Thanks Luke, I am at a genuine disadvantage here as I have not actually read anything by Peterson or listened to him at all other than to see that he had taken exception to the possibility of censorship through the statute. That to me did seem reasonable and having encountered censorship in Universities now first hand (our philosophy society had to agree not to debate certain issues, e.g. abortion, LGBT if it wanted to affiliate to the Students’ Union) all I have seen is a steady stream of invective directed at this person.
Yours is one of the measured and thoughtful pieces though the assumption that if someone is logically inconsistent we should actually ignore them could be problematic. To a greater or lesser degree we are all logically fallacious in some way and it is whether he is adding anything at all to the debate and understanding whether or not we like him or agree with him. If he is a dissenting voice against the tide of snowflakes, safe spaces and speech codes in Universities he is doing yeoman’s service for liberty if nothing else.
The reason why I brought up the New Statesman (cannot agree it is Blairite!) and the amazon reviews is that they seem to be by those associated in some way with the left. Peterson (on here and elsewhere seems to be getting tarred aggressively with ‘alt right’) and that is genuinely puzzling to me. I have seen accusations he is not a genuine academic or only an expert in religious mysticism both of which do not seem to be true, only his most recent work seems to be in that field. He seems to have been influential in understanding personality which is why I assume he seems to have an appeal to men struggling with what is means to be masculine in a gender-neutral world and has said much about the T in LGBT.