The Real Illusion of Critique: A Case Study in Reactionary Defenses of Jordan Peterson

When a “Critique” Proves the Point

Oye, mira.

Reactionary thinkers love to present themselves as the defenders of reason, the bastions of intellectual depth, the last line of defense against ideological extremism.

They claim to rise above the fray, positioning themselves as cool, detached scholars who can correct the excesses of decolonial and intersectional thought with logic, history, and philosophy.

But what happens when they’re actually forced to engage with a real critique—one that challenges the power structures they instinctively defend?

They panic.

Not in an obvious way—not with shouting, not with slurs (well, sometimes that too)—but with a carefully crafted intellectual retreat disguised as engagement.

For context, I recently wrote an article The Illusion of Depth: Why Jordan Peterson is More Dangerous Than You Think

Today, I was tagged on a critique which came in the form of another article called The Illusion of Critique: A Deeper Look at "The Illusion of Depth: Why Jordan Peterson is More Dangerous Than You Think" Written by an individual who goes by SRP.

While flattered, I wanted to make this article to point out several issues on this type of critique, to not explain how it misses the mark completely, but to help many of my community members on here who lean on me, navigate critiques on their own articles. So, this is truly a case study.

So, let’s break it down.

Step 1: The Intellectual Mirage—Reframing Reactionary Politics as Existential Inquiry

One of the most common ways reactionary thinkers avoid engaging with structural power is by recasting their ideology as mere philosophical exploration.

They aren’t defending hierarchy, they’re just “grappling with order and chaos.”

They aren’t reinforcing patriarchy, they’re just “analyzing gender roles across history.”

They aren’t ignoring racism, they’re just “questioning identity politics.”

It’s a classic trick: present a fundamentally political position as though it were a neutral intellectual inquiry.

How my critic did this:

• Instead of addressing how Jordan Peterson’s rhetoric aligns with white male grievance politics, they framed him as a thinker offering “meaning” in uncertain times.
• Instead of interrogating why Peterson’s audience overwhelmingly consists of disillusioned young white men, they removed race and gender from the equation entirely and acted as though this was a general existential crisis.
• Instead of acknowledging how Peterson’s ideas provide an entry point into far-right pipelines, they discussed his work in the abstract, as though it exists in a vacuum.

What to Watch For: Whenever someone refuses to engage with power and instead shifts the conversation to abstract, existential themes, they’re intentionally dodging the question of who benefits from these ideas.

Step 2: The Evaporating Argument—Derail, Deflect, Disguise

When reactionary thinkers encounter an argument they don’t want to answer, they don’t say “I can’t answer that.”

Instead, they use three primary tactics:

A. Derail—Move the Goalposts

Rather than engaging with the central argument, they will pick one detail to nitpick and shift the conversation toward that instead.

How my critic did this:

• They did not address the claim that Peterson’s rhetoric reinforces white male victimhood.
• They did not challenge the point that Peterson’s audience overlaps with incel and alt-right spaces.
• Instead, they shifted the conversation to whether Peterson’s complexity is similar to Heidegger or Derrida.

Translation: "Let's stop talking about the politics of his rhetoric and instead discuss whether he fits into an intellectual lineage!"

What to Watch For: If someone ignores the core argument and instead fixates on something tangential, they are deliberately steering the conversation away from uncomfortable truths.

B. Deflect—Position Themselves as the “Rational One”

One of the most effective ways to avoid a real discussion is to frame the other person as too emotional, too ideological, or too extreme.

How my critic did this:

• They framed their article as a level-headed, intellectual response while implying that my critique was reactionary or misguided.
• They claimed to be “providing nuance” while actually just repackaging Peterson’s worldview in softer language.

Translation: "I’m not here to defend Peterson, I’m just offering a rational analysis!"

What to Watch For: When someone acts as though they are merely clarifying or adding nuance, but never actually challenge the argument itself, they’re playing defense while pretending to be neutral.

C. Disguise—Make Their Argument Sound More Intellectual Than It Is

If a reactionary thinker can’t win on the merits, they will try to bury you in jargon and references to make their argument sound more sophisticated.

How my critic did this:

• They name-dropped European philosophers to make it seem like this was a debate about high theory rather than real-world consequences.
• They framed Peterson’s appeal as a deep philosophical question rather than a political project aimed at reinforcing traditional hierarchies.

Translation: "If I make my response sound complex enough, maybe no one will notice I’m dodging the real critique!"

What to Watch For: If someone’s argument relies more on philosophical references than engaging with reality, they are trying to confuse, not clarify.

Step 3: The Performance of Debate—Why Reactionary Thinkers Fear Real Engagement

Let’s be honest: if reactionary thinkers could easily refute decolonial critiques, they would.

But they can’t.

Instead, they rely on a performance of debate—acting as though they are engaging while actually evading the fundamental critique.

Key Signs of a Fake Debate:

? They move the conversation away from power dynamics.

? They nitpick small details instead of answering core questions.

? They frame themselves as neutral while defending oppressive hierarchies.

? They use complexity as a shield to avoid accountability.

Conclusion: Why This Matters

This critique wasn’t just about Jordan Peterson.

It was a demonstration of how reactionary thinkers protect power—how they derail conversations, deflect criticism, disguise their intentions, and perform rationality while ultimately evading the truth.

So next time you see someone engaging in these tactics, don’t be fooled.

Ask the simple question: Who benefits from this idea?

Because real intellectual inquiry isn’t about dodging that question. It’s about answering it.