XXSwagmaster420 [any,he/him]

I literally agree with your point regarding body hair, that has nothing to do with my actual point, which is that individualism is toxic. And define "works", what exactly are you actually hoping to accomplish?

If you're going to genuinely advocate against hostility and bad discursive practices, why are you engaging in them yourself? You don't have to stoop to rhetorical flourishes just because someone else is

It is though. The fact that a person is wrong doesn't mean every argument against their position is correct, there are bad ways to advocate for true claims

The point regarding showering is true, but advocating for individualism isn't a healthy or reasonable thing to do. There are absolutely bad reasons to do things, and the coherent argument to make is that this isn't one of them. If you argue there are no bad reasons you legitimize a wide range of genuinely unhealthy behavior. Furthermore, threatening to bully people isn't a good way of engaging on these things. If you think someone is wrong, explain it, and if they retreat into bad faith then by all means call them out, but leaping to stuff like this doesn't help anyone

I would argue that the PMC always existed in some capacity at least slightly separate from the broader labor aristocracy, but that's a nitpick given that the PMC has been expanding as of late in the wake of the collapse of the traditional labor aristocracy. However, even with that expansion it's still significantly smaller than the labor aristocracy at it's height. During the peak of American social democracy/social imperialism, a comfortable majority of the white population, and non-trivial sections of everyone else, were labor aristocrats. They made up quite possibly a numerical majority of the people in the US. This is absolutely no longer the case, the PMC can at most claim to represent around 20-25% of Americans, and even that's a very generous assessment. Obviously there are still people the system works for, but their numbers are shrinking by the day, and this trend shows no sign of stopping

Which part of what I said do you dispute?

What do you mean untouchable? Geopolitically, the anti-imperialist bloc is rising, and imperialism is becoming less sustainable by the hour. Domestically, decades of neoliberalism have gutted the labor aristocracy, the single greatest barrier ever erected against social revolution, and stand to all but do away with it entirely if things continue the way they're going. What seems untouchable about this?

Even if you can't convince the person you're talking to, it's better to put forward a more coherent message for the people watching. It's always better to have fewer flaws in what you're saying, as it makes it more difficult for people to dismiss you out of hand (even if they're trying to!). There are people out there who value coherency, and a lot more people who'd at least like to tell themselves they do. Having a more factually sound case absolutely does help reach them, and on the internet at least you can never assume none of them are watching. Nothing is lost by not using imprecise and indefensible language, you can still make the actual atrocities involved very clear, and at least some small amount is gained. Given this, I fail to see any reason to engage in those sorts of rhetorical practices

Honestly I think it's kind of fucked up to even be asking about "good" or "bad" people when it comes to stuff like this. Nobody deserves to suffer, period. At times there are situations where the interests of some are in contradiction with those of broader society, and then it may be necessary to act against them, but this isn't good or noble. If we had a better option we should always take it.

See assuming that anyone other than actual capitalists or mobilized reactionaries is "probably not a lefty in waiting" is pretty problematic for actually building a mass movement. There are plenty of people who would balk at being presented with what seems to be (and in some sense genuinely is) factually incorrect information who are absolutely reachable. As for the bit about cultural hegemony, there's a big difference between backing down from being thoroughly descriptive or fully radical in our claims, and avoiding counterproductive rhetorical flourishes. One costs us substantive and important parts of our program, the other costs us nothing but a few incendiary words

There's a really significant difference though: Peterson is using this to advocate for a worldview in which the problems in society are a result of individual weakness, and the best thing for you to do is just become self-actualized and pull yourself up by your bootstraps or whatever instead of actually coming together and changing society. That's really different from viewing elements of common left-wing discourse as problematic because they prevent people from effectively coming together and changing society. In addition, Peterson focuses explicitly on men as part of an agenda of promoting reactionary gender roles. This is also very different from advocating for everyone to become more capable, and noting how certain aspects of left-wing discourse may specifically impede this with certain people. Furthermore, Peterson makes this their primary argument, the thing they most acutely focus on, which is different from simply observing that something happens alongside many other social phenomena that are also discussed.