Have you ever watched a lecture of Jordan Peterson? This is a guy who teaches people how to get out of PTSD and depression and seriously discusses how horrors like Auschwitz can be stopped in the future. He also talks a lot about philosophy as well. How anyone can think of Peterson as "a clown" is beyond me, he probably helped way more people cope with the horrors of their lives than 99% of humanity and is often very a-political. 

Same with Dave Rubin (whom you didn't mention): I like Dave Rubin's YouTube show a lot and watched a lot of episodes - then, one day, a major german news publication (Der Spiegel) called him "one of the leaders of the fascist alt-right movement". What the hell? This guy talks to both sides and actually had a very heated discussion with a black civil rights activist who said black people aren't shot by police out of proportion - Dave did not believe him! He's also gay and jewish but somehow he is a fascist?

Sometimes, I don't understand the world anymore. I studied political science because politics always fascinated me but I've grown very tired of it because there are absolutely no standards anymore, both on the left and the right - someone disagrees with you? He must be an idiot, or a racist, or a fascist or an SJW. The problem is that democracy in the western world is currently threatened by both left-wing and right-wing extremists and both camps are getting larger. But none of it is taken seriously, because people are so quick to take sides and dismiss the arguments of the other side. Ok, personal rant over lol. 

Glad you got that off your chest, I'm really sorry I insulted the good name of Jordan Paterson.

I thought he was the "enfirced monogamy" guy, but this sounds too stupid to be the same person.

Furthermore, I won't get my time wasted by whoever this Rubin fellow us, but thanks for the Spiegel recommend.

I suggest you read it too, since nowhere in it what you say is mentioned. 

If therapy against PTSD and sexual abuse sounds "too stupid" to you, hey - more power to you then! I mean, how stupid would it be to help people in need? Such a clown that Peterson guy. 

As for your second paragraph: What you say makes no sense. Here is the article I was referring to. The title (translated) is "Trump's dangerous manipulators". A lot of it is about Rubin who has nothing to do with the alt-right movement, except interviewing people from both the left and right. The article is behind a paywall, but seeing your "suggestion" I guess you already paid for their subscription service ;) I also read Spiegel regularly, so yeah... suggestion taken, I guess? It's usually a very good news publication by the way. 

First: clearly my point was that "enforced monogamy" Jordan Peterson and your Jordan Peterson are clearly two different people. More power to this extremely helpful homonymous guy.
Since the joke might have flown right over your head, I'm familiar enough with his works to know obvious deflection of what he does and why people actually give a toss about him. 
Spoiler alert: it's not because of philosophy or therapy

And second, you claimed Spiegel called him a leader of the alt-right, but reading the actual article, you see that their point his that he's an "illusionist", a useful pawn using a seemingly innocent "neutral" position to pass off his message as mainstream. 
Something which, btw, is dangerously closed to what you just did, misquoting an article in the hopes I wouldn't read it to make it seem like he was being unfairly targeted.

I mean, he went too far. Yes. But your latest reply to him didn't help the situation. So, I cut both of you a break, figuring the Warning would suffice. What would have been more effective in that situation?

The point was that you wrote it sounded "too stupid" to be the same person. And I know that's not why people criticise him but that was exactly my original point: People do mainly a-political stuff most of the time, then say something that can be interpreted as politically not correct and are then put into the "alt-right" or "extremist" corner. 

Second: Clever, but you are the one who's misquoting something. Here is a screenshot of the original article as it was posted on the Spiegel website with a large picture of Dave Rubin slapped onto it, titled "Trumps army of demagogues", asking "who are its [the Alt-Right's) leaders?" The article also claims wrong things about Rubin. For example, it suggests Rubin is a Trump supporter but he actually supported Gary Johnson. You act as if that article was somehow fair, but it wasn't. It basically gives no evidence for its claims. For example, one of the two ex-Muslims Rubin interviewed, who are somehow proof he is part of the alt-right, was also interviewed by Rubin about Trumps "travel ban" - and criticised it. Calling people "illusionists" and suggesting they are pawns for extremism and strongly suggesting they are leaders of an extremist movement (see screenshot) without proof is a horrible kind of journalism that can be used to denounce anybody and that's exactly what the Spiegel reporter did. It's extremely heavy mission-driven story-telling, to use the wording of the video in the OP.

You're trying to make it sound like Jordan Peterson has a large following because of his philosophy and PTSD work, and now suggest that "enforced monogamy", a point you have repeatedly ignored despite numerous replies, is "politically not correct", rather than just ample evidence to dismiss a loon. 
At least have the courage to stand up for the stuff you believe in without hiding.

Finally, you are making the same exact excuses for Dave Rubin that the article you linked to warns his fans and himself make for themselves, which is such an hilarious own goal I don't know what is.
That, and you now have to resort to a screenshot of a former version of an article which still doesn't claim what you say it claims. If this is supposed to make me feel bad for him, well it sure isn't working.

You always have to fact check corporate news media. We've always known that.
The problem with the whole "fake news" hysteria is that Trump calls real news that he doesn't like "fake news" as well.

For example, this really started blowing up when he called CNN's report on the so called "pee pee tape" fake news.
But their report was accurate. They reported that Obama and Trump had been briefed on the dossier by US intelligence agencies, who could not verify whether or not the incident in Moscow really occurred. It then landed in the hands of John McCain who forwarded it to the FBI. McCain even confirmed this.

But because Trump claims that the incident in Moscow never happened (which CNN never claimed, and even specified that intelligence agencies were not able to verify it), he calls the entire thing "fake news".

This is just a way to discredit media over accurate reports that he doesn't like. And that is very dangerous when there are so many people who believe so much of what he says, and are not tech savvy enough to fact check things for themselves. Probably why he gets away with so many lies.

When corporate news media are factually wrong, they deserve to be admonished for that. And that should be done by pointing out the correct facts. Instead we commonly see terms being thrown around rather than specifics. "Fake news" rather than what exactly was inaccurate and how. And "they're unfair to Trump" rather than how/why.

The way to fix ambiguity and misconception is to discuss the specifics.