Jordan Peterson ordered to Woke reeducation.

N Y Post Peterson ordered to reeducation or license loss

Freedom of speech is a fragile thing.

It is in most danger from those who think they are morally superior.

70 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson ordered to Woke reeducation.

  1. Peterson certainly has a compelling argument for truth over the feelings of the easily offended. Personally, I will never play the game of referring to men in a dress as a woman. It’s the height of stupidity no matter how much woke left wing morons try to “shame” my insistence of embracing reality over fantasy. In addition it wouldnt hurt my feelings if someone said I’m not centerfold material and I would expect others that are not either to accept they just arent as well, phony feelings be damned. Peterson is correct in his assertiion that compelling fantasy over reality is the collapse of society.


  2. RE: “Freedom of speech is a fragile thing.”

    Yes, it is. The words to protect it may exist in the Constitution, but that is not enough. We the people must protect it.

    Jordan Peterson would probably agree with John Adams, who is often quoted: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    I know that some people might object to Adams’ reference to a “religious people,” but I would recommend that a secular interpretation of his meaning is just as valid. To wit, our Constitution was made only for a moral and humble people.


  3. Peterson praised the American founders for their efforts to protect against bad leaders elected to government. Particularly the idea of 3 branches keeping tabs on the other through the balance of power.

    I posted the link yesterday.

    You do realize that the Canadian government is not to blame, but rather this is a controversy between Peterson and the psychology licensing board. Not to dismiss the implications around free speech, but it seems to be a debate over medical ethics and modern science. In other words, Peterson can say whatever he wants about any subject he wants, but not as a representative of licensed psychologists.

    Agree or disagree, this may be along the lines of “first, do no harm” as prescribed by accepted practices in mental health professionals.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “In other words, Peterson can say whatever he wants about any subject he wants, but not as a representative of licensed psychologists.”

      Are you comfortable with that? I’m not.

      I received a professional certification once for having completed a quality system training course. Should I live in fear ever after that the licensing authority might disapprove of my political views?


      1. Peterson was a medical professional with patients. Love it hate it, medical boards require certain standards to stay licensed.

        If an American MD promoted meth to treat lethargy, I think the AMA and Virginia medical boards may want to chat.

        If a Catholic priest denounced the divinity of Jesus, he might very well be defrocked.

        Before medical licensing it was a free for all hotbed of quackery exploiting vulnerable and desperate patients.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The AMA is not a licensing board.

          Priests are not licensed.

          Licensing boards are extensions of government, and thus should respect free speech. Professions are not above criticaism.


          1. States do licensing, I understand that. Priest are “licensed” by the church. But not a great comparison.

            Point being that this is an ethics issue as much, or more, than a free speech issue. Up to the board and Peterson to resolve.

            Did you see the video I posted with his Oxford lecture and extensive Q&A. Very interesting and I am not disagreeing with his premise on free speech.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Peterson was a medical professional with patients. Love it hate it, medical boards require certain standards to stay licensed.”

          You are missing the point that Peterson is not facing sanctions based on his medical practice.


          1. “You are missing the point that Peterson is not facing sanctions based on his medical practice.”

            That is true. But, in Don’s world, the market would take care of Peterson’s lack of compassion that most would probably desire in a psychologist.

            Maybe the Canadian licensing authority is trying to protect Peterson from himself. Or potential patients from a dispassionate caregiver.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Why would you say that?”

            Because it is true. If you feel that your cat loves you, that feeling is real whether the cat cares for you or not. If you feel that you are a woman trapped in a man’s body, that feeling is real – it is not a delusion. If a therapist simply dismisses that feeling as delusional then they are a piss poor therapist.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Your feelings may, or may not, agree with reality, but reality is what it is,

            A therapist may find it useful to delay confronting a patient’s delusions, but he must never participate in them or validate them.


          4. “A therapist may find it useful to delay confronting a patient’s delusions, but he must never participate in them or validate them.”

            What is that? One of your moral opinions? Gender dysphoria is a recognized malady and changes to the body to match the “delusion” is a recognized treatment. Whether you and Mr. Smith find it icky or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Delusions do not change reality.

            A man with gender dysphoria who undergoes surgery does not become a woman, he is a mutilated man who resembles a woman.

            It is his right to make that change in his appearance, but it does not change the reality that he is male.


          6. “Delusions do not change reality.”

            Gender is not as black and white as you obviously and unshakably believe. There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise. I will simply go back to the beginning and say that it is unprofessional for a leading member of the medical community to refer to other doctors as “criminal” for providing gender reassignment surgery to a fully informed adult.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Adults are free to do what they choose.

