I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original. And that seems to be how he operates. He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees. Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot. His views on atheism for example are just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. There's no high level of understanding here. He just isn't that smart. He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down. At least on more advanced topics.
If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues. But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is. In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem. But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.
Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters. Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.
If JP can insist that it his free speech and intellectual freedom right to use the wrong pronouns for people, no matter how rude, dehumanizing or insulting doing so may be, then I don't see why he or any of his defenders have any ground to stand on to object to people using whatever vitriol they see fit to describe him, that being their free speech and intellectual freedom right.
I don't think Peterson would have any issue with what you state at all... his entire argument against the pronouns thing was about a Canadian law that would have eliminated the free speech and intellectual freedom right by making it a crime to misuse pronouns. IE, compelling speech... which should clearly concern anyone who values free speech.
Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.
His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.
But when pushed he says he's not anti trans, and also that he's not against laws that protect trans people? So what is he actually against? Well that's not really clear. But he's totally against being forced to use pronouns that he doesn't want to use. But no one is trying to force him to...so I guess it's a non issue??
What is he actually fighting against in the first place? Wait, who really knows because it's Peterson and he talks in fucking circles.
It would be A LOT like if there was a society and Jews moved in and wanted to be able to practice circumcisions, and some academic started screaming "I don't want my dick cut off!"
Well, the argument that it's bad to cut off dicks is a very valid argument, but the Jews were never trying to cut off anyone's dick, much less this random non-Jewish professor, they just wanted to protect their right to circumcise their children. Because, let's say every time they have a briss, anti-Semites get viciously beat and often kill at least one Jew. So they lobby for a law to make it clear that they are entitled to practice their traditions, and exist without being discriminated against, because the violence has gotten out of control.
So the Jews and Jew-supporters start calling the professor anti-Semitic because he's opposing a law that would allow the Jews to practice their culture more safely, but the prof keeps ranting that he's not at all anti-Semitic, he just believes that circumcision is a slippery slope to HIM and OTHERS being forced to have their dicks cut off. That's not anti-Semitic, that's just reasonable and you are the fucking crazy person for not seeing that. THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR DICKS.
So then all of the people who don't really get Jewish culture or already hate Jews jump on the bandwagon of saying that it's perfectly reasonable not to want your dick cut off, and talk down to the people supporting the circumcision rights saying "how could you think he's an asshole, everything he's saying about cutting dicks off makes perfect to *me*, I don't want my dick cut off and I DO NOT trust
the left not to take my balls as well"
Because yes, being an activist against cutting dicks off DOES make perfect sense. But what doesn't make sense is trying to bar Jews from performing circumcisions, and fomenting hatred towards them, because a blathering academic has decided to equate anti-discrimination policies with forced chopping off of gentile dicks, even though that's not even a thing.
All the while he's pugnaciously insisting that he's not and never has ever been anti-Semitic, because in his mind, he isn't.
If Peterson wants to protest a future law that forces him to use pronouns he doesn't want to use, then sure, I think any law like that that comes up should be debated by everyone. But until that day, he isn't opposing limits on free speech, and it's worth looking at exactly it was that he was ACTUALLY opposing to ferociously.
It's one thing to say that you're opposed to having your dick cut off, it's another thing to oppose the right of a group not to be discriminated against.
And that's where being a slippery fuck who talks in circles is so useful for him. He can say really offensive things and bury it under a pile of nonsense so that it no longer can be parsed into its offensive pieces, or be argued with effectively.