Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform

This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant

From The Manchester Guardian:

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, has a new book coming out, and some staff at Penguin Random House Canada, were reportedly not pleased with the company’s decision to publish it. When the publisher announced that it would be bringing out Peterson’s Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (a sequel to his 2018 bestseller 12 Rules for Life), management received dozens of complaints from staff. At a company town hall meeting, some employees were reportedly in tears as they described how Peterson had radicalized people in their lives.

Predictably, the staff who complained were criticized as over-sensitive and excessively woke. The Telegraph suggested that intolerant social justice warriors were trying to censor Peterson. Commentator Maajid Nawaz said that it showed an “insidious danger facing our culture” now that “book publishers want to ban books”. Reason’s Robby Soave said that “militantly woke staffers at these places are determined to suppress viewpoints they disagree with”. I am sure Peterson himself was thrilled, believing it had proven his point about “snowflake” leftists, in addition to bringing exactly the desired advance publicity for his book.

It’s not reasonable to claim that employees who object to publishing Peterson are “censorious”. A publisher is not a Kinkos. Penguin Random House rejects far more books than it accepts, and it does not treat all points of view equally. It does not publish works of Holocaust denial or phrenology. It has standards, and it’s reasonable for employees to argue that Peterson does not meet those standards. After all, he has suggested that gay marriage might be a plot by cultural Marxists, that women wearing makeup in the workplace is “sexually provocative”, that trans women aren’t women because they’re not “capable of having babies”, that women cannot handle truth, and that transgender activists are comparable to mass-murdering Maoists. He peddles debunked scientific theories and dangerously dodgy diets. I have gone through his work myself and shown that he is a crackpot, whose writing is devoid of basic reasoning and full of wild unsubstantiated claims. When Pankaj Mishra wrote a critical review of Peterson’s work in the New York Review of Books, Peterson called Mishra a “prick” and said he’d “slap [Mishra] happily”. The things he says are often false, prejudiced and dangerous. What possible obligation does a publisher have to publish the ravings of bigots?

Believing that a prestigious publisher should not give such a person a contract is not the same as believing that they should be punished for speaking, or that they should not have access to the internet, a printer, or the marketplace. It’s important to make this distinction clear, because many conservative claims about being “censored” actually just amount to demands that their opinions be elevated far beyond their worth – that evidence-free, bigoted speech be given any prestigious platform it demands, with criticism seen as proof that the critics are intolerant. (Andrew Sullivan, for instance, resigned from New York magazine in a huff after his colleagues expressed discomfort about his flirtations with white supremacism and race science. They didn’t demand the magazine stop publishing him, but just being criticized was enough for him to bolt, claiming a hostile environment.)

There is no problem, then, with staff arguing that Peterson’s work is not worth the company’s imprimatur. The real problem is that this doesn’t happen enough, that publishers are amoral and bring out books on the basis of whether they will sell rather than whether they have social value. The staff revolt against Peterson is a very rare instance of a publishing company being criticized on moral grounds for its choices. After all, war criminal Henry Kissinger has published with Penguin Random House and Macmillan. People responsible for the atrocity of the Iraq war like George W Bush and John Bolton have brought books out with major publishers, even though the human toll of their decision-making is far greater than that of Jordan Peterson.

Link to the rest at The Manchester Guardian

While reading the OP, PG wondered whether Jordan Peterson believes that The Manchester Guardian is not obliged to give bigots like the author of the OP a platform.

For those outside of the United States, the term “deplatform” has entered the argot of of some political groups.

The following definition is from Whatis:

To deplatform someone is to remove their access to a channel for delivering messages to an audience. Deplatforming may involve not just banning the user or discontinuing service but also removing any existing content the user previously created on the site or service.

The term is usually used in reference to social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, where site owners have banned users whose communications have been deemed unacceptable for some reason. Deplatforming can also refer to removing users from other types of services. Cloud providers and ISPs, for example, may be said to be deplatforming someone when they remove a user to prevent them from disseminating a particular type of content, such as hate speech.

. . . .

Potential reasons for removing a user from a given service may be specified in terms of service (ToS) so that the provider cannot be accused of denying any offending user’s right to free speech. However, the effectiveness of deplatforming a user is questionable. Many people who had never heard of Alex Jones, for example, are likely to hear about him being deplatformed, become curious and seek out his content, bringing him a potentially wider audience than he previously enjoyed.

