I would not call these opening quotes you cite as examples of dog whistles. Peterson has actually mentioned the need for the left to argue in favor of the disadvantaged. He balances this with a strong emphasis on the many problems with trying to socially engineer outcomes. Arguing in favor of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome is not a ‘dog whistle.’ He, and many others, tend toward one position rather than another (and very few would openly support absolute adherence to either extreme).
‘Alt Right or ‘otherwise conservative’: There is a lot to criticize about this. The Alt Right is not conservative, but authoritarian and race-centric.
Strong arguments have been put forth in the various debates around affirmative action on both sides. One could, however, argue against affirmative action without being an extremist. After all, Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants. Merit has become a distant second behind social engineering. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke passionately about a colorblind future and judging a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin.
Feminism means different things to different people. Historically, feminists from Mary Wollstonecraft to Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers have argued for the removal of barriers to women’s opportunities in society. This Third Wave Feminism seems hell bent on social engineering and, to a great extent, science denialism. You can easily have the kind of feminism supported by Paglia and Hoff Sommers (based in equality of outcome) in a free society but Third Wave Feminism does not take female choice into account when critiquing differences between the sexes (see arguments regarding the wage gap and the key role that male and female choices make).
You seem quite concerned with how conservatives interpret Peterson’s views. We all view the world through the template of our values and are likely to promote thinkers with whom we agree and discredit those with whom we largely disagree on key issues. My intent is not to argue that Peterson’s views are perfect, nor that they are never misused or misinterpreted (though I would argue that this is often overplayed by left-wing media outlets). Rather, I began by arguing that Bernard Schiff deliberately misrepresents Peterson, likely for personal and political/philosophical reasons.
“Because Peterson refuses to define his specific interpretation of these values, he invites his listeners and readers to template their own in analyzing this statements.” Peterson’s style of intellectual inquiry and discourse is both multidisciplinary and creative. He does not seek to present canned positions and talking points. He makes his audiences think, whether or not they agree with him. Jordan Peterson is not one to tell people how to think but encourage them to think.
While you and I certainly disagree about Peterson himself, we might be in agreement in wanting to see him speak to more left-leaning prominent figures.