Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yes, because he didn't know the comment would get him fired, the comment SHOULDN'T have gotten him fired, and wouldn't have in most normal circumstances.

Yep, international summit held in Seoul .... normal.

That definitely depends on the importance of the rules were talking about. If the rules are pointless or arbitrarily then I don't see how following them could possibly be important.

Yeah, heaven forbid if an invited spokesperson is expected not to give a speech where his own friends say it was inappropriate. You know ... or maybe he shouldn't be expected to hold an honorary position at a university that has had one of his colleagues arrested for sexually assaulting and molesting 58 women only 6 months prior. Heaven forbid if a company is in damage control and he would realise that something that might provide a thumbs up, and tanking it, insulting his hosts, and tanking it in two more interviews in defence of himself, is grounds for termination.

As if that would be grounds for dismissal from a largely image-based honorary position at a university? You've convinced me ... he TOTALLY nailed it. He did SUCH A GREAT JOB that his university fired him SOLELY because it's only downhill from here. Not because people like me, who is apparently the only one with a memory over 6 months long, remember when the UCL is trying to bury its very recent past, and doing nothing would be seen as a second indictment against its promise to provide a gender equality environment.

You'll forgive me if I find your argument vapid.

Maybe he was a shit employee also, in which case his termination was fair, but then that has nothing to do with the comment he was fired immediately after. Anyway, you just said playing by the rules is more important than skill, so why do you keep defending his dismissal by arguing that he lacked skill?

Because I don't need to? I can show you people terminated from the SAME POSITION with zero fuss, and zero muss. Simply because of their image and nothing else. Nobody kicked up a fuss then, it seems fucking ridiculous that people should kick up a fuss about this. His position was largely bragging points ... suddenly the bragging points seemed less 'bragable' (to coin a word) (edit: Actually, scratch that. 'bragable' is a word).

What "garbage"? You make it sound like he was making a personal attack against specific people. Maybe we're reading the comment differently, but to me it reads like mild observational humor. If it was him going on about his ex-wife or something that would be worse, still not deserving of termination, but definitely more inappropriate.

'Mild observational humour' ... I -- ... nope. No, I'm not reading his comments differently. I just seem to trying to rationalize both sides of the argument, rather than labouring in ignorance pretending like this form of termination doesn't happen.

Lol. I've said worse things than he did while at work. I'm pretty sure my bosses have as well. As have we all at some point. If you work in some sugarplum palace where people always act like complete saints 100% percent of the time then so be it. But that doesn't mean those are the standards everywhere, and frankly I'd be nervous working at a place that uptight and unforgiving.

Yeah, and funnily enough I don't bring the comments to the general public. I especially don't if I'm a spokesperson. I especially especially don't when if becomes apparent that my university is paying me merely for the brand label I bring.

Fine, victory is yours. I'd just never heard the term used in a manner where it wasn't intended as a derogatory word for old people.

Oh, I meant it as a derogatory comment. In the same way if I fuck up, I expect someone to tell me I fucked up.

You said he wasn't good at image. That goes beyond one single comment. The fact that you don't mind ruining someone's life over a single almost completely innocuous comment aside, you claim to have knowledge of his general character as if you know him personally.

When did I claim this? Also, yes ... his life is ruined. What will he do without his honorary university position? What will he do as a 71 year old successful scientist, with a wife also employed at the same university as an honorary university professor? I weep for his utterly destroyed livelihood.

Also, he shouldn't have to fucking apologize for this, and forcing someone to make an apology over an issue this trivial is asking for a "non-pology" as you like to call it.

You know what? That would have been preferable over his performance over the subsequent airwaves...

Then I feel sorry for you, and sorry for the fact that you accept that kind of thing. I can't believe how lightly you talk about being fired. As if it isn't the kind of thing that can ruin a person's life and career. As if finding a job is super fucking easy. If I lost my job, my reaction wouldn't be "boo-fucking-hoo" and I don't even have a good one.

Might have something to do with me having once been self-employed. I'm capable of being this thing called 'levelled' and realising that the world is not merely black and white. Realising that this is not the first nor the last of people being fired over problems of their image of their career that exists solely because of their image.

I weep for him.