PG suggests that a more widely recognized term for deplatforming is political censorship.

Political censorship has a very long history. A few examples:

In Athens, Socrates was sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum or Index of Prohibited Books was first issued in 1559 as ordered by Pope Paul IV. Other editions of this publication followed. The Inquisition was one of the principal means of dealing with prohibited books and their authors.

The burning of the Maya Codices found by Spanish conquistadors in the Yucatán during the 16th century destroyed thousands of these ancient works. Their destruction was ordered by a Roman Catholic Bishop. Today, only three or four Maya codices remain.

Censorship in Russia predated the Communist Revolution in 1917, but gained new power thereafter. In 1922, a central censorship office, generally referred to as the Glavlit was established. Its role was to purge the Soviet society of all expressions regarded as destructive to the new order and contagious to the minds of people.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., were all experts at deplatforming individuals and organizations whose bigotry and offensive thoughts and expressions were anathema to all right-thinking people.

To be Clear

PG understands the difference between censorship of political thought by a government agency or some other powerful entity and the right of anyone, including the author of the OP, to criticize Mr. Peterson’s opinions.

What punched PG’s deplatforming button was not the criticism of Mr. Peterson’s ideas and writings, but rather the verbal lobbying directed to PRH to pressure the company to cease publication of Mr. Jordan’s writings.

For PG, the OP represented attempted political censorship in the sense that the OP was urging PRH not to publish books written by someone whose political ideas, the author of the OP disagreed with. The focus of the attack was not on defects in Mr. Peterson’s ideas or the nature of his reasoning, but rather an attempt to erase such ideas from the traditional publishing world and its distribution system.

PG has little doubt that Mr. Peterson could self-publish this book and likely earn more money than he’s receiving from PRH. For whatever reason, however, he has elected to publish through PRH and PRH is apparently happy to do business with him.

PG just checked and Mr. Jordan’s earlier book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is designated by Amazon as a bestseller and ranks #9 on this week’s Amazon Charts. It was published in 2018 by Random House Canada.

25 thoughts on “Publishers are not obliged to give bigots like Jordan Peterson a platform”

  1. Peterson is a very interesting author. He has works of theory and history, but his primary focus that has brought him fame is what I would call basic life-psychology self-help, and his most obvious audience is (what shall I call them?) beta males (who — God knows — are hungry for some cultural guidance).

    The “12 Rules” book is very practical, along the lines of “make your bed each day and at least you will have accomplished something (and it will change your attitude)”. His university lectures, which are widely available (for now) on YouTube, are well worth watching. While he has something to say to various audiences, his obviously rapt audience is (young) men who are clearly disconnected from any sort of psychologically productive life. “Why don’t women find you attractive? Because you act like a victim instead of taking control of your life.” (simplifying significantly). It’s a fundamental recommendation to take responsibility for your own life, with some basic tools for “how” and psychologically unobjectionable reasons for “why”.

    The people who are triggered by him seem to me to have several issues:
    1) They think they really are victims and don’t want to assume any responsibilities for their own behavior.
    2) They think all possible postures of gender and behavior are equally… (um)… useful as guidance for life.
    3) They don’t believe there is any inherent basis for evolutionary psychology and the preferences of mating behavior. It would be a contradiction of all they stand for.

    It seems to me that since only the siblings/cousins of non-breeding populations can carry their genes further along, there must be some sort of advantage to the population as a whole for those genes (and mating preferences) to persist (c.f., the theory that the significant survival of post-menopausal (non-breeding) women (“grandmothers”) may be “useful” to the population as a whole for their help with child care and their institutional memory of disaster/opportunity behaviors). There’s no clear consensus on what that advantage might be from a non-breeding (homosexual) population, but various speculations abound.

    Peterson’s sort of thinking is anathema to the LGBT-etc. crowd where the theme is (paraphrasing) “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” (Aleister Crowley) –,or%20determine%20their%20True%20Will. This is one of the little-recognized underpinnings of the currently widespread movement of “anything goes”.

    It’s not so much that Peterson disapproves of, shall we say, alternative life styles. He just thinks they come with inherent disadvantages and costs. His critics hate that.

    • Well put, K.

