Uh, regardless of how "leftist" he is, he was unwelcomed from speaking at other universities. I'll post his quote again since it seems like there's some amnesia going on:But that's neither here nor there, because Liberty University doesn't welcome a full range of views.
“I think many people would be shocked to know that Liberty University is more diverse in its opinions than Harvard University. … Today, unless you speak on behalf of identity politics, on groupthink, radical left views, you’re not really encouraged to come on campus. I’m a liberal, and I have been banned and shut down on university campuses because I support Israel. … I think every American should know this, that you have invited me to speak here today even though we have some fundamental disagreements about some social issues, about some political issues, about some religious issues — but you welcome me with open arms. The obverse is not true. Somebody with your views would not be welcome to speak today at major Ivy League universities. I’d be there defending you. I’d be there introducing you. I’d be proud to have you as a speaker on my campus. But you would be shut down. There would be efforts to what’s called ‘de-platform’ you, which is a fancy word of saying, censoring you, not letting you speak.”
You're doing the same thing. Here's some clarification:
Now because of these false assumptions, you generate more delusional stories:It was (Martin's removal) because of the promotion of these unscheduled, publicized plans to meet on campus property without the university’s permission that justified his removal from campus grounds, according to an official statement from Liberty.
“What if someone you had never met announced on social media that they were going to come into your living room, invite others, and have a ‘prayer meeting’ after stating publicly that your home is the most hostile environment to the gospel in the U.S.?” Becki Falwell said. “Wouldn’t you call the police and have the stranger removed from your home?”
Again, you make the *false* assumption that,How does this impact Jordan Peterson? Because he has positioned himself as a champion of radical freedom of speech on campuses. Selective criticism is worse than none; it creates the deliberate impression that one's preferred side is innocent of the same actions. In his talk there, he mentions freedom of speech rather extensively, and denounces it rather emphatically as universally wrong. I'd think that Liberty University was part of the same universe.
--the accusation against the University is correct and
--JP was also aware of this.
The reality of the situation:
--Liberty university had reasons (misrepresenting the school's platform and scheduling events without permission) for their actions, which is not equated to censorship.
--JP goes to hostile universities and allows the opposition to act like wild animals. This is allowing free speech on his part. What else should he do
???The student papers at other universities are also privately owned, alienable, or cancellable. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are also fully privately owned and operated, but the question of censorship remains the same.
1. The question of censorship depends on the facts of the situation. The examples you mentioned are not censorship.
2. You're evading the central point and grasping for straws, but I guess 99% of your JP accusation rides on this Liberty university thing so I can't blame you



Reply With Quote