Petereson appears to be confused about the subject matter (e.g., I don't understand how he relates Marxism to postmodernism). Furthermore, he himself draws on p

Petereson appears to be confused about the subject matter (e.g., I don't understand how he relates Marxism to postmodernism). Furthermore, he himself draws on postmodernist ideas. I don't think he's a good source for philosophical insight, even if we can broadly agree with him about what are the worrying trends, e.g., on campuses, in politics, etc, even if for reasons other than his. Also, agree w.r.t. the right/left distinction being meaningless where this phenomenon is concerned. For example, the whole "post-truth" condition is now very pervasive across the political spectrum. Someone who remembers their Socrates and his spat with the sophists will recall that bullshitting (understood in the Frankfurtian sense as not really caring if something is true or false as long as it brings about the desired result) to get your way is not really something new. Therefore, to make postmodernism the ultimate source of such activity is wrong. If postmodernism did anything in this regard, it was to contribute to making sophistry respectable again. It is important to note that a rejection of (at least part of) modernism does not imply an embrace of postmodernism. Much of our modern, liberal sensibilities draw on Locke and Locke himself had difficulty in reconciling liberty with knowledge.