use pronouns that
were appropriate for LGBTQ+ people. Peterson who was a professor at the time, opposed
the government mandating language. He said this was a violation of freedom of speech for
the government to mandate it.

 

[timothyu]

Do you know what statements Jordan made which the licensing body took exception to?

Basically a stance against woke-ism and the cancel culture, particularly in regards to gender identity. The net is full of examples of his putting arrogant self entitled students in their place. The re-education was designed to make him more condoning of the sensitivities of people who feared any ideas except their own, and the judgement refers to his comments on social media, another way of inducing censorship. Obviously the governments and courts will seek to protect the traditional system that has served them so well and this new trend of silencing those who believe in free speech has become in vogue. You know, the trend that is happening everywhere which authorities have taken advantage of to enact laws to protect themselves and strengthen their ability to bring about in particular the WEF agenda. You will notice this is only happening currently in the 'bring back better' nations such as Canada, the US, Great Britain, Europe, etc. . It's all politics and rather than promoting good policies, the trend is to silence opposition to the old guard. The same opposition that has brought down tyrants throughout history. As powerful as they are, the elites still fear common man.

 

[BCP1928]

As I understand it, Dr Peterson had his license suspended by the Phycological Board, for stating that
the doctor who performed transition surgery and hormone therapy on Elliot Page, who was once a girl,
were butchers and should have their medical licenses removed. In most people's opinion, he was not
wrong on this.

Why? I had the impression that Elliot Page was happy with his transition.

As it is, one of the people who is appointed to reeducate Dr Peterson is Dr Gad Sad, who laughs at the
decision the Canadian bord of psychologists and the court made.

Canada has been against freedom of speech for decades now. Heck, they put a law into place
C-16 which mandated that government workers, teachers and professors use pronouns that
were appropriate for LGBTQ+ people. Peterson who was a professor at the time, opposed
the government mandating language. He said this was a violation of freedom of speech for
the government to mandate it.

So this is all about the sex stuff.