You did nothing of the sort. All you have done is demonstrate a complete ignorance of history and a complete ignorance of human nature. And that’s the generous interpretation of your so-called ideological position.
And yet you can’t actually refute anything I said. Because I made factual statements contradicting you. You can’t argue with me, so you don’t. It’s a bit sad because you’ve shown the ability to make a cogent argument in the past.
Though I don’t think it’s really your ability to make an argument that’s to blame here, it’s the ability to choose a position that’s defensible. You chose poorly. You took a flawed position that you can’t reason your way out of, so all you can do is make a non sequitur rant in the style of the Chewbacca Defense. Which only works in a cartoon.
You are missing the point even though it’s obvious. If it were sufficient that hurting someone’s feeling were enough to be sanctioned, fired, expelled, have the regime send the FBI to investigate you then why would you write things that are hurtful?
All the Ontario (not Canadian) government has done is to allow the Ontario College of Psychologists to operate as a self-governed body. Same as it does for the Ontario College of Physicians, the Law Society of Ontario, and the Ontario Association of Architects. None are under government control; all have been allowed by the Ontario government to operate as self-governed bodies.
The Canadian federal government does not; indeed it cannot, interfere in any decision taken by a provincially-chartered body. Neither can the province; once such a thing as the Ontario College of Psychologists (OCP) is constituted and chartered under provincial law, the OCP makes its own rules, and no government can say anything about it.
If Jordan Peterson was just another lame incel on the interwebs spewing stuff, I too would defend his right to his freedom of speech.
But Peterson ONLY rose to fame because of his academic and professional credentials. He’s not just another wanker, he’s someone who should be taken heed of, because of his academic and professional credentials.
Therefore, his professional body has every right, and indeed every obligation to censure his speech. He is a toxic individual, riding on his self-professed academic reins to disseminate toxic ideas. Disrobe him of his credentials and he can say whatever the fuck he wants.
The interesting thing about this modern form of persecution for blasphemy against a political orthodoxy is that this sort of politically motivated investigation won’t hurt the target and the College knows that. What is intended is a message to others who don’t have the degree of fame of a Jordan Peterson and whose careers are susceptible to damage from sanction.
It’s highly analogous to public college speech codes in the US. The colleges know they are unconstitutional but they make the gamble that it is not in the best interests of those who are being penalized to challenge them.
If it won’t hurt the target, why is he whingeing so much?
Literally the whole point of the field of psychology is, “Hurt feelings are important, actually.” Which you’re certainly free to disagree with, but if your job is, “Helping people with their hurt feelings,” it seems appropriate to me that the credentialing organization for that profession should screen out people who approach the job with a “Lol fuck your feelings” attitude.
Because adults can recognize that “degrees of harm” are a thing. It’s the same reason we don’t treat shoving someone the same way we treat caving in their skull with a tire iron. Are you harmed when someone on this message board calls you an asshole? No, not in any appreciable manner. Is a woman harmed when her husband constantly berates and criticizes her? Absolutely.
Yes, that’s… pretty much the entire point of credentialing organizations.
The principle of the matter? Why shouldn’t one push back against overreach designed to compel ideological conformity? It’s a bit like asking why does the ACLU exist.
If, in his practice, he was being unprofessional I would agree. But the views he holds outside of his clinical work are not relevant to the credentialing body. Should who one votes for be grounds for professional sanction?
How bizarre! You, octopus, are the one demanding ideological conformity by defending those who demand conformity! Ironic much?
No I don’t care what you think. I do care about how power is exercised institutionally. I, for one, am not looking forward to our future struggle sessions in the increasingly illiberal west.
Remember, kids, for a conservative, every accusation is a confession.
Sadly, you don’t have the IQ to comprehend the irony.
Voting is, or should be, a private matter between the voter and the ballot box. But if perchance I happen to be a Nazi sympathizer, or a KKK member AND I work for a human rights NGO, then absolutely that information is important and I should have to choose between my job or my beliefs. Simple.
Funny that. Especially since the left has referred to every Republican since Lincoln as literally Hitler.
So if he holds those views within his clinical practice (in addition to outside it), you wouldn’t object to the organization sanctioning him?
I’m not American, and your idea of a ‘leftist’ is what I would consider a conservative arsehole in Australia. You have NO idea really, do you? You’re a closed-mind little wanker sitting behind a computer screen thinking you’re shafting the lefties. You’re really not dude, you’re just a dribbling eejit who thinks the world ends at Los Angeles or New York. It doesn’t. And you’re a fuckwit.
If you’re working at Subway and voting Republican, no. If you’re working for the Holocaust Museum and voting for the American Nazi Party, then yeah. Jordan Peterson works in a profession dedicated to healing and preventing emotional harm, and in his spare time, advocates for the intentional infliction of emotional harm on minority groups he dislikes. It’s entirely appropriate that the people responsible for gatekeeping his profession keep him the fuck out.
Which confused the fuck out of Rutherford B. Hayes, let me tell you.