Why Jordan Peterson Was Linked to the Alt-Right: A Parody of Postmodernist Academic Rhetoric

At first glance, associating Jordan Peterson with the alt-right might seem like a logical and straightforward accusation. However, this connection is much more complex. The article below offers a detailed analysis, employing a parody of postmodernist academic rhetoric to challenge the idea that Peterson aligns with the alt-right.

Introduction

When discussing Jordan Peterson and the alt-right, it's important to consider the nuances. Peterson, known for his debates on social justice warriors (SJWs) and his advocacy for centrist politics, has both supporters and detractors. This article delves into the complexities of why Peterson might be associated with the alt-right, and why such an association can be challenging to fully comprehend.

The Parody of Postmodernist Academic Rhetoric

This piece is intentionally written as a parody of Jordan Peterson's academic style. By emulating Peterson's tone and rhetoric, it highlights the inconsistencies and oversimplifications often found in his arguments, using this style to challenge his alignment with the alt-right. This parody serves to illustrate how Peterson's use of academic and intellectual language can be misleading and potentially laden with biases.

Why Peterson Was Labeled as Being 'conservative'

The article begins by explaining that the label of 'alt-right' for Peterson might be a misnomer. Critics often label him as such because of his opposition to certain leftist ideas, including political correctness, identity politics, and collectivism. However, Peterson's views are not strictly aligned with the alt-right but rather present a more nuanced and complex perspective.

For instance, Peterson's stance on SJWs and his assertion that "SJWs are worse than Nazis" are often cited. This hyperbolic statement simplifies complex social and political issues, making it easier for critics to label him. Yet, Peterson's views are often a product of a broader criticism of modern left-wing dogma, not necessarily an endorsement of alt-right ideologies.

A Critical Examination of Peterson's Rhetoric

The article delves into the style of argumentation used by Peterson. His method of presenting arguments, often involving a deep and calm analysis, can be misleading. Peterson's use of intellectual language and his slow, methodical delivery often gives the impression of a profound and rational analysis. However, this style can obscure the actual content of his arguments, which can be overly simplistic or even extreme in their approach.

For example, when Peterson criticizes post-modernist neo-Marxists and points out the higher death toll caused by Mao and Stalin compared to Hitler, he frames his argument in a way that makes it seem profound and rational. However, his use of this argument is more about creating a narrative than addressing the subtleties of the issue. This approach can be seen as a form of word game that does not necessarily add value to the discourse.

Framing the Argument: Polarizing Narratives

The article also critiques how Peterson frames his arguments. By presenting the other side as evil or wrong, he often starts with the assumption that he is right and that the opposition is inherently flawed. This approach can be seen as a way to gain attention and provoke emotional reactions rather than to engage in a constructive and nuanced conversation.

To illustrate this, the article refers to a video of Peterson discussing postmodernism, where he paints the other side as evil from the outset. This is not an effective starting point for a rational and balanced discussion. Such a framing limits the possibility of finding common ground and understanding complex issues.

A Parody in Conclusion

The conclusion of the article is a parody of Peterson's style. By intentionally parodying his rhetoric, the article challenges the notion that Peterson aligns with the alt-right and questions the depth and validity of his arguments. This parody seeks to illustrate how Peterson's style of argumentation can be misleading and how such style can obscure the underlying issues.

Ultimately, the article suggests that the label of 'alt-right' for Peterson is more a reflection of his opponents' misinterpretations and oversimplifications rather than an accurate description of his actual political stance. Peterson's views are complex and should be approached with a critical and nuanced perspective.

Conclusion

In summary, Peterson's association with the alt-right is more a result of the polarizing narratives and the simplification of complex issues than an actual alignment with alt-right ideologies. By examining his rhetoric and arguments closely, one can see that Peterson's views are more nuanced and complex, making the label of 'alt-right' both misleading and unfair.