Most people just don't know what the fuck they are talking about even when defining their own beliefs.

A classical liberal value he holds that's relevant here is that of protecting civil liberties, thus his clash with compelled speech law.

very true

I think this is mostly true, although it depends on issues you're discussing. A liberal and classical liberal/libertarian should get along on social issues quite well. In fact, the classical liberal is often more liberal on these issues than the liberal.
On economic issues, they obviously favor freer markets which is on the right economically.

So while I don't think they fit on a left/right spectrum so much, I would absolutely agree that most "classical liberals" in the U.S. come to that position from a right-wing starting point, therefore it ends up as more right-wing position. Additionally, the ardent anti-collectivist nature emphasizes the economic axis more than the social one, further reinforcing the right-wing nature.

And there are a lot of the fake classical liberals as Chud mentioned that voted for Trump/Republicans, again reinforcing the right-wing position.

But if you examine the ideology itself, I think a left/right distinction is mostly meaningless in this case.

This is a position that can only lead to a reasonable exchange of ideas.

LOL

Good lord man, how do you do that? Yeesh.

Okay now we're on the same page. I agree with you.

To be fair, most of my work done these days is on the news side of things, not the talk side. We're actually not a traditional conservative am news/talker that has hannity in the afternoon. We do news all day until 8pm and we do a good job keeping ideological slants out of that. But then 8-midnight we have the guy who pretty much got Scott Brown elected in Massachusetts doing his talk show.

lol like this is ever possible when it comes to contemporary american politics

What politics does Peterson ever even espouse, other than his common sense clash with compelled speech and SJWs, and how does any of it make him necessarily conservative and why does it matter?

Gotcha. I knew you were in radio, I don't think I knew it was in that AM conservative talk radio world where rational thought goes to die. I'm glad that it sounds like you're not fully in that world. I can't imagine that'd be very fun.

Do go there with this crew.

Something good Peterson discusses worth noting: He observes personality traits inherent in particular political affiliations, meant to make you aware of your own potential biases, "a source of insight and understanding, which could cause you to step back from your own convictions and be more receptive to arguments on both sides", as Pinker put it. Peterson talks about how liberal and conservative types both need each other, are necessary, and mutually benefit when communicating. Somebody has to maintain systems (conservative) and somebody has to expand them (liberal).

Stole it from Team America

I mentioned this already but these days I see the political spectrum as between at least 3 separate polls, not the two we are accustomed to arguing over.

Would people consider the Weinsteins (not the famous, rapey one and his brother) to be conservative? They are basically social democrats.

Classical liberalism is a somewhat broad set of beliefs with proponents across the spectrum, but I don't know how anyone could consider it a strictly right wing position except through ignorance.

It seems that both the modern right and modern left have moved wildly from their positions a decade ago (and away from each other.)

Classical liberalism largely fills in the gap left over, which is probably why both sides hate them and can't see them as anything other than alt-right or cucks. It's all they can see.

"I'm half and half, half Hobbes, half Rousseau, that's why I'm not an ideologue. Because I don't think that people are good or evil, I think they're both, I don't think that culture is security or tyranny, it's both, and I don't think that nature is benevolence or catastrophe, I think it's both. And that's why I'm not an ideologue."

What ever happened to the silent majority?

I guess they all got smartphones.

I've been watching and listening to JP for some time now. The first time was when he was on the Sam Harris podcast where they argued for 4 hours on what the definition of Truth.

It's been interesting to see his rise and the subsequent backlash to it. The NYT hit piece was embarrassing, as was the Vice interview edit.

JP is not Christ, and he's not the boogeyman. He's a sober, thoughtful, tolerant guy who i don't always agree with, but makes me think. I guess that's dangerous to a certain segment of people.