You're right, they didn't execute him. I guess we should happy that saying women cry isn't a capital offense on the level of mass murder. :/ Do you even read your own comments before you post them? Losing your job isn't a chance to learn from your mistakes, by then it's TOO LATE!!! The way you learn from your mistakes is by having you're boss point out your mistakes to you, and telling you not to repeat them. I've made mistakes on the job before. REAL MISTAKES. As in things that actually impacted the work I was doing. Did my boss chew me out a bit? Ya, sure. But I became a better employee because I learned from it. But you can't learn and improve as an employee if you've been fired.

Hyperbole, got it. He's 71 years old. He's not a junior employee in some radioshack.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

No, actually I believe it is the point. The entire point. What other point is there? The legality of it? I don't think we're disputing that.

You keep droning on about how common and normal and not-a-big-deal this is, which isn't even remotely true, as if prior precedent would make this more acceptable.

Right, it's totally abnormal for people to be fired over image? Whatever. This is perhaps the reason why you didn't even bother to quote the rest of my message where I give an example of a person far more famous and powerful (with far more allies) than this Tim Hunt getting fired solely for her image. Funnily enough, largely from the same position Tim Hunt was getting axed from ... seems pretty hypocritical to me.

As for 'droning' on, you're the evidently entitled person telling private people how they should manage their associations. Particularly honorary positions. Why not take your moralising and come up with a law that should dictate who universities should consider for honorary status?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

Free speech is a term of art referring to the legal precept of protected speech under the US 1st amendment. If you want to make a case for expression without consequences, you need a new phrase for that.

Free-speech is a concept that is bigger than the USA, and predates the USA by many centuries. Feel free to let me know what is and isn't regionally permissable, but there's no reason for me to limit the definition to what is law in your neck of the woods.

At any stretch. It's fucking difficult to argue that you're culturally embodying the ideal of free-speech when you're actively using yours to stifle everyone elses under threat of pariah status and joblessness, no? I get that some people are imagining scales-of-justice here, but I'm imagining pitch-forks and torches. I certainly don't think this is terribly progressive behaviour, or anything to be applauded.

Once I sift through the inflammatory language and unfair metaphors, you're actually just disagreeing with the severity and broadness of the reaction. A man who was hired for what amounts to a glorified PR/Fundraising position said something in that capacity which caused his employer to fire him. That you may agree with what he said, or hate that it's possible for him to be subject to public censure really doesn't touch anything like a free speech debate.

I'm as free to organize a campaign to have you fired for your speech, as you're free to speak. You can't separate those rights of individuals to assemble and express themselves, just because you don't like the ideology of one.

You're throwing out all of these emotional appeals, but there's nothing concrete.

"It's not censorship, it's social consequence". Got it.

Concrete? As if we're trying to resolve something?

Group x has the right to destroy individual y's livelihood/social standing over a comment (possibly taken out of context by an irresponsible media) but I'm not allowed to say what I think of the behaviour/values of group x?

That's what we're doing here. You can tell me over and over how how many laws weren't infringed upon, but that's not gonna make me think that these people aren't gross and that their behaviour isn't irresponsible. That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.

I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out.

What I want is for people/companies to stand up to the twitter mob when they think they're wrong or being unreasonable, which I have a feeling would be pretty damn often. I exactly want people to feel like they can have opinions, and opinions on opinions... I don't think that's what we have, and I don't like that.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip - Anyone who wants the full quotes can see the post above. No need to waste lots of page space with it.

1. I summed up what you said.

2. The pressure is applied to individual y through employer Z, who, depending on the example, may or may not have a damn thing to do with the grievance... It sounds a lot like you're suggesting that might is right, that it's fine to wield "power" because it can be done? Or is the argument that 2 wrongs do indeed make a right? Or maybe you feel there's nothing questionable about the behaviour at all?

I wonder how you feel about blackmail?

3. Are we only talking about this 1 example now? I've been talking more broadly.

"You kind of ARE saying that your "feelzies" should be law". Elaborate please? "I think this is indecent and I'm saying as much." Seems to be fine when it's coming from another source, but not when I'm saying it... In a less extreme way, might I add.

I've yet to call for anyone's head, as much as I appreciate your attempts to paint me in the same light.

4. ...

5. Is that what habitually leaning on the employers of perceived ideological opponents to punish them for their sins is?... "Not agreeing"? ... Jesus.

You know... It sounds a lot like you're trying to convince me that there is nothing sinister at work here. Then you say things like:

"Words hurt. Words were what made Herman Goering strong. Words have a lot of power. Language is a weapon, and control of language is like control of terrain in a battle."

And... It makes me wonder.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

This is quite literally nothing, not a real response, not a real point made, no actual counter-points offered.

