Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[Carl Emerson]

Do folks not have a right to be angry about matters that are causing society to crumble - or do we all have to shut up and go down with it as 'good' citizens?

 

[Paidiske]

Do folks not have a right to be angry about matters that are causing society to crumble - or do we all have to shut up and go with it down in as 'good' citizens?

We have a right to be angry. Those of us in particular positions, though, have a responsibility about how we express that anger publicly.

 

[Bradskii]

As powerful as they are, the elites still fear common man.

I may have a response once I get the coffee off my screen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do folks not have a right to be angry about

Everyone, everywhere has the freedom of conscience.

or do we all have to shut up and go down with it as 'good' citizens?

People with employers (or licensors) (or friends and relatives) may not be able to say whatever they like without repercussions.

In the US, they have no fear of government repercussions (apart from a number of extreme exceptions, like speech to incite imminent lawless action).

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps when it will be seen as offensive to eat anything but roasted insects and faux meat.

Funny you should say that. I notice that when I ask about details of Trumps policies, any policy with some meat on it that I can get my teeth into, all I get is...crickets. Which, when fried, are actually quite nice with a cold Tiger beer. Lots of protein!

 

[Bradskii]

Do folks not have a right to be angry about matters that are causing society to crumble - or do we all have to shut up and go down with it as 'good' citizens?

You must be free to do so. But if you represent an organisation then you have to accept that they may have rules and standards with which you must comply as a member of that organisation. My comments to some people in this forum would be couched differently if we were talking face to face as opposed to within the forum. I wouldn't intentionally insult them or try to make them angry, but if they feel insulted and angry then...that's the price we pay for freedom of expression.

But...within the forum there are rules. So the way I express my position is adjusted accordingly. Not by much. But then Aussies don't exactly have a reputation for tiptoing around around when it comes to expressing opinion. Which reminds me that somebody once said 'You Australians sure like to call a spade a spade.' And was corrected: 'No, mate. Down here we call if a **** shovel.'

 

[Belk]

Do folks not have a right to be angry about matters that are causing society to crumble - or do we all have to shut up and go down with it as 'good' citizens?

You seem to be confusing rights with lack of consequences. These are two separate things. You have the right to run around Harlem screaming the N word at the top of your lungs. The government will not stop you from doing so. The consequences, on the other hand, will probably not be to your liking. That in no way is a limit of your free speech.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You seem to be confusing rights with lack of consequences. These are two separate things. You have the right to run around Harlem screaming the N word at the top of your lungs. The government will not stop you from doing so. The consequences, on the other hand, will probably not be to your liking. That in no way is a limit of your free speech.

Forcing re-education is taking your rights away is it not ?

Is Jail not a limit on free speech?

Consequences can take away rights.

Does freedom of speech in the constitution count for nothing these days ?

 

[Belk]

Forcing re-education is taking your rights away is it not ?

What force? What "re-education"

Is Jail not a limit on free speech?

What does this have to do with anything under discussion?

Consequences can take away rights.

Sometimes. Yes.

Does freedom of speech in the constitution count for nothing these days ?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Carl Emerson]

What force? What "re-education"

What does this have to do with anything under discussion?


Sometimes. Yes.

What on earth are you talking about?

Sounds like you didn't read this...

Howard Levitt: Jordan Peterson decision leaves professionals at mercy of regulatory overlords

Court ruling will have chilling effect leaving regulated Canadians afraid to challenge the sensibilities of their regulators. Keep reading.

financialpost.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Supreme Court of Canada have ruled he must undergo 're-education'...

The ruling over-rides the Canadian Government's constitutional right to free speech.

The first video of Peterson that went viral was regarding a compelled speech law about trans people. He argued that this was a serious infringement on free speech and would ultimately lead to punishment of people for speech. He was laughed at and dismiss...and had his reputation attacked. He was 100% correct.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Example?

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

I'm uncertain about that.

It seems to me psychologists are treated as hard scientists despite the majority of their work being "soft science". They have high ethical standards regarding treatment of patients but apart from that....I think they're often treated as experts on much that isn't more than guesswork.

Consider ADHD in children and it's rapid overtreatment....and over prescription...that went on for years.

I prefer a scientist who can admit mistakes in their field and revise their theories....but this isn't a field where answers are all clear and stand on solid proof.

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

Most malpractice is unpunished and unknown to the public. Hospitals are set up in a way that mistakes are reported anonymously and hopefully corrected through changes in procedure. Unless I'm mistaken....doctors making mistakes kill more people every year than police, but the public and often the families of victims of malpractice will never know.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They’re all different professions. You may as well say, “I could go to 10 different doctors, dentists and dieticians with the same problem, and it’s likely I’ll get at least half a dozen opinions and approaches recommended”.

I’m not disputing them being a soft science but your example is bad.

I would say my example is fine...

