I think the thrust of the critique is correct, and to say he has no idea what he's talking about because of these fairly minor quibbles is over-the-top. https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1299897468482584576

It's true that "Critical Race Theory" in Peterson' mind seems to be a mishmash of the terrible ideas laid out by DiAngelo, Kendi and other writers. But the ideas presented by DiAngelo basically agree with his notion of blanket assumption of guilt for White people.

Actually, it's worse, given that I doubt she would endorse the notion that any absolution is possible.

The discussion of systemic racism in policing definitely has the weaknesses pointed out, although some great points are made about how wildly skewed people's perceptions are.

And the discussion gives good reasons why it isn't obvious that George Floyd's killing was racially motivated.

The points made about Black Americans' risk of falling victim of a homicide, and how this relates to policing, along with the possible link to policing (a certain link according to Peterson) is quite good.

The section on Peterson White privilege, or lack thereof, makes a certain sense - if anecdotal evidence is accepted in favour of the notion of White privilege, then his anecdotal evidence is no worse.

That said, all discussions of White privilege like this end up fairly pointless to me, at least.

In all, I think he describes fairly well the problems with Critical Race Theory at least *as typically presented*, and in particular as presented by the terrible authors listed.

I'd add, as a small point, that Hoadley-Brill's critique that Peterson views CRT and white supremacism as equally immoral is unfounded. He doesn't say that - he just names commonalities and notes (correctly in my opinion) that both ideologies are morally corrupt.