Why do you say that? He's careful in his speech not because he's trying to subtly mislead anyone, but the very same people who attempt to smear him would love to have the opportunity to criticize an incorrect word choice.

Using the term "acolytes" is intellectually dishonest here and shows poor faith. Its conjures images of blind, zealous followers. No one who espouses hate can also truly be his "acolyte". He's publically denounced such individuals multiple times.

Because he seems to spend no time correcting what he'd claim are massive misconceptions among his fans.

Ultimately, Peterson is famous because of reactionary politics. He got attention for opposing legislation protecting trans people and has been riding the "anti-woke" train ever since. That he also has written self help material is just happenstance.

> Because he seems to spend no time correcting what he'd claim are massive misconceptions among his fans.

I don't understand... Are you saying he's already claimed that he's been misunderstood (which seems like the opposite of what you're accusing him of) or are you assuming that this is how he would defend himself if pressed?

FWIW, In his GQ interview he quite clearly rebukes these types of "acolytes".

The anti-woke train has a lot of steam because humans are great at recognizing patterns over time, and are evolved to do this, which is why this stuff eventually reaches WaPo, NYT, et al.

Regardless of whether that is true, I'm not talking about the merits of Peterson's "anti-wokeness". Instead I'm pointing out that it is the foundational component of his following and he actively cultivates this.

I think Peterson would say he is simply the beneficiary of handling it correctly when Woke Culture attacks him, and his public persona with respect to wokeness has been shaped more by their actions than his. Personally I'm not sure - is there a clear action of his that you'd point to as cultivating an anti-woke bent or is your assessment based more on outcomes?