Trying to generously assume it is not that simple.
Conversation
I agree. We haven't even touched on xenoestrogens yet, for example.
My main critique of pomo, identity politics etc is b/c to me they're tools of late capitalism.
Conviviality hard to monetize, thus constant atomization polarization etc. Keep people suspicious of each other.
2
1
2
The hilarious thing is that postmodernists represent a very, very small portion of Peterson's critics or ideological opponents.
It's all grand narrative social activist stuff, identity politics, critiques of colonialism and capitalism and so on.
Nothing remotely pomo about it.
2
2
I haven't seen a single interview w/him being questioned on capitalism.
It's been brought up briefly in his convos w/Russell Brand & Philip Dodd though in each case the questioner hadn't prepared anything in sufficient depth to get around JBP's minimal precision requirements.
2
1
I meant his opponents, not him.
He keeps railing against his supposed pomo or neomarxist opponents. How many can you find?
Most of the hit pieces for example are from your typical liberal/neoliberal journos and such. These people are not Marxist. They're often not even lefties.
1
1
So it's pure clickbait then. The critics you mention have no moral center. Angry people click more, etc.
2
1
The hard and far right just call everything to their left “Cultural Marxism”, so Peterson does the same thing.
3
3
2
This really is the crux, isn't it? Peterson's interpretation of anything left is "radical" by the time you've passed neoliberal economic policy, interventionist foreign policy or right-leaning Democrat social policy.
Meanwhile he calls Ben Shapiro, Molyneux et al. "reasonable".
2
1
1
Again, you bring up Molyneux. JBP's new definition for beyond acceptability on the right is notions of racial superiority.
2
the weird overemphasis on Marxism as uniquely evil tires me. Christianity, which he loves, is "responsible" for tons of deaths, and so is capitalism by any fair reading. Yet these things somehow never get mentioned. People grind their axes along their biases.
2
4
6
And it's of course also interesting that he doesn't hold Christian anti-semitism responsible for the Nazis, but considers Soviet Russia to be Marx's direct legacy.
Yes his apparent thesis that Nazis were atheists seemed a bit far fetched to me too.
Clip below is about the darkest thing I've seen concerning European antisemitism.
In German, with subtitles.
Quote Tweet
youtube.com/watch?v=-wjMme
Dead, & in a seemingly quiet part of Hell reserved for intellectual discussion, #Hitler reflects on postwar environment, raises disturbing thoughts re European #antisemitism, fear of slavic #Russia, & German will to execute difficult tasks.
(4m:2s) 
(4m:2s) 1
1
That is a hell of a thing.
The Hitler of that clip is a pretty good portrayal of how I think he understood himself. But Hitler was … not entirely right about Europe.