[ayayecocojambo]

This. i felt same. i feel uncomfortable following a passionate thought leader without being able to critize his ideas. for that aim i find myself in thought-provoking arguments with my lgbti activist friends, which was very intellectually-fun times for me.

the thing makes me most uncomfortable about his attitude is what he doesn't say. demonizing 'social justice warriors' and repeating danger of politically correctness is ok, but what criticism about rising nationalism, alt-right movement? this is the elephant in the room he does not talk about, instead he is only focusing on small-minority leftist groups. don't know weather he is biased towards right, or he is trying to get-well with these group. but these are my two cents.

[psyc]

He clearly condemns fascism, anti-semitism, etc, and is mostly individualist. I believe he doesn't directly address /pol types much because they haven't been literally inches from his face, whereas identity-politics people have been, as well as surrounding lecture halls carrying on and breaking windows to intimidate him and his audiences. He certainly condemns the worst alt-right ideas.

[ayayecocojambo]

sure he is. he could have make criticism about alt-right with exact same harshness and might not say too much thing about leftists without too much changing his stance. this bothers me since i believe raising nationalism is much bigger threat than a couple thousands of university students. (although 'political correctness' is also a raising problem)

[mercer]

Ah yes, but the article paints a picture of him actively not doing so because he's trying to help exactly those who are caught in this 'raising nationalism'.

More than once I've caught myself leaning into or at least not challenging views that I strongly disagree with when talking to someone espousing them, because I felt it would not really be helpful/productive. I can see Peterson doing the same, and avoiding outright condemning the 'alt-right' in the way you desire because he might feel it would not lead to a desirable outcome.

I'm uncomfortable giving him this leeway, but I have to admit that I respect Scott enough to not write what he did without a decent degree of thought.

For myself, at least, I can't tell if this is the right approach. But at the very least I can say it's not as simple as always expressing my 'true' beliefs. That would be lazy.

[rusk]

I don't think his critiquing of modern identity politics is necessarily an ideological thing. Like you say he's been embattled for some time over his opposition to the whole "C-16" gender pronouns thing. For better or worse this firmly gained him cheerleaders on "the right" while gaining him vociferous condemnation on "the left".

As GP points out he's not so critical of his alt-right cheerleaders. Perhaps we would like it if he took some responsibility for his more regressive fans but I don't think he sees that as his problem. Maybe that's fair enough too. Maybe he just sees himself as a guy who's "speaking the truth" moreso than "a leader".

[tenaciousDaniel]

I think this critique of him is fair. I would have less of a problem with the SJW-types if they showed any interest in combating the more extreme/hostile elements in their own side. I should expect the same from the right, and though Peterson does mention his opposition to the alt-right from time to time, he could do with a fair bit more of it.

[psyc]

I think this is all spot-on. Polarization itself makes for a lot of confusion, and many accuracies being tossed out the window for politics. Someone recently opined on the problem of having 'the wrong fans' like this: if the KKK likes a tax law that benefits them, does that make the authors and other supporters of that tax law white supremacists? For some reason people are a lot more sensitive when it's about ideas. Especially lately, when there seems to be so much fear that thought might cause atrocities, since it precedes them.