Silencing Jordan Peterson... Canada takes action.

[essentialsaltes]

I thought there were no protections offered by the first ammendment. I'm confused as to what you believe.

It's not that complicated. What kind of speech can the government impose repercussions on you for?

Nothing*. (*obviously inciting imminent lawless action and a few other extreme exceptions exist)

What kind of speech can your employer impose repercussions on you for?

Almost all (maybe all) states are at-will, so they can fire you for anything. So.... anything.

Which situation pertains to Jordan Peterson? The second. Therefore, any of his whining about free speech is just wrong from the get-go.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, given that most mental health professionals manage to comport themselves in ways which never draw such sanction, I'm not buying the idea that the expectations of professional conduct are really so onerous.

Some of the reported statements are egregious. I'd expect to be pulled up if I made them publicly, and I have nowhere near the profile of a Jordan Peterson.

As I make mention of before, I think it had less to do with what the statements were, and more do with who he is (he's a well known figure who's popular among the people who the left doesn't like).

Even when he's used non-crass language to describe some of the subject matter, they still look for reasons to pounce, it would seem as if the crass language in these instances just provided the convenient opportunity.

Because the other side of politics is less concerned with the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable people....?

Perhaps that was a cheap shot. But that is how this comes across.

...but I think we, as a society, have to draw a line of distinction between "protecting the rights & well-being of vulnerable people" and "making rules that dictate you're never allowed to disagree with certain protected classes or challenge & confront them or ever tell them No"

Some of what we see today drifts into the latter.

When the threshold for "protecting my emotional safety and well-being" gets set at "you're never allowed to disagree with me, and your actions, statements, and public discourse has to revolve around validating what I believe to be true", that's unreasonable.

And as I mentioned to another poster, in some cases, it is narcissism among the people who are in the protected class (the NIH data showing a 52% prevalence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder among Non-binary identifying people, aside), the imposition itself...this "no matter how social exchanges go, there has to be something wrong with what you did/said so that there's a reason for me to tell you that you need to educate yourself" tone of discourse would indicate that as well.

Thus the ever-moving goalposts around the topic of pronouns over the past decade is what's driven a lot of people into the other camp (and drew them to people like Peterson)

The discourse went something like this over a period of 6 years:
If a person is identifying as the opposite gender, you need to use the correct pronouns and educate yourself about transpeople

-- Okay, if I see a transwoman, I'll refer to her as she/her...and he/him for the transmen

Whoa Whoa!, you can't just assume, we've decided that there are actually more than two genders now, and they may just prefer they/them if they don't fit with one of the two that you knew about, you need to educate yourself about the societal construct of gender

-- Uhhh, okay, I guess I'll ask them what their preferred pronouns are, and try my best to remember.

Wait just a minute! Did you just say "preferred"?!? No no, "preferred" implies that it's a choice, Ze/Zir is who that person is, it's not a choice, so you can't say preferred. You just need to educate yourself more on the importance of pronouns so you can be more inclusive

--- Grrr...you know what, fine!... I'll ask the person what the pronouns are, and avoid using the word preferred, and then refer to the person as that moving forward.

Well actually, did you know that gender fluid peoples' pronouns can change by the day? So if you want to be inclusive, you'll need to regularly ask what their pronouns are. You should really read this book about Two-Spirit identity within indigenous cultures so you can educate yourself.

-- okay, you know what...nope, we're done with this now

Can you believe these bigots?!? I don't feel safe!

 

[Paidiske]

Some of what we see today drifts into the latter.

Some, perhaps, but not this. I simply don't see a professional body holding its members accountable for professional conduct as a problem. I would see a failure to do so as a massive problem.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If a "professional' body is infiltrated by a political agenda - is it still "professional" ?

 

[FireDragon76]

If a "professional' body is infiltrated by a political agenda - is it still "professional" ?

