ghoststories

How about this?

http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...

Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees.

Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.

"You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass."

I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context.

If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.

They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups.

Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.

Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything.

Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives.

Will they hire a gay/trans/black/muslim person? What a minefield! Better find something in their CV that makes them "less qualified"...

Few people will say these things openly, just like how fewer people would admit to voting for Trump. In the real world, Trump is still president.

If that was true, why did his university send him a warning letter that essentially confirms his concerns? He consulted a lawyer on the matter, he confirmed them as well.

Laws are subject to interpretation, bad laws are subject to bad interpretations. He considers bill C-16 a bad law. There no "one correct understanding" of a law, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers and legal cases would be trivial matters.

The fact that you refer to bill C-16 simply as "a discrimination law about transgenders" shows that you poorly interpreted it yourself.

"Which is all you need to know about him."

I interpret that as a display of pure and utter ignorance - was that your intention?

For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.

How else would you refer to the processes that lead to forcing professionals at these universities to use dozens of novel non-binary gender pronouns, or to shield students from content that may be considered "offensive" or "triggering"?

If you don't think those things are in fact serious problems, then I guess you aren't "woke" to that side of the debate. The "campus left" has done everything to brand all dissenters (including Peterson) as fascists, racists and trans/homophobes. That's an even bigger problem, because it signals cult-like behavior.

Maybe it's not bad at your particular university, maybe the examples in the media are not representative, but they are real.