JP and JC

JP and JC refer to Jordan Peterson and Jesus Christ, whose videos occupy an outsized portion of the YouTube search results on a variety of important subjects.
The worst topics in this regard include belief systems, meaning of life, tradition, temptation, and morality. You really have to dig to find anything on these subjects from a secular or progressive perspective.
While both do have good advice from time to time, videos from these sources will not be provided on this wiki. We won't do that to your algorithm, lest you end up in the manosphere.
Check out this excellent breakdown of Peterson's philosophy to understand why it is simultaneously nonsensical, pompous, and problematic, while people pretending to penetrate his prattle profess his profundity.
"He is popular partly because he offers adrift young men a sense of heroic purpose, and offers angry young men rationalizations for their hatreds. And he is popular partly because academia and the left have failed spectacularly at helping make the world intelligible to ordinary people, and giving them a clear and compelling political vision." -Nathan J. Robinson
A lot of his views are in alignment with positions taken on this wiki, such as a his views on utopia, some of the criticisms of the shortcomings of postmodernism, and the need to find meaning in order to address many of the problems in the culture. The wiki seeks to do so with much fewer words, and links to explain all the jargon instead of using that jargon to obfuscate. It also does so without aligning itself with fascists, misogynists, and wellness grifters due to shameless monetary addiction.
If you have found Jordan Peterson's writing, lectures, or many podcast appearances compelling, please consider the many reasons that the academic community does not (outlined below), and use this wiki as your guide to finding a more rational, positive, and inclusive path to meaning and self-improvement.
Similarities and Differences
Peterson, like many other right-leaning secular gurus, has started to see a renewed fascination with religion, especially Christianity. The parallels between this trend and the perspective provided by metaculture cannot be denied. The commonalities speak to the idea that metaculture is an emergent cultural attractor that many are trending towards in different ways.
The search for meaning, especially among young men, is deeply needed in modern society. The creation of a new metanarrative that enables people to get meaning from the cultural traditions that have provided it for thousands of years, is a common solution that Peterson, metaculture, and many other popular thinkers are proposing. What are the important differences?
The Role of Religion
Peterson's Interpretation of Theology
Peterson tries to appeal to his traditional Christian audience without fully denying his nuanced understanding about the nature of allegory and mythology. He does this by claiming that the specific form of Christian allegory is significant to its ability to perform its psychological function. For example, if you don't specifically believe in a Jesus savior that rose from the dead, then you fail to get the psychological benefits of salvation. Even if you understand the allegorical nature of scripture, there is something about these specific allegories that is key to their proper function. The implication is that you have to adopt the system of Christianity as a whole, interdependent set of ideas, in order for them to give you meaning, save you from addiction, and connect you to your ancestors.
This works well enough for Christian apologists facing dwindling church attendance. If the conclusion of Peterson's deconstruction of Christianity ends with a recommendation that young people adopt the Christian belief system, they are willing to overlook the fact that he doesn't truly believe in a literal resurrection and gets intentionally evasive whenever he is directly asked about his belief in Christian doctrine. He infamously said to Sam Harris that it would "take him 40 minutes" to answer the question.[1] The fact that church attendance by young men is increasing for the first time in decades suggests this approach is having a real impact.[2]
Alternatives to Orthodoxy
The metaculture approach is very open about the distinction between literal belief and allegory, and provides a clearly defined pantheist theology that interprets all mythology as metaphors for things that are either physical (real things we can study with science), subjective (mental things we study with psychology and sociology), or emergent (collections of things self-organizing into a new thing), without any ambiguity or equivocating about the existence of the supernatural.
It is absolutely possible to replicate the psychological functions of Christian and other religious practices with different metaphors, or even with scientific evidence, when presented with the right metanarrative. The subjective experience will obviously be different than that of a literal believing Christian, but nothing prevents you from asking the universe for forgiveness and believing it has the ability to grant it. If doing that is as effective at relieving guilt as the confessional, then Peterson's assumption is wrong. Given what we know about the efficacy of honest placebos, it is likely that a fully-informed, evidence-based belief in the placebo power of forgiveness could be even more effective than one that relies on a supernatural premise that inevitably leads to doubt.
Rather than adopting the traditional Christian belief system that requires some degree of literalism, metaculture advocates a complete rational reconstruction that maps all spiritual beliefs to material reality. From there, you can continue to participate in non-dogmatic Christian community without cognitive dissonance or kayfabe.
