Navigating the political spectrum can feel like an epic quest. I’ve personally aligned with plenty of leftist ideals, only to be labeled “right-wing” or “conservative” by friends on either side of the spectrum. There’s this knee-jerk tendency to hurl shame at anyone who deviates, a sort of “burn the heretic” mindset. Yes, the right flings insults too, but they tend to default to a loud “liberal!!!” or the occasional gem like “9/11 was Obama’s fault, ya stupid liberal!”—an interesting display of mental gymnastics.

Both sides can be authoritarian, but the left often prides itself on righteous crusades for justice. They’ll spin arguments so elaborate they resemble Rube Goldberg machines, though sometimes with more bells than substance. It says something about the intellectual vibe on both sides—though let’s save the IQ debate for later. Their motto often goes, “We must do this for [insert favored group], and if you so much as question it, you’re exiled!” Naturally, this approach pushes people away. Even someone who never considered right-wing ideas might feel compelled to reject the left entirely. That’s where Jordan Peterson enters the fray, landing near the top of the left’s most-wanted list (alongside Elon Musk and anyone with a hefty bank account).

Dr. Peterson, a clinical psychologist of some renown, once proudly supported liberal politics. The real shift came after a university uproar in which he was labeled homophobic for “refusing to use preferred pronouns.” He insisted his stance was against compelled speech by the government, not against the pronouns themselves (he was actually using them). From that point on, many liberals viewed him as a pariah.

Peterson soon became a media sensation, speaking everywhere from conservative talk shows to mainstream news. Take the Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman: it played out like a verbal duel, culminating in a now-famous “Gotcha” moment where Newman momentarily lost her footing. The pattern repeated—leftist commentators tried to frame Peterson as extreme, while right-leaning outlets welcomed him, further distancing him from his original liberal circle.

Over time, Peterson drifted from my own newsfeed, but my left-leaning friends never ceased sharing clips of him. When I finally tuned back in, liberal media had all but cast him as a far-right boogeyman. He occasionally took drastic stances on gender expression or postmodernism, sometimes in a way that bordered on emotional meltdown—likely exacerbated by his well-documented struggles with depression. Even so, he still didn’t fit neatly into a “far-right” box.

Blame it on the left. Even someone deeply versed in psychology craves social belonging. Once ostracized for diverging from strict leftist orthodoxy, Peterson found more acceptance on the right. That likely pushed him further from his own tolerance for certain liberal ideas, sparking a more defiant attitude. Personally, I hope he rebounds from his depression and continues contributing insightful perspectives. Maybe dial down the “left is evil” narrative a touch.

The broader takeaway is how easily polarization can happen. One side exiles you, the other side welcomes you, and suddenly your views begin shifting. Peterson’s story serves as a cautionary tale: it’s frighteningly simple to be cast out by those you agree with 90% of the time, all over a single disagreement. Then you find yourself in new territory, wondering how you got there.

Jordan Peterson’s ideological journey reminds us that politics can be as tribal as a schoolyard brawl. If the left had been more open to his nuanced stance on compelled speech, maybe he’d have stayed in their camp. Instead, they shut him out and pushed him into a corner where the right happily scooped him up. We’d do well to remember this next time we see someone “cancelled” for a lone dissenting opinion. After all, forcing people into an extreme usually yields exactly that: extremes.