Very well. I'll say goodbye until the next contentious comment then.

Go careful with the low content posting.

Edit - Whoops, botched the quote.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

This is quite literally nothing, not a real response, not a real point made, no actual counter-points offered.

Very well. I'll say goodbye until the next contentious comment then.

Go careful with the low content posting.

Edit - Whoops, botched the quote.

You'll say goodbye instead of actually offering more than your opinion, dressed up as something more? I don't think I'm the one who's running from content here.

If the scope of all of this is getting away from you though, why not just answer this basic question:

How can this:

I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out.

and

That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.

Both be true for you?

Your feelings have been essentially hurt, because society doesn't share your "subjective sense of decency", but the feelings of that society can't be a factor, they're "gross"?

It's not "Low Content" to ignore your attempt to get away from the facts here.

All of this remember, is based on (in part) your claim that,

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Where is this moneyed mafia-esque group? The Mafia by definition was "Organized Crime", so where is this organization with it's "Money... Control"?

Sounds like you really DO want speech without consequences, including being questioned about your statements. Please don't try to run away under cover of a threat of moderation, and pretend that what you're doing isn't wrong.

The sexual tension between us is too much. Can we just get a room already?

I meant word content, not... I didn't want to see you moderated for your single sentence post.

I actually did ask you some questions and shared some opinions, so I wasn't particularly impressed by your response. Though I would have respected if you didn't want to engage with it.

By the way, "opinion"... Yes, "opinion"! I'm happy in the knowledge that this is what I'm offering. This is what I've been offering the whole time. Yes... Obviously. What are you trying to say?

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out

Sexual Harassment Panda:
That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.


I don't understand why you think those 2 held opinions somehow detract from eachother... They clearly don't. Try explaining why they do.

Where is this moneyed mafia-esque group? The Mafia by definition was "Organized Crime", so where is this organization with it's "Money... Control"?

I said the Mafia leaned on people for money, and that these people lean on others for control of what can be said/thought. In this instance "said", in the wider picture and in the long run... "thought".

Sounds like you really DO want speech without consequences, including being questioned about your statements. Please don't try to run away under cover of a threat of moderation, and pretend that what you're doing isn't wrong.

"Questioned". Is that what happened? It sounds a bit like a media source did a pretty shady job representing what a man was saying, and then some people demanded his head. You might call that "questioning", but I would not.

Your rhetoric is so out of whack. What I'm doing is not "wrong". I'm only having an opinion. I'm not lobbying, I'm not affecting change. I'm not doing much of anything. How is this so problematic?

Your feelings have been essentially hurt, because society doesn't share your "subjective sense of decency", but the feelings of that society can't be a factor, they're "gross"?

Think you might be imagining that the twitter crusaders are more representative of society than they really are. I think you might be imagining that they're more informed than they really are too. There was a scandal over something that happened on a radio show in my country a few years ago. A heck of a lot more people complained than listened to the damn thing. So... They got their information from media outlets that want to make a scandal to make money? More people got that same information 2nd hand from friends?... And all these people now have an opinion on it based on those possible misrepresentations and hearsay.

That's outrage culture for you. Don't underestimate the power of social-pressure, and how readily people will dogpile without having the full picture... Especially if it's for the perceived greater good or whatever.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

The core of this, that you come to Panda, and that all of the people here are dancing around is:

"Questioned". Is that what happened? It sounds a bit like a media source did a pretty shady job representing what a man was saying, and then some people demanded his head. You might call that "questioning", but I would not.

No. Actually what he said, in total, WAS STILL GOING TO GET HIM FIRED. That some people don't LIKE that doesn't change that simple reality. When he was later asked to clarify he stood by those remarks, so any confusion over the initial remarks doesn't matter.

What this comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is a very wordy way of saying, "I don't like this, because he didn't say anything wrong really."

Yes he did, and while you're welcome to share his views or be distressed by their reception, please just own that and stop these games.

In essence... "He did wrong". I already knew you felt that way...

When you say it "WAS STILL GOING TO GET HIM FIRED" you're saying that without evidence. The reporting and the moral outrage played a very real part in the thing that ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, and you can't separate those things based on the hypothetical that you ran inside your own head.

What this comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is a very wordy way of saying, "I don't like this, because he didn't say anything wrong really."