Constructing a New Metanarrative
Realizing the necessity of metanarrative and meaning in a secular world leads to one of two conclusions. You can either adopt an existing belief system that provides a framework for meaning, or you can invent your own. Peterson obviously did invent his own, but he is also aware that most of the young men who idolize him will be unable to create a similar mental construction. So, he advocates traditional Christianity using the argument that there is an unexplained science behind the mythology.
metaculture advocates that it is possible for anyone to have a fully complex, nuanced, and honest understanding about the relationship between science, spirituality, and allegory, if you have the necessary education. In the age of the Internet, this education is accessible to anyone. There simply needs to be a guide that provides access to those resources, as well as the holistic metanarrative that ties it all together and gives it meaning. It's a bit more work than just telling people to be Christian (or becoming one), but it's far more universal, intellectually honest, and optimistic about human possibility.
Opposition to Hierarchy
Jordan Peterson and the manosphere promote a traditional view of social hierarchy that is outdated, authoritarian, justifies misogyny and racism, and is not necessarily natural. While humanity has certainly used hierarchical control and organizational structures throughout its history, modern technology and knowledge has increasingly allowed for distributed, self-organizing, complex systems to arise that are largely self-correcting and don't require top-down control. Networks like the Internet, or economic systems like capitalism, function better without hierarchical control. Many other institutions and belief systems can likewise be re-evaluated as distributed networks instead of hierarchies.
He uses an oft-criticized metaphor of the lobster to talk about how hierarchy is hard-wired into our brains.[3] But, we are not lobsters! While hierarchy is one of our moral foundations, and humans naturally think about where they are in the social pecking order, a worldview that focuses on hierarchy is one where most people will either see themselves on the bottom or delude themselves into thinking they're not. It does not create the most happiness for the most people.
In the war of geometric metaphors, fractal beats pyramid every time.
Hierarchies are inherently unjust and anti-egalitarian. While there will always be some people who have more wealth and power than others, and we will always need both leaders and followers, we do not need to worship the pyramid like an ancient Egyptian. The fractal is a much better geometric metaphor for the complex, self-organizing systems found in nature that will serve as the models for future human societies.
Adjacency to Illiberalism
While Peterson doesn't openly embrace alt-right ideology, and his actual views on many subjects are quite progressive, the fact that his rise to fame was precipitated by the culture war has made him a darling of the alt-right. Since Peterson prioritizes money and clout over solidarity and integrity, he has welcomed their embrace. It is this association that makes him repulsive to so many, even when he does offer good advice for lost young men, and some insightful views on the relationship between spirituality, psychology, mythology, and meaning.
Pseudoscience and Grift
Peterson also endorses pseudoscience and grift if it nets him money or views. Even if he doesn't directly endorse scam products, he constantly platforms people who do. He supports junk anti-vax, anti-trans, and climate change denial pseudoscience because it appeals to his right-wing followers. The less savvy followers don't see the red flags these things should raise, and are unknowingly led towards right-wing ideologies and the grift machine.
Compare his bonkers advocacy of the all-meat diet to the nutrition page for clear demonstration of the difference in approach.
Brevity is the Soul of Wit
Shakespeare knew a thing or two about language. So does Peterson, but what he knows is more about how to use language to sound erudite while you largely avoid making any substantive point about a topic. His propensity for circumlocution is unrivaled. True wisdom is saying exactly what you mean, in clear and concise language that can be understood by most people.
While this quote from Philomena Cunk was describing Russell Brand, it applies perfectly to Jordan Peterson.
"What he's saying might actually be stupid, but it's hard to tell because he says it with clever words, so the only people that can actually tell if he's stupid are clever themselves, and they think everyone's stupid compared to them anyway. Basically, the only way to find out if he's clever or stupid will be to do everything he says and see if society totally collapses and hundreds of thousands of people die."
Admittedly, this wiki often employs an expanded vocabulary, but this is in service of brevity and precision, not obfuscation. This is evidenced by the fact that links to definitions and Wikipedia pages are provided any time an uncommon term is referenced.
Most sections breaking down topics in the wiki just have a few sentences that state the thesis clearly, some links or videos for reference, and then it's on to the next topic.
Granted, there are a lot of topics, but each one is described succinctly, proving the key takeaways without a ton of background or superfluous exposition.
The information overload page details the metaculture commitment to brevity.
Peterson, Harris, and Objective Morality
See the Ethics page for a discussion of Peterson and Sam Harris's debate about whether objective morality exists.
More Criticisms of Jordan Peterson's Philosophy
And a bunch of other critiques of Jordan Peterson's right wing pop philosophy.
While the views that JP expresses in this video are not his most reprehensible, it makes it clear that he is not among the greatest thinkers of our time.
Jesus Christ Superstar
Although the evangelical apologist videos also tend to spam the results of various YouTube searches, often the same ones that JP appears in, it is not important to devote space to debating them. Instead, here's a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar so they are still represented.