In Response To Nathan Robinson's Guardian Article on Jordan Peterson

My eye was caught earlier today by an article in the Guardian recently offered to us by Nathan Robinson. For full context, please find link to that article here. First point I want to make clear is that Mr. Robinson's article (ridiculously called "Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform") is an Op-Ed and clearly listed as such. That's quite a bit better than most of the media which are opinions masquerading as objectivity. I suspect many of you can think of your own favorite example of this. Second point is this isn't an attack on Mr. Robinson himself, but on his article. I'm sure he's a genial man who is kind to animals. Hopefully that won't make it less entertaining. That is where my charity ends.
Robinson's article regarding Dr. Jordan Peterson's new book is a proverbial grab bag of half-truth, mistruth, and downright untruth. Mr. Robinson is showcasing either his intellectual laziness or his intellectual dishonesty and I'm not certain which is worse. 
From Robinson's very first invocation in his opening sentence he shows his predilection for intellectual suicide. The first part of his opening sentence reads "Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychology professor and lobster-loving life coach who came to public attention after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of transgender people...". This is a flat out lie. I say lie because the articles, interviews and indeed footage of his launch into the public forum are comically well-documented. Jordan Peterson came to public attention after taking a stand against an amendment to Canadian bill C-16 (it's very easy to dig this up which makes one wonder why Mr. Robinson didn't bother mentioning this in his article) which would have extended human rights legislation in Canada to include making misgendering someone who is transgender a human rights violation. Dr. Peterson explicitly stated that his issue isn't preferred pronouns, but compelled speech. I beg you, dear reader, to watch this interview Peterson gave two years ago where he explicitly states he would refer to a person by their preferred pronoun on a personal level (as would I, by the way, in case you're wondering). Dr. Peterson's issue, once again, concerned linguistic tyranny and freedom of speech, not "...refusing to use preferred pronouns...". It took me a whopping 30 seconds to find that interview. It's called research, Mr. Robinson. Robinson goes on to state that there have been "dozens of complaints from staff" at the publishing house which is releasing Peterson's new book which Robinson slyly says was "predictably...criticized as overly sensitive and excessively woke". Robinson's clear implication here is that said criticism would be as unwarranted as it is expected. I would encourage anyone who reads this to consider that for a moment. In fact, one employee from the publisher told Vice magazine that “People were crying in the meeting about how Jordan Peterson has affected their lives,”. Crying because your company is making a decision that you don't personally agree with? That does seem like a bit much to me. I won't belabor this point long and only add that the book, which is an addition to Peterson's hugely popular "12 Rules For Life", is effectively a self help book. To provide a referential context, Peterson's first book contains such controversial and threatening ideas as "Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping" and "Make friends with people who want the best for you". Ideas like this are worth crying over? Also, because I simply can't resist a well-aimed snipe, rule 10 is "be precise in your speech", which I would submit to Robinson for his own consideration. If these rules and rules like them are worth crying over, it might be time to do some soul-searching. Robinson continues a lazy attempt at ascription of motive to Peterson by opining that "Peterson himself was thrilled, believing it had proven his point about “snowflake” leftists...". Well, it kind of did, did it not? If Robinson felt a crying employee didn't prove that point, would he care to state what would prove that point? He wouldn't and, indeed, he didn't, at least not in this article. Moving right along, Robinson casts a rather wider net, going after the idea of a publishing house "censoring" a book. To quote him directly, he states that "It’s not reasonable to claim that employees who object to publishing Peterson are “censorious”.". Weather a publishing house should lend its imprimatur to tricky subject matter could well make for an interesting discussion and debate. That's forgetting the fact that the subject matter here very likely is not all that tricky. Perhaps that's best reserved for another article. However, here are the facts. The publisher did lend its imprimatur to the book, they likely read it several times, and they have scheduled the book to be published early next year. Surely the case to be made isn't in the area of censorship but of the responsibility the publisher has to honor its agreement with Peterson and publish the book? Perhaps Mr. Robinson can educate me on this point as he is a published author of many books. One simply has to wonder how he would react if, say, his 2017 book, Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity were to be rejected by Demilune Press on the grounds that a Trump supporter who worked there cried upon hearing it would be published? A simple thought experiment for your review, Mr. Robinson. I cordially invite you on my podcast, by the way to discuss your piece and this point in particular. One small point is that Robinson has a rather roguish and snide aside later in the piece where he states that "The things [Peterson] says are often false, prejudiced and dangerous." and that "What possible obligation does a publisher have to publish the ravings of bigots?".  Well, the ridiculous tone aside, my response to the last question is imbricated in what I just stated regarding publishing houses. In response to the first question, Robinson makes the accusations bravely enough, but even more bravely declines to give any examples of Peterson making either a false, dangerous, and , most ludicrously, prejudiced, statement. Perhaps he will address in a later article, perhaps not. Is my point about intellectual dishonesty becoming clear? I daresay it is to at least some of you. Mr. Robinson then flounders through a few more paragraphs regarding censorship and publishing, as if censorship or even censorship in simulacrum are of no great consequence. To me, that's a rather extraordinary position to take given Mr. Robinson's position as a man of letters. Finally, Mr. Robinson caps off the article with a plea for funding to The Guardian. Good luck with that is all I have to say. The final stanza to this melody of mistruth ends with Robinson stating that... [he’ll] fight for the free speech rights of [Peterson], but nobody has a human right to a lucrative book contract without regard for whether their opinions are sound or valuable.". On this final point, I submit to the intelligence and judiciousness of you, dear reader. Those of you that have read Peterson's previous book and understand that the forthcoming piece is an extension of it, will any of you state that its content are not sound or valuable? Even if it were to be judged as such, that's a decision for you to make, not Mr. Robinson.

My final statement is directed to you, Mr. Robinson. I hope you get the chance to read this piece. You will, because I will be tweeting this out to you and emailing you as well. If you want to correct the record or discuss the piece, consider this article an open invitation to come on to my podcast to discuss.