Jordan Peterson learns that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
Jordan Peterson disciplinary action for alleged behaviour that violated his code of conduct as a psychologist.
You're viewing a single thread.
Nobody is forcing him to be a member of the profession – to paraphrase one of his tweets that was complained about “You’re free to leave [the profession] at any point.”
Jordan Peterson really is free to leave the profession - he doesn't need the money. Meanwhile a psychologist who isn't independently wealthy can't express controversial opinions without risking his livelihood. I don't think "only the rich can exercise freedom of speech" is good policy.
Meanwhile a psychologist who isn’t independently wealthy can’t express controversial opinions without risking his livelihood
Oh fuck off with that. The opinion he expressed was, and I quote, (about child deaths) "it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways". A licensed medical professional should never say something like that, period, even in jest.
I don't know the context for that quote and I don't think it's particularly relevant to my argument. Even if we assume the worst possible interpretation, H.L. Mencken still said it best:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
You're right, that's why I support genocide. There are too many oppressive laws aimed at oppressing the rights of fascists, or as I've taken to calling them, people with genocidal thoughts they'd like to turn into actions. You can't start oppressing them, otherwise someone could use those laws to oppress me!
Copy and paste of another user's comment:
Good article?
The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”
This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I've seen in a long time.
I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.
The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" start from about 15:30. He's the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn't believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying "Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."
It's such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can't take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.
Behind the Bastards covered him if you want actual information instead of Joe Rogan.
Oh yes, I know, hence my final words "even in jest".
Thanks for clearing that up💯. it indeed is not Jordan's character to say something negative about the worth of any person. i can only immagine that he would say something like that when he's deliberately portraying the perspective of an evil mentality.
i don't get why you get 19 downvotes though..
And again people don't grok what "freedom of speech" entails.
You can speak all you like. If what you say pisses people off, they can avoid you all they like, up to and including MOTHERFUCKING EMPLOYMENT.
Freeze Peach idiots need to grow the Hell up!
People forget that free speech also includes freedom of association. You can say what you want but others have the freedom to choose not to associate with you because of it.
I don't think they forget it. I think they're hoping everyone else forgets it.
But freedom of association is used to justify racial discrimination, including segregation, so that doesn't really work either.
Every right has limits. Discrimination against protected classes is one of those limits.
Every right has limits.
Yeah, that's a good way to get you into a tyrannical situation you have no way out of.
Name a right you think has no limitation.
I'll find your limits (if you're honest, which, given this is the Internet, is highly doubtful).
Here's a foretaste:
"The pursuit of happiness…"
If my happiness involves making other people miserable, well, either you're a fucking sociopath for supporting it, or there is an intrinsic limit: "…provided you don't interfere with the happiness of others." And with that one safe-seeming limit, we open a can of worms in defining just the word "interfere" there.
Still want to play this game?
All of them. Any that have any sort of limitation imposed upon the user by anyone automatically turns that right into a privilege granted to you by other people, and by extension easily removable by others at any time for any dumbass arbitrary reason.
I know you're going to say this means all rights are privileges. And you're right. We don't have any rights. We need them but don't have them. This is how humanity has chosen to carry itself through this life, and the future. We lost the plot on rights a long time ago and we might not ever get them back.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken
Say you didn't read and/or understand the post you're responding to without using those specific words.
He isn't free to leave the profession because part of his con is that he is using his professional status when he writes something or says something as a psychologist.
His worth as a propagandist is that he can attach that professional status to his messages, if it's "disgraced" psychologist, or "struck off" psychologist then it has less impact because he has been found to have broken his professional conduct to the point where he lost the title.
He has better marketing than that - it'll be "forced out of his profession by PC thugs" psychologist.
That won't convince anyone that isn't already lost.
I think there are plenty of people who aren't already Jordan Peterson's fans but wouldn't want to be forced out of their profession for something they said outside of work. His fight will appeal to them whether or not he wins in court.
Which means they don't understand the situation and never will. This is not 'forced out of their profession for something they said outside of work,' this is 'an electrician declaring electricity doesn't exist and encouraging people to cut down power lines.' This is not 'oh no he said he likes pizza rolls instead of pizza,' this is 'a professional in a field has stopped updating his knowledge in said field and has actively advocated against large parts of his own field based on nothing but his own mental and moral failures.'
Peterson was free to address his 'concerns' in a scientific way, giving him the basis to actually argue his points as valid, if alternative scientific fact. The truth his nothing he has ever stated is scientifically defensible; and when you're licensed to use science in a way that can help or kill people, you need to stay up to date with the science and only use the most up-to-date peer reviewed science.
He is free to speak however he likes, he is free to get almost any profession he likes and speak how he likes, he can't essentially go against 70 years of scientific advancement because he wants to make money on the side catering to people with 1860s beliefs on science.
Psychologically competent thugs? Sounds scary.
I have no high regard for the guy, but are you seriously, like seriously seriously, trying to tell people that Jordan Peterson depends on his professional title for... literally anything?
Are you saying that without it, he will lose a non-trivial amount of... anything?
He won't lose out on his current game as people watch him already, but when he wants to write a book and say J. Peterson, psychologist he won't be able to and that is a selling point for books and being taken seriously.
So if the argument were about whether a license was important, in the general case, as a selling pointl for books, I would have no choice but to concede.