Shouldn't universities of all places expose their students to all forms of ideas though?

I mean, exposure isn't the same thing as giving the ideas platforms?

Universities should teach about how we used to do shock "therapy" on gay people and there should be a LGBT history class, but I don't think its a good idea to give a platform to someone who endorses electro therapy on gay people.

That is an extreme example of course, I'm trying to use it to illustrate my point. Don't know if its working, I'm a bit tired.

Just because a university allows a speaker does not mean they espouse the views.

At some point does a university take responsibility for spreading certain views in a positive light?

To respond to your initial point if a university wants to accept religious students, should speakers who are anti religion be banned?

Pretty complicated and I'm not a follower of a major religion so I'm not the best person to answer, it probably depends on how a person is anti religion. Define anti religion I guess.

Sure if it's for that second reason (not enough info) fair enough, but race? That'd be like me being unable to speak about the gay community because i'm not gay! Gay, straight, white, black, why not measure points based off their merits instead of the person who says it?

Ill phrase it differently, being white causes me to feel at this point that I do not have enough knowledge to speak on this topic, I would have to go consult various Muslim people because I believe that they would have a much better understanding than I and I want to not be speaking over groups that I do not belong.

I know a lot about issues dealing with groups that I am apart of, being gay for example, because I belong to those groups and that gives me more exposure and insight that I would not otherwise have.

Does that make sense.

Anyway, waaaaay off topic. As for "hate against a marginalized group", what about a change to "hate against any group?".

its complicated, just like hate speech laws, canadas seem to be ok from what I've seen.

But with something like that you get into picking holes in it, like you do with "hate against marginalized groups"

stuff like

"you are hateful for being intolerant of my intolerance of you!" and when that happens no one can do fucking anything if you insist on sticking to that because its just round and round and round. Which is what the people saying "your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerant" want I guess, because they stay at the top? Idk.

Btw, really appreciate the honest response, really enjoying this conversation :D!

you weren't rude or condescending, so, thats always nice.