What would happen if Peterson failed in the Canadian ‘re-education’ camp?
He won’t attend, will he?
It appears the intent is to simply keep him there (at his expense) until he passes to their satisfaction.
I think his daughter is right - he has no way of winning this, and he should just tell them to go stuff their licence where the sun don’t shine, and apply with the regulatory agency in some different jurisdiction.
Not much point. He’ll have to say whatever he’s told to say in order to pass, and he’s made it clear he’ll never do that. He might go just to see what it is about, and say he tried, but without admitting 2+2=5 he won’t pass
He said he will.
Once upon a time, there was an elephant. Several blind men approached the elephant, felt different parts of it, and proceeded to lecture all who had ears to hear about the nature of the elephant.
A one-eyed man (at least he looked like a man) came along, saw what they were doing, tried briefly to explain to them how and why they were mistaken, but gave up when he realized that they weren’t interested in expanding their actual knowledge of elephant anatomy.
Then along came a man with two perfectly good eyes but a bizarre unwillingness to use them to their full potential, as the God he believed in had intended. The two-eyed man heard one of the blind men speaking of the so-called Hose of Danger (an attempt to describe the elephant’s trunk), turned his head towards it, and quickly turned away in horror, shouting, “He’s right! The so-called elephant is nothing but a hose! It’s going to spray us all! Run for your lives!” 
The one-eyed man, seeing with his one eye that the two-eyed man really ought not to fall for the blind man’s propaganda, suggested to the two-eyed man that he should turn his head back towards the elephant long enough to see the whole creature, and if he had a minute to spare even walk all the way around it, the better to understand it.
The two-eyed man ignored the suggestion and went back to his warnings of doom and destruction. The one-eyed man shrugged, climbed into a flying saucer, took off his human suit, and flew away.
The end. (Or to be continued?)
hmmm no. I think your analogy (presumably JP is the blind man) is inappropriate in this situation, for three reasons:
- Peterson is explaining his own experience in the video. Denying someone’s experience and insisting that they must be wrong about the nature of reality is the essence of gaslighting. It is exceedingly unfair to describe Peterson as blind, considering what he’s seen and done. Whatever you might think of his philosophies, he’s survived and thrived where other people might be on skid row by now. Or worse.
- While your knowledge of the law might vastly exceed mine, you seem curiously unwilling to look at what’s in front of your eyes - ie., the original OCP accusations which were presented to JP (he published them in full, a while back). Those accusations quite clearly aren’t as you suggest.
Still, here’s an analogy for you: when COVID came around and there were people all over the world getting ill with remarkably similar symptoms, we didn’t have doctors reporting each individual case as something incredibly unique and surprising, did we? The first few cases were a surprise. The subsequent billions were less surprising. They understood that it was all basically the same thing. The same virus.
We’ve got a mind virus here. Not everyone has natural immunity, it seems.
https://tw.forumosa.com/t/the-jordan-peterson-thread/169879/1784
Jordan will attend the session so he can whine about being oppressed. He will make far more money by striking a pose as a martyr to evil leftism on the Daily Wire, since he doesn’t even practise any more.
There’s an easy solution to that.
Of which he speaks, here:
Have you actually seen the film? People dispute each other’s views of reality all the time. Gaslighting is when a person does it in bad faith for the purpose of driving the other person insane (more or less).
I’m not even three minutes into his latest rant, and already he’s throwing fallacies at the audience like there’s no tomorrow.
His exact words:
The court that we appealed the College of Psychologists’ decision to decided that the College has, it’s within the College’s purview to stop me from having any political opinions, as far as I can tell.
He’s objectively wrong about that… except maybe he isn’t, as he adds the as far as I can tell part. If he really doesn’t, with all his fancy intellectual training, see that his claim about the court’s decision is objectively wrong, then he’s metaphorically blind.
(Note btw that I’m not saying the court is necessarily 100% right. But no-one so far has pointed out any legal error in its decision. Not JP himself as far as I’ve seen/heard, not the spokesperson for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association who was on CBC the other day, not anyone in this thread. An appeal would need to be based on a proper error, not a subjective disagreement about how the law “should” work. Asking the court to overturn a decision for that kind of reason would mean asking it to engage in judicial activism, something conservative pundits normally love to cite as a sure sign the Apocalypse is imminent.)
