Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I can write a volume on something that doesn't actually offer anything, and I will have written more. Objectively however, I will not have done any better making a point. Discussions are not weighed by volume, but quality. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

In either case you'd still be coming up short, in my honest opinion.

There are 13 pages of this thread, and what I said was simply true. Nothing that you offered in your post is new to THIS THREAD, and I don't feel like repeating it. If you feel that means you need to threaten me with moderation, that is of course your right.

I'm not threatening you, I don't have the ability to threaten you. I'm telling you that what you're doing could be frowned upon by moderators... It's different. It's not my fault you can't separate "low-content" as an insult from what moderators might describe as "low-content". I was genuinely trying to help you in the first instance.

If it's the case that I didn't cover anything that hasn't already been covered(which I'm not sure I agree with, but is besides the point since you don't dictate forum etiquette) then your disapproval is already on the record too... So why are you still posting 1-note dismissive rubbish that is redundant by your own standards? Are you sure you're not trying to police the thread?

You're right, I didn't, the entire thread has acted to do that. I'm not alone here, and each page doesn't exist in a vacuum. You want to go over settled points because I suspect they are what you have. I don't because they are settled, and I don't want to waste time an energy on that. It's not rude to point that out, it isn't disruptive, it isn't low content.

It is low content, and redundant by your own criteria. I'm not convinced that the points are settled, that's your opinion that they are... So what? Impasse? If you don't want to waste time and energy on me, don't waste time and energy on me. That doesn't mean that I'm going to disappear from existence because you want me to. You don't respond to me for 2 days and then you give me a pointless, dismissive, utterly low-content post and I'm supposed to think that I'm the bad guy?

Nonsense. If you want this dropped, then drop it. You don't control what I do. I actually gave you an out earlier in the thread, and you came back at me afterwards. This is completely ridiculous.

If anything I would argue that cynically repeating discredited points from earlier in a thread to essentially necro the topic is far more against the spirit of honest discussion anyway.

I'm sharing opinions on a discussion board. You quit the discussion that we were having but pop back in periodically to be dismissive and add nothing to the discussion. You're in the wrong, and stop trying to police me.

Tried? Court? Colorful language doesn't shape reality, and I for one never claimed to be progressive.

What happened to language being everything? I thought it was the battleground and the weapons, and God-knows-what-else. Still... You're saying nothing here.

So you don't claim to be progressive. Whatever. The people performing these twitter-crusades most definitely do claim to be, those are the people I'm talking broadly about. This isn't all about you, that's why you shouldn't periodically arrive in the thread just to be dismissive and make it all about yourself.

No it isn't, as Paul and others have literally proven, it is incredibly routine.

You are welcome to re-do this entire thread if you want, but please don't get upset when people such as myself dismiss that strategy and point out why it can't work.

It being routine wouldn't make it right, and you're not making it sound like you think I should be welcome to say whatever I please, whether it's old or new ground(as defined by you)... You seem to have a problem with it.

I'm not upset, I'm confused by what you're doing. You're all over the map and not making a whole load of sense. You claim that you already discredited everything I'm saying. I read the whole thread, and I didn't see it. Sorry... I'm under no obligation to feel satisfied by what you've put out there.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Ok, stick with the Gallop, and argue with air then. I'll let the rest of the thread stand as my rebuttal.

I guess I'll just assume this was aimed at me.

You read a wiki page on logical-fallacies, congratulations... It's very impressive.

I could do what you do and just flap my arms in your general direction whilst reminiscing about imaginary past glories. Didn't you know that I proved all of your "points" wrong on page 1?... I didn't even post on page 1, that's how good I am, that's how enlightened I am, man! Check-mate!

Hope it was as good for you as it was for me.

 

[Galletea]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

Why make this many concessions though?

Now, an account by a European Commission official printed in The Times expands on the comments he made during the conference.

The official quotes Sir Tim as saying: ?It?s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?

?Now seriously, I?m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.?

The official also claimed that Sir Tim did not ?thank women for making lunch?, as was previously reported.

The story seems to be that a man was purposely misquoted by media sources to create a story, and that unscrupulous people jumped at the chance to sacrifice another individual to the gods of progress.

There is blatant wrong-doing here, and it really doesn't seem to be by Tim Hunt.

