This is more of a Peterson exploration than related to SJW's, but I wanted to share it because it's him getting (hopefully) closer to the ideas of ponerology.
He had a discussion with Michael Malice who is a self professed anarchist. One of the interesting things about Malice is that based on his background parts of his world view (the evil in power) are quite close to our understanding of it.
From a Jewish background being born in the Ukraine in the soviet era, and escaping with his parents when he was 2 (his parents descriptions of recent totalitarian history informing his views), this has caused him study of things like North Korea. He does have a bias against Russia for the same reason.
I've heard his describe ponerised power structures and the nature of psychopaths many times quite accurately (most likely from an instinctual position) without being able to describe it in psychological terms.
He has a good knowledge of history of totalitarian systems and psychopathic individuals both from recent and present history. He's anti-war and anti-state. I can't comment on his anarchist ideas though, because I don't know them well.
So the clash of someone with his well described but not specifically psychologically categorized knowledge of psychopaths was the closest we've had to Peterson having to debate with someone who had read ponerology.
I think he got Peterson to move a little bit, but I'm still trying to work out exactly how. Peterson's main objection was that describing a 'they' was too unspecific. When Malice attempted to describe an actual person, or pointed out it was the difference between an average human being and one who has no trouble sending people to die in (illegal) wars based on deception/lies/manipulation Peterson seemed stuck, or at least he was trying to refine/redefine the boundaries and couldn't quite do it.
I do think he moved though. I'm hoping they have further conversations, because I'd like to see Peterson get it. He just needs it more clearly defined in such a way that doesn't fall into the traps of to much of an unrefined argument/unclear target.
Peterson did describe how personally he takes evil (the example of imagining he was the prison guard at Auschwitz), and he does have a very good model of how people can be lead to do evil. He has said he has read and understood the literature on psychopaths too. So perhaps what he misses is how much influence the smart ones can wield against a population. Malice attempted to describe this, but Peterson wouldn't touch it without attempting to redefine the boundaries/not stray into things that sounded like conspiracy theory (perhaps rightly so, because he didn't know the history of institutions Malice was describing).
If the argument can be presented to Peterson in a context he understands (without specific living individual/institutional used as examples) he may get it.