Wrong. That information is not in front of my eye. What is in front of my eye is the court’s decision. And now you can’t deny it’s in front of your eyes, because I’m posting it in full right here:
Oops, cancel that. Discourse won’t let me post it because it exceeds the maximum characters. Whatever. Here’s a new hyperlink:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc4685/2023onsc4685.html
It wasn’t on CanLII the other day, or I would have posted the link then. There’s always a delay before they upload it. Reading at CanLII is more convenient than reading the original text because they hyperlink the citations.
If you have a link to the full text of the disputed decision of the CPO-ICRC, feel free to post it. I did a quick search of this thread and found only news reports. I also glanced at the CPO’s website and didn’t find it there either.
In any case, continuing to cite the least impugnable statements that were implicated in the case is not making a substantive argument.
Let’s try this again:
A says “fuck you” to B.
A also says “I disagree with your political opinion” to C.
B and C both complain to D about A’s behavior, citing a code of conduct.
D finds A to have violated the code of conduct by saying “fuck you” to B.
D expresses no opinion directly about the conflict between A and C (but does mention in passing that A has freedom of speech).
A complains to the world that D has punished him for a political disagreement with C, citing two facts as proof: (1) the fact that C complained about a political statement by A and (2) the fact that D ruled against A in the same case.
A is committing a fallacy: the issue with C does not prove anything about the issue with B.
A may not be deliberately confusing the issue, but if A is intelligent and has a good grounding in, um, psychology, he should see through his own mistake.
It’s essentially the same problem if you add another layer by having A appeal D’s decision to E. And even if D ruled against A with regard to C, only one complaint needs to be valid in order for E to find that a violation did occur.
Bottom line: No amount of non-violations can cancel out an actual violation.
Life, like existence in general, is a complex soup of competing forces. The mind of a sentient being is capable of all sorts of things – almost – but tracking and understanding every single force competing to influence its mind is not one of those capabilities. Only the supreme being can do that. 
That is the essence of the film.
“Not only do I not see what I did wrong, I think what I’ve done on the Public Communication front is my responsibility as a clinician to tell the truth about what I see,” said Peterson, adding “Apparently the college has the right to decide that I can be re-educated forcibly with the risk of my license essentially because I made political statements that the members of the college don’t agree with.”
south of the border trying to go down the same path
Interesting discussion with Neil Ferguson (the historian, not the other one) on the rise of National Socialism in Germany. I was quite taken by JPs characterization of it as a feedback loop, in which the masses gave themselves permission to despise The Other by reflecting their base desires off the “demonic” personage of Hitler. Japanese soldiers have given very similar descriptions of a consensus of “permission” as the initiator of atrocities.
The whole question of “how could normal decent people do such things?” becomes a lot less complex if you discard the idea of “normal decent people”, and accept that the average human is inherently capable of doing horrific things.
IMO something very similar has panned out during 2020-2023, with people being given permission - via a consensus mechanism around a central figure - to hate and hurt certain scapegoats such as The Unvaccinated, Cis White People, Transphobes, and so on. It’s a disastrous dynamic, and I don’t know how we’re going to stop it, or even if we can.
JPs explicit introduction of a demonic personage is important, I think. We tend to avoid this sort of metaphysical recourse these days, which means we’ve lost a philosophical tool for understanding certain things.
Skip past the commercial at 7:20-8:40.
It may not be obvious to you, but he has other options.
- Campaign to have the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Psychology Act repealed – or just to repeal the Psychology Act and remove all references to psychology from the RHPA – so (assuming the democratically elected legislative assembly is somehow persuaded to do it) he’ll still be allowed to treat patients even if he loses his license.
Pro: The authentic Small Government solution! 
Cons:
(1) It won’t satisfy him, because at this point he doesn’t have any patients and wants to keep his license for symbolic reasons (possibly including the commercial effect of being able to say that he’s licensed).
