Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Secondhand Revenant]

No, you should probably stick to the obvious differences between policing, and the condemnation by your peers. It's a danger of argument from analogy, that you get lost in it.

You might also want to consider that what you want is, what? To have an external authority to reach in and overrule private an institutional employment choices? To shut up Twitter? Sounds to me like you just don't like how the chips are falling, and instead of defending ideas, people would rather play the victim.

Sure. Whatever floats your boat, chief. Just remember that no matter how much you tell yourself you're one of the good people to whom... how did you put it... "backwards thinking" would never occur, one day you'll find yourself on the wrong end of this.

Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense

Care to elaborate on who "we" and "those other people" are? Also, what's the "plan"? Not being insufferably judgmental and devoid of compassion? Crazy plan you're hatching their, Jack. Stop being so human, it'll get in the way of all the wonderful progress that's happening.

Yes not approving of sexism is terrible and makes kittens cry, you got me!

But nah its fucking obvious. He is suggesting people will be on the wrong side of these tactics and apparently his way of handling it is to not use said tactics. Seems like a shitty argument, why the hell would it stop people from using said tactics if we do not? What makes someone think said tactic is okay is supposed to be that they saw someone else use it? Pfft.

And that human thing, really XD

I might as well jump to cheap excuses and say I'm just being human. Try a real argument

 

[Jack Action]

Sure you are. They are able to do it. There are no thought police stopping them. What stops them is the judgement of others. They don't get their racist sexist hugboxes.

Ostracized by everyone? Lol hyperbole is a terrible argument. But sure it is reasonable depending on their views. For example supporting genocide would be worth said reaction.

Haha, good bait, I nearly took it. I'll tell you the same thing I told brass: one day, you'll find yourself expressing the wrong opinion. Whether intentionally or not.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense

So, what, this is a preventative measure? We're justified in doing this because they're wrong and we can't allow them to do it for the wrong reasons?

No. I'm saying that your suggestion is as effective as magic charm as a preventative measure. Not doing it is not going to prevent other people from trying it.

 

[Czann]

This is the world we live in.

A non-official Stasi/Gestapo hybrid thought police using political correctness gone mad to force their stupid ideology down the majority's throat.

It's 1984 but not instituted by a government but by Tumblr and their ilk.

It's just too bad that none of that is really true, just the talking-points of people who miss being able to express their backwards thinking. Nobody ever thought it would be a smooth transitional period while power was democratized across race and gender, but this is still always sad to see.

At best people who talk about "PC gestapo" believe what you're saying, and are mistaken, or don't and use that language to cover for their true, ugly feelings. It is so fortunate then, that like many of the big debates, the power is being taken away from such people too quickly and thoroughly for the complaints to matter.

A distinguished man loses his job because of a stupid joke due to an anonymous, faceless mob of hollering banshees and an institution too spineless, too coward (also full of said screaming nulls) to face them.

An apology would be enough but the mob wants blood and suffering.

Small steps towards a bloodthirsty totalitarian mob rule.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Sure you are. They are able to do it. There are no thought police stopping them. What stops them is the judgement of others. They don't get their racist sexist hugboxes.

Ostracized by everyone? Lol hyperbole is a terrible argument. But sure it is reasonable depending on their views. For example supporting genocide would be worth said reaction.

Haha, good bait, I nearly took it. I'll tell you the same thing I told brass: one day, you'll find yourself expressing the wrong opinion. Whether intentionally or not.

And? So I need what to stop that?

When it comes I argue for why it isn't wrong. I don't cower and hope if I don't say a word when others are wrong they won't dispute it when they think I am.

 

[VincentX3]

"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."

So I guess he was right?
Talk about not getting a simple joke. :'l

Nice Catch-22, Joseph Heller would be genuinely appalled no doubt.

"People always complain when you hit them." *hits people* "See? Whining like bitches!" I guess it makes for a good show though, if you're already totally on board with the general sentiment.

I would just say that people tend to complain, you know, say you make a new movie with a female cast. You might piss off a bunch of boys who want their Ghostbusters? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than yes, people love to complain, because their lives aren't fulfilling without complaining of course.

Still it's way to over the top to lose your job for, women or not. :l
Especially since he had a pretty long carrier too.

Please read the book then, if you don't get how you presented a classic catch-22; it's all very clear.

Or you could just quote\answer people like a normal person, without trying to make a reference out of everything?
I'm pretty sure that was it though, people just love complaining, if it wasn't then whatever.

Point is, losing a job and potentially ruining someone's life over what is a small remark and a joke is nothing to defend these "women" for.

 

[Jack Action]

Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense

So, what, this is a preventative measure? We're justified in doing this because they're wrong and we can't allow them to do it for the wrong reasons?

No. I'm saying that your suggestion is as effective as magic charm as a preventative measure. Not doing it is not going to prevent other people from trying it.

You're justifying this by claiming your opponents would do it too were they in your position. They would. AND IT WOULD STILL BE FUCKING WRONG. It doesn't matter which side's holding the hammer, the problem is the hammer even exists in the first place. There is no side that has the right to this. Not yours, not theirs, not God's.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Lets deal with one wrong statement at a time.

He was awarded the Nobel in 2001 for his work from the very early 80's. Want to start over from there or is your mind so made up that reality has no impact on the end result?

I hope you realize you just told Panda he's wrong, detached from reality, and then proceeded to repeat exactly what he said (namely that the prof got a Nobel in 2001).

You should read a post up.

It starts with Brass saying that people are most productive in their 20's and 30s.

