Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Lightknight]

Judging from your posts below this one I'm quoting, I'll return the favor and advise you do the same.

Thank you for stepping in. I do appreciate it. I was unsure if I was the only person seeing this.

Yeah I know, I let myself get pulled in too often despite the lurker status I claim I have - my post count is proof enough of that. Its just some times and some people are too much to ignore. At any rate I'm still going to claim victory because it seems an actual real statement got squeezed out, even if it is just basically proof that: no, he wasn't actually reading any of your posts.

At least now we know. Otherwise this would have been one of those mysteries rattling around in the back of my brain until BAM aneurism.

Heh, he was right, I wasn't providing evidence that women are manipulative criers because I was specifically making the case for the opposite.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, you did say that, which is unfortunately a contradiction. Involuntary and manipulative is still manipulative. It's another in a long series of semantic arguments you're making, and I'm ignoring.

No, manipulation requires intent as does willful deceit. Something that is beneficial and unintentional is not manipulative. The individuals don't cry because they want to be treated better and so are crying to control (aka, manipulate) others to their will, they are crying out of frustration and other emotions because they aren't being treated better. So it's caused and noncausative in that respect even if it occasionally benefits them by showing someone what they're doing to the person. Not only that, but as I stated, there are also negative consequences such as being viewed as weak or emotionally unstable which ultimately prevents them from advancing their career. Not to mention the sheer embarrassment they face. That's why so many of the studies and resources I linked included resources to help women deal with the problems it can cause.

Crying because you're stressed or because someone is criticizing you isn't manipulative. Crying in order to control or influence someone to do something would be. But that's also being done voluntarily.

You can complain and try to grandstand on the idea that you've been trying to have a detailed and reasonable conversation, but hopefully people who actually read it will understand it's not the case. Much of what you've written is just a lot of "stuff" on tangents like "women cry more" or "It's not manipulative because it's involuntary!".

Own your claims, and stop this.

Perhaps you've misread the situation and my intentions? Consider this, why would I put so much time and effort to cite my claims and to speak with you if I had deceptive or ill-intentions towards you? Why would I encourage you to list specific complaints about if I wasn't genuinely interesting in open dialogue? Methinks you may have jumped the gun on me. Had you just openly said from the start that you disagreed with the comments on "manipulation" then we would have had a succinct discussion and quick agreement. Either that or we would have at least been having a useful dialogue on the nature of manipulation rather than deflection after deflection. You should reconsider how you debate with people. Especially if you want to contribute to people by broadening their thinking with your perspective. If you don't, if you just want to make enemies and waste everyone's time. Then just keep barreling forward making all kinds of wild assumptions about people to erroneously inform your debates in ways they have no perception of until you finally say them.

 

[Olas]

Their RIGHT to fire him is not something I dispute. An employer should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they want. I just don't see how it's a sensible (or decent) thing to do given the situation.

Why exactly is 'feelings' suddenly important to the equation?

What do you mean?

Losing one's job is a serious, life altering affair. To fire someone over something as trivial as a rude sounding comment seems like an enormous overreaction. Let's be honest here. This guy's crime wasn't what he said. It was being in a highly visible position within the company. If anybody could be fired this easily nobody would be able to hold a job for any substantial amount of time.

What's hypocritical about that? Also, your analogy lacks the irony of the original incident. He called them thin-skinned, and they reacted in a thin-skinned manner. Calling an officer an egotistical pig would only be similarly ironic if the officer then did something egotistical and/or piglike.

The hypocrisy is that, because people are defending his right to work according to their feelings, but then concluding that feelings people have to wishing his departure (for a sexist diatribe and a non-pology) is somehow an 'overreaction'. Or did you miss that facet?

Yes I did miss that facet because I never assumed the only objection people could have to this was based solely on their gut reaction to it. Certainly there's an emotional reaction when unusually harsh punishments are used against people for petty bullshit, but there's reasonable utilitarian arguments against it as well. Does the momentary satisfaction that the public felt knowing this man was unemployed outway the harm done to him and his dependents? Maybe, but the point is that there's plenty of arguments against this. Could a society function if a person's political correctness was seen as a more valuable job skill than... you know... skill?