Even within the various subsets/specialties of psychology/therapy, there's not that level of consensus you see in the hard medical sciences.

For instance, if a married couple was struggling with an issue, and went to 10 different couples therapists who all "specialized" in that type of issue (all with equivalent degrees in psychology), they'd likely get a bunch of different answers/recommendations pertaining to what the "root problem" is, and "how to address it".

There's been huge differences in "professional opinion" in that field going back to "Jung vs. Freud" (the Biggie & Tupac of psychology, if I may make a bad 90's rap reference lol)

In a field where there's a chasm as wide as "behavior is driven by how the desire for sex impacts the unconscious mind" vs. "the ego is the center of the human conscience, and it's the ego that drives awareness and behavior" (which could lead people to very different conclusions when assessing a patient), that would make it rather difficult to establish standards of care in a professional sense.


In a nutshell, we're not talking about a field of study where credentials confer tangible expertise (like an actual medical or science degree), we're talking about a field where credentials confer "I have a subjective opinion, but I have a 6-year degree so my opinion is worth more"

As I noted before, that's why arrogance and inflated sense of self-importance (like what Peterson often displays) is fairly common among people with advanced degrees in the soft sciences and humanities, they're often the go-to for people looking to confirm their own biases.

 

[rjs330]

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.

In other words if you don't tow the line we will destroy you. How freeing.

This is just more evidence of the totalitarianism from rhe left. Everyday now we see more and more of the desires of rhe left to free expression and the free exchange of ideas.

It used to be professionals could disagree with each other, but as the left has taken more control over these things they seem to want to end any disagreement over their prevailing wisdom.

I'd like to know exactly what these academic standards are rhat he has violated and how he has done it.

What malpractice has he done?

 

[Larniavc]

"root problem"

Showing you know nothing about the subject.

 

[Larniavc]

It used to be professionals could disagree with each other,

They can. Consequences of actions are not protected under a 'professional disagreement' clause.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Showing you know nothing about the subject.

mmhmm...

Care you explain a little more why that quick two-word snip somehow substantiates your assertion?


Being that couples therapists advertise that very thing (identifying root causes), I fail to see how I'm wrong about that...

I just pulled these from a few couples therapy provider websites and psychology publications:
A good therapist can help you identify the root causes of your disagreements, teach you conflict resolution skills, and help you resolve issues more effectively.

Pyschology today just ran an article entitled:

To Fix Your Problems, Find the Root Cause​

They ran another entitled:

How psychoanalysis Gets to the Root of the Problem​

...or this just a case where I said "root problem" instead of "root cause" (a bit of a semantic blunder on my part because I haven't finished my coffee yet lol, and you're using that as a way of not having to address the rest of my post.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sounds like you didn't read this...

Howard Levitt: Jordan Peterson decision leaves professionals at mercy of regulatory overlords

Court ruling will have chilling effect leaving regulated Canadians afraid to challenge the sensibilities of their regulators. Keep reading.

financialpost.com

No one has a right to be certified by a private licensing body, said private licensing body cannot send anyone to jail, and said private licensing body is free to put requirements on its members for certification. If Mr. Peterson does not like the requirements that a private licensing body has placed upon him, he is free to form his own.

 

[BCP1928]

Sounds like you didn't read this...

Howard Levitt: Jordan Peterson decision leaves professionals at mercy of regulatory overlords

Court ruling will have chilling effect leaving regulated Canadians afraid to challenge the sensibilities of their regulators. Keep reading.

financialpost.com

The Canadian government is not challenging his right to speak his opinions, they are just allowing his professional licensing body to challenge his foul mouth. This is not a free speech case.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He's wrong though.

Plenty of US professional groups have dismissed/failed to re-certify US citizens over their public statements. For instance, multiple state level medical boards in the US have revoked doctors' licenses to practice medicine for spreading COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation/misinformation.

Dr Peterson has a right to say what he wants (whether in Canada or elsewhere). But, the professional organisations he belongs to also have a right not to be associated with his speech/conduct. Free speech is a two way street.

But did those licensing boards do said revocations based on tangible professional standards? or merely subjective standards based on a clash of opinions over a controversial subject? In the case of the covid 19 misinformation, it was the former... there were doctors still wanting to push ivermectin and vitamin D supplementation as a prophylactic after it'd become established that those things didn't show any benefit.

Given that, for reasons I've listed in previous posts, the former is largely impossible for the field of psychology (since it's a soft science and very subjective, there really isn't a codified "standard of care" with regards to any actual "treatment"), it's obvious they were doing it for the latter...they even said as much.


As an example, let's say, hypothetically, Dr. Now (the Dr from the show "My 600lb life) started prescribing quack remedies for weight loss.

Suspending his license for that, would be very different than suspending his license because of a "Dr. Now's most savage moments" montage posted on Youtube that people thought wasn't very nice to obese people.