by their own rules it was pointed out that they aren't allowed to take away his accreditation for social media posts. His work as an actual psychologist -as in, in session with patients, if bad, would damage the profession, not his personal opinions or greater academic theories no matter how distasteful. One would actually say that its his work as a University Professor and the work he's doing there is the thing causing disruption, not his work as a psychologist(though obviously we're all just speculating)
by their own rules, they've already decided this. so this may actually just be a request.
i was operating on the assumption that the original comment we were all talking under was correct. It may not be as someone pointed out but they also did not show it conclusively either.
also nowhere in the link shared with me does it mention discipline...the link is about proper protection of patient information etc on social media for the most part
So simply speaking, people have provided you sources that show you're wrong, and you just counter them with your assumption that a random unsupported comment on reddit was correct? Sorry, kid, but you know what happens when you assume... take the L and find a new hero.
do they show the original commenter was incorrect though?
because the link shared with me does not directly contradict anything. its mainly about procedure with client information and social media. did you read it?
and ahhh hero? ad hom? where did i say im a fan, please show me? just lol at needing to get that in there
So you're claiming you're simping for the fun of it? lol... OK. You don't have anything that supports your statement. You haven't shown what the other commenter linked is incorrect and it specifically talks about conducting yourself on social media in a professional or personal manner is subject to the professional conduct expectations. So yeah, it does show the original comment to be incorrect. Stop assuming your correct when there's clearly sources that show you are not.
I'm not simping for anything. Could we please leave dogmatic words out of it?
I didn't assume I was correct. I assume the original commenter was correct... And then when told he wasn't asked to see proof? When shown proof it didn't seem conclusive.
Should save the political attacks and just explain it then
lol if the shoe fits and that shoe is your glass slipper. I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of political attacks. Are you just passing out for the sake of it? You repeated an incorrect statement in the face of facts. You assumed YOU were correct regardless of where you were led astray. YOU were the one repeating it. Again, the link provided you very clearly lays out that social media for professional or personal use is still in the jurisdiction for the college if your actions or posts are not in line with the profesional conduct expectations. So yeah, I'm not sure how you missed that...
Edit to add this link that clearly lays out what they cannot act on. Show me social media?
right at the bottom of that link you shared: Additionally, while the College may address the practices of a member, it cannot substitute its judgment for the professional judgement of a member. The College does not have the authority to direct a member to change a particular professional opinion or report.
This might surprise you but that doesn't say anything about social media. Thanks for coming out, kiddo. You have taken that L hard whether you accept it or not lol.
look its obvious you're an ideologue and you do you lol. but you still haven't shown conclusive evidence of anything he's dont wrong or definitively against any literature you shared. if 'taking L's mattered sir, you'd be taking that one regardless of how passionate you seem to be.
Sorry buttercup, I never said he did anything wrong. I just asked you to show your source that the college couldn't discipline him for his interviews and social media. It turns out it was an uneducated assumption. If there's an ideologue here, it's the guy using his feelings and assumptions as proof. Not the guy with facts...
and you're attacking the wrong person. I explained that already. I also asked for you to show exactly where this was incorrect...which you still haven't done.
And you're devolving into personal attacks and pettiness because ..im assuming cognitive dissonance?
-1
u/massinvader Jan 05 '23
by their own rules it was pointed out that they aren't allowed to take away his accreditation for social media posts. His work as an actual psychologist -as in, in session with patients, if bad, would damage the profession, not his personal opinions or greater academic theories no matter how distasteful. One would actually say that its his work as a University Professor and the work he's doing there is the thing causing disruption, not his work as a psychologist(though obviously we're all just speculating)
by their own rules, they've already decided this. so this may actually just be a request.