Listen dumbass, just because I don’t think people should be legally sanctioned for speech doesn’t mean I agree with every statement ever made. Again, this is a first or second grade concept…
There is a difference between competency in a professional setting, of course I don’t think that matters where there is a strong union especially a strong government worker union, and what one says outside the work environment.
Are we going to regulate one’s practice of religion and one’s sex life next? Quite a bit of religion is nonsensical. If peddling nonsense is grounds for all sorts of ‘consequencing’ we are going to have serious issues going forward.
It’s all making sense now - you studied the concept of freedom of expression only until second grade.
It’s not that complicated.
The real issue is that the left doesn’t really believe in liberty or fundamental freedoms. The left, much like religious zealots, uses a concept to fool the gullible in order to obtain power. Once power is obtained promotion of a particular idea is no longer as useful. As a famous leftist once said, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
I think that Republicans trying to regulate other people’s sex lives is a terrible idea.
The fact that it is always “the left” for you that is the problem reveals much. It isn’t that your a free speech absolutist, just that you want conservatives to be able to promote their vile without consequence. You never seem to quite recognize that “the right” wants to suppress speech, ideas, people, voting, etc. they don’t like just as much, if not more.
But let’s keep this simple, do you think a psychologist should be making jokes about suicide when that person is recognized as an expert authority on psychology without any professional consequences? If that causes someone in distress to kill themselves, is that ok? Is that just the price we pay to let an authority figure spout whatever vile thing comes to mind?
And for clarity, my opinion is that when you take on the mantle of authority, then you accept a degree of responsibility to society to use your position with care. Your not just some guy or gal anymore. That’s why, for example, when I was in the military I was encouraged not to make certain kinds of political statements and certainly could not tie to them to my status as a CF officer.
And water is dry, and the sky is green.
You are an ignorant fool. But you are a true Republican. Look at what a Republican is accusing others of, and you’ll see what that Republican is guilty of.
All you need to know about Peterson, OP, is merely look at the quality of people who defend him.
Let’s just say it’s somehow the same group who supports Andrew Tate, Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, and pre-arrest Jeffrey Epstein.
OK. So what’s going on with Jordan Peterson? I think it matters what you believe has actually happened so far.
(Also, the Stalin quote is apocryphal, as probably 99 out of the 100 most recent quotes you’ve heard on the internet have been).
Man, you caught us. The jig’s up, fellow Progressive Anarchists! Time to give up. Ixnay with the oolingfay the ulliblegay.
.
And, EnolaStraight, very well-written mea culpa. It takes guts to face yourself like that.
Your honesty and willingness to grow as a person is quite a contrast to the “blame everyone I don’t agree with” we just saw in this thread.
So I’m not really clear on how Canada works, but I don’t see this as a governmental suppression of speech issue. The government regulates the professional organization but it doesn’t regulate how the professional organization makes disciplinary decisions, does it? It’s not like the Canadian government is saying, “Hey, professional organization, make Jordan Peterson stop saying things we don’t agree with.”
Nobody’s saying that there’s not “a difference” between those two contexts. What we’re saying is that for high-profile public figures when opining publicly about their professions, those two contexts are not meaningfully separable.
The real issue is that you don’t understand the difference between “stuff octopus likes” and “the real-life constitutional definitions of fundamental freedoms”.
Just because you happen to think it would be fun if an anti-liberal troll could publicly violate the standards of his professional governing body in his social-media shilling for his personal brand, with complete impunity from any professional consequences, does not mean that such a troll actually has any kind of constitutionally guaranteed “fundamental freedom” to do so.
Right-wingers these days don’t need any nefarious machinations or totalitarian control from “the left” to prevent them from having ideas. Conservatives, as your posts reliably illustrate, have voluntarily sabotaged their own potential for rational thought with all their conspiracy theories and anti-“leftist” hate-wanks and other forms of reality denial.
That sounds to me like you don’t think freedom of speech is absolute. It’s helpful to figure out where exactly you place these limits. It’s unhelpful for you to pretend like it’s some sort of Stalinist purge on the left.
Do you, for example, think that if I were screaming these same things at children while at the grocery store, or posting them on parent Facebook groups outside of work hours, it’d be wrong for my employer to sanction me?
It’s a very difficult question. At some point an employer could say this worker is too toxic for our company and is causing serious harm and has to go. But where do you draw the line? Should you be fired for a political bumper sticker on your car? What church, synagogue, or mosque you attend? How you dress outside of work? Who you date?
I’m of the opinion that there needs to be boundaries between work, the university, professional accreditation and what one does in one’s personal life. Mass media, ubiquitous recording devices, quick searches and the internet’s vast historical storage is making magnitude of a response vastly disproportionate.
So Jordan Peterson says things that are nutty or insensitive… don’t listen or tune in. When I was in college, over in the liberal arts side of things there was always a crank or two ranting about something. Listening was optional.
It really isn’t difficult. You even answered the question in your previous sentence. The line is drawn when the person is causing serious harm.
Yeah, that is difficult. Because so-called serious harm is quite often not serious or highly subjective. Hurt feelings isn’t serious harm.
Adults, especially those who work in a professional capacity, make those sorts of decisions all the time. It really isn’t that difficult.
Depending on the circumstances, “hurt feelings” can absolutely be serious harm. 'Intentional infliction of emotional distress" is a tortious offense that can lead to real harm for an organization. Likewise with “hurting feelings” which can lead to a hostile work environment. You can “hurt someone’s feelings” though bullying a person into suicide. Once again, absolutes are for children and idiots. Context matters. Your blathering is nonsense.
Oh noes! You hurt my feelz! You should be fired!
You see how utterly ridiculous you are? I mean seriously, the censorious and shrill scolds of the left have abandoned any pretext at the promotion of liberty and are too stupid to realize the real harms to society that that causes.
Using the language of a child to make the argument of a child is rather amusing.
No, to the contrary I shredded your pathetic arguments to the point where all you can do is make playground insults. Slink away, mollusk.