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-demands-apology-from-sir-tim-hunts-critics-and-claims-leaked-transcript-shows-sexist-comments-were-lighthearted-banter-10341160.html

Make your own mind up.

 

[Lightknight]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

If you happen to read the full quote, the guy was giving a speech encouraging women to pursue careers in STEM fields regardless of what chauvinists monsters (his words) may say to discourage them.

He was literally satirizing chauvinist idiots in support of females entering the scientific community and somehow people arrived at things like "Old man makes sexist remark". It horribly out of context. As with Panda's quote above, here is what he said in context:

"It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?

"Now seriously, I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me."

I would say shame on everyone who jumped to this conclusion. But the biggest share of the blame falls on the shoulders of the news agencies who made this singular joke into a click bait link without context. Then there's shame on the facility that pressured him to resign in response to the criminally libelous articles. But yeah, still shame on people who witch hunted this pro-feminism guy without reading anything into the context. Congratulations all of these people. They are the lynch mob who hung an innocent.

 

[Lightknight]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like SNIP

Well for one thing it's like times have changed, and people who used to be unable to stir public sentiment in their favor, now can. For another thing he had that chance, but instead decided to do a classic "Sorry-not-sorry" and stuck by what he said.

And so a man who's only remaining contribution was to draw a paycheck and be august, is doing less of both. The world is fine.

He was making a speech to encourage women to join the STEM fields. Who do you think wins for him being struck down? You say that just his joke is worthy of firing but does the context really make no difference to you? Does the fact that it's satire aimed against that sort of bigot rather than being expressed as a real sentiment entirely miss any criteria you have of wrong doing? How do you justify this to yourself? That you're striking down a man who was actively supporting feminism in the name of what? Feminism? That's (the notion of decrying a person's comments as sexist when they're actually satirizing sexists) a joke and you should know that full well.

Keep in mind that the full context of what he was saying is new news. You don't have to continue your witch hunt of this guy now that you know the full story but for some reason you're continuing it even after the context has been revealed and news organizations are beginning to redact their comments. Numerous other Nobel Laureates are beginning to speak out for him as well as people resigning from the University in disgust of the treatment Hunt recieved.

Connie St Lewis, the liar that broke the story in the first place, she dismissed him losing his job because he was forced to resign rather than being "fired" and the idiot goes on to say that the real problem is that no one is addressing the issue that there aren't more women in science. What a poor fool, to have just created a witch hunt against someone literally supporting women in joining the field and then to claim that no one's doing it.

What's the benefit now of imploring women to join the field? Some asshole like Connie St Lewis will just lie about what you said and set the whole world against you for doing it. Might as well just avoid any talk about women at all. That's what she's doing. She's actively damaging the pursuit and then bitching, like a fool, about how sad it is that no one is addressing the issue. What a joke. I hope she gets sued for libel. They already just discovered that she misrepresented her credentials but nothing came of that.

 

[Olas]

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?

Nothing. If it's wrong now it was wrong then. You aren't really standing by the argument that something is okay so long as it's been done before, are you? That's a gigantic can of worms.

Many things we consider horrible today used to be commonplace. I don't see how precedent can ever be used as justification.

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'.

Fine, I won't.

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?

I didn't think it was very confusing. I support the LEGAL RIGHT to do X (because of the precedent banning it would set), but that doesn't mean I like or encourage the act itself. In other words I don't "totally get behind why they would do that kind of stuff". I just think trying to enforce laws regarding what reasons an employer is allowed to fire someone for is unreasonable and ultimately futile since there are easy workarounds.

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...

Anyways ... sorry mate ... both of us sacrificed that moral highground of the argument LONG ago.[/quote]

What? I was trying to show some sympathy. What's wrong with that? Did you thing I was being sarcastic or something?

Anyway, I'm not trying to take the 'moral highground', I just prefer a civil conversation to one where both people are being rude and degrading. I'm sorry about jumping on your ass about the dinosaur comment, and anything else immature I said. Although I generally believe in being respectful towards those you disagree with, I slip up sometimes.

 

[Random Gamer]

But the biggest share of the blame falls on the shoulders of the news agencies who made this singular joke into a click bait link without context.