(2) All kinds of quacks and charlatans will instantly flood the market, resulting in a gigantic public shitstorm with angry mobs (including health professionals) demanding regulation, which the government will give them in some form or other, and that form will most likely resemble the current one, so probably back to square one.
- Campaign to have the RHPA and the Psychology Act amended to include some kind of an “anti-woke” clause, so the College can’t clip his wings when he makes transphobic or male chauvinist comments and so on.
Pro: Save the world (or at least the province) from wokism! [insert black and white rainbow]
Cons: It won’t work, because the College will simply point out that the decision to require remedial training did not depend on the supposed “wokeness” of the code of conduct (see explanation a few posts up).
- Campaign to elect people to the College’s Council who are more sympathetic to his boorish behavior. (Note that if they’re simply “anti-woke” they’ll still have a hard time justifying not taking action against him for bad behavior in general, when that behavior has a detrimental effect on the entire College’s reputation.)
Pros: Avoid gigantic shitstorm, avoid involving the government, keep license and bragging rights.
Cons: Allowing bad behavior will unfairly damage the reputations of all the nice, polite psychologists and probably lead to a mild shitstorm sooner or later. Oh, and it might be necessary to involve the government after all, because in the bastard hybrid system of Big & Small Government, the government appoints some of the members of the Council (though not a majority), and he probably won’t be able to persuade people to elect enough members who would side with him.
- Campaign to have the judiciary stacked with judges who would bend over for him by reopening the case, reversing it, and taking whatever action against the College is needed to keep the decision reversed and avoid any future action against him.
Pro: Sure, that would work.
Con: Shittify the province and country into an American-style shitty little shit circus (sorry Yanks) where judges are appointed based on the government-du-jour’s notion of ideological purity rather than actual competence in the field of law.
- Open his own mind, take the training, try to, idunno, maybe actually learn something, and if the training is really that shitty, explain to people what’s wrong with it in an adult way like he used to do, and on the other hand if it’s actually decent training, use it.
Pros: Might learn something, will keep license (plus might expose bad training).
Cons: Oh no! Help, he’s being repressed by wokism! He’s not allowed to have any political opinions at all! (Except that it’s not true, as explained in the earlier post.) In other words, basically it would bruise his ego. Oh, plus he’s supposed to pay for the training himself. (TANSTAAFL, eh?)
- Just quit the College already.
Pros: Can get on with his life and his new career.
Cons: Cannot brag that he’s a licensed (in Ontario) psychologist, cannot treat his non-existent patients (in Ontario).
- Get licensed somewhere else.
Pros: Can get on with his life and new career, plus will divert the money that would have been wasted on training to some other jurisdiction where the rules are laxer, plus can brag that he’s a licensed (somewhere) psychologist.
Cons: Cannot brag that he’s a licensed (in Ontario) psychologist, cannot treat his non-existent patients (in Ontario).
Number 3 could also, in theory, be done legislatively by amending the relevant laws to prohibit codes of conduct that prohibit boorish public behavior by members. It would have basically the same cons, plus it could become a political football, which I reckon most of the College’s members and even a large portion of the general public wouldn’t want, even many conservatives, as it would mean the government bossing the College around, which could easily be characterized as bigger, not smaller, government.
- AKA people who demand the right to spread disease
- Why, a Cis white person can’t even get elected or head up a major corporation these days.
- Transphobes, homophobes. Islamophopes etc.- what’s the world coming to when people can’t freely express their hatred without other people complaining. Sarah Palin rule: I have a right to say what I want, and anybody who criticises is oppressing me.
As usual, your “reasoning” is all over the shop and seems to avoid even tangential encounters with reality - which, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of Woke (“What do we want? Anything at all as long as it isn’t real! When do we want it? Now!”).
-
“The Unvaccinated” (and I’m referring here to COVID hysteria, not to - for example - vaccines that actually work) do not spread disease. That was the pretext for the hatred. The fact that the “vaccines” did not work was actually a feature, not a bug, because irrational hatred is far, far deeper than rational hatred.
-
Well, if there aren’t any brown gender-queer people with their CV in the pile, he might have a chance, sure.
