jk I'm all about that bread @danishcookies@computerfairi.es

Reading JP's 12 rules it's evident that he's not a rationalist of the Dawkins or Pinker type. He's not going to present you with cherry-picked data and then claim it's a universal truth.

Peterson is obviously a Christian mystic or obscurantist. He doesn't really make rational arguments and sees logic as something that people fool themselves with. He frequently makes biblical references, and the conservative tropes are easy to spot in his writing if you're already familiar with them.

Peterson's critiques of communism are so flimsy and superficial that it's easy to see why he won't debate with real Marxists. In terms of potential criticisms of his own statements it's very much a target rich environment. I'd estimate that he has maybe read a couple of books about Soviet Russia, but that seems to be the entirety of his knowledge of the history of the left.

In the rule about truth he describes concepts similar to hegemony, believes himself to exist outside of ideology (like a neoliberal) and fails to recognize that the very same self-deceptions which he's critiquing also apply to capitalism and especially mainstream American culture.

As a true obscurantist there isn't a lot of coherence to his writing, and as others have pointed out he frequently contradicts himself. Whatever he's saying in one sentence he will then contradict a few sentences later.

In the final rule about petting cats he describes the struggle of his daughter through difficult health problems which are illustrative of the limits of medical knowledge. In that regard I have some sympathy for him.