Just remember that they stood by and watched saying nothing during the rise of the nazis, the same applies to Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless others during the ages.
Us old Europeans get it we valued our freedom when we arrived in this great country of Canada and were willing as well as able to fight for it as we had done in the old country before we came here.
Hesitate too long and you will find out very quickly that you are too late then shame on you.
This attack on Peterson is not meant to be reasonable. It is an attack. The grounds for it are as flimsy as any casus belli used by any aggressor to dress up their hostility. It does not need to be prompted by anything of intellectual substance. Its only ambition is an unambiguous destruction of an adversary. And it works exactly the same way whether it is the excuse of a school yard bully or or a Putin invading Ukraine.
So outrage is mistaken. Telling the bastards they are being unreasonable is just a misunderstanding of the facts. Taking up cudgels (or whatever) and applying them vigorously to any vulnerable part of an attacking enemy is the correct response. And that means being as unreasonable and aggravational as they are.
All the bets are off. We are all playing for keeps. The stakes are too large to contemplate loss. It's them or us. Crack, split and then mince. Repeat.
Amen to all of the above. And lest we forget, an even more sinister aspect of the ideologically-based persecution against Peterson (and Anonymed and others who've been brave enough to speak out) is the self-censorship of a much larger group of professionals than ensues. How many backroom conversations have I had with fellow physicians in which they confide what they "secretly" believe about--you name it--COVID policies, transgenderism, "safe supply" of drugs, etc. This is how science dies, and in the end it is our patients who will suffer.
We are fighting back with our Free Speech in Medicine and Science initiative, but we continue to live with a certain amount of fear that we will lose our medical careers as a result. So be it. As Peterson himself is fond of saying, sometimes the cost of not speaking up is, in the long run, even higher.
And speaking of FSIM (forgive the shameless plug) if anyone is interested in attending our conference in late October, check it out here: freespeechinmedicine.com
Current doctors are encouraged to lie in order to usher in some ill-defined utopia, regardless of what it does to patients, the doctor-patient relationship, or medicine itself. If that’s your idea of virtue, you can keep it.
Who would you appoint to define exactly what is virtuous and what isn't? You? People who are politically aligned with you? A coalition of Imams, Rabbis and Christian clergy? Of course we want doctors to be virtuous. The problem is that political activists has taken over the institutions (and regulatory colleges) and now define "virtue" as being defined by views that, in some cases, the majority of people do not agree with.
Jordan Peterson is wonderful but he does keep the spotlight on himself. Others are fighting back. The author of the article wisely divines: “Bodies like the CPO are only concerned with decorum and ‘professionalism’ when the speaker is out of step with their newfound pieties.”
The licensing bodies are useful as demonstrations of how the professions have been gutted since the late sixties move to destroy their self-governance. Is this a hill worth dying on?
"But the problem for me is not necessarily the standard, it’s the double standard. Bodies like the CPO are only concerned with decorum and “professionalism” when the speaker is out of step with their newfound pieties. It’s not that codes of conduct can’t be a thing, it’s that our current codes of conduct are about as objective as the id. [...] The question before the court ought to have been whether the CPO code of conduct is a) completely crackers, and b) applied in a non-partisan and neutral manner? Any impartial look at the DEI dung that is current regulatory policy would reveal that neutrality is something like the opposite of the goal."
Is it a 'double standard' or just a 'new standard' (i.e., "new-found piety")? Either way, any pretension to undifferentiated 'neutrality' was, is, and ever shall be a rhetorical illusion. 'Neutrality' is never neutral between different standards of what is acceptable (that with regard to which we commit to being 'neutral'). Don't confuse your old-found pieties with 'objectivity' and 'neutrality.'
Call it what you wish. If I say a true thing that doesn’t fit the progressive narrative (even politely) I will be persecuted. If someone else says something untrue, even in an aggressive and inflammatory way, but which fits the progressive bias, they will be praised. It’s not a “new” objectivity, it’s a double standard applied to beliefs and conduct. If you think the world is relativist mush then I don’t see the importance of caring about anything at all.
Actually Canadian women have been taking this stand long before Peterson. And far more of us have been cancelled than men. We certainly don't have the time or money to fight this crap as Peterson of the massive ego does.
Our pre-eminent feminist Meghan Murphy ended up having to leave the country due to stalking and credible death threats for merely identifying a man as a man.
Just remember that they stood by and watched saying nothing during the rise of the nazis, the same applies to Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless others during the ages.
