As the article points out, Peterson's use of words does more to position himself as a pompous elite than to contend with them in some intellectual sense. It's a

As the article points out, Peterson's use of words does more to position himself as a pompous elite than to contend with them in some intellectual sense. It's also nonsense to say that no one repeats old conventional wisdom anymore. It's pervasive in everything from our fiction to other public speakers to kitschy little home decorations or memes on social media. Peterson doesn't differentiate himself by having the "bravery" to say cliches - this doesn't even make sense as a premise, they have to be pervasive to strike us as cliches. He differentiates himself through targeting culture war issues to build a rabid fanbase and using any press he can get to build a cult of personality, and plays a little bit of intellectual defense through the plausible deniability of obscurantism. That last bit is most of what the article is trying to say (though it really does do so in a way that is a bit hypocritically long-winded)