-
There is no such thing as a “transphobe”. This is possibly one of the most stupid quasi-scientific words to ever plop from the sphincter of Woke. Nobody cowers in a corner hoping the Transman isn’t coming to get them. People dislike people who are mentally ill and express this via the medium of cross-dressing and aggressive public behaviour. As for “Islamophobes”, yes, people are afraid of people who have an unfortunate tendency to reduce their own countries to poverty and civil war, and who appear to be occupying Europe with support for their incursion from, um, Islamic supporters in the target nations. Do they have a right to hate others with impunity?
Uncritical Woke support for Islamists is one of the funniest things ever; it reveals the complete corruption and intellectual bankruptcy that underlies the whole movement. While bleating on about Western oppression of “Minorities”, the Woke swoon over some of the most intolerant, unequal, bigoted, and violent political regimes on the planet.
I’m sure all those options have occurred to JP. There’s a video of him somewhere talking through several of them. However, my point here is that JP has an opportunity here to humiliate them publicly, and I think he ought to take it. The problem with the culture war is that it is asymmetrical - sane people want to play by the rules, follow the Law, use legal means of defence where possible, etc. Those who want to break everything want to break everything, including the law, and they have no compunction about changing the rules when it suits them. Nobody is going to win this by playing by their rules. The mob are the rules; there are abundant examples of this.
Culture warriors are absolute masters at psychological manipulation, and they often leverage disgust as a tool. @MikeN1 illustrates this clearly; he is disgusted by the unvaccinated (he can’t eludicate why without resorting to an untruth, but he knows for sure that he is). JP has a chance to do the same: let the OCP drag him into the ring, and then put them on display to elicit public disgust. In this case the public response will be justified. We need people to become disgusted at what’s going on - to feel righteous anger. This nonsense isn’t going to stop while people pussyfoot around and say “oh, well, they probably have their reasons, where would we be if professionals could just say whatever they like?”.
As for JPs irritating behaviour (and I agree he’s pretty hard to listen to these days) I think he deserves credit for even being upright and alive. You may recall he was addicted to pills not so long ago. Very few people come out of that sort of thing unscathed. Ending up six feet under or on the streets is the modal outcome. The fact that he’s rebuilt himself - albeit with some new quirks - is pretty damn impressive.
I think his anger stems from a sense of impotence. He can see what’s going on and despite having money and influence, feels powerless to stop the steamroller. I have similar moments myself, which is why I try to channel that into concrete projects. I know JP has set up some sort of talking shop, but AFAIK it is just a talking shop. I don’t think that’s going to satisfy his visceral need to push back against mass lunacy.
Is that not the quintessence of the “participation award” on account of which we’re supposed to despise Young People Today? 
If he really wants to do that, he should publish the full text of the original decision (with names redacted if so required). I’m not convinced it would have the effect he wants, and maybe he’s not convinced either. Short of that, he’s already done what he reasonably can, and the “humiliation” has apparently not amounted to much, as reforming the CPO (by interfering with it) does not seem to be on the Ontario government’s radar (a government which has been “anti-woke” since 2018, let’s not forget).
Btw, do you remember that member of the site with a numerical name, who often stood up for the pro-reunification side in political arguments, Mr. Deep Deep Blue, we might as well call him? He hasn’t been around for years, and some people might mistakenly think it was because his political views were considered too controversial. I can assure it wasn’t because of that. He just didn’t want to behave himself. I think it’s a pity – regardless of what I do or don’t think of his politics – because unlike vast numbers of people on the interwebs, he actually had a brain and used it to provide interesting information and ideas now and then.
Then there was our American friend who openly stated that he saw himself as the ideological equivalent a pickup artist. I’m sure you know who I mean. After his disappearance, a certain lactation consultant actually complained that the guy had been treated unfairly, a theory with which I strongly disagreed and still do. In the end, he just didn’t want to accept the modding style. I don’t really miss him – he was more annoying than fun, frankly.
I feel that JP is much like the former of the two cases I just mentioned. Intelligent, insightful, articulate when he wants to be, but… apparently he thinks he’s special. As the ancient proverb goes, 沒辦法.