Why it is a problem if you can’t distinguish between Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate

In the modern world, we will all be getting our own diet of news and articles served up the algorithms. Or if you mostly avoid online (and how have you read this blogpost if so) you’ll get the news of your newspapers or TV shows. So I don’t assume everyone will have heard of either Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate.

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist who came to fame a decade ago when he resisted being compelled to use preferred pronouns, as a matter of freedom of speech. He had long been interested in the Bible (though does not appear to believe in the reality of the resurrection) and following his rise to fame his lectures became YouTube hits. He became a key part of a network of online thinkers (old fashioned liberal or social conservative) pushing back against the progressive consensus of society on things like trans, male-female roles etc.

Andrew Tate is a former kickboxer who has risen to be a major online influencer impacting teenage boys. He rose to fame when he appeared on Big Brother in 2016. He offers a masculinity focused on personal fitness, wealth, and his advice on male-female interactions.

So there are some similarities- both appeal more to men than to women, and to young men in particular. Both are active online, Peterson more on YouTube, Tate more on TikTok.

But it is a significant problem if you can’t distinguish between Peterson and Tate. There are two groups of people who seem to have this problem- one group on the right, and another group on the left. On the right, there are those who assume that anyone who is against the progressive/ centrist consensus must be one of the good guys. On the left, there are those who assume that anyone is against the progressive/centrist consensus must be one of the bad guys.

If you are vaguely on the right (socially speaking), you probably are concerned by the ways society denies male-female differences, or treats all masculinity as “toxic”. You probably think people ought to take responsibility for themselves, and focus on doing the best they can, rather than focus on their weaknesses and the unfairness of life, and so seeking special treatment. And so you might be drawn to anyone who speaks up counterculturally to affirm male-female differences, to be positive about masculinity, and to encourage young people to take responsibility for themselves and seek to improve themselves.

But to approve of Andrew Tate on those grounds is terrible mistake. It is the “no enemies on the right” approach- and it is disastrous. If you decide “the left” is such an enemy that you won’t criticise anyone on “the right” then you will end up associated with racists. Or in Andrew Tate’s case, with someone whose business has included entrapping and pimping out girls for webcam porn, who advocates violence to keep women exploited, and whose view of women is misogynistic. If teenage boys are drawn to Tate as their role model, we should all be concerned. We should much prefer them to learn from Peterson (even if we don’t agree with everything Peterson says) than Andrew Tate. If you are on the right, in your thinking and in your communication, you need to spot and separate yourself from those like Andrew Tate whose opposition to the progressive/centrist consensus is because they openly want to be free to exploit and mistreat others.

On the other hand, if you are on the left, or in the centrist/progressive consensus, the temptation is to lump Peterson and Tate together as both being unacceptable. In the short term, there is a quick win for some on the left to denounce anyone on the right as racist or Nazi. You don’t have to analyse arguments, you can just smear them with a label that warns people off them.

But this strategy has long term costs. Throwing labels of Nazi or racist at people who are not leads to the terms losing their power. By accusing Jordan Peterson of being unacceptable, when he is transparently someone who has read widely, who engages in good faith debate, and seems to have a real compassion for people, you put him in a group with Andrew Tate. But the effect of this is to make Andrew Tate more acceptable to those who have become suspicious of the mainstream. Dismissing and labelling Peterson and Tate as alike is leading more young people to Tate, which is horrendous.

Dismissing Jordan Peterson alongside Tate also means the left is not able to benefit from the truths Peterson does see. In a society where white working class boys are the lowest performing group educationally, continually blaming white men for their “privilege” and not providing a positive vision for young men is a real problem. Peterson sees this and provides at least a partial solution. (As a Christian, I think he misses the gospel which is the ultimate hope. But his “stoicism” is probably a helpful corrective to some of our social trends.) If you are on the left and want to positively influence the rising generation of young men, you’ll be helped by listening to Peterson’s critiques and analysis, even if you end up disagreeing with him at points. Engaging with Peterson as an intelligent good faith dialogue partner would strengthen your understanding of the problems we face, and sharpen your thinking on solutions. But to do that you need to recognise that Tate is toxic while Peterson is not.

Whether left or right, we need to learn how to distinguish between Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate. We need to know how to spot those who seem like allies against a political enemy, but are actually wicked. We need to know how to spot opponents who are intelligent good faith discussion partners, and whose insights may help us see truth more clearly, even while we continue to disagree with them at many points.