I think what we're actually saying is that it took more than the 1 element (Tim Hunt) to make what happened happen, and that the failing isn't all his own. Don't confuse the lack of outrage in certain individuals for endorsement, that's stupid.

I think "what this comes down to" is that there are people who love to criticise the values/opinions/behaviour of others, but can't handle it when their own is called into question. I have questions about the morality of all of this, do you understand that? I honestly think it's strange that the people doing this seem so resolute about it all.

Yes he did, and while you're welcome to share his views or be distressed by their reception, please just own that and stop these games

What games? I've been very clear that I'm unimpressed by the reception his words got after being filtered through media sources looking for hits, to a public that's looking to be outraged.

What part don't you get? And when are you gonna tell me why those 2 opinions from before can't co-exist?

 

[Olas]

No, actually I believe it is the point. The entire point. What other point is there? The legality of it? I don't think we're disputing that.

You keep droning on about how common and normal and not-a-big-deal this is, which isn't even remotely true, as if prior precedent would make this more acceptable.

Right, it's totally abnormal for people to be fired over image? Whatever. This is perhaps the reason why you didn't even bother to quote the rest of my message where I give an example of a person far more famous and powerful (with far more allies) than this Tim Hunt getting fired solely for her image. Funnily enough, largely from the same position Tim Hunt was getting axed from ... seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You still don't seem to understand what hypocrisy is, but I'll set semantics aside. Your argument seems to be that this has happened before elsewhere, so that makes it okay. AS IF PRIOR PRECEDENT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE ACCEPTABLE.

And I didn't quote the rest of your comment because I didn't see how it was relevant.

As for 'droning' on, you're the evidently entitled person telling private people how they should manage their associations. Particularly honorary positions. Why not take your moralising and come up with a law that should dictate who universities should consider for honorary status?

I already told you that I thought bosses should be legally permitted to fire anyone for any reason. Kinda like how I think people should be legally allowed to fly swasticas over their house if they want. Just because I don't agree with legally banning something, that doesn't mean I support the behavior or agree with their decision to do it on moral grounds.

Lastly, I'm not TELLING anyone how to run their business. I disagree with this decision, it's an opinion. Kinda like how people have opinions about politics and other things larger than themselves. If that makes me "entitled" then I'm entitled. I also have opinions about the Iraq War, that doesn't mean I think presidents should take orders from me when deciding foreign policy.

Frankly I'm getting kinda sick of your accusatory language. The fact that we disagree doesn't require you to diride me everywhere you can.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Your argument seems to be that this has happened before elsewhere, so that makes it okay. AS IF PRIOR PRECEDENT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE ACCEPTABLE.

Yes, it has happened countless times. Also, yeah ... precedent does have that effect on people. If it happens a whole bunch of times before ... and nobody seemed to have a problem then, what makes this any different?

I already told you that I thought bosses should be legally permitted to fire anyone for any reason. Kinda like how I think people should be legally allowed to fly swasticas over their house if they want. Just because I don't agree with legally banning something, that doesn't mean I support the behavior or agree with their decision to do it on moral grounds.

Good! By all means ... complain away. Just don't call it 'abnormal'.

Lastly, I'm not TELLING anyone how to run their business. I disagree with this decision, it's an opinion. Kinda like how people have opinions about politics and other things larger than themselves. If that makes me "entitled" then I'm entitled. I also have opinions about the Iraq War, that doesn't mean I think presidents should take orders from me when deciding foreign policy.

You disagree that honorary positions should be a university decision? What does this even mean exactly?

>>> "Oh, no ... I don't disagree with the idea of hiring and firing people over their image... I totally get behind why they do that sort of stuff. I just don't agree..."

What does this even mean?

Frankly I'm getting kinda sick of your accusatory language. The fact that we disagree doesn't require you to diride me everywhere you can.

As opposed to the person who said;

"Then I feel sorry for you, and sorry for the fact that you accept that kind of thing...

 

[Lightknight]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

Yeh...

The media who misrepresent to get a story are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The crowd who mob/dogpile before getting the facts are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The employers who crack under the pressure and fire people just to save face are culpable for their lack of spine.

The idea that this is all on the individual that said the thing is fucking stupid. Multiple forces conspire to make these controversies happen, and they're all responsible for the parts they play. To suggest otherwise seems to be to suggest that these journos and twitter activists have tiny-squirrel-brains and can't be expected to behave reasonably, and to use slithers of information wisely. No...

