A couple of months back I toyed with the idea of writing a piece on Peterson but then decided something broader and requiring much more research would be better. This may or may not turn into one of dozens of half-finished pieces sitting on my hard-drive. It did mean that I gathered quite a bit of material presenting various points of view, and this letter from the Canadian Bar Association (bar as in barrister, of course) goes through exactly what C-16 does and does not imply. Peterson's evade to get around the fact that the law does not state what he claims it states has been to say that universities would use C-16 in a way that goes beyond the written word of the law. This may or may not be the case, but where it did happen, appeal to the law would make it clear where fault lay:https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.as ... 2eeb762d7f
“Letter from René J. Basque, QC/cr, President of the Canadian Bar Association, to The Honourable Bob Runciman, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, May 10, 2017"
Regarding the self-help aspect: it's all fairly obvious stuff and widely available from countless other sources. The reason you're getting self-help from Peterson is related to him making himself famous by standing up against a group of immature, inarticulate spoiled brats (let's not be in any doubt about how easy these student groups have made it for Peterson to gain traction).
Regarding the socio-political aspect: he's a conservative. He espouses very obvious, very basic conservative view points, which he generally articulates well. Individuals who are also basically conservative gravitate towards him, soak up what he says that agrees with their viewpoints and don't question his sources, as long as his conclusion more or less comfortably matches with their pre-established world view. This is where you stand Kev. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being conservative, per se, but there is something wrong with accepting a perspective that is almost too comforting to your established world view, precisely because it leads you into a biased way of thinking that is detrimental to your capacity for critical thinking. The "leftist" "liberals" screaming at Peterson are, very obviously, just as guilty of this.
Jon Oliver is insufferable, for the same reason: he also generates candy for people assumed by demographic analysis to hold certain view points. He too does more harm to collective intelligence than good. You can basically put any US talk show host in this category, regardless of whether they're conservative or liberal.
You will naturally question conclusions and perspectives that go against your own beliefs. You get no prizes for doing this. You should, however, train yourself to naturally question the sources of conclusions that fit too nicely with what you already believe. As I've said, Peterson - by how he chooses to focus the bulk of his supposedly disentangling argumentation - quite explicitly encourages the opposite of this: question what you don't agree with, feed what you do agree with.
If any of you really want to get a better handle on how to really "self-help" your mental capacities, then get started on the classic psychology literature on cognitive dissonance and the mechanisms by which we (unconsciously) resolve it: Festinger, Ross, Anderson, etc.