      Downsides to personal decisions can be so annoying. Freedom to decide should automatically mean freedom from adverse consequences of any sort arising from such decisions.

    • “There’s no clear consensus on what that advantage might be from a non-breeding (homosexual) population, but various speculations abound. ”

      A definitive answer will be needed by the time we start colonizing new worlds or they’ll be left behind with money managers, puppetry majors, and other… non-survival activities.

      (I’ll have to look into Mr Peterson’s work.)

      • Mind you, I do think that the persistence of homosexuality in an animal population, which is inarguably the case for humans, really does imply some sort of evolutionary advantage to that population. Yes, spandrels persist (random features), but not usually ones that inhibit the direct passing of genes.

        Maybe it’s just that some male homosexuals will still sire children, and some female homosexuals will still bear them, but it seems to me that a non-breeding homosexual population is at an evolutionary disadvantage in any species. In more primitive cultures, it may be that without children you had insufficient economic support later in life, so everyone bred per force, but in more modern ones that feature less dependence on children, it’s no longer necessary. (And if that theory were true, it implies a decrease in that sub-population over time…)

        Still, evolutionary pressures can be subtle.

        • Bonobos come to mind.
          They use sex as “coinage”, transactionally, or out of boredom.
          (” Gimme banana. ” “No.” ” You can have your way with me. ” “Deal.”

          They bore easilly, it seems.

          Other apes use it to establish or maitain dominance.
          Neither group limits who is on the receiving end.

          I vaguely remember Desmond Morris suggesting in THE HUMAN ZOO that it serves the evolutionary purpose of peacefully reducing population growth to prevent outgrowing the resource pool, without endagering the gene pool.

          In humans, war usually serves the same evolutionary purpose which is probably why we’re the last sub-species in the genus. (Other apes too, but humans have refined it beyond evolutionary need. Genocide is deeply ingrained in humans.)

  2. Dr. Petersen is that interesting combination of the smart-dumb human condition.

    On the smart side, there’s a lot that he says that makes perfect sense. His ability to discuss with hostile hosts is remarkable, and inspirational.

    However, on the dumb side, he says a lot that is clearly just an opinion. Which is fine, but those people that take things literally, and use opinions to justify their stupidity.

    There again, all of us can be stupid, because we’re all a combination of smart and dumb.

  3. I also see, to put it nicely, a lot of self-projection in the O.P., with ad-hominem attacks instead of argument.

    But I noticed another interesting point:
    the OP thinks the publisher is more important to the author . I’m pretty sure a poll would find that 99% of all readers don’t give a ****** **** who the publisher is, they just care who the author is.

    • The publisher is putting up with the pressure, external and internal, because the author has proven his books sell. That makes *him* more important than the staff and the pundits.

      Money talks loud in their world.
      Employees are disposable, rainmaker authors aren’t.

  4. The Guardian has lost the plot of late. There are a few exceptions, such as brilliant satirist Marina Hyde, who is especially good on our – er – current difficulties – but they seem ever more keen on censoring anyone about whom there are complaints from certain powerful lobbies. Look up Suzanne Moore, and what has happened to her. Unconscionable.

  5. I confess, I have to disagree most strongly. And that’s partly because what Peterson sells runs a wide spectrum.

    On the “safe” end, it is, as noted above, pop self-help. It’s banal, mostly. And when people want to claim people are trying to censor him, it is this type of publication that they refer to. But it’s a strawman argument. This simple crud is NOT why they care what he writes.

    In the middle, a bit more questionable, is stuff that is not that different from incels and pronouncements of an exiting President where there are “good people on both sides” of racist rhetoric when he flirts with white supremacists. While it is at the very least politically incorrect, there are a few traces here and there where he goes well past PiC and well nigh onto hate speech. Mostly he’s just being an ignorant d-bag, and if he stays inside the line of promoting hate, he’s merely offensive, but so is Andrew Dice Clay to many. And as long as he is “inside” the line, I would tend to agree that censorship in any form might be too much. Not my cup of tea, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Again, if this was all it was, cancel culture or deplatforming is probably too strong a reaction.