Panda replies with the guy being 72 and winning a prize in 2001.

Do you really miss what Panda was clearly trying to imply?

 

[Czann]

Nope. Awarded a prize in 2001 for his work in 1980's.

I don't give a damn for when he got a Nobel. He did.

The members of the Internet Outrage Machine wouldn't get third place in a Science Fair even if they all worked together.

 

[Jack Action]

You should read a post up.

It starts with Brass saying that people are most productive in their 20's and 30s.

Panda replies with the guy being 72 and winning a prize in 2001.

Do you really miss what Panda was clearly trying to imply?

Apparently. Alternately, maybe he was raised to respect his elders and thinks it's wrong to sic an internet mob on a 72-year-old man.

 

[Czann]

Nope. Awarded a prize in 2001 for his work in 1980's.

I don't give a damn for when he got a Nobel. He did.

The members of the Internet Outrage Machine wouldn't get third place in a Science Fair even if they all worked together.

Bill Cosby may have committed a grave crime. That's for the judicial system to decide.

This man made a joke.

HUGE difference.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense

So, what, this is a preventative measure? We're justified in doing this because they're wrong and we can't allow them to do it for the wrong reasons?

No. I'm saying that your suggestion is as effective as magic charm as a preventative measure. Not doing it is not going to prevent other people from trying it.

You're justifying this by claiming your opponents would do it too were they in your position. They would. AND IT WOULD STILL BE FUCKING WRONG. It doesn't matter which side's holding the hammer, the problem is the hammer even exists in the first place. There is no side that has the right to this. Not yours, not theirs, not God's.

No, I am not. I am not justifying it at all, I am arguing against your reason against it. This isn't a justification, viewing it like that is making you miss the entire argument. Stop inserting shit that I didn't say.

I am saying your argument that they will hold the hammer one day is worthless. Whatever I do they will hold it regardless. It does not prevent them from using it if I don't so that sucks as a counterargument.

I see no problem with using the hammer. People complaining that it is wrong is not an argument. I don't need to justify it if I don't get a real argument to not. The only problem I see is when it is used wrong. Much as I don't mind democracy when the votes are right, not so much if we get laws banning gay marriage or the like. The problem isn't the method, it's the goal.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You should read a post up.

It starts with Brass saying that people are most productive in their 20's and 30s.

Panda replies with the guy being 72 and winning a prize in 2001.

Do you really miss what Panda was clearly trying to imply?

Apparently. Alternately, maybe he was raised to respect his elders and thinks it's wrong to sic an internet mob on a 72-year-old man.

Respect his elders? XD

But seriously, that would make his post a total non sequitur to Brass talking about when a scientist is most productive. Has jack shit to do with his point. You're reaching when you have to interpret it as a non sequitur to defend it.

 

[Jack Action]

No, I am not. I am not justifying it at all, I am arguing against your reason against it. This isn't a justification, viewing it like that is making you miss the entire argument. Stop inserting shit that I didn't say.

I am saying your argument that they will hold the hammer one day is worthless. Whatever I do they will hold it regardless. It does not prevent them from using it if I don't so that sucks as a counterargument.

I see no problem with using the hammer. People complaining that it is wrong is not an argument. I don't need to justify it if I don't get a real argument to not. The only problem I see is when it is used wrong. Much as I don't mind democracy when the votes are right, not so much if we get laws banning gay marriage or the like. The problem isn't the method, it's the goal.

If you're going to accuse me of misunderstanding your argument, you may want to make sure you're not doing the same thing, because that's not what my argument was; I never said your opponents will hold the hammer one day. My argument was that you're cheering now, because the standards for hammer-targeting (for the moment) ensure you're not one of the targets. But those standards have a habit of getting lower and lower. Cue accusations of slippery slope argument.

Respect his elders? XD

But seriously, that would make his post a total non sequitur to Brass talking about when a scientist is most productive. Has jack shit to do with his point. You're reaching when you have to interpret it as a non sequitur to defend it.

Hey, let's ask Panda himself instead of trying to divine what he was implying or not. Agreed?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

No, I am not. I am not justifying it at all, I am arguing against your reason against it. This isn't a justification, viewing it like that is making you miss the entire argument. Stop inserting shit that I didn't say.

I am saying your argument that they will hold the hammer one day is worthless. Whatever I do they will hold it regardless. It does not prevent them from using it if I don't so that sucks as a counterargument.

I see no problem with using the hammer. People complaining that it is wrong is not an argument. I don't need to justify it if I don't get a real argument to not. The only problem I see is when it is used wrong. Much as I don't mind democracy when the votes are right, not so much if we get laws banning gay marriage or the like. The problem isn't the method, it's the goal.

If you're going to accuse me of misunderstanding your argument, you may want to make sure you're not doing the same thing, because that's not what my argument was; I never said your opponents will hold the hammer one day. My argument was that you're cheering now, because the standards for hammer-targeting (for the moment) ensure you're not one of the targets. But those standards have a habit of getting lower and lower. Cue accusations of slippery slope argument.

And my point is my use of it will not somehow enable the next use. It's not like legal precedent. When the next person does it only an idiot will try to justify it with "Well other people did it!" That isn't going to be the excuse they use.

And standards aren't going to get 'lower'. They will shift according to opinion. Lower implies it's some defined scale. It isn't.

And if you make a slippery slope argument you should expect that. The way to not make one would be to show how it logically follows, not just try to set up a boogeyman.

Lastly, pay some attention to the democracy comparison. Sometimes it's not the method, it's the goal. And the method won't vanish.