"OK I've thought about it for 2 seconds. He still makes plenty of sense. Most of his ideas, at their core, are simplistic. True. But it's exactly the antidote we need for a world that has become so needlessly complicated and insane. You'll notice that people don't turn up in the thousands to listen to empty lectures on the role of "power", bitterness, resentment and victimhood culture. ..which are the tenants of the new religion/cult of the day, sadly. Kids are eating it up precisely because there is no nuance. And that's the difference between the world view you're espousing and Peterson's - adults listen to Peterson and kids listen to social justice lectures."

It appears you've mastered Peterslam's talent for saying nothing with a lot of words. But, if I understand what there is:

People are listening to Peterson because he eludes nuance - an antidote to a "needlessly complicated and insane" world. Kids do not like nuance and they listen to social justice warriors, while adults listen to Peterson - who I am guessing, here, like nuance?

I could be uncharitable here and say, "watch out folks, this is your brain on Peterson," and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

My suggestion that readers of the original post "think about these matters independently for 2 seconds" was obviously too general. In your case, you may need to multiply that by a factor of 50. Embarrassing.

(Edit: I’m also fearful to ask, considering the word salad that is likely to be spewed in my face, but what “world view” exactly am I espousing in my first comment?)