Earp, I pretty clearly took the most extreme example I could think of to make a clear point. I assumed the other participants would follow what I was doing.
Guess my confidence was misplaced.
Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
Guess my confidence was misplaced.
You keep missing my point.
Except he clearly pissed off his professional governing body, which suggests that he didn't actually make "careful yet accessible common sense arguments" all the time.
Maybe you should post the Tate stuff in the Tate thread.
He pissed off these "people" who then reported him to the professional governing body:
Fuck them/they/zee
Last edited:
There is a cultural pertinence to Godwin's Law. I'm simply pointing out we are always invoking Hitler and the Holocaust on social media. I would also add that there is humor in citing Godwin's Law.
Your Lin Wood example was a good reference.
No, its about professional standards.
Same way anti vaxxer nursers had issues with their association.
Same way a dentist who didn't believe in sterilization would be censured.
Peterson can talk about whatever he wants when he's not representing psychologists.
Of course they reported him.
Same way doctors who don't believe in vaccines get reported.
Who could have tossed the complaints - as most complaints to professional governing bodies are promptly tossed.
But the CPO took these complaints seriously and directed JP to do stuff that he doesn't want to do - because he gets a lot more $$$ and notoriety refusing to do them. And he doesn't actually practice psychology any more. So why would he gaf?
Yes, it is about professional standards and it's a form of censorship.... It's not the same as a dentist who doesn't sterilize his implements, it's about controversial ideas and opinions, many of which have nothing to do with the field. Also, I don't understand why complaints from outside Ontario are being considered...
So you are correct that it's about professional standards of conduct but I'm very curious why they would follow the course of action that they have taken. These complaints are not serious... differences of opinion really.
If a doctor or lawyer get charged w DUI or domestic assault, that's a trip to their professional body's discipline tribunal for a "conduct unbecoming" hearing.
It doesn't have to be practice-related.
Free speech isn’t what Jordan Peterson thinks it is
What do Jordan Peterson, Pierre Poilievre and Elon Musk have in common? None of them understand how free speech actually works — especially in Canada, writes columnist Max Fawcett.
Jordan has drawn their ire like no other. He once joked on Rogan that he has figured out a way to monetize the left,lol.
He and joe were laughing when they were saying it so it should be taken with a grain of salt so to speak.
Of course you see the word ''grifter'' attached all the time to someone who doesn't share their beliefs.
Last edited:
The marks are always the last ones to accept that they have been conned.
So all the people that state Peterson helped them are all marks?
Well maybe they are grateful marks then.
I'm well aware of "conduct unbecoming" means and that the complaints do not have to be practice related.
Do you have a real hard on for this guy or do you just have to be right?
If you would have read what I said, I questioned their intentions to go after him for something not as serious as the criminal offenses you list. This is a fucked up society when there are bodies that take away someone's livelyhood for expressing contrary opinions.
I don't believe that Peterson has much recourse to their decisions. If it goes to a hearing, it will be interesting to see the College's decision.
Every professional organization has that language. Thankfully the PEO hasn't commented on escorts and strip clubs.
I think he's the rightie equivalent of Noam Chomsky. Both extremely bright people and well spoken but use their academic credentials to get attention.
And "we' aren't the ones who keep bringing him up (except to laugh at), it is the people who believe that free speech means they aren't allowed to be criticized that keep bringing him up.
I haven't looked into his professional organization but I know the one I'm part of is a publicly accountable institution run by the membership to regulate the profession and legally required to publish all of their matters. I would expect that you can find the complete disciplinary hearing that was held on their site and if the membership disagreed with the finding, they could elect different board members.
I'm sure you be be upset that my professional organization "limits free speech' when it goes after people claiming they are practicing engineers without having a PEng.
He meets the qualifications for membership.
He didn't misrepresent himself.
He has opinions that are controversial.
If you support a body that can sanction you for your opinions, that's your choice and I can respect that. He has chosen to contest his College's position. Is he entitled to that or would you prefer he just goes along with their position?
His refusing their sanctions has put him in a situation where he can lose his license, he chose that fight. I respect his choice just as I respect your choice to be a member of your professional organization.
Hopefully, you won't have to ever experience a complaint that questions your professionalism or threatens your ability to work in your chosen profession.
Last edited:
Peterson has found out that saying outrageous things pays more than tenure and more then being a psychologist.
He's playing to his market and is cashing in big time peddling outrage that you and the right wingers buy by the dozen.
He doesn't care about being a psychologist, other than making more money off of getting censured.
Meanwhile, how many right wingers who are freedom of speech lovers use the ignore function on this board?