Last time I checked, respect and decency isn't an "agenda".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The discourse went something like this over a period of 6 years:
If a person is identifying as the opposite gender, you need to use the correct pronouns and educate yourself about transpeople

-- Okay, if I see a transwoman, I'll refer to her as she/her...and he/him for the transmen

Whoa Whoa!, you can't just assume, we've decided that there are actually more than two genders now, and they may just prefer they/them if they don't fit with one of the two that you knew about, you need to educate yourself about the societal construct of gender

-- Uhhh, okay, I guess I'll ask them what their preferred pronouns are, and try my best to remember.

Wait just a minute! Did you just say "preferred"?!? No no, "preferred" implies that it's a choice, Ze/Zir is who that person is, it's not a choice, so you can't say preferred. You just need to educate yourself more on the importance of pronouns so you can be more inclusive

--- Grrr...you know what, fine!... I'll ask the person what the pronouns are, and avoid using the word preferred, and then refer to the person as that moving forward.

Well actually, did you know that gender fluid peoples' pronouns can change by the day? So if you want to be inclusive, you'll need to regularly ask what their pronouns are. You should really read this book about Two-Spirit identity within indigenous cultures so you can educate yourself.

-- okay, you know what...nope, we're done with this now

Can you believe these bigots?!? I don't feel safe!

Frankly, this is a bit of an exaggeration. And by "a bit," I mean a lot. Extreme interactions on Tumblr and Twitter have certainly colored the perceptions of the terminally-online audience that Peterson cultivates, but those individuals aren't representative of real-life experiences. My job involves daily interactions with Democratic political staffers (in other words, pretty much the most collectively liberal group most people are ever likely to work with), and I've never had an interaction like this. We've got people with weird pronouns, people who are genderfluid, people who are trans, etc - for the most part, they're good at communicating their preferences, but when they don't and/or you get it wrong, they correct you politely, you apologize, and everyone moves on.

 

[FireDragon76]

As I make mention of before, I think it had less to do with what the statements were, and more do with who he is (he's a well known figure who's popular among the people who the left doesn't like).

Even when he's used non-crass language to describe some of the subject matter, they still look for reasons to pounce, it would seem as if the crass language in these instances just provided the convenient opportunity.

...but I think we, as a society, have to draw a line of distinction between "protecting the rights & well-being of vulnerable people" and "making rules that dictate you're never allowed to disagree with certain protected classes or challenge & confront them or ever tell them No"

Some of what we see today drifts into the latter.

When the threshold for "protecting my emotional safety and well-being" gets set at "you're never allowed to disagree with me, and your actions, statements, and public discourse has to revolve around validating what I believe to be true", that's unreasonable.
]

This isn't about disagreement. It's about Peterson using his prestige, fame, and academic credentials to punch down some of the most vulnerable members of society.

 

[Paidiske]

If a "professional' body is infiltrated by a political agenda - is it still "professional" ?

I reject the premise of the question in this case.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If a "professional' body is infiltrated by a political agenda - is it still "professional" ?

Despite Peterson's whining, saying that it's unprofessional to call someone a child of a lady-dog does not reflect a political agenda.

It's about maintaining professional (exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner) language.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This isn't about disagreement. It's about Peterson using his prestige, fame, and academic credentials to punch down some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Who exactly was he "punching down" on in those social media interactions?

He called an Ottawa city counsel person arrogant
He make a negative remark about Justin Trudeau cabinet member
He "dead-named" a famous actor with a net worth of $18 million dollars
He criticized Sports Illustrated for their choice of Model (the model in question happens to be a previous editor for Vogue, owns her own clothing line, does quite well financially, and was invited to the White House for their Asian American Heritage celebration)


You can say his comments were distasteful and needlessly rude, that's fine, but I don't think we need to pretend it was punching down.


High ranking political figures, famous actors/actresses (and their celebrity cosmetic surgeons), the #1 sports publication in the world, and millionaire models/fashion magazine editors are certainly not the "Most vulnerable members of society"

 

[Belk]

If a "professional' body is infiltrated by a political agenda - is it still "professional" ?

