Some of you may know Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson. He's that rare 21st-century academic that actually pursues objective truth and has sought to reframe the classical arguments and theorems of Western intellectuals for modern audiences.

His book, "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos" was a crazy successful bestseller. There is a massive market these days for people looking to apply objective principles and truths to the subjective chaos of the modern world (I can't possibly imagine why).

After a year-long, nearly fatal medical emergency, Peterson recently announced he's back and planning to produce new content. His new book, "Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life" is set to drop in March of 2021.

The publisher, Penguin Random House Canada, reportedly had a massive spat with their staff members this week over the book. Some employees apparently see Peterson as an alt-right, neo-fascist devil who spends all day and night dreaming about how to kill things like puppies and joy.

(You'll find most leftists view Peterson this way.)

The problem was so bad that the publisher held an "emotional town hall" on Monday, where employees were "crying in the meeting about how Jordan Peterson has affected their lives."

"He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he's an icon of white supremacy," said one staffer. "I'm not proud to work for a company that publishes him."

Those are bold allegations! One must ask: why would they be so distraught over this one book from this one professor? Is he really an icon for "hate speech" and "white supremacy?"

Let's let Peterson speak for himself on the matter. This is a clip from a 2018 interview where Peterson discusses the issue of Bill C-16, Canadian legislation passed in 2017 that makes it a human rights violation to not use the preferred "pronouns" of a gender-dysphoric person:

Let's break down a few of Peterson's quotes here. See if you can find the hate speech.

First, the reporter asks Peterson about his thoughts on offending people.

"Okay, so the rule is you can't offend anyone. Alright, let's say you're speaking to one person. I can't offend you. Alright, fair enough. What if I'm speaking to 10 people? Do I get to offend 1 in 10? How about 1 in 100? How about 1 in 1,000? You're going to come out on stage and you're going to say something important about something vital, and you're not going to offend one person in a thousand? Well, you can't say anything about anything important without ever offending... Important speech about important issues - especially contentious issues - is instantly offensive."

Main point: you can't please everyone. That's definitely a hateful thing to say, right?

The interviewer then points out that there are ways to express provocative views with "an air of respectfulness."

"This is true. You can actually try listening when you're having a conversation. Assuming that both people who are having the conversation are of good will and they're not trying to play tricks and they're struggling towards the truth."

Listening???? Having good will and an open mind????

The interviewer then gets to the main topic she wants to discuss: the issue of using a transgender individual's preferred pronouns. What does it "cost" a person to simply comply with such a request?

"It's hard to tell because the devil's always in the details, but as far as I'm concerned, that situation is not relevant to the issues, for example, that I was involved in. I didn't care if transgendered people wanted to be called by some pronouns. Like, whatever – that's something for individuals to negotiate. When the government makes that a compulsion and insists in their legislation that biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual proclivity vary independently – it's like, no they don't and you're not going to compel my speech. I don't care what your [darned] justification is."

"So you see that as a curtaining of freedom?" asked the reporter in response.

"It's worse than a curtaining of freedom. It's a demand that the population uses a certain kind of linguistic approach. It's an appropriation of speech. There's no excuse for that! That never has happened once in the history of English common law. Right? It's a barrier that we do not cross. Hate speech laws are bad enough. It's not like there's no hate speech. Anyone with any sense knows that there's hate speech. Who's gonna regulate it? Whose gonna define it? I know the answer to that. The last people in the world you would want to. And then we cross another barrier and we allow the government to compel speech for some hypothetically compassionate reason? No way. That's a really bad idea."

Did you see it? Did you see the hate speech? Peterson's hateful idea is that people should not be forced to speak a certain way by the government.

His totally out there, completely mad idea is that free speech should exist.

Peterson has hours upon hours upon hours of similar interviews and lectures where he posits the insane notion that free speech is the cornerstone of a just and productive society. Yes, he disagrees from a scientific perspective on the government pushing transgenderism as a valid norm instead of providing needed psychiatric care to those with gender dysphoria. Yes, he says facts without much care for feelings at times.

But make no mistake, Jordan Peterson doesn't want anyone to be bullied or silenced or censored.

This begs a question about the crying employees at Penguin Random House: if they throw a temper tantrum over anyone who disagrees with their views, are they the bastions of free speech you want to be calling the shots in who gets published and who doesn't?

You decide who's phobic, hateful, and supremacist in this situation.

Fortunately, Penguin Random House seems to be moving forward with publication, with preorders of Peterson's new book available on several sites.

Peterson's daughter Mikhaila also had a helpful two-step suggestion for the publisher that would improve their business.

Step 1: Identify Crying Adults.

Step 2: Fire Them.