            I knew and accepted transexuals since before it was cool.

            But that doesn’t mean I accepted that they were really women, just people acting on their feelings and doing no harm.

            But today’s generation of transexuals isn’t content with living their own lives, they insist on pushing their choices on prepubescent children.

            On that I draw a hard line.


          8. Do you know of cases where children were forced to undergo sex changes? Against their will?

            That would be egregious, no doubt.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Do you know of any cases? I ask this because I have not seen much regarding “mutilation” before the age of consent, 18 in most cases.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. I had a friend growing up, a couple of years younger than me, who was very late to transition through puberty. He was put on some sort of medication to assist.

            Based on what you are saying this kind of treatment is abusive as well.

            Disregarding proper psychological methods to treat people, as best the therapist sees fit and the FAMILY AGREES, is more abusive – IMO

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “But today’s generation of transexuals isn’t content with living their own lives, they insist on pushing their choices on prepubescent children.”

            Now THAT’S delusional.

            Yeah, I know you saw something on Libs of TikTok which is the basis for your preposterous generalizations. I had not realized until now that you and Mr. Smith were such soul mates.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. So, now showing people what the LBQTLMNOP extremists say among themselves is hate?

            Adult gays have been fighting the presumption that they are interested in children a long time, Of course they’re pissed when someone recruits children in their name.


          13. New clinics . . . Oh my!

            But here is the thing – treating maladies that used to be too shameful to discuss is not “grooming” or “recruiting.” Anyone who says that it is, is just displaying their own bigotry.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. “Feelings no matter how deeply held are very often delusions.”

            That explains election deniers, so what is your point. There is a parallel according to your argument.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. Stick to dentistry. Psychology is NOT your strong suit.

            Compassion is NOT participating in delusions. However, compassion is understanding a patient’s mindset and thinking and is necessary to properly treat those who suffer from mental illnesses.

            I take it YOU had compassion for some of your patients who required it when they came to see you in times of dental distress. Or did you just tell them the pain was all in their head and to get over it?

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Well, dental pain is literally in your head.

            But no, when a patient came to me, I treated the disease, I did not seek to understand the feelings of the pathogens or embrace their point of view.

            I ended them.


          17. Isn’t that the duty of a licensed therapist: To understand the disease and treat it with the best practices available?

            Physical disease, as you had to treat as a dentist, is much different than mental issues that psychologists and psychiatrists have to treat. There are no pathogens involved. But the thoughts and feelings of the patient are not only relevant, but necessary to understand in order for them to be treated properly.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Peterson is a Canadian with a license to practice psychology in Canada. This is a Canadian case.

            There are great similarities between the US and Canada, but not everything is the same.

            I don’t know if their licensing boards have different powers or criteria. So the resolution will be Canadian no doubt.

            If he spoke under the mantle of his expertise and experience as a practicing psychologist, he probably has certain obligations with reference to Canadian psychological practices to maintain his license.

            He can say whatever he wants as a citizen or a doctor. But he may face consequences from the board like a licensed physician would who prescribe meth for lethargy, to repeat my earlier analogy.


            Liked by 2 people

  4. “It is in most danger from those who think they are morally superior.”
    Nobody and I mean nobody on this forum lays claim to moral superiority as much as you do.

    Leaving that aside, “”free speech” does not free you from the consequences of what you choose to say. In my opinion, Peterson’s tweets and statements described in – of all places – the New York Post WERE totally unprofessional – even libelous. Unprofessional conduct DOES harm the profession which is well within its rights to police its members and uphold its standards.

    It is one thing to debate the nature and treatment of gender dysphoria in conferences, papers, and even in public speeches. It is quite another to single out a named individual and accuse their doctors of being criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Unprofessional conduct DOES harm the profession which is well within its rights to police its members and uphold its standards.”

      A profession is not a person. It is therefore difficult to see how a theory of injury or harm is even possible.


          1. If you are making a claim of wrongdoing it is your burden to support it.
            Speaking of contagion – is goofy counterfactual obtuseness (“GCO”) contagious?

            The ugly public behavior of a prominent member of a profession brings the entire profession into disrepute. Calling medical professionals “criminals” is ugly public behavior. Singling out individuals and commenting on their pride or their beauty is ugly public behavior. Referring to the general tenets of your profession as “satanic” or markers of the downfall of civilization brings the entire profession into disrepute.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So, members of a profession are not allowed to criticize it?

