Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[essentialsaltes]

There is a fine line between speaking as a person and speaking in one's professional role. Which side of the line was he on?

Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.

The college's committee previously noted that during an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Peterson identified himself as a clinical psychologist before demeaning a former client.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"The college's ethics code requires members to use respectful language"

But what happens when "not agreeing with us" starts being conflated for disrespectful?

Obviously the backlash against Peterson started way before this. Many on the left started disliking him long before he was a "conservative golden child" and long before he worked for the DailyWire.

The dislike for him among the left started after this interview clip ended up going viral (on the topic of political correctness):

Many of his views on things weren't well known at that time.

There's already articles popping up talking about how some people are suggesting that doctors shouldn't discuss weight with their overweight patients. What happens when the "healthy at any size" movement gets as much traction as the LGBTQ+ organizations, and starts suggesting that it's "disrespectful" for a doctor to suggest that a patient needs to lose weight?


In the realm of something that's supposed to be somewhat scientific and in the realm of healthcare, it becomes a strongarming tactic to punish people who don't want to go along with it.

If the focal point of the discourse is professionally deciding/debating whether or not a person identifying as non-binary is stemming from something that's actually real or an extension of a delusion, then setting up a framework of "it's disrespectful if you don't want to us a person's preferred pronouns, and disrespect means your license gets pulled", then that's rigging the game.


That'd be like if 40 years ago, they were debating whether or not second hand smoke is dangerous, but it was under the rules of "you can't say/do/recommend anything that may upset or offend smokers or make them feel like their autonomy is getting challenged", then that really wouldn't be true rigorous exchange of ideas would it?...as the "end of the book would be determined before the first chapter is written" so to speak.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But what happens when "not agreeing with us" starts being conflated for disrespectful?

Keep us posted about that eventuality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Keep us posted about that eventuality.

Well...I mean, it's already happening...

Weight Bias Is a Problem in Health Care. Here's What Doctors Can Do

Here’s what doctors can do to address their potential bias.

time.com

Shame on us for shaming people with excess weight

It’s time for medicine to stop stigmatizing people with obesity and to provide compassionate care to people of all sizes, one expert argues.

www.aamc.org

Doctor, your weight bias is showing

For heavier patients, interacting with the health care system (judgmental clinicians and the ever-present scale) can be downright daunting.

immattersacp.org

The Association of American Medical Colleges is rolling out new diversity, equity, and inclusion standards aimed at teaching doctors respectful treatment and ending weight bias

Can You Refuse to be Weighed at the Doctor?

As a physician, I can’t ignore the lack of scientific evidence supporting routine weigh-ins. There’s no clear evidence that they improve a patient’s health, and guidance on a thoughtful approach to them is scarce. What the research does tell us is that weight-focused care is dangerous for patients.

www.urmc.rochester.edu

We're already to the point where there's murmuring about how "it's disrespectful for a doctor to tell a person about their weight"... it's not exactly a huge leap from that to where we're at on the other subject.


Hint: "Weight bias" is largely a made-up thing to placate the "healthy at any size" notions. There's not "weight bias", there's "weight facts", and the facts are that carrying a lot of excess weight is unhealthy, and makes a variety of health issues far more likely.

The fact that words like "shaming" are being used to describe a health practitioner telling an obese patient the absolute #1 they can do to improve their health forecast for the future shows that the "political correctness capture" has already started in that realm.

 

[Bradskii]

The world need not bow to the thin skinned. Nothing in nature does.

So your kid sees your wife in her new dress and says 'Wow, you look so gross.' Wife bursts into tears. Do you:
a) Tell her to toughen up. She's too think skinned.
b) Tell your kid that the way he expressed himself was not acceptable.

If it's b) would you accept an argument from him that you are infringing on his rights to free speech?

 

[Paidiske]

It seems to me that part of what is missing in this discussion, is a recognition that unconditional positive regard is understood as a necessary and important part of the way a mental health professional interacts with clients. Statements such as the ones Peterson is being criticised for, made so very publicly, would absolutely undermine some clients' confidence in the unconditional positive regard that underpins their emotional safety in the therapeutic relationship.

 

[timothyu]

If it's b) would you accept an argument from him that you are infringing on his rights to free speech?

I would, especially if it was an honest evaluation on his part. I would also understand that as a kid he would speak in the language of his peers. But you must remember that Peterson ran into opposition not as a psychologist but remarks made at universities and the like as a speaker when confronted by students trying to trip him up in a public forum.

 

[IceJad]

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.

I agree only on semantics at this point. Because the reality of the situation is far different. We can bring up a dictionary and point to a definition of a word but when people choose to reinterpret and act contrary or with partiality to its definition the word loses all meaning.

I'm not saying there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. I'm only pointing out the obvious disparity of their implementation by the power be (by this I mean the governments of most western nations). We don't have to look very hard to find examples.

As a person who believes if X is wrong regardless whether person A or person B does X, both are wrong and should get the same punishment. That is not what I'm observing in the west with matters pertaining to speech and expression.

 

[IceJad]

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

Depends on the subject that the discipline is pertaining to. What exactly is Mr. Peterson being disciplined for? What unprofessional conduct did he do that demanded institutionalized remand? Just because an organization can make up rules and code of conduct doesn't mean said guidelines are above the law of the land.

If the organization one day makes up a rule to say any person deem suicidal should be encouraged by the attending physiologist to carry out their thought because the world need to reduce its human foot print, does it mean all objecting members need to be re-educated to maintain their professional license? The example is extreme but the spirit of it should apply to all cases.

 

[Bradskii]

I would, especially if it was an honest evaluation on his part.

So 'Wow mum, you look gross' is something that you'd explain to your wife is 'an honest evaluation' and you support your kids right as regards freedom of speech to say it.