    The “danger” and why people object is that he has a third product line, so to speak. It is mentioned in the OP, and runs counter to a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions. For example, when it comes to sexual harassment, he is a bit inconsistent about so-called “life choices”. While he tells men not to be victims, and to take responsibility for their choices, he also regularly comments that if a woman was wearing makeup or a nice outfit at work, she was “inviting” harassment and in other contexts, apparently deserves to be raped. It is the age-old, “Well, if she didn’t want to be raped, she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt” type argument. He extends similar treatment to people who are trans who are assaulted or killed…that they deserve what they get because they made bad life choices. I find it troubling in the comments that one would even potentially joke about “life choices leading to unfortunate consequences” or harm when he is talking life choices being justification for murder or encouraging suicide. Yet the men who commit the assaults are not responsible for their actions, not responsible for the consequences of their choices, they’re victims of being incited by others.

    In many jurisdictions, when you target an identifiable group, suggesting that they deserve to be assaulted simply for existing or what they wear, it is called hate speech. Peterson has some academic cover, that as a professor he can be “provocative” in his ideas, but he has been reviewed both provincially and federally to see how close he is to the line. Some of those in the know say that the deciding factor has been likelihood of conviction with a unanimous jury, not whether it rose to the level of hate speech.

    FWIW, Canada has a pretty tolerant almost sleepy judiciary and society. It is exceedingly rare for them (or us) to agree on hate speech or pornography, often deferring if there is some semblance of literary/artistic merit. As a society, we’re more likely to shush someone than the far more radical responses you see in the U.S.

    For example, shortly after George Floyd stuff in the US, a black woman with mental health problems in Toronto was killed in an altercation with police. Her family did the circuit claiming the police threw her from her balcony, it “blew up” for a day or two on social media, and then disappeared. Why? Because the police had video of her barricading herself in her room, then trying to climb from her balcony to the one next to her and apparently falling. Nobody was anyone near her nor threatening her. But even before it was revealed, it was not like there were race riots in Toronto. Most people were like, “Really? That doesn’t seem likely.” and they waited to hear the outcome of the investigation a few days later. The police had the video and could have shared it to defend themselves and didn’t. The family saw it, their lawyers saw it, a few media people, but it wasn’t released. The story just died.

    I say this because in the same town, there are people willing to lynch this guy daily. That doesn’t happen simply from woke politics.

    I find it amusing that he advocates not acting like a victim, but when he is attacked for pushing views that he knows are offensive to a large portion of the population and that he chooses to push as part of HIS life choices, he cries “woe is me”.

    As a white male, I have the privilege to dismiss him as merely an idiot. If I was a woman or trans who worked for the publisher and they published a book that said I was subhuman and deserved to be beaten, raped and/or killed, I might find it a wee bit offensive. And potentially infringing basic human rights. If I was a victim of an assault by someone who attended one of his “rallies”, I might even feel a bit litigious.

    We have two people in Canada who are clearly “worse” than Peterson, with court cases to prove it, but he would make most people’s top 5 list for promoting hate speech. Anti-censorship advocates and deplatforming opponents might want to choose another poster child.


    • If he offends your ideals, organize a consumer boycott.
      See how that works.
      (Just remember the Streisand Effect.)
      Counter ideas with ideas. Challenge him in the open.

      Driving ideas out of the public sphere is pretending “out of sight is out of mind”.
      How’d that work for Nicholas Romanov? Or Shah Pahlevi? Or countless others?

      Repression feeds the discontent and validates the repressed ideology in the eyes of its followers. And potential followers, who only see repression as fear.

      You mention Incels? That’s a recent development? Any idea where it comes from? Did it sping whole cloth, with no motivation?
      Or, might it have something to do with the Lost Boys Generation?


      Actions breed reactions.
      If folks want to spend the next few decades playing whack-a-mole, deplatforming every challenger to the “accepted consensus” is exactly how to go about it. Just don’t expect good things to follow.
      Whack the moles long enough, they go underground–out of sight, out of mind– for a while. Then they come back out, when they’re least expected. That doesn’t usually end well for anybody.

      If your ideas are strong enough, deal with challengers head on, word for word, idea for idea. Open markets aren’t just for commerce and idea protectionism is as futile as trade protectionism.

    • PolyWogg,

      That’s strange, I’ve watched a number of videos by Peterson and he never once said anything that you claim that he said.

      I suspect that you are getting your information from his haters, not from the man himself.

