I agree with most of what you write, including the idea that some of his critics are worse than him; certainly if someone has known Peterson for decades you'd expect better sourced and more tangible criticism.
Though some of the criticism is undoubtedly correct, particularly the "rules for life", some of which he himself doesn't follow and perhaps not even tries to follow.
I think it's likely that he does hide ulterior motives. His comments about being a christian are exactly that; I think he approaches it like a politician would and wants to have both atheist and christian audience so is sure not to alienate either and as a result plays postmodernist definition games to appear somewhat in the middle.
It's happened a couple of times where Peterson asks to "think about it for a minute" and it's his most dishonest moments, because he doesn't seem to be honestly speaking about his beliefs, but rather tactically strategizing about what to say.
In short: Yes, some of Peterson's critics are worse than him, but they have neither the reach or visibility than he does and it's causing people to close their ears to any of the criticism, some of which is very valid. Both links had some valid criticism in there.
If others are criticizing him badly; let's get to the nitty gritty of doing it right.
Well, his rambling about religion and metaphor and stuff, it coheres into his overall worldview. He's not the first such "Christian," as I said, it surely sounds intellectually dishonest when he skirts around the issue by debating minutia in word meanings and such or when he claims that the literal interpretation of religion is something nobody believes when it's exactly what every religious person believes, but no, I think the only person he is trying to fool there is himself. He wants to be a Christian, and some intellectuals want to do, just deep down he knows the factual basis for religion is non-existent.
Peterson is closer to the Stephen J. Gould's stupid "non-overlapping magisteria" school of thought where science is in the realm of facts and religion is in the realm of art and morality, or whatever. This bullshit has been going on a lot longer than Peterson and ignores what religion actually is to the vast majority of people and that it makes actual empirical claims about the nature of the universe.
Most of Peterson's critics are far worse than him. While Peterson may ramble on about stupid Jungian shit or make confused arguments about religion, his critics want public censorship and kangaroo courts. Few of his critics, like the majority of his fans, seem to not address any of the Jungian bullshit or whatever. No, I'll take Peterson any day of the week.
And nobody has yet convinced me that Peterson is an asshole. The people that try are always gender-obsessed freaks that can't disguise their agenda. Maybe Peterson isn't completely right in that sphere (though I think just defers to our lack of scientific understanding of this topic) but Peterson really does seem like a well-meaning, sincere man, even if his arguments don't really feel sincere (becase we can see through them so easily). Sure there's a lot of goofiness around him, but he doesn't feel like a lolcow. I don't think having a few goofy beliefs qualifies someone as such.
Don't get my defense of the man wrong, his cult of personality (which isn't his doing, it's just the political situation of the time) needs to be torn down, people get influenced too easily by the heroes they take in and they need to realize that Peterson is pretty silly on a lot of things.
