RE: The Peterson fallacy or how the world is not served by attacking a beaten enemy
I certainly dissagree with Peterson on a lot of things, but I think that saying there are absolutely no problems with far-left thinking and that it has receeded into obscurity is simply not true. De-platforming is a massive harm to our discourse within universities and I think the most charitable interpretation of his goals would be to stop this kind of thinking. Conversation is truly the only tool we have to progress in society, and once that is outlawed, the only option left is violence.
I think that the focus on peterson has been largely overblown in so many ways, and that his messages are vanilla and juvenile at best, and it is unfortunate that it drives young people towards right leaning ideologies, but that perhaps is only true because of any true centrist options in our society.
I do not aim to stop the way Peterson thinks; I advocate freedom of speech. But as I think he misses his goal . What he reaches is more divisiveness and a flux to the right (he's probably not even aiming for). So it's also important that there are people, especially academia, who present counter arguments to his seducing rhetoric. Perhaps in Canada, where he lives, the far left still has appeal. Here in the Netherlands it has been in decline for decades. Just saw you're from Toronto like Peterson. Enlighten me about the far left in Canada; is it very belligerent?
ah makes sense! Yes there's definitley some belligerence here especially in Toronto where I live, but it's definitely more prevalent in the USA, at least in it's most toxic forms. I certainly agree that the best way to argue against Peterson is to intelligently dismantle his arguments, but far too often, (especially in Toronto-based media) I see people just kind of lazily slagging him off and trying to deplatform him based off of total misinformation.