      That’s not a good sign. You should be concerned that you are making judgements about people simply from the slander machine.

      He has a YouTube channel, and has been interviewed by many.

      Go look it up.

      On YouTube, Enter – jordan peterson

      and see what results come up. If the first results are not links to his channel or to his actual videos, then YouTube has filtered your results to be biased against Peterson. That’s how YouTube works.

      – They adjust your feed to match the preferences that they help you to choose.

      Try it sometimes.

      Start clicking on “funny pet” videos and in just a few iterations, they will be offering huge numbers of “funny pet” videos.

      I once started clicking on videos where people are playing musical instruments in malls and train stations. Even on “Flash mobs” that show up and play classical music.

      I then clicked on videos showing people turning wood on lathes, taking huge burls and turning them into incredibly beautiful bowls and cups. I love it when they use colored resins to fill the imperfections of the wood and produce wonder.

      That’s all it took to be flooded with the same kind of videos.

      Clear all of the history on your browser, cookies and all. Do that at least once a week, sometimes more if you are doing massive harvest, and you will start getting unfiltered information, for a time. Then you have to clear everything again.

      Or like I do on occasion, when I want all of my choices to be about CGI Spaceships. Wow, that’s fun. Start with this example, and YouTube will offer you more.


      BTW, I still have to take the Blender tutorials so that I can create my own spaceships.

      • My husband watches Peterson’s videos, and has mentioned to me that he (Peterson) “hates gays and trans” several times in the past. He didn’t get that impression out of thin air.

      • I’m more than aware of Peterson, partly as I’m Cdn. He isn’t denigrated simply because of his videos, and as noted by Scath, it isn’t out of thin air. He is careful what he puts on places like YouTube as it is a great way to get banned, which would kill his revenue stream. He saves most of his vile stuff for public speaking roles, some limited distribution written materials, and interviews. I’m happy you assume I’m just deceived by his haters, I assure you I’m not.

        Peterson is a well-known quantity, and he doesn’t deny what his so-called “haters” say about him, he just says he has the right to say it.


        • You’re calling for censorship. No matter how many excuses you give or how valid you think they are, it’s still censorship.

        • In the latter he is wrong.
          At least in Canada.
          In the US he does because there is free speech but not in Canada.

          Free speech is like being pregnant or dead. Totally binary; you can’t be just a bit pregnant or a bit censored. You either have the right or you don’t, either *everybody* has it or nobody does.

          Canada doesn’t. Nor the UK. Neither does most of the EU. Whether they call it “Official Secrets” or “Hate Speech” you are only allowed to say approved things or you get jailed. And it happens, from Germany to the Netherlands to Canada.

          Old 70’s joke:

          A soviet diplomat and an american diplomat share drinks in a NY bar, late at night and, as usual, end up comparing systems. Invariably the tit for tat ends up on free speech.

          “I can shtand in the middle of Times Square with a Megaphone and scream for all to hear… DOWN WITH AMERICA! Then I go home peacefully. You can’t.”

          ” Bah! Of course I can. I can stand with megaphone in middle of Red Square and proclaim to all DOWN WITH AMERICA!! Is how I got promoted. ”

          (Badda ba dump.)

          • LOL like the right to bear arms, the US takes the “right” without any of the corresponding duties that go with it. As the saying goes, a man’s right to swing his fist ends at another’s nose. You might want to review the original history of your rights, as that was not what the forefathers were protecting, and it is very clear from their writings what was included and what was not. And why. There’s a reason why one of the first rulings was a limitation that it doesn’t protect *falsely* yelling “Fire!” in a crowded public house.

            You also might want to review some of your own country’s experiences and views on the greatest limitation to FoS which is not the government or laws. It is your employer, who has absolute right to terminate you for just about anything, with very few protections. In most jurisdictions that you denigrate, they have some protections from such incursions. Why? To protect FoS.

            But you also might want to go back to read what I wrote. I said I think he pedals filth, promotes hate, and incites people to violence. I don’t think he should be censored, I think he should incur whatever consequences come his way. He can publish whatever he wants. Yet, as demanded by FoS, those employees also had the right to exercise their FoS and challenge the views that were being published by their employer. And the employer decided they didn’t want to publish Tier 1 and 2 of his publishing lines given his Tier 3 products. As PG said, the guy can self-publish. He doesn’t have a “right” to be published by PRH, he just has a right to submit to them and have them make a business decision as to whether they will publish him or not. They chose not when they saw a larger context. I think he’s a waste of skin, but my argument is that those employees and others who object have the same FoS he claims. And just as in the origins of debate, ridiculous claims can be shouted down by facts and the voices of those willing to band together to prevent tyranny or simple intellectual bullying.