Fox news remains a news organization despite a clear agenda.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Some, perhaps, but not this. I simply don't see a professional body holding its members accountable for professional conduct as a problem. I would see a failure to do so as a massive problem.

But his twitter feed isn't a "professional environment" is it?

Had he been saying those things to a person laying down on a couch in his office, then that would be one thing.

...but, it also raises the question, is "walking on eggshells around these specific groups" being conflated for professional conduct? And would other psychologists be getting held to the same standards if they targeted groups that conservatives tend to be fond of?

For instance, when Dr. Steven Hassan made statements saying that American conservatism is cult, or when Dr. Derald Wing Sue wrote a piece for The Hill in which he asserted that when people who claim to vote for conservatives for reasons of abortion, tax policy, and gun policy, that's just their mind using those a rationalizations to mask the underlying subconscious bigoted beliefs, and then labelled it as "the insidious underbelly of American politics"
(note, while the names may not be as "household" as Peterson's, they're award winning senior professors for Columbia and Cambridge)

Was anyone suggesting that their rude comments were unprofessional and that their licenses should be in question? Or is the "you have to be nice" sort of a one-way street that's viewed through a political lens?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Frankly, this is a bit of an exaggeration. And by "a bit," I mean a lot. Extreme interactions on Tumblr and Twitter have certainly colored the perceptions of the terminally-online audience that Peterson cultivates, but those individuals aren't representative of real-life experiences. My job involves daily interactions with Democratic political staffers (in other words, pretty much the most collectively liberal group most people are ever likely to work with), and I've never had an interaction like this. We've got people with weird pronouns, people who are genderfluid, people who are trans, etc - for the most part, they're good at communicating their preferences, but when they don't and/or you get it wrong, they correct you politely, you apologize, and everyone moves on.

It's not that much of an exaggeration, Ivy League institutions are putting it in their handbooks.

I think we can agree that places like Stanford and other elite colleges are a major institution, yes? They're certainly not some fringe activist group or flash-in-the-pan social movement, they're a staple of what's viewed as the upper halls of academia.

Here's their guidance on the matter:

• Respecting someone’s self-identification means using the gender pronouns with which they identify. Some people go by more than one set of pronouns.
• Normalize the process of indicating your gender pronouns in everyday use with strategies such as including them in your email signature, business cards, website profile, and nametags, or using them as you introduce yourself (i.e., "My name is Tou and my pronouns are he and him. What about you?”)
• If you do not know or have not asked someone’s pronouns, try to use “they/them” pronouns.
• Ask individuals to provide their personal pronoun(s). It can feel awkward at first, but it is not as awkward as getting it wrong or making a hurtful assumption.
• Don’t refer to pronouns such as “they/them/their” or “ze/hir/hir” as “gender-neutral pronouns.” While some people identify as gender-neutral, others see themselves as gendered in a nonbinary way. Better language is “nonbinary pronouns.”
• Don’t describe the pronouns someone uses as “preferred pronouns.” It is not a preference. The pronouns that a person uses are their pronouns and the only ones that should be used for them.
• Don’t say “male pronouns” and “female pronouns.” Pronouns are not necessarily tied to someone’s gender identity: some trans people use “he/him/his” or “she/her/her,” but do not identify as male or female, respectively.
• If you conform to (most) gender expectations and are not a transgender person, don’t indicate that you “don’t care what pronouns are used for me.” Such statements reinforce the privilege of people who are gender conforming.
• Ask people the pronouns they use for themselves whenever you ask people their name, such as when you meet someone for the first time or when you do go-arounds at meetings. Keep in mind that people may change the pronouns they go by, so it is necessary to ask pronouns in go-arounds regularly.

Clear as mud, right?

...and actually, to prove my point even further about the ever-moving goalposts, they've added a new rule since I copied and pasted this list 4 months ago. That second to last one:
"if you conform to gender expectations, don't indicate that you don't care what pronouns are used for yourself"

So evidently, I'm not even allowed to say for myself "I don't care what you call me", but because that would "reinforce my gender-conforming privilege"

So now I don't just have to care about their pronouns, I have also pretend to care about my own as well to participate in the charade...

