So you are saying Jordan Peterson’s support for fundamental liberties (which? speech? right-to-work?) does not necessitate any endorsement of particulars (what particulars?)?
I’m still not getting it. Help me out, octopus.
~Max
I mean, if you’re just using the phrase “fundamental liberties” to mean “whatever octopus thinks that Jordan Peterson should be able to do without encountering any negative consequences as a practitioner of an officially regulated profession”, then sure, maybe. But that is not AFAICT part of any constitutionally recognized definition of “fundamental liberties”.
It’s just octo getting ink all over a thread to make it about him again, that’s all.
He’s like Mike Lindell teasing that he’s going to reveal all of the data next time to prove vote fraud.
I was originally thinking octopus meant something like, Enola_Straight’s support for Jordan Peterson’s fundamental right to freedom of speech does not necessarily mean Enola_Straight endorses Peterson’s view (if he even holds the view?) that transgender identity is or is comparable to a mental illness (a suggestion for which Enola_Straight was warned).
But this relies on a lot of assumptions on my part, and a misunderstanding of Canadian freedom of speech on octopus’s part.
~Max
As far as I can tell, the reasoning (such as it is) of the Peterson defenders is basically along the lines of “Anybody saying anything that the wokies don’t like has a perfect right to do so, and any real-world negative consequences to them that result from their speech violating professional codes of conduct or company policy or similar is AUTOMATICALLY AN ILLEGITIMATE INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR INHERENT RIGHTS.”
Which is pure wishful thinking, natch; that’s not how rights work. Nobody is violating Jordan Peterson’s “fundamental liberties” in any legally realistic sense.
octopus, Jordan’s stuff is so extreme I’m wondering what type of speech, if any, you would think justifies a clinical psychology licensing board taking any sort of action.
Another potential real apology,
“I was careless in debate and accidentally compared transgender identity to a mental illness, which reasonably offended some of you. This was a mistake on my part, and not my intention at all. I lost track of the argument and I sincerely apologize for hurting some of you as a result. Please know that I do NOT believe transgender identity is a mental illness, and I support individuals by addressing them by their chosen pronouns even if Jordan Peterson doesn’t.”
Of course one couldn’t use this, or any other real apology, if they don’t believe it and work to improve in the future.
If you aren’t a transphobe, you’re a blockhead for not saying so with a real apology.
If you are a transphobe, you’re a coward for not owning it.
~Max
And when you’re ready to actually apologize, maybe we’ll talk.
Much like anti-constitutional speech codes at public universities, I don’t believe the state or agents of the state have any business regulating your exercise of speech, religion, or assembly. These are fundamental freedoms.
I know it runs contrary to the left’s desire to ‘consequence’ the blasphemers but that’s too bad really.
Now, if Jordan Peterson was acting as a psychologist and was treating someone with methods that violate whatever professional standards he has agreed to that’d be different. But tweets, books, and speeches are his business and one is free to be part of the audience or not.
Which agent of the state are you under the impression is involved here?
You’re an absolutist, then? I teach first graders. If I started screaming at them about how their parents hate them and they should run away, you believe it’d be overreach for my government employer to sanction me? If they fired me, would that be “consequencing the blasphemers”? What if I used my freedom of speech to teach them that 1+1=11, because I thought it would be funny?
I checked with Miller. That is not a current rule, but something from pre-Miller days.
Same with the old lawn chair rule.
I wasn’t sure myself, it was used a lot when I joined the board.
He probably means town councils banning books from libraries, statehouses banning mentions of gay people in school or teaching about America’s history with slavery, and so on, but he just found the wrong thread to express those concerns. I’m not sure why he mentioned “liberals” in his post, though – I don’t think those are liberals who are using the actual power of the state to ban actual speech.
I did it a long time ago for taking a huge shit in some nice person’s thread (Mean Old Lady, I think?) about Uber or some ride-share thing that I had NO FUCKING IDEA what I was talking about. I dissevered it!
I’ve tried to be better.
Just because speech, religion and assembly are fundamental freedoms doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t get to regulate them in any way whatsoever. That is a ridiculously and unworkably over-broad definition of “freedom” that even the most fanatical civil libertarians have never espoused.
So you’re saying that as long as Peterson in his private practice admits that in his public persona he’s just spouting inflammatory bullshit that his patients should ignore, then the governing body of his profession shouldn’t have any objection to that? Really? You don’t think that behavior violates reasonable standards of professional practice in any way?
Maybe if Peterson’s public whackjobbery were confined strictly to non-psychology-related kookiness like searching for evidence of ancient extraterrestrial invasions or something, you’d have a point. But pretty much Peterson’s whole public schtick is about making claims that flout standards of psychological practice. I don’t see how you can reasonably expect his licensing organization to let him get away with that as an officially accredited representative of their profession.
Did you type that with a straight face? 
Story time?
~Max
There was a running joke in pit threads with posts like “I’ve parked my lawn chair” or “This should go well, I’ve got my bucket of popcorn”.
They were discouraged as post padding or something.
For my part, I have no such faith in licensing boards. They are good old boys clubs - always have been, and always will. Just like any other professional organization, even when operating at a quasi-governmental level. There was a headline last year that something like 1 in 10 primary care doctors won’t say vaccines are safe. You have to really screw up to get disbarred, defrocked, what have you.
Maybe Canada does professional licensing better.
~Max
ETA: Thanks for the context, What_Exit!
I had a too-pleased-with-myself face on.