To perhaps sum it up more, I believe the attacks he frequently receives on the internet suffer from people unwilling to view the situation in any sort of context and end up looking for a way to settle an issue in the short format of an internet forum (or God forbid, twitter).

It's this same gung-ho strategy that leads to the videos of protesters approaching Peterson after shutting down his speeches and smugly asking him "about the neo-nazi" presence" at his event (he of course responds that he deplores them) as cheap way of implying guilt by any sort of implied association.

It's stunningly dishonest to try such cheap association tactics against someone who's spent their career studying and lecturing on the dark aspects of the human condition and how they lead to murderous and authoritarian movements like the Nazis and then sets out frameworks to both recognize and turn away from that darkness.

Edit: to be clear, I don't view your writings in this dishonest lens, the comment was more about the patterns I've seen creep up in general.

> and lambasts his fellow professors for being Marxists

I suspect You're employing a little slight of hand here that reads like he's shouting "marxist!" at all professors rather than some professors, that is, the professors who he claims promote that ideology. If he suspects that some professors have that aim, he's entitled to call out what he sees without people painting it like he's screaming at shadows.

We could argue around in circles about this, although I think we might agree on what we're debating.

- He argues that using non-traditional gender pronouns is road to gulags. (paraphrasing your first comment)

vs

- He argues that compelling speech through policy is a road to gulags, and the noun issue at hand happens to be a vehicle in this particular instance.

I'm not saying that I agree with his thoughts on the nouns in question, but it seems that your focus is the hill he chose to stand on, whereas I'd argue that it's important that people stand on hills when it comes to laws that compel speech.

When you say that he argues that people don't have the right to choose their own nouns, I think it's lacking context from his lectures. He explains in his talks that he sees rights as something that become the responsibilities of other people. So in essence here he's simply repeating his assertion that his speech, and therefore his thoughts (if you accept his premise that control of speech is a tool to shape thought), shouldn't be compelled by demands of other people to control speech via policy.

I'd concede that it's not the readers fault that the context is lacking in the writing, and that leaves it open for you to reasonably argue that he didn't make that statement with this context in mind. Anecdotally from watching hours of interviews and lectures, I'd make a claim that the context is important.