My daughter has been gone 15 years, youngest son 4 years, older son 1.5 years. No reasons given other than 'You,know,what you did'. Yes I do know what I did. I was there for them 100%, provided their needs and wants, protected them from abuse, attended all school events, birthday parties every year, made sure they were educated, down payments for houses, drove safe cars, paid for weddings, expected nothing in return even when their father died suddenly...I was the one who held it together. So NO I will not meekly accept that I failed them as a parent somehow, I will NOT accept whatever their version of childhood is...I lived it too. It is a lonely road...but my life has been filled with more loss than most people will ever know, and I've learned to be resilient in all things. This loss is worse than death in many ways...but I am still standing and moving forward alone again.
As a person in my eleventh year of a no-contact estrangement, I have been subject to exactly this. But no matter how desperately I wanted my son and grandchildren back in my life, it is deeply instinctual to avoid any relationship where one person sets the rules and I meekly obey. If that's what they want, they need to find someone far more dysfunctional than I.
This is the 20th year of NC. Recent attempts to reach out resulted in being told "that's creepy don't email me anymore". Never met granddaughter age almost 8. Reading this helps me understand but does not heal my heart. I did my "searching and fearless moral inventory" years ago in 12 step group. She doesn't know me at all.
Many observers might interpret it that way,.but they would be wrong. Self-regulating professions have every right to require that their members behave in responsible ways, especially when they specifically identify themselves as belonging to that profession or when they are saying things claiming their profession as the basis for their statements. If Peterson is saying things in his authority as a psychologist that could conceivably threaten his profession's reputation, the body responsible for managing said can step in. This is something that has been happening for generations.
Thanks, Randy. I think what this exchange highlights—helpfully, I might add—is a broader concern I’ve been exploring across this discussion: how professional or institutional authority can, over time, become an unexamined vehicle for ideological enforcement, particularly when it begins to reach into areas of public discourse. It’s certainly true that professional bodies have codes of conduct and regulatory obligations, and professionals—especially in clinical roles—must act responsibly. That isn’t disputed. But the concern some observers raise in the Peterson case is not about whether rules exist, but how the boundaries of those rules are shifting, especially when they begin applying to statements made in the realm of public or political speech. When social media commentary, podcast interviews, or controversial opinions—however disagreeable—become subject to disciplinary “re-education” by a licensing body, it raises legitimate questions about the reach of professional governance into the domain of personal conscience and public debate. These concerns are not limited to any one figure or profession. They reflect a larger trend: where non-conformity is pathologised, and where dissent—particularly around cultural, political, or moral topics—is increasingly treated as a reputational threat to be managed, rather than as a perspective to be heard. In this context, institutional codes may remain technically intact, but their application begins to resemble ideological regulation by procedural means. And that, to my mind, deserves careful scrutiny—especially when the language surrounding these interventions begins to echo the very logic of thought reform or compelled conformity that liberal societies have traditionally resisted. It’s not about whether one agrees with what was said. It’s about defending the space in which disagreement can occur without being subjected to institutional correction. That space is narrowing—and we should all be thoughtful about what that means, regardless of the figure involved.
But self-regulating professions like psychologists have always had the ability to regulate the behaviours of their members, to ensure that they comport themselves in a way that does not bring discredit to them, perhaps especially when their members identify themselves by their profession. This allows them to act when their members do things discreditable, for instance when Wakefield was making those false claims about vaccines causing autism. Peterson getting upset about plus-sized models on the cover of Sports Illustrated is not causing the same level of harm, sure, but is is pretty off.
> A similar example of this form of public shaming and re-education for conformity with official narratives is demonstrated in the well publicised injunction that psychologist Jordan Peterson complete social media re-education for comments he made on Twitter and the Joe Rogan podcast
That is not what happened.
Jordan Peterson is a psychologist registered with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The CPO has a code regarding how psychologists registered with it are supposed to behave. While identifying himself as a psychologist, Peterson did things that were in violation of the CPO code. The organization accordingly had the authority to require him to bring his behaviour in line with the CPO code.
This was not something Peterson did not know. He became a psychologist in the first place knowing how his profession works. Requiring him to act in conformity with the codes of his field's self-regulated profession cannot be reasonably called a violation of his autonomy. If he wanted to abandon his Ontario certification as a psychologist, to seek accreditation elsewhere or to shift to a new career, Peterson could do that.
While it's true that Peterson operates under the professional obligations of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, many observers would still interpret the requirement for him to undergo "re-education" as a form of thought control and a significant constraint on his freedom of speech. The fact that he was ordered to complete social media training based on his public commentary—rather than clinical practice—raises concerns for some about the overreach of professional bodies into the realm of personal expression, especially when that expression touches on contentious or political topics. In that sense, some would argue this process resembles a modern version of compelled ideological conformity.
