You didn't think so because you read biased sources
No, your original point was that LU does censorship and JP didn't condemn them for it, thus making him a hypocrite.
You didn't read it because your sources (such as theatlantic) lean left.
Did you read/research the reason why or did you stop once you found he was disinvited. You're playing the "oh yeah? well what about THIS" game which I will not further entertain
Uh... No. You can't know this for sure, especially when it wasn't censorship.
It's a Christian UniversityFinally, I feel it important to add that LU requires its students to take oaths that stipulate strict limitations on personal freedoms, limitations which include restrictions against homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Students aren't allowed to consume alcohol, tobacco, or use profane language. Only recently were students allowed to watch R-rated films. The school also practices some segregation between the sexes.
Again, removing articles that don't represent the University and removing people that make events without school permission has nothing to do with censorship. But nice try grasping for more straws blaming religion/Christianity. Blame that if all else fails.I believe in freedom of religion and don't feel the need to take an active stance against these restrictions; nor am I interested in challenging anyone's sincerely held beliefs, religious or otherwise; nor do I wish to see people discouraged from acting in earnest according to their personally-held convictions.
But, I believe that this observation cuts close to the heart of the issue, which is that evangelical Christianity, as well as the sort of Christianity practiced by Jordan Peterson, is fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.
LOLis fundamentally, constitutionally restrictive of personal expression, whereby the criticism of liberal censorship falls rather flat, at best, and is disingenuous at worst.
This is just your surface level understanding trying to make a connection/interpretation, which fails miserably



Reply With Quote