It’s nice I guess to have a captive audience of mostly 18-year-olds. Raise your voice, wear a tie, and make a few bold gestures, and suddenly whatever you say is right.
One of my pet peeves, whenever anyone makes an argument, is the use of ad-hominems. Argue the ideas not the person. It was rule#1 in the socratic method of learning and argumentation I was trained in.
Impugning the person's character, even justifiably, proves nothing in regards to the veracity of the argument or knowledge that is being asserted. Josh Schrei may or may not be accurate in his depiction of how Jordan Peterson is utilizing "Callie" (gasp - a westerner mispronouncing a non-western name), however once he starts to venture into ad-hominem territory to basically dismiss Jordan Peterson's lectures and knowledge in his area of expertise then he starts to lose points.
Jordan Peterson's credentials are impressive in his area of expertise. To totally dismiss Jordan Peterson's impact and experience in psychiatry as a consequence of having a captive audience of 18 year olds who are mesmerized by his tie-wearing lectures and stentorian voice, is lazy thinking. Always argue the ideas and not the person. Why? Because humans are fickle and even good men and women have their detractors that would love nothing more than to silence those they don't like regardless of any virtue or knowledge the target of their detraction may have.
Ad hominems are not the way to enlightenment.
PS - The goddess Kali has been around for a long time and has many different depictions per the scholarly articles that I've read; her mythology predates the 6th century. And while I'm no expert on the goddess Kali, I can certainly see how the goddess Kali can be interpreted as a depiction of threat and how that aspect of her divinity could be used as the conduit for discussing the evolution of thought regarding threat in its various forms.