If you're willing to ruin the livelihood/social standing of individuals based on low-rent journalism, herd behaviour and some vague idea of "doing what's right"... You might want to reassess your values. Are you a thoughtful human being who assesses each case individually, do you withhold your opinion until you feel like it's sufficiently informed to go public with? Or are you just following the herd and its leaders? A thoughtless, willing pawn for some media-class assholes with an agenda?

 

[Lightknight]

There is nothing in your or his post that hasn't been conclusively addressed and abandoned by others making the same points earlier in this thread. There is no need to rehash them because some people have short memories.

They were generally dropped by you in that you did not respond to the points and just started to then respond to other posters in the thread until they brought up the same points at which point you would then move on to another poster to respond to. At no point did posters here themselves drop these points except in an attempt to avoid circular debate with you, a thing which I have plenty of time to do.

Besides, you're not exactly the forum police. No need to criticize posters for not meeting your own personal qualifications for what should or shouldn't be "rehashed".

Do you feel comfortable demonizing a man that was encouraging women to enter STEM fields and getting him removed from his position? What cause do you feel like you're justifying this in the name of? Feminism? No, his loss was a loss for feminism as he was quite clearly encouraging women to join STEM fields. So then whom are you defending here? People who get offended at jokes they don't fully understand because they weren't given the context by media? Is it so important to word police society that we want to harm everyone who says anything that even mildly seems offensive regardless of context?

This would be as silly as Al Sharpton saying, "What is a racist? A racist says, 'Black people are dumb'" and then getting fired due to articles running stories about how Al Sharpton said "Black people are dumb" without any context. In fact, it's exactly that silly because the entire point of the quoted paragraph was to give an example of what a chauvinist would say and the followup paragraph was to implore women to rise above that kind of bigotry and keep pursuing a career in the hard sciences.

As long as you continue to support the notion that he was actually being sexist then I will continue to bring up the same points that make you wrong. Either agree to disagree or keep arguing the point. You don't get to be the arbitrator of when someone is "rehashing". You are rehashing your notion that he was being sexist and that is also a subject that your collaborators dropped once the full context of his speech was revealed. You don't see me complaining that you are rehashing. Instead you see me repeating points of evidence that conflict with your claims. That is the hallmark of a legitimate debate. When points are being addressed rather than handwaving away points or strawmanning.

But this is a man who has been falsely accused out of ignorance to the point of facing significant personal losses. I will champion his cause until you and/or I are blue in the face because it doesn't look like he has that many allies and he certainly deserves them. This lynch mob mentality has absolutely got to be checked. Let's try to have some semblance of order in getting at least some of the facts straight.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

Yeh...

The media who misrepresent to get a story are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The crowd who mob/dogpile before getting the facts are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The employers who crack under the pressure and fire people just to save face are culpable for their lack of spine.

The idea that this is all on the individual that said the thing is fucking stupid. Multiple forces conspire to make these controversies happen, and they're all responsible for the parts they play. To suggest otherwise seems to be to suggest that these journos and twitter activists have tiny-squirrel-brains and can't be expected to behave reasonably, and to use slithers of information wisely. No...

If you're willing to ruin the livelihood/social standing of individuals based on low-rent journalism, herd behaviour and some vague idea of "doing what's right"... You might want to reassess your values. Are you a thoughtful human being who assesses each case individually, do you withhold your opinion until you feel like it's sufficiently informed to go public with? Or are you just following the herd and its leaders? A thoughtless, willing pawn for some media-class assholes with an agenda?

There is nothing in your or his post that hasn't been conclusively addressed and abandoned by others making the same points earlier in this thread. There is no need to rehash them because some people have short memories.

You keep accusing me of not saying anything whilst saying significantly less.

Posting just to be dismissive is low-impact. It might even get you moderator attention. I've warned you about this once already and it resulted in you becoming indignant at me about it in comical fashion.

You didn't conclusively rebut me, you didn't answer my questions... I'm unsatisfied. Stop acting like you took us to school. You did no such thing. You knee-jerked a response based on some scummy journalism and when the facts came out you dug your heels in rather than admitting that the circumstances surrounding the whole thing were absurd and misleading.

Trying people in kangaroo court based on tailored evidence is not progressive. It's not even close to progressive. It's some echoes-of-the-past bullshit if ever I've seen it. This wasn't a good thing, this was a dumb thing, an irresponsible thing. Anyone who helped instigate it should reassess their values and how they're conducting themselves, because this is shameful and we're rightly criticising it.