            Which, btw, those employees have the right to do, even if they were wrong about Peterson. I don’t think they are wrong, but it is only the most privileged who think FoS extends from right to say something to right to have a company publish your MS.


            • Uh, he’s not the one making demands.
              He offered the book to the publisher and tbe publisher accepted it.
              Standard moneygrubbing business transaction.

              The OP is about employee outcry to shut him up.

              Which, as I noted above, the employees can legally demand in Canada. Nowhere did I say he was demanding anything (is he?) nor that the employees are legally wrong. (Ethically dangerous and stupid, but legally aceptable by your laws.)

              All I said was that in the US they can’t legally demand it.
              (Nonetheless, in today’s cancel culture it happens. Still dangerous and stupid.)

              In the US you can legally express any idea and thought freely, regardless of who it offends without going to jail for those ideas.

              In Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, and most of Europe you can go to jail just for expressing an opinion or belief.

              (And a call to action isn’t an idea, belief, or opinion, so let’s keep the two separate, okay? The courts do.)

              Those are all *facts* as they exist.

              Before this, I hadn’t even heard of him.
              Now he is…interesting…
              (And probably laughing at the free publicity.)

              His theories might be wrong or they might be right.
              Might be worth giving him some cash to find out how he lines up with other evolutionary psychologists and human zoologists…

              • I’m not sure on which planet you live, or in which dimension, but it is obviously different from ours. They employees can “demand” anything they want anywhere. That doesn’t mean it is a legal injunction. They didn’t “prevent” the publisher by law from doing it, there was nothing “legal” or “illegal” about it. They said to their employer, “We are your employees and we think this is a bad idea for our company”. PRH agreed. A simple money-grubbing transaction, just not one you apparently think people should be able to do. But they can do it in the US. And if the company wants to fire them, separate from union rules, they can. Has nothing to do with Canada. The rest of your “summary” of facts is nonsense.

                But since you are so fond of Freedom of Speech, and that it should never have any limits at all, let’s test where you start getting nervous:

                Should one be able to use FoS to:
                – Argue for the violent overthrow of the government (aka treason under US law)?
                – Argue for the assassination of the President? (aka murder and treason)?
                – Counsel someone in how to commit a murder of some one specific (aka conspiracy to commit murder)?
                – Counsel that trans are “deviants” and that people should kill them to rid the world of such abnormalities (aka hate speech)?
                – Encourage people to rape women because they go to bars, put on makeup, and/or wear a skirt? (aka incitement)
                – Yell “Fire” in a crowded public house/theatre (aka reckless endangerment)
                – Wear a t-shirt promoting child molestation to work even if your employer objects?
                – Stand on a street corner and shout obscenites at anyone passing by (public nuisance/deceny laws)
                – Stand outside your house Felix and shout obscenities at your family when they go in and out (harassment)?
                – Go online, post your home address and tell people you don’t deserve to live (incitement)
                – Go online, post your address, and tell people that they should go to your house and rape any females who live there? (incitement)
                – Go online, post your address, and encourage people to go to your house and kill you? (incitement)

                As a “freedom” lover, you’re okay with all of those, right? After all, you can do all of those in the US, right? Oh, no? They’re actually against the law? How can that be? I thought you had FoS ranging from challenging the state all the way down to those that threaten violence against you personally and your family? It’s all just FoS, right?


    • If you look at Peterson’s twitter, he told people to stop mocking the employees: “Please, everybody, just leave the @PenguinRandomCA employees alone.”

      Doesn’t sound very “woe is me, I am victimized” to me.

        • Isn’t he? Plenty of that going around. The establishment seems to think it is still the minority, and talks about centering itself while discriminating against diverse people.

  6. PG is a concerned that he has lead visitors to TPV into a political bog that is likely to decline into an impolite fight.

    He’s going to shut off comments to his original post and be more careful about what he may post in the future.

Comments are closed.