            At one time, dentists opposed fluoridation of water supplies because it hurt their bottom line by preventing cavities to be filled. It was criticism by ethical dentists that ended that practice. (The dentists in my hometown bought the fluoridation equipment for the city. )

            It is the duty of members of a profession to call for change when the profession goes wrong.


          3. Nope.

            Professions are supposed to be self-policing, not dictatorial. Self-policing is not possible without criticism from the members.

            BTW, part of the reason given for Peterson’s ‘reeducation’ was his criticism of Trudeau’s extended COVID lockdown policy, which is a political opinion unrelated to Psychology. There were no complaints against Peterson by any of his patients.


          4. “Nope.”

            What part of my answer was wrong?
            Here read it again . . .

            “That is up to the profession and the nature and forum for the “criticism.”

            To help you focus, you have already agreed that professions are self-policing, so it is the second part of the answer that evokes your “Nope.” I am saying profession sanctions depend on the “criticism” and how it is delivered. You appear to be saying NO “criticism” ANYWHERE should be sanctioned by the profession. I will say NOPE! to that.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “Professions are not policed top down.”

            Whatever the duties of individuals, most professions entrust certification, membership, and enforcement of professional standards to some sort of Board or bureaucracy. That is the simple fact of the matter and your pretending that it is not is very odd.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Do you have a link to those “unprofessional” Tweets?

      Professional organizations can police statements made by someone claiming to represent the profession, but not their individual opinion.

      Naming an individual would be unprofessional IF that person had not already breached their own privacy by public statements on the issue.

      Peterson is correct that much of today’s “transgender” activity is based on social contagion. There is no other explanation for the increase in prevalence.


      1. Do you have a link to those “unprofessional” Tweets?
        I only know what was reported in the New York Post.

        “There is no other explanation for the increase in prevalence.”
        There IS another and very obvious explanation for the perceived increase in prevalence.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. That it has not become more prevalent. It has become less hidden. With the “woke” suppression of the sort of bigotry on display in this forum, more people are willing acknowledge the reality they are living with and willing to seek help dealing with it.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Not every Tomboy has to have her breasts cut off and not every boy who plays dolls with his older sister needs chemical castration. Such interventions on minors, espcially before puberty, are abuse


          3. If choice is not relevant, then there is an issue here.

            And if you don’t believe that the family is part of the choices, then you have an issue that you are not addressing.


          4. “Not every Tomboy . . .”

            A good example of how people like Peterson bring their profession into disrepute. Your over-the-top bullshit about what happens to Tomboys, etc. is laughably removed from the real world of medical care.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. As you are NOT a psychologist or psychiatrist, you have no standing to say what is someone else’s reality. In Peterson’s professional world, reality is what the patient believes. Not what Bobrsmith thinks.

        If you were more stable, you might understand that.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No. Reality is not whatever the patient believes.

          The patient’s beliefs are useful information, but they have no bearing on reality.

          Going along with a patent’s delusions can be a grave mistake in psychology.


          1. “Going along with a patent’s delusions can be a grave mistake in psychology.”

            So, you are an expert in the practice of pschology as well. Is there no limit to your expertise? From what I have read, it is often effective technique to simply reflect feelings – not challenge them.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. That has got to be THE most stupid comment from you yet. Because a mentally ill person believes they are a duck, that is their reality? Try saying that on Twitter, tik tok or whatever and you will be the social media laughing stock of the year.


          1. “Because a mentally ill person believes they are a duck, that is their reality?”

            Ok, let’s pose this a different way. If you believed foreign satellites changed our election, then that is your reality. Millions of people believe that or it’s equivalent so much so that many of them risked attacking police to “hang” the VP.

            Any difference?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Nope, just another delusion.

            Do you propose humoring them by putting Trump back in the White House?

            After all, if we’re going to participate in their delusion, isn’t that the obvious choice? It’s every bit as rational as accepting a surgically altered man as a real woman.


          3. How many “surgically altered men” are referred to as “real” women? They identify as TRANSGENDER or TRANSSEXUAL.

            Acceptance is the issue. And while you proclaim to have accepted Trans people before it was cool, that is akin to saying some of your best friends are Black. I don’t buy it.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. You are NOT a professional. Your layman’s opinion is based strictly on your obvious hatred for the “others” in the world.

            And why is it you right wing haters of all things different only refer to men who transition to women? I never hear any complaints about women who transition to men. Is it because you think they are too ugly to be good women anyway?

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s