Us old Europeans get it we valued our freedom when we arrived in this great country of Canada and were willing as well as able to fight for it as we had done in the old country before we came here.
Hesitate too long and you will find out very quickly that you are too late then shame on you.
This attack on Peterson is not meant to be reasonable. It is an attack. The grounds for it are as flimsy as any casus belli used by any aggressor to dress up their hostility. It does not need to be prompted by anything of intellectual substance. Its only ambition is an unambiguous destruction of an adversary. And it works exactly the same way whether it is the excuse of a school yard bully or or a Putin invading Ukraine.
So outrage is mistaken. Telling the bastards they are being unreasonable is just a misunderstanding of the facts. Taking up cudgels (or whatever) and applying them vigorously to any vulnerable part of an attacking enemy is the correct response. And that means being as unreasonable and aggravational as they are.
All the bets are off. We are all playing for keeps. The stakes are too large to contemplate loss. It's them or us. Crack, split and then mince. Repeat.
Excellent article. I fully endorse it. Personally I hope JBP takes it to the Supreme Court.
Amen to all of the above. And lest we forget, an even more sinister aspect of the ideologically-based persecution against Peterson (and Anonymed and others who've been brave enough to speak out) is the self-censorship of a much larger group of professionals than ensues. How many backroom conversations have I had with fellow physicians in which they confide what they "secretly" believe about--you name it--COVID policies, transgenderism, "safe supply" of drugs, etc. This is how science dies, and in the end it is our patients who will suffer.
We are fighting back with our Free Speech in Medicine and Science initiative, but we continue to live with a certain amount of fear that we will lose our medical careers as a result. So be it. As Peterson himself is fond of saying, sometimes the cost of not speaking up is, in the long run, even higher.
And speaking of FSIM (forgive the shameless plug) if anyone is interested in attending our conference in late October, check it out here: freespeechinmedicine.com
So it turns out that being a good doctor might involve first being a good (virtuous) person. Too bad that's not part of the curriculum.
Current doctors are encouraged to lie in order to usher in some ill-defined utopia, regardless of what it does to patients, the doctor-patient relationship, or medicine itself. If that’s your idea of virtue, you can keep it.
Who would you appoint to define exactly what is virtuous and what isn't? You? People who are politically aligned with you? A coalition of Imams, Rabbis and Christian clergy? Of course we want doctors to be virtuous. The problem is that political activists has taken over the institutions (and regulatory colleges) and now define "virtue" as being defined by views that, in some cases, the majority of people do not agree with.
Jordan Peterson is wonderful but he does keep the spotlight on himself. Others are fighting back. The author of the article wisely divines: “Bodies like the CPO are only concerned with decorum and ‘professionalism’ when the speaker is out of step with their newfound pieties.”
The licensing bodies are useful as demonstrations of how the professions have been gutted since the late sixties move to destroy their self-governance. Is this a hill worth dying on?
https://gofund.me/6d4fc00e
"But the problem for me is not necessarily the standard, it’s the double standard. Bodies like the CPO are only concerned with decorum and “professionalism” when the speaker is out of step with their newfound pieties. It’s not that codes of conduct can’t be a thing, it’s that our current codes of conduct are about as objective as the id. [...] The question before the court ought to have been whether the CPO code of conduct is a) completely crackers, and b) applied in a non-partisan and neutral manner? Any impartial look at the DEI dung that is current regulatory policy would reveal that neutrality is something like the opposite of the goal."
Is it a 'double standard' or just a 'new standard' (i.e., "new-found piety")? Either way, any pretension to undifferentiated 'neutrality' was, is, and ever shall be a rhetorical illusion. 'Neutrality' is never neutral between different standards of what is acceptable (that with regard to which we commit to being 'neutral'). Don't confuse your old-found pieties with 'objectivity' and 'neutrality.'
Call it what you wish. If I say a true thing that doesn’t fit the progressive narrative (even politely) I will be persecuted. If someone else says something untrue, even in an aggressive and inflammatory way, but which fits the progressive bias, they will be praised. It’s not a “new” objectivity, it’s a double standard applied to beliefs and conduct. If you think the world is relativist mush then I don’t see the importance of caring about anything at all.
Good idea!
Jordan was the first one to take a stand.
Actually Canadian women have been taking this stand long before Peterson. And far more of us have been cancelled than men. We certainly don't have the time or money to fight this crap as Peterson of the massive ego does.
Our pre-eminent feminist Meghan Murphy ended up having to leave the country due to stalking and credible death threats for merely identifying a man as a man.