Jordan Peterson, the Canadian clinical psychologist and author, has returned to Twitter after Elon Musk rescinded a ban that Peterson was struck with back in June for “misgendering” someone. And what a return he has had! It’s like he never left. As I write, Dr Peterson has posted thirteen tweets in the last hour alone. 

Such energy! Say what you like about the author of Twelve Rules for Life and Beyond Order, but you can’t deny his commitment.

All of his familiar targets are being lined up: Justin Trudeau, climate scientists, “woke corporate fascists” and, er, anonymous posters? Yes, despite most of his followers being anonymous posters — and, indeed, the fact that he posts like an anon, with his fervid intensity and splenetic tone — Dr Peterson has long disapproved of anonymity. “I am increasingly convinced,” he wrote last year, “that Twitter anonymity is the refuge of scoundrels and fiends. Say it and stand behind it or hold your tongue.”

Expressing unfashionable sentiments can inspire online mobs

Peterson returned to the theme as soon as his account was restored. “Don’t allow the anonymous troll-demons to post with the real verified people @elonmusk,” he wrote. “Put them in their own hell, along with others like them.” 4Chan? I don’t know. That sounds like a bad investment for Mr Musk.

“By failing to separate the anonymous cowardly troll demons from real people in the comments section,” Peterson added yesterday after Musk ignored him, “YouTube and other SM platforms are enabling sadistic Machiavellian psychopaths and narcissists.” Okay, I’m tiring of this neutral academic tone. Why don’t you tell us how you really feel about them, Dr Peterson?

To anons who claimed to be anonymous so they could do good, Peterson sneered, “Excuse my skepticism, sunshine. It’s just not likely that you’re that good.” Well, damn … 

Of course, no one could disagree that there are people who misuse their anonymity. There are people who harass and defame other people whilst shielding themselves from legal and professional consequences. That is cowardly, as well as malicious, and such people deserve to be exposed. If you want to avoid personal consequences for your online presence, don’t give other people personal consequences for theirs.

Still, that does not describe most people who are anonymous online. Jordan Peterson, of all people, should know that we live in a censorious age. Expressing unfashionable sentiments can inspire online mobs to seek real-life retribution: trying to get people fired or even arrested. If (like Peterson or I) you are fortunate enough to make your money expressing at least somewhat unfashionable opinions, that might not be a big problem. If, on the other hand, you make your money filling spreadsheets, making cars or cutting hair, it means you can’t express yourself online under your real name without facing the risk of weirdos ruining your life.

There is an essential injustice in that. I don’t think the likes of Peterson and I should have the exclusive right to bang on about our opinions because we have somehow succeeded in monetising them. Other people have their own ideas and perspectives to express, and anonymity can offer them their only chance.

Should we have the courage of our convictions? Well, I decided to start writing under my real name before I got paid gigs in journalism. I like to think that it involved a bit of courage, but on the other hand I was unmarried, had no kids, had no mortgage, had no car, had no future and could have ended up becoming completely unemployable. I can’t blame other people for doing otherwise.

Anonymous content is not reducible to shitposting

As well as the question of fairness, there is the question of the health of public discourse. As Peterson knows — or should know — mainstream media, political and educational institutions express and encourage a narrow range of modern prejudices. People whose ideas are not modishly progressive when it comes to sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, education et cetera — like, well, Dr Peterson — have a tough time getting through. One of the most effective tools that unfashionable, contrarian and dissident voices have in opposing this complacent status quo is mocking and dissecting its absurdities online. Why on Earth would right-wingers turn against it? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Anonymous content is not reducible to shitposting (as fine as that can be). Excellent blogs, books and columns have been written under pseudonyms (take “The Secret Author” at The Critic, for example). As well as protecting people’s identities, this can allow them to develop rich fictional and satirical characters without the fourth wall being tediously breached. Much as it would be preposterous for someone posting on Twitter under a silly name to compare themselves to Publius, Nikolay Arzhak or Elena Ferrante, this can put anons into a rich tradition of literary and political pseudonymity.

Jordan Peterson is not wrong to dislike shut-ins spamming racial slurs under his videos, and he certainly is not wrong to dislike people who I’m sure have threatened or lied about him from behind lame pseudonyms. He is wrong to lump all anons together into a seething mass of hatred and dishonesty. 

The odd thing is that when Peterson first achieved fame, he used to talk with admiration about “the kek boys” and other strange anonymous phenomena. Disaffected young men, for whom he has been an emotional advocate, are disproportionately anons. Expressing opinions that defy the habits and prejudices of your audience can be a brave thing to do, to be sure, but I don’t think it’s merited in this situation. It even feels like a bit of a let-down.

Perhaps Peterson has grown jaded. It must be difficult to check your mentions every day and be soaked in bile. But if his experiences with journalists and activists have taught him anything, then it should be that people can be quite loathsome under their real names.