 

[timothyu]

Even when he's used non-crass language to describe some of the subject matter, they still look for reasons to pounce, it would seem as if the crass language in these instances just provided the convenient opportunity.

Mindset of the cancel culture. Those not interested in the voice of reason fortunately are still a minority, but they have found an amplifier by way of the internet which is merely an echo chamber for said small voices.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's not that much of an exaggeration, Ivy League institutions are putting it in their handbooks.

I think we can agree that places like Stanford and other elite colleges are a major institution, yes? They're certainly not some fringe activist group or flash-in-the-pan social movement, they're a staple of what's viewed as the upper halls of academia.

CYA provisions are rarely reflective of normal interactions. All it means is that someone, somewhere, has sued over it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

CYA provisions are rarely reflective of normal interactions. All it means is that someone, somewhere, has sued over it.

Are we sure these are all CYA provisions?

Or is it a virtue signal of sorts? Knowing how much those universities cost, and knowing that their primary customer-base is young people, perhaps it serves their financial interests to "do what the kids think is cool"?

For instance, Stanford's "Elimination of Harmful Language in IT" initiative was one that the faculty put together, and they ended up reverting the policy after what they called "intense feedback"

(but not before WSJ kept a permanent copy and published it)

Stanford ‘Harmful Language’ list removed after backlash

Stanford removed its Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative website after what it described as “intense recent feedback.”

stanforddaily.com

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

So there's a couple different interesting dynamics intersecting here.

You have a group of 18-24 year olds whose goal is to be more radically progressive than the "old fuddy duddies"
You have the faculty, themselves, who are trying to be as radical on this topic as possible in order to appeal to said "youngsters"
(which, in turn, means those younger people have to push it even further since they've "gotta be one step ahead of the older people")

...it creates a cycle that can go off the rails quickly.


To use an analogy.

If a young person wants to be rebellious against authority, and thinks they can do so by smoking pot...
If you introduce an older person into the mix who's trying to be "the cool parent/teacher" that says "well, that's alright...all of us adults like pot, see we're just like you guys", all they've done is make pot seem boring, and the young person with a rebellious nature will just kick it up a notch.


There's an expression "Youth exists to torment age, Age exists to torment youth". Implying a healthy power struggle between "traditional wisdom and norms" and "radical new ideas"

However, within academia, they've sort of broken the formula over the past decade.

Instead of youth trying to put the pedal to the metal and the old people being there to push the brakes, they're seemingly in competition for who can push the gas pedal the hardest.

 

[timothyu]

Instead of youth trying to put the pedal to the metal and the old people being there to push the brakes, they're seemingly in competition for who can push the gas pedal the hardest.

Too bad that both sides have assumed that just because they participate in said institutions, that automatically makes them smart. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Larniavc]

What is 'professional' being meant to mean ?

When you have a professional title you are regulated by the relevant professional body. Acting out of accordance it's mandates is unprofessional.

 

[timothyu]

Like an HOA ? What exactly is 'social media training' and who gets to be the authority? So far this relatively new platform has been open source so to speak until individuals/groups starting proclaiming themselves as overlords.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

When you have a professional title you are regulated by the relevant professional body. Acting out of accordance it's mandates is unprofessional.

Is that standard applied universally?

For instance, if a company makes a dress/grooming code policy (code of conduct) that says no facial piercings, no unnatural hair colors, and no visible tattoos.

And people who work for that company protest it in the name of "protecting self expression" and "ending bias" (and some have even pushed to make it legally protected)...

Those people in question would be the ones being unprofessional in that situation, correct? (since their organization has laid out guidelines for working there, and they're trying to side-step them)


I'm trying to gauge whether or not this is a sincere "there must be appreciation and respect for the rules", or if this is a one-sided "we have a duty to disobey the rules we don't like, but the people on the other side should have to follow the rules we do like" situation where it's based on ideological convenience.