I don't mind a bit of JP, his insights around personality traits are worth considering and his lectures are fascinating for someone who enjoys a bit of Jung (and I do). He's a little too Conservative and Christian for my taste - but I don't see him as the harbinger of doom. Nor do I think his stance in Canada was wrong prima facie, his position was well thought through at the time for a libertarian - something not entirely true of those who have been filmed confronting him at later points. He was vilified for being transphobic without it ever being considered he might have any other motivation.
Peterson, like most Conservatives I know isn't a force for regression, he's part of a careful balancing act between progressives and the nation state. His work on personality tells us why. Creatives (in which I include myself) aren't risk averse, we aren't detail orientated and we don't necessarily think through the long-term effects of our actions. We're open and often impulsive. That's a recipe for disaster if its unchecked in the political sphere and I believer Peterson's appeal lays firmly in being the check that centrist people wanted to the emergence of young liberals - but were too afraid to vocalise or were unable to sum up their ideas the way that he did. He is a very good orator after all.
I've a different conclusion from Nathan Robinson's question. What have we done to end up with this man? What we did was embark on a form of politics with principle but without strategy. He, and others who have emerged to challenge identity politics, haven't emerged from under the rock where we keep evil people, they have emerged from traditional institutions to question the direction of travel. This is necessary in a democracy and liberals and Conservatives throw away their ability to communicate in favour of echo chambers at their peril.
Society is absolutely correct to attempt to end racism, sexism, and all the other isms, but the methodology it has chosen (identity politics) lacks a game plan and is flawed. Peterson often points this out - and he does so in a compelling way which draws in part on verified studies in human psychology - and part by telling everyone about Pinnochio and the bible. The latter part seems irrelevant to me, but hey... it's his career and he's got to fluff it up with a bit of bullshit.
He did a talk with Chloe Valdary which I highly recommend. Here you get all the complexity of JP talking to a young black woman engaged in anti-racism training. It's an interesting back and forth and interesting how his work informed her practice.
