Either way, even if you think he is talking nonsense, it is highly unlikely it is some kind of dog whistling to Nazis. I'm not sure if that is the angle you are coming at it by linking that stuff, but I doubt that is what he is doing. That in itself is kind conspiratorial thinking.
I don't think he's a fascist, but he uses the term to generalise and discredit academia, activist movements and other groups he lumps in with the post-modern neo-marxist gang as ruining society, in a way that parallels with historic use by some pretty distasteful groups. I doubt it's an intentional dog-whistle to the nazi conspiracy theory, but like et spamming pics of people dead and starving at the hands of communism, there's a strong pathos in his argument.
He definitely dislikes the use of intersectionality in framing issues, the problem for him he sees it as increasing tribalism in his eyes instead of resolving it. But it's only a part of his pathos. He mis-characterises intersectional thought and diversity to make a case for individualism. Slightly incongruous with his focus on white privilege making it harder for white people to act successfully as individuals due to unfairly being blamed for minority marginalisation and the (possible, he makes clear to point out) misdeeds of our ancestors, also his penchant for generalization of opposing groups as swathes of sheeple suckling at the post-modern neo-marxist teet.
if yt tag doesnt link properly, starts at 1h37m38s
To paraphrase Peterson here, and this is getting into his conclusion; there are more differences within the defined groups than between them, and the
diversity creates more division than inclusivity.
And again, he is so frustrated, and just can't understand why post-modernists have made the canonical distinctions they've made: Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity. These dimensions across which the post-modern neo-marxists have defined people are too narrow. The post-modern need to separate, label and categorise people into these separate groups, this constant search for; and institutionalization, of diversity through initiatives like affirmative action, simply creates more division and tribalism. Individualism is the only answer.
Clearly cheeky pete is making a bit of a joke here, these are the lines down which the most clear discriminations have been made against people as groups regardless of their individual attributes. Surely he at least see's the logic of why those groups were targeted? I've seen etoilet use this
whataboutism in the past. Where do you stop taking marginalisation based on difference into account?
"here's some ways people differ! intelligence, temperament (haha, hohoho
), geography,
historical time (yes he explains: you live now and not 100 years ago), attractiveness, youth, health, sex (as in having it); women have advantages, men have advantages, maybe one has more than the other - it's not self evident! women live about 8 years longer than men, they're multi-orgasmic (you sly-dog peterson), athleticism, wealth, family-structure, friendship (how many friends you have. sad), and education. WHY NOT THOSE OTHER DIMENSIONS?" Peterson finally asks, exasperated. The other dimensions being the "post-modernist" defined, Gender, Ethnicity, Sexual Proclivity and Gender Identity.
Peterson claims ignorance to why Race is considered a key point of difference. Not just disingenuous, but also mischaracterizes the issue: there is a lot of compassion and assistance provided for the lesser-abled (physically and mentally), the less wealthy and those with poor education. Particularly so in the more social leaning side of social capitalist democracies.