These journalists and those who do the same kind of dirty tricks are insane. This can only have one consequence, which is that part of the population just stops trusting the media and journalists.
This is tragic not because news media will lose revenue - I don't give much damn about that -, but because sooner or later, a major democracy will get into trouble and will have some rising group/party or even government that will want to curbstomp the press - and when this happens, only the level of trust and liking the people will still have for their media will be able to save them (and avoid a closer move towards tyranny).
Basically, such disgusting yellow journalism just increases the odds people will think "journalism is shit, we might as well get rid of it and we won't see the difference".

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Yes, how dare they report what a man said, then ask him to clarify it, then report that he said he stood by what he said. Monsters.

The media does a lot wrong, this is not one of those things.

A slightly more accurate way of stating this would be:

How dare the media selectively quote-mine a speech to create an artificial outrage incident where none existed, ask him to clarify his statement, allow him to honestly state how the the selective quote was part of a much larger statement that was actually a joke, then falsely claim he stood behind the distorted implication created with the selective quote-mining.

The media does a lot of wrong and this is a shining example of one of those things.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Yes, how dare they report what a man said, then ask him to clarify it, then report that he said he stood by what he said. Monsters.

The media does a lot wrong, this is not one of those things.

A slightly more accurate way of stating this would be:

How dare the media selectively quote-mine a speech to create an artificial outrage incident where none existed, ask him to clarify his statement, allow him to honestly state how the the selective quote was part of a much larger statement that was actually a joke, then falsely claim he stood behind the distorted implication created with the selective quote-mining.

The media does a lot of wrong and this is a shining example of one of those things.

The entire idea of "quote mining" falls apart because, once again, when asked to clarify his statement he stood by it. They didn't invent the quote, they didn't invent the outrage at the quote. They did what the media does, they dug up something and ran it, and people picked it up unlike MOST of what the media lays down.

Trying to shift blame from the man who SAID what he said, and stood by it, to the people who only reported what he said is just not working. What you and others don't seem to appreciate is that people can disagree with you about this, and NOT be corrupt, or evil, or tricky. You just happen to be both in the wrong, and on the wrong side of history here, but lucky for you, anonymous as well.

Now if you want to claim that his standing by that was falsified, that you need to prove.

The entire idea of quote-mining was already shown in this very thread when the entire statement was given, showing that the statement made was, indeed, within the context of the entire quote a jest, a jape, a self-depreciating bit of humor. When asked about the statement later, he maintained that the statement had been a joke, as it has been shown to actually be.

By isolating a couple of sentences from the context in which they were given, the reporter quote-mined, distorted the meaning of the statement. In effect, yes, the reporter falsified the statement and the follow-up questioning which did not give the full context of the quote-mined piece did create a false statement.

After all, the quote you are claiming as the evidence to call him guilty in the court of public opinion did not say what you have repeatedly claimed it said. The context of the statement shows that the statement was actually a joke and was presented as such to the audience to whom the statement was addressed.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to create here, but I have to try and deal with the facts before I can call someone guilty of something.

 

[Random Gamer]

You just happen to be both in the wrong, and on the wrong side of history here, but lucky for you, anonymous as well.

Thankfully, the last 30 years tend to show I'm on the "right side" and shit happens, alas, exactly as I feared it would.
As a friendly advice, I'd tell you to stockpile plenty of popcorn, considering how much "fun" lies ahead

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

*Snipped to save space*

You mean earlier in this thread, when that whole issue was trotted out, and then debunked since he defended the whole statement? Please don't try to repeat arguments that have been settled pages ago.

I n the interest of fairness, I went back to re-read that section of the thread. Your assessment of that part of the discussion appears flawed.

You debunked nothing. Indeed, I find it interesting that your rebuttal was to offer no evidence, claim your opinion as universal fact, and pointedly ignore the evidence brought forward. Specifically, on page 12 in post 388.

As for my own opinion, I have to two possible explanations for this discrepancy between your claim here and what is actually present on page 12 of this thread. 1) Either you are choosing deliberately to offer nothing constructive to the discussion by your actions of citing nothing, rebutting nothing and just dismissing statements out of hand, and generally taking a tone that is generally antagonistic. Or, 2) you honestly do not understand how you come across to others in text, in which case you are an interesting analog for the row over Tim Hunt.

Either way, seeing as how you offer nothing constructive in this conversation and are continually condescending to those who disagree with you (or at least that is how you come across in your text), I see little profit to be had continuing this banter. While you may choose to believe otherwise, I truly wish you the best and hope your weekend goes well.

Beyond that, I am out. Good day and goodbye.