No, that's not what happened at all. Check out this passage from an interview he gave:

MR: I don’t support Trump at all. I hate him — I think he’s horrible. I’m hiding amongst the alt-right, alright? And the point is, this character is meant to exhibit and illustrate the notion that it’s this crazy social-justice-warrior-knee-jerk-reaction-triggered-happy-safe-space-seeking-blah, blah, blah, blah culture that it’s producing this alt-right. Now, I’m not dumb enough to go there. And my own politics are very strong — I’m a left communist. But I think that in fact, the crazier and crazier that this left gets, this version of the left, the more the more the alt-right is going to be laughing their asses off plus getting more pissed. Every time a speaker is booed off campus or shooed off campus because they might say something that bothers someone, that just feeds the notion that the left is totalitarian, and they have a point. [0]

[0] http://www.nyunews.com/2016/10/24/qa-with-a-deplorable-nyu-p...

That might have been with his intent but the fact of the matter is that he created a twitter account that is explicitly connected to his employer and then didn't even meet the incredibly low bar of being either civil or academic with it. It's like the youtubers that prank people and wonder why people get mad because "it's just a prank, bro!" It being a social experiment doesn't shield you from all of the consequences of you actions.

"For those who don't want to read the article, "What happened when I challenged the PC campus culture at NYU" really means "What happened when I tweeted a bunch of right-wing garbage and associated it with my employer, by name":"

This idea (that companies have the ultimate power over your lives) seems to change when it involves left-leaning opinions. Would you be fine if I fired anyone saying anything bad about traditional marriage?

Weed legalization seems to be really popular in the tech community. Your body in your own time, right?

How is free speech any different? It's just as representitive of your employer.

"The answer is that you're asked to take a leave of absence because you're embarrassing everyone."

Weaklings in academia can't take a differing opinion are now creating students with this same weak mindset. It's a disgrace to intellectualism..if you can even call it that anymore.

"Shed no tears though, I'm sure Professor Edgelord will do just fine in the conservative talk circuit for years to come."

You can revel in people with differing opinions getting their livelihood destroyed and their opinions silenced, but when it happens to you, I won't be shedding a tear either.

I grew up with Rage Against The Machine and have never trusted a political party. If you are able to take an objective look the utter hypocrisy from both sides is staggering. Clinton supporters will tell you to ignore her scandals because it has not yet been adjudicated but anything said about Trump should be treated as fact and vice versa. Frankly I don't think they can handle the cognitive dissonance as the real world collides with their rhetoric.

I think the mention of suicide was wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that a University should fire any employees that express right-wing views. You actually said 'right wing garbage', but I didn't see any fact-checking on either side.

That characterization ("right wing garbage") is pretty much correct. Read the referenced twitter feed, which includes threats to divulge "dirt" about his workplace if he gets 500 followers.

There is a case to be made for free speech on campus, but this professor is not making it. Sad!

My critique of his actions starts and ends with this: If you're posting a bunch of trollbait just to see if your peers and students will react poorly, and then they do, and you get in trouble for it, good.

How is this any different than saying "If you're a black man and you appear in public with a white woman just to see if people will react poorly, and you get in trouble for it, good"?

Before someone suggests that I'm equating the two actions, I am not. My point is that this line of thought absolves others of responsibility for their actions. Whether or not the professor anticipated the response is irrelevant to the question "Is this sort of response wholly inappropriate?"

>How is this any different

>Before someone suggests that I'm equating the two actions, I am not.

Sounds like you know the answer!

> My point is that this line of thought absolves others of responsibility for their actions.

If you read the tweets this guy wasn't trying to create a discourse with pepole but to make a group of people angry at him, which makes sense why the university would be against that

Full disclaimer: I am right wing, far right by some standards. I find Trump to be a brilliant man in many areas, with flaws like every human being has. I am fiercely against the modern "PC" bs and fully agree with this professor's stance on Milo Yiannopoulos' censoring, even when I find Milo to be a hypocrite that tiptoes around hard-right concepts for publicity.

With that said, I fully agree that this is nothing but a piece to try to undo the major fuck-up that was his Twitter trolling account linked to himself and his employer.

He's now trying to use the force of our movement to shield himself from the fair consequences of his actions using the inevitable PC-overreaction as an excuse.

Somewhere along the line, being "anti-pc" became synonymous with being deliberately obnoxious and antagonistic.

It did, somehow. This guy also went about it in a fairly petty way, but his fundamental point I think holds water.

The hypocrisy of "you can't state your views because you're biased/bigoted/whatever" is extreme. Just two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, when I read the phrase "thought experiment", I thought "here we go again".

Somehow people think that they can do their trolling behind that label and be protected from all criticism.

So should the response to a troll be to ban and chastise him?

I'd argue its better to start offering counter arguments. If they engage reasonably, have discourse. Otherwise, start ignoring / saying 'here's that guy again'.

Yes, someone who remains reasonable and yet seeks to defend racism is probably slightly harmful. As he might move a few people, and keep others on the fence. And yet, I'd give most people more credit than that. I also care more about free expression of ideas. Finally, I care about convincing those on the other side, rather than confirming those who are on my side.

If you start dismissing everyone with a non-progressive view point, that won't convince them. Heck, it'll probably make them think all progressive are oversensitive people; people who defend their believes because they can't stand the very though of disagreement. Instead, we should look to express confidence truth seeking and reason. That is a lot more likely to get them to consider us.

Moreover, if the non-progressives are essentially unwelcome in progressive circles, we are just strengthening the divide and increasing tribalism on both sides. Heck, non-progressives basically aren't welcome in higher education. That can't be good and isn't what we should want.

Yeah they are his employer, but they're supposed to behave more intelligently than typical employers.

They also have a reporting hotline for Halloween costumes and bias. Seems like a bad idea.

I can't find the "right-wing garbage" twitter posts? Where did you get that from?

his twitter feed, linked in the article: https://twitter.com/antipcnyuprof

The fact the man conflates institutional blackballing with mockery or blocking online shows how thin skinned he really is. Next he'll say not getting invited to some private organization's cookout is censorship.