We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I think Peterson misfired on his answer to the racial slur question. I would have said: if I use a racial slur I an insulting or belittling that person, but if I refer to a biological male as male I'm not insulting that person. But then what would I konw, I a Dumb Polack Canucklehead.
Yeah, I got that feeling also. Else where he says Free Speech allows for being offensive and for being offended. Using a racial slur is offensive and is intended to be offensive -- if the two parties are different races -- not so much if the two parties are of the same race and joking around. It comes down to the deliberate intention, a choice, of the speaker. On the other hand the receiver of an insult has a choice to make on how to react. Any conversation is that way. Language is a social agreement as to meaning of a sound. Language is a social interaction. That is why manners, social conventions, social mores and morals are so important. Those are important social agreements.
I thought the more telling point was that there is a crucial difference between outlawing a term as offensive and compelling the use of a term as exclusively correct or even indispensable. I may have the right to prevent your addressing me as a c**t, but I should not have the right to fine or jail you because you decline to call me "darling" or "Your Majesty," however rude I may find your omission.