It has always seemed to me that the IDW are the ones who are appealing to the offended and outraged, and that the offense and outrage is directed at caricatures of SJWs of the IDW’s own making. These people make hay off of the outrage supposed centrists have about Millennials, BLM, loud white college girls with purple hair, and gender pronouns. Peterson’s $80,000/month is fueled by outrage.
A hint about the cause of this outrage lies in the words “modernism” and “postmodernism,” which are terms the average IDW fan doesn’t even understand. But they don’t need to, because the words themselves say enough about what’s going on; the latter, prefixed by ‘post,’ implies things are changing, moving beyond the familiar, and some of those changes are simply uncomfortable for people who are used to and satisfied enough with a certain set of cultural conventions. A disingenuous academic can project whatever fears and anxieties an audience has onto the changes implicit in postmodernism, and few fans will be any the wiser.
And is it really an overblown caricature? I’d say yes. There are 1.5 million faculty members in higher education in the United States, but only a countably few are up in arms about the alleged evils of campus SJWs. So, if you agree with the logic that 97% of scientists having something to say about the dangers of climate change means something, then what does it say when 97% of academics don’t have anything to say about the dangers of outraged SJWs?