|P.Z. Myers/Wikipedia photo|
P.Z. Myers is P.Z. Myers, a curmudgeonly Gnu who, though of an older age, nonetheless has an emotional foot in the camp of the Plusers, too.
And, why would P.Z. get hoisted by the SJW petard?
Calling hyperconsertives at his faculty home, University of Minnesota-Morris, "assholes" and advocating the disposal of their student newspaper, as reported by Faux News.
It's probably not criminal, though depending on the exact wording of various statements of his, and any meetings he had with any students who engaged in the theft after his initial statements, a prosecutor could at least threaten an "engaging in organized criminal activity" charge or whatever the similar is up in Minnesota.
But that's not where the petard is.
Instead, he may well have violated the faculty code of conduct. Beyond that, he may have officially "intimidated" students in some way. That would be doubly so if any of the writers/editors for this student paper are in any of his classes. You know what would be HI-LAR-I-OUS? If these conservatives do some SJW intelectual judo on him and make him undergo sensitivity training.
his blog post that appeared to start it all, that SJW petard would be well deserved. He doesn't know what the First Amendment means. The paper is offensive, offensive indeed. However, the First Amendment protects the right to engage in offensive speech.
As for his claim he was only advocating the university not allow the paper on campus? Beyond missing both freedom of speech AND freedom of assembly issues at a public university, here's what he actually blogged:
I would advocate the disposal of their flyers if the Ku Klux Klan started papering our campus, and likewise, the North Star has worn out its welcome and must go. Treat their scattered papers as hate-filled trash and dispose of it appropriately.Now, one can't prove that he was encouraging students to do this "disposal," so criminal charges would be very hard. On the other hand, beyond sensitivity training for violating any faculty code of conduct? Assuming that Minnesota does not require jury unanimity in civil suits, and has a lower burden of proof than in criminal law, Pee Zee could be facing more than just "sensitivity training" and a slap on the hand from the dean of administration or whomever.
|Linking to this is P.Z.'s latest attempt at self-defense|
As for whether any of this "should" happen? Given that P.Z. has admitted to facing an (allegedly) unfounded accusation of sexual harassment, yet continues to say we should unreservedly believe people making such claims, the "should" of sensitivity training should happen indeed, in my book.
That said, would he actually learn from this?
Of course, not, other than to play the martyr card, like SJWs in general.
And, now, by posting a recent XKCD comic, PZ is tripling down on his First Amendment stupidity.
The same bottom left and bottom center panels that PZ wants to apply to wingnut students at Minnesota-Morris and some of their ravings apply to him and some of his.
As for the hate emails he's getting, of course, nobody deserves that. But, at least on any of them short of death threats, at the same time, Myers is probably "wearing" them as some sort of Red-A Atheism Badge of Courage.
That said, were I the John Rawls of Minnesota-Morris, here is how I would pass out both distributive and retributive justice.
First, I would make P.Z. undergo sensitivity training at the hands of fellow atheist, Jesus mythicist, hardcore conservative and apparent racialist Robert M. Price, until P.Z. signed a sworn statement admitting that not all, or nearly all, atheists are liberals.
I would then make some of the worst wingnut students undergo sensitivity training by community organizers in Minneapolis -- in the ghetto there.
Next, I would require their paper to give P.Z. the entire front page for one issue.
And, I'd require P.Z. to give them a blog post of at least 1,000 words, and "pinned" to the top of his blog for a week straight.
And, no, this isn't written as pure sarcasm. Were I in place to do so, I'd hand out actual sentencings like this.
The part immediately above relates to crime in general. How much of a sentence should be punitive and how much should be rehabilitative? We should strive for rehabilitation in general, but in a particular case, we have to depend on a judge's assessment of how likely rehabilitation is to be achieved. If the judge then thinks a sentence should be primarily punitive, the exact nature of its punishment could theoretically be made more severe in exchange for shorter duration, if the criminal committed what is generally considered a nonviolent crime.
Example? As part of parole, require a Wall Street fraud artist to work at a soup kitchen, a halfway house, etc. Require an arsonist, if a prison workshop can be properly made over, to recreate exactly what she burned.