Peterson is a social conservative and has found an audience almost entirely on the right, especially among young men.
While this is a common media narrative, I don’t find it to be true in practice.
To adequately describe his position honestly requires re-framing the “liberal-conservative” axis, which has nearly lost all meaning in 2018 anyway, into more of a “progressive-traditionalist” axis. On this axis he is absolutely traditionalist, so maybe you and I can find some common ground there. But many of his political and personal positions are very much what would have been considered liberal not five years ago.
In fact, I would posit, and have posited, that the great wailing and gnashing of teeth over Peterson is basically that Peterson is providing an alternate path for indoctrination of traditionalist memes, as the paths to progressive memes are in the process of drying up. I think the main reaction against Peterson is rooted in this. It’s about giving or gaining ground in the culture war, nothing more.
Be clear, I’m not a Peterson disciple. I think he trips on his words far too much for someone who prides himself on verbal clarity. But I do think that progressive and traditionalist indoctrinations need to be in balance to keep the ant hill working, and that balance has been lost of late.
Regarding Curry, she’s one of the go-to scientists for the denier crowd, she peddles luke-warmist and ‘skeptical’ thinking which is on the denier spectrum and regularly spreads misinformation on the subject. Saying she’s not a climate change denier is apologetics.
If you actually read Curry, you’ll see that she speculates the mean climate forcing is down around 1.6 C per doubling, which is below the IPCC AR5 expected range, but not too far below it. In my mind, “denier” means “denies global warming,” not “absolutely believes that CO2 is warming the planet, but thinks the amount it’s warming it might be lower than being reported.” Maybe we have a different definition of “denier” and our argument is semantic.
My third point is basically this-ish. I actually thought you might agree with me more on that than the other two.
Obviously you are opposed to post-modernism and think left and right should be united in this opposition, but just as obviously I disagree and think that post-modernism is fairly irrelevant to the left except for its pernicious misuse by the right.
I think the link between postmodernism and social constructionism is pretty obvious, and that most of the people railing against postmodernism are actually simply railing against social constructionism by proxy. Social constructionism is a very left thing.
Postmodernism is great when it stays in its box.
Architecture: as long as a non-postmodern engineer is checking the load calcs, sure!
Literature: as long as it doesn’t go trying to re-invent historical narratives and claim those are “cultural alternative facts,” no problem!
I think a lot of the push back against postmodernism we see today in dialog comes from PM trying to sneak out of its box. And I think a lot of the defenders of it lean heavily on the Motte and Bailey Fallacy to try and sneak more of it out of it’s box.