I see your point about Peterson being inarticulate regarding his knowledge and understanding of Marxism. However I don’t even know what the strongest interpretation of his views even are. It’s hard to steelman when your interlocutor is incomprehensible. It’s even more baffling because Peterson is using his audiences own unfamiliarity with Marxism and Žižek's views which are not even Marxist to have plausible deniability to strawman Žižek’s views, in order to try to call on Žižek to defend views he doesn’t hold and statements Žižek doesn’t make.

That critics gloss over all this by only saying that Peterson is shallow and incorrect is a shame. He’s not even wrong because his argument is not even making normative statements that could be proved or disproved. To say that the critic judging him didn’t do a good job is fair. However it seems like missing the point. If you have a test and get partial credit for showing your work and your answer is wrong and the work you show is wrong, it is hard to see where an instructor could award any points for an attempt. Nor do I see it as a failure of the instructor to not show their work on this when grading. I think Hitchen’s razor works best here.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Edit: punctuation