Etiolate:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6n6rhg/why_are_jordan_petersons_philosophical_opinions/
I am reading through some of the replies. My issue with Peterson is I think he misses on people like Derrida, as there's a beneficial reading of Derrida to be had. The problem is that the post-modernists and Marx as what they said is different from the reality of how it's played out. Peterson's concern is the current situation. There's a whole discussion about whether Marxism as it works in the world now reflects Marx's thoughts well at all.
However, for the human being, Marx or Derrida being misheard isn't as important as the damage done by the proliferation of the academic approach today, which has become anti-science, anti-debate, and generally fucked up. So you can argue Marx doesn't reflect the problems Peterson describes, but the problems Peterson describes do exist and they root in a bad form of post-modernism. Like when I said in your thread that there is healthy religion and unhealthy religion, those two types of religions often form from the same source text. This is true of post-modernism as it exists in wider culture. It's the unhealthy form and its the popular form. This reflects the observation that there is multitudes of interpretation, which comes from the literary form of post-modernism (which is the type I studied). Peterson agrees with this, but rejects the idea that all these forms can be valid. He cites AI research to make a point that the interpretation that is functional succeeds since it serves humankind. Destructive interpretations get rejected or need to be rejected for the good of humankind as a species, both social and biological.
Most of the Trans arguments against him are weak and politicized nonsense. To tie both together, I'd point out the most important and startling point he makes in his testimony to the Ontario council on Bill C-16. It comes at the very end where a councilmember asks about the view that Gender is fluid and social. Peterson restates the science on how that isn't so, so the Councilmember asks does it actually matter for the good of the trans individual if its social or biological? To this, Peterson responds that if you argue its social and fluid and you put that argument into codified rule, then you've just given the greatest argument for bringing back conversion therapy. If being Trans is dangerous to the individual, which statistically it is, and as well so is homosexuality, and if these things were social and fluid, then the good and moral thing to do would be conversion therapy to change them.
Thus the danger of the prevailing form of post-modernism and its slithering into Trans politics.
