If you're appalled at him then you more than likely have confirmation bias.

I'm going to guess that there is not much that Trump says that doesn't greatly irk you.

I don't think narcissism (love of oneself) or bigotry (intolerance of others) can be easily mixed up. On the other hand the label of bigot is often misused.

So much for "I'll defend you in court", huh. Just about as honest as everything else he says though.
*promote his real message of intolerance and xenophobia (look it up, Trump supporters).
It's just astonishing to me that SOOOO many pretend they don't really understand he only wants to make America hate itself again....but Southpark was right, at least 1/4 of all people are completely mentally retarded. (and no, that's not a slur against the actually mentally challenged, it's an apt description of people who, for various personal/political reasons, intentionally do not mentally evolve)

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

@ahimsa

seriously?
quoting to rebutt an obvious sarcastic comment?
is it that hard to even attempt to be even a tad original?
do you REALLY think i am promoting actual violence?
really?
and you respond with a level of pretentious twattery that you should be ashamed of.

are you even remotely aware you literally made my point on how some vegans lack the basic self-awareness to realize they are being massive hypocrites and tools?

you trot out those tired,and boring,self-effacing morality/ethics tropes as if they were written on mount sinai,and then have the audacity to not even own your own egocentric bullshit.

jesus..vegans are such intolerable pussies.

because YOUR vegan philosophy is egocentricism on narcissistic steroids,and you lack the basic self-awareness to even have the skills to acknowledge that you are literally smelling your own farts,and calling it wisdom.

there is another vegan on this site that i really wish would put his two cents in,because he at least is aware of the hypocrisy and is an absolute delight to engage with.

but YOU...
self-awareness may be too tall an order it seems.
as you rant and rail against the inhumanity and suffering of the agri-animal on a fucking machine that 10 yr olds assembled to put together in a country where they dont even have the most basic of necessities met.

sitting at a desk dressed in clothes that ANOTHER 8 yr old sewed together,working 18 hr days at 23 cents an hr and is beaten if she slacks,is late..or complains.

the list of human oppression,slave labor and human trafficking that YOU benefit from is legion,and your lack of your own hubris,privilege and hypocrisy is,quite frankly,offensive.

so you can sit there in your own little smug fart cloud and self-righteously condemn the rest of us for choosing to enjoy bacon and convince yourself of your own superior morality and purity of ethics,but the reality is this:

you don't give two fucks.
you are an over-privileged,over indulged little shit and is no better nor worse than the rest of who travel through this life..making our own choices and being responsible for them.

the ONLY thing you truly care about is your little habitat and how others behavior affects your tiny,precious little world.so you go ahead an be a vegan for "moral" and "ethical" reasons,because it gives you the "feel goods".

and i say this with all humanity and honesty:
if you are vegan for moral and ethical reasons,then good for you mate.you made a conscious choice and have stuck to it.bravo my friend.

but don't try to push your own little inane philosophy on the rest of us.we may be assholes for eating meat,but at least we are not hypocritical,contradictory assholes.

now if you want to discuss the benefits of a vegan diet.
great...i am down.
if you wish to share why being a vegan for YOU is a philosophy that works for YOU and is a choice YOU made...then great.i love understanding why people chose to do what they do.

but if you keep attempting to make this purely a morality and ethical dilemma,while ignoring YOUR own philosophical and moral inconsistencies.

well..then we have nothing more to speak about.
enjoy the smell of your own farts.

/cockpunched

If he wants credibility, he probably should have made this video when you noticed it, not after going home, calling them, waiting for a reply, and being denied. He also probably should post the video in better resolution than 144p. It's hard to tell if it's even in the same writing and/or color with this terrible quality, so impossible for me to decide if I think he's a liar that did it himself and posted it in low res to hide that, or if I think he actually had this happen to him. I hope others will also reserve judgement until better evidence one way or the other surfaces....although I see the poster has made his opinion clear with the tags. EDIT: OK, there is clear evidence out there that this was a fraud, see below.
This is *controversy if it really happened, and also controversy if it didn't and he's a liar looking for his 5 minutes of fame.
No vote without more info. If it's been debunked, lets see that debunking.

All that said, it wouldn't be surprising in Austin. Yes, there are many tolerant people there, but still plenty of intolerant people for this to not be out of the question.

Good bit of poetry, i enjoyed it. I don't agree with the sentiment though.

Firstly and most convincingly for me, animals have been eating other animals since there existed anything that might be called an animal. Essentially we evolved as we are because we ate meat.

Secondly, food intolerances/allergies/etc. never seem to be acknowledged by crusading vegans or vegetarians, and i have a real bee in my bonnet about that. I'd love to have the luxury of choice but if i eat something that has been near to something that had gluten in it, i'm going to be bed ridden for days. Depending on where you live, buying ONLY food labelled "gluten free" can go from easy and cheap to near impossible and extortionate. Some people have it even worse than that and have to exclude more. When you aren't making the food yourself, (travelling, visiting friends, all kinds of stuff) sometimes the only thing that you can feel safe eating is meat. No one in that position wants a guilt trip from someone with the freedom to opt in and out of their limitations.

Yep the intolerant sifters discarding this vid.

Shameful

Yep the liberal are the intolerant ones.

