Jordan Peterson isn't wrong about everything. Neither is Ben Shapiro, President Trump or even the Christ Church shooter. But we revile these people for very good reasons, mostly because despite the fact that they occassionally say something intelligent and worth listening to, we know that their beliefs tend to be couched in flawed, faulty ideologies that are both intellectually harmful and lead to real world consequences. So why are we giving a pass to someone who is equally reviled because she says some things you might agree with?
Nothing she has said about games media is ground breaking, controversial or in conflict with information that had already existed in any way worth celebrating or debating. All of her videos are based on topics that had been done to death in academia and backed by things written that we were already aware of, cultivation theory, for example.
Because of the slow, plodding nature of her videos --she spends whole minutes just describing phenomena we already know about-- she is unable to spend an adequate amount of time providing solutions so she ends up doing nothing but problematizing various facets of video games that, often times, are relatively innocuous. This leads to her videos being boorish and annoying to say the least, especially her earlier work which is couched with errors. If you want to get really picky, the grand majority of her content caters to "white feminism", failing to cater to the pet issues of intersectional feminists and disabled people. She also uses rather "problematic" words and phrases such as "prostitute women" which can be construed as her being sex negative, viewing sex work as an inherently victimizing culture, taking away pride and dignity from sex positive feminist and sex workers who are pro "sex for cash" and for the destigmatization of prostitution. Now I don't think Sarkeesian is like that, but if you actually follow the various sects of feminism and how they think, you can easily pick apart Sarkeesian's work as being problematic from a variety of perspectives.
But you don't even need to look at her work through various social justice lenses to find problems with her work or herself as a person. It all starts with one very simple concept. She begins with a conclusion and finds the evidence to develop an argument supporting that conclusion instead of examining evidence to build a case or to discuss trends and how they might have real world ramifications. This might be fine in a highschool debate classroom, but when you're a self-proclaimed expert on things like video games and harassment, you're going to be taken to task when people find out that you're going about things in an entirely wrong way.
We just gloss over this because she was able to successfully navigate through the turmoil of gamergate and come out on top because trolls and retards were more than willing to be participants in harassment campaigns against her.