I think that makes your position quite clear. And all the married men reading that are thinking 'Just what the..?'

 

[Bradskii]

I agree only on semantics at this point. Because the reality of the situation is far different. We can bring up a dictionary and point to a definition of a word but when people choose to reinterpret and act contrary or with partiality to its definition the word loses all meaning.

I'm not saying there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. I'm only pointing out the obvious disparity of their implementation by the power be (by this I mean the governments of most western nations). We don't have to look very hard to find examples.

As a person who believes if X is wrong regardless whether person A or person B does X, both are wrong and should get the same punishment. That is not what I'm observing in the west with matters pertaining to speech and expression.

So there's nuance. So sometimes it's a debatable point. You still need to agree that 'You're an idiot' is acceptable and 'Idiots like you should be taken out the back and have some sense knocked into you' is not.

 

[Bradskii]

If the organization one day makes up a rule to say any person deem suicidal should be encouraged by the attending physiologist to carry out their thought because the world need to reduce its human foot print, does it mean all objecting members need to be re-educated to maintain their professional license? The example is extreme...

It's not extreme. It's nonsensical.

If I say something that you think is idiotic then within this forum you are not allowed to say 'You are a **** idiot'. And you agree to that. You agreed when you joined. I don't imagine you've ever contacted the mods complaining that they are restricting your freedom of speech.

 

[IceJad]

So there's nuance. So sometimes it's a debatable point. You still need to agree that 'You're an idiot' is acceptable and 'Idiots like you should be taken out the back and have some sense knocked into you' is not.

And as I said that nuance is not enforced equally on both sides. The point you're side stepping in your replies to me. Or you want me to put in video evidence to show my point? Selectively answering my point loses all context my argument.

My point was never about what free speech or hate speech looks like. My initial post points that out very obviously. It was about the unequal application of law for both sides of the political spectrum. You only choose to hone in on the last paragraph to reframe it as though my main point is about hate speech and free speech. Which is far of the mark.

 

[IceJad]

It's not extreme. It's nonsensical.

If I say something that you think is idiotic then within this forum you are not allowed to say 'You are a **** idiot'. And you agree to that. You agreed when you joined. I don't imagine you've ever contacted the mods complaining that they are restricting your freedom of speech.

Yes non-"sensical". Until I can give you a real life example.

Video: Teacher Loses Job For Backing J.K Rowling & Encouraging Students to Think Critically

In a shocking turn of events, a teacher's commitment to promoting critical thinking among students has led to his dismissal from a school, sparking debates about the nature of education and censorship in the classroom.

www.freepressjournal.in

 

[Bradskii]

And as I said that nuance is not enforced equally on both sides. The point you're side stepping in your replies to me. Or you want me to put in video evidence to show my point? Selectively answering my point loses all context my argument.

My point was never about what free speech or hate speech looks like. My initial post points that out very obviously. It was about the unequal application of law for both sides of the political spectrum. You only choose to hone in on the last paragraph to reframe it as though my main point is about hate speech and free speech. Which is far of the mark.

I'm accepting your point that there are differences of opinion. Maybe I can sum up my response. So what?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes non-"sensical". Until I can give you a real life example.

Video: Teacher Loses Job For Backing J.K Rowling & Encouraging Students to Think Critically

In a shocking turn of events, a teacher's commitment to promoting critical thinking among students has led to his dismissal from a school, sparking debates about the nature of education and censorship in the classroom.

www.freepressjournal.in

Was there anything at all in there about promoting suicide? I haven't the time or the interest to listen to random videos trying to pick out what you think is applicable.

 

[Larniavc]

Smart people would say both are wrong.

Can you support that assertion?

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems to me that part of what is missing in this discussion, is a recognition that unconditional positive regard is understood as a necessary and important part of the way a mental health professional interacts with clients. Statements such as the ones Peterson is being criticised for, made so very publicly, would absolutely undermine some clients' confidence in the unconditional positive regard that underpins their emotional safety in the therapeutic relationship.

I understand what you're saying here, in theory, but where's the limiting principle?

What's being branded as "emotional safety" and "disrespectful" is something of a moving target, and one that seemingly aims to cater to the sensibilities of one particular political faction.

If a clinician gives their honest opinion about something that they honestly see as a problem, that's going to occasionally cross some peoples' comfort zones.

Per the links I posted earlier, there are already people (and not just a few randos on the internet, but major publications) advocating for ideas like "a doctor talking with an overweight patient about their weight is disrespectful", "doctors should avoid bringing up weight if it makes the patient uncomfortable", etc...


In this particular case, if studying the psyche of a person who identifies as non-binary is the aim, and it's supposed to be somewhat scientific, then it can't be done rigorously (or honestly) under the conditions of "you have to use my pronouns, and you have to acknowledge first and foremost that this is real, and a good thing that's to be celebrated, and not just an outgrowth of a mental health problem...otherwise, it's an assault on me"

If a clinician was working with the topic of addiction and alcohol use disorders, that'd be like people demanding "you have to say that drinking isn't a problem, and you have to acknowledge that drinking is completely normal, otherwise, people who like to drink will be offended and won't feel emotionally safe"

...that's not going to end up being a sincere delving into the subject if the clinician is being given the marching orders of "we'd like you to study this topic, but here is the one approved conclusion your research is allowed to come up with, and here are the 20 conclusions that are strictly off-limits"

And that is sort of what's happening with the fields of psychology & sociology...basically the demand is for "conclusion-first" research on certain topics, where they're working within the framework of "here's the approved conclusions you're allowed to have on this topic, don't color outside the lines or there will be professional consequences".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Peterson's choice of words can definitely have repercussions.