Well, I must admit you have a point. I don't think that way, growing up around animals that were food, and doing the work ourselves, not hiding from it, but most people don't have that experience.
My opinion is that ending the intolerable suffering some animals are subjected to is more important than ending meat eating, so I suggest trying to convince people to use smaller, family farmed meats that are more likely to have proper, 'humane' treatment and death....but not by shaming them with images of abused animals or blaming them for eating the wrong thing. That only gets people defensive. Simply explaining how the better treatment creates a MUCH better, tastier, 'cleaner' (of hormones and anti-biotics) meat that's worth the extra effort, and extra cost, should work better. Appeal to people's unwavering belief that they deserve better, and steer them in a direction that also works for your goal.
I don't think you'll ever convince a high percentage of meat eaters to go vegetarian, much less vegan, and I think that guilt and shame make people want to fight about the issue rather than do anything. But that just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)

All this said, I've realized that I'm fighting against my own interests, because if most people went vegan, meat would be much cheaper and better quality (it would have to be to sell). Oh well, not the first time. ;-)


EDIT: I've just realized something else. You should never use the 'we don't kill people like that' argument, because we absolutely do kill people when it suits our purposes, like prisoner executions and wars, and also including for food (in a way) in places and times where societal pressures hadn't made eating people 'taboo'.

I have an agenda, I have several actually, and they are all solved with not consuming animal products for food or materials.
1. I don't want the environment to be destroyed, through mass extinction, waste, and global warming.
2. I don't want animals to be exploited, tortured and killed for profit and pleasure.
3. I don't want to die young as a result of eating myself into chronic disease. (And I don't like that 90% of people in hospitals are there because of easily preventable disease. Where I live it is a massive cost to the government and it could be used for quality education instead).

If that is self righteous then show me to my high horse.


Gluten intolerance means you can eat literally everything but three types of grain plants.

In the books I mentioned, you'll be blown away at how much food there is to eat, and how little of it contains wheat, bulgur or rye. And even if some recipes do, you can substitute those with dozens of other ingredients.

The books also contain thousands of references to peer reviewed studies. I mentioned those because they contain a lot of recipes too, but if you want one that is purely scientific then there is always "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. After reading that you'd be INSANE to keep eating any animal products.

All of the evidence is in these books, and I'm sure if you take the time to read them you'll see (like I did) how wrong the modern lifestyles are.

Also being lactose intolerant, I'm sure you know you can enjoy many different types of milk such as rice/soy/hemp/coconut/hazelnut/cashew/almond etc

I understand that you have to be more careful about what you eat being gluten intolerant, but you don't have to be a victim to it, read the books I have suggested and you'll be able to live your life to the fullest.

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

"No tolerance of intolerance!!" LOL

This would have been better if he was raving at an equally rabid christian warrior.

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

I can agree with that, it is an issue...I just don't think it applies to this video where he was fired because the business found his behavior unacceptable.

The facebook post thing, it depends on the opinion. For instance, it's some people's opinion that 5 year old girls want to have sex (just to go back to an earlier example). Expressing that opinion, while legal, is certainly reason to fire someone IMO, because it would definitely hurt the company if it came out they hire people that publicly state that, and indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the company supports that sentiment. EDIT: I think that's best left up to the boss, but should be indicated in the contract what's expected and what's unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated claims by competitors is not the same thing as video proof of someone's actions....it doesn't mean people don't still make unsubstantiated claims to other's detriment, but isn't applicable to THIS situation.

It's not a PC police issue because the PC police didn't cause this action, it was taken precipitously by the employer. In fact, there's little indication the protesters even knew who he was, much less where he worked.

Yes, the WBC have the right to be disgusting...just as I have the right to not hire them because I find them disgusting...right? I would also defend to the death their right to be offensive, but not the right to have no social consequence for their words and acts. The two don't go together, in fact the latter would make the former intolerable.
I would certainly rail against a LAW that bars some kind of speech criminally, but never the public's right to decide for themselves what they find appropriate, or the right to not support people they find disgusting and/or dangerous.

If you want to publicly espouse your positions, and you care, you should do a little checking to be sure your boss won't be so offended by you that he no longer wants you as an employee. If you work for a giant corporation, you should understand it comes with conditions like 'don't publicly say or do things that, if seen, would injure the business'. It is controlling, yes, but not forced. It's a contract...you get to work there and be paid, they get to tell you what's unacceptable to them.

Not all companies think or operate that way. It's limiting, but if you find that methodology unacceptable, don't work for a company with a 'behavioral standards' clause in your contract.

The PC police aren't needed. They didn't have to go after the company, the company took action on it's own. Any guess as to exactly WHY they took this action is just that, a guess, but they have SAID it was based on their outrage, and they were not under any pressure YET to act...that's a good indicator to me that they just found him disgusting and fired him because they don't want to employ people they wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.

If there were laws requiring them to fire him, I would be right there with you saying it's terrible. Since it's the company took action by itself, ostensively for their own reasons, I'm not bothered in the least...except by those defending the racist's right to keep his job...a right that never existed.

Yes...there COULD be abuse by PC groups (EDIT: or non PC groups...religious groups use that methodology often) pressuring companies into this kind of reaction, and that's bad....but not here. In fact, you seem to want to remove the decision from the company...which leaves it in the hands of the masses, exactly what you DON'T want.

It HAS been my behavior being vilified. I'm a legal marijuana patient, but I'm not protected from discrimination based on my prescribed medicine. it doesn't even have to be publicly known, they can test me for it. I dislike that, but I do agree a company has a right to do so.
I accept it as a cost of having the same freedom to decide who I hire.

Again, I do see this CAN and HAS been abused by 'pc thugs'...I just disagree that that happened at all in THIS case.

Again, intentional infliction of emotional distress is also an actual legal charge, and can be prosecuted. It does not have to be irreparable harm, that's never been the standard for harm. Aggressive use of 'hate speech' does meet the standard in many if not most places....but he's not being prosecuted, at worst you might say he was persecuted.

I agree that there is a danger with the PC groups exerting too much control over others, but looking at this case by itself, I don't think it is in that category.