My daughter has been gone 15 years, youngest son 4 years, older son 1.5 years. No reasons given other than 'You,know,what you did'. Yes I do know what I did. I was there for them 100%, provided their needs and wants, protected them from abuse, attended all school events, birthday parties every year, made sure they were educated, down payments for houses, drove safe cars, paid for weddings, expected nothing in return even when their father died suddenly...I was the one who held it together. So NO I will not meekly accept that I failed them as a parent somehow, I will NOT accept whatever their version of childhood is...I lived it too. It is a lonely road...but my life has been filled with more loss than most people will ever know, and I've learned to be resilient in all things. This loss is worse than death in many ways...but I am still standing and moving forward alone again.
As a person in my eleventh year of a no-contact estrangement, I have been subject to exactly this. But no matter how desperately I wanted my son and grandchildren back in my life, it is deeply instinctual to avoid any relationship where one person sets the rules and I meekly obey. If that's what they want, they need to find someone far more dysfunctional than I.
This is the 20th year of NC. Recent attempts to reach out resulted in being told "that's creepy don't email me anymore". Never met granddaughter age almost 8. Reading this helps me understand but does not heal my heart. I did my "searching and fearless moral inventory" years ago in 12 step group. She doesn't know me at all.
Many observers might interpret it that way,.but they would be wrong. Self-regulating professions have every right to require that their members behave in responsible ways, especially when they specifically identify themselves as belonging to that profession or when they are saying things claiming their profession as the basis for their statements. If Peterson is saying things in his authority as a psychologist that could conceivably threaten his profession's reputation, the body responsible for managing said can step in. This is something that has been happening for generations.
Thanks, Randy. I think what this exchange highlights—helpfully, I might add—is a broader concern I’ve been exploring across this discussion: how professional or institutional authority can, over time, become an unexamined vehicle for ideological enforcement, particularly when it begins to reach into areas of public discourse. It’s certainly true that professional bodies have codes of conduct and regulatory obligations, and professionals—especially in clinical roles—must act responsibly. That isn’t disputed. But the concern some observers raise in the Peterson case is not about whether rules exist, but how the boundaries of those rules are shifting, especially when they begin applying to statements made in the realm of public or political speech. When social media commentary, podcast interviews, or controversial opinions—however disagreeable—become subject to disciplinary “re-education” by a licensing body, it raises legitimate questions about the reach of professional governance into the domain of personal conscience and public debate. These concerns are not limited to any one figure or profession. They reflect a larger trend: where non-conformity is pathologised, and where dissent—particularly around cultural, political, or moral topics—is increasingly treated as a reputational threat to be managed, rather than as a perspective to be heard. In this context, institutional codes may remain technically intact, but their application begins to resemble ideological regulation by procedural means. And that, to my mind, deserves careful scrutiny—especially when the language surrounding these interventions begins to echo the very logic of thought reform or compelled conformity that liberal societies have traditionally resisted. It’s not about whether one agrees with what was said. It’s about defending the space in which disagreement can occur without being subjected to institutional correction. That space is narrowing—and we should all be thoughtful about what that means, regardless of the figure involved.
But self-regulating professions like psychologists have always had the ability to regulate the behaviours of their members, to ensure that they comport themselves in a way that does not bring discredit to them, perhaps especially when their members identify themselves by their profession. This allows them to act when their members do things discreditable, for instance when Wakefield was making those false claims about vaccines causing autism. Peterson getting upset about plus-sized models on the cover of Sports Illustrated is not causing the same level of harm, sure, but is is pretty off.
I think she meant the adult children are in a cult,not the psychologists
They are in a cult.
> A similar example of this form of public shaming and re-education for conformity with official narratives is demonstrated in the well publicised injunction that psychologist Jordan Peterson complete social media re-education for comments he made on Twitter and the Joe Rogan podcast
That is not what happened.
Jordan Peterson is a psychologist registered with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The CPO has a code regarding how psychologists registered with it are supposed to behave. While identifying himself as a psychologist, Peterson did things that were in violation of the CPO code. The organization accordingly had the authority to require him to bring his behaviour in line with the CPO code.
This was not something Peterson did not know. He became a psychologist in the first place knowing how his profession works. Requiring him to act in conformity with the codes of his field's self-regulated profession cannot be reasonably called a violation of his autonomy. If he wanted to abandon his Ontario certification as a psychologist, to seek accreditation elsewhere or to shift to a new career, Peterson could do that.
While it's true that Peterson operates under the professional obligations of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, many observers would still interpret the requirement for him to undergo "re-education" as a form of thought control and a significant constraint on his freedom of speech. The fact that he was ordered to complete social media training based on his public commentary—rather than clinical practice—raises concerns for some about the overreach of professional bodies into the realm of personal expression, especially when that expression touches on contentious or political topics. In that sense, some would argue this process resembles a modern version of compelled ideological conformity.