If I said the same thing, every business I've worked for or run would have me fired, or possibly brought up with a warning from a union/industry liaison.

I don't believe that, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it right.

Did you just call old people "dinosaurs"? How offensive. Lol Stop going on like an ageist "fuckwit".

Dinosaur, someone who fails to evolve to the modern workplace. Guess what!?

The dinosaurs didn't fail to evolve. They were wiped out in a massive meteorite impact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume that's truly all you meant.

Every older person who still works does it. Guess what? So will I, you, and your friends! Has nothing to do with age (thanks for assuming that), it has everything to do with refusing to accept the modern workplace.

What? It sounds like you just directly contradicted yourself. First you said that every older person does it (you should be careful when using the word "every") and then said it has nothing to with age. Which is it?

If it was poor teamwork skills and inability to coordinate that got him sacked that comment would be relevant.

Which is the modern laboratory. And no, his job was about image and guess what? He's not good at image.

You sure know this guy awfully well. I couldn't possibly make a judgement about his overall character based on what little I know about him. Perhaps he was a complete jerk all the time. But if so then THIS comment shouldn't have what got him fired.

It's a pointless sacrificial bloodletting. Whenever an organization gets involved in a scandal that threatens their image they have to fire the people most closely involved and publicly disavow them, regardless of what history they have, and then return to business as usual.

Whjich has been a business practice since he, and HIS predecessors, also laboured under. If he didn't learn his lesson in 40 years of employment, then sucks to be him.

It sucks to be in a one-strike-and-you're-out institution. I'd like to think most people can learn from their mistakes, but I guess we're better off not taking that chance.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

What do you mean?

Losing one's job is a serious, life altering affair.

How is that then any fault barring his own?

Yes I did miss that facet because I never assumed the only objection people could have to this was based solely on their gut reaction to it. Certainly there's an emotional reaction when unusually harsh punishments are used against people for petty bullshit, but there's reasonable utilitarian arguments against it as well. Does the momentary satisfaction that the public felt knowing this man was unemployed outway the harm done to him and his dependents? Maybe, but the point is that there's plenty of arguments against this. Could a society function if a person's political correctness was seen as a more valuable job skill than... you know... skill?

Playing nice and following the rules are more important than 'skill' (he was actually a shitty teacher according to many, and he's not doing anything 'skillful' from the place that he was discharged from). Also, as a former employer of people, I'd rather hire people who are capable of leaving their garbage at home. If you can't, then you're a migraine waiting to happen ... and I fucking loathe migraines. I tend to avoid them. It's not 'unusually harsh' ... this is standard. So ... world's smallest violin.

He got fired for doing something anybody would be fired for. Boo fucking hoo.

I don't believe that, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it right.

Feel free not to believe it ... your opinion means very little to me. Stick your foot in your mouth, go on a sexist/racist/etc diatribe, prepare to be fired for it. He's not the first, he won't be the last.

The dinosaurs didn't fail to evolve. They were wiped out in a massive meteorite impact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume that's truly all you meant.

That's the definition ...

dinosaur
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: dino|saur
Pronunciation: /ˈdʌɪnəsɔː/
Definition of dinosaur in English:
noun

Image of dinosaur
1A fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
The dinosaurs are placed, according to their hip structure, in two distantly related orders (see ornithischian and saurischian). Some of them may have been warm-blooded, and their closest living relatives are the birds. Dinosaurs were all extinct by the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), possibly as a result of a catastrophic asteroid impact in the Gulf of Mexico

2A person or thing that is outdated or has become obsolete because of failure to adapt to changing circumstances.

(Source: Oxford dictionary)

(Edit) Also, might I add ...? That's the definition in every other dictionary I've thought to look up.

What? It sounds like you just directly contradicted yourself. First you said that every older person does it (you should be careful when using the word "every") and then said it has nothing to with age. Which is it

It has to do with the natural pressures of growing older. A: I'm 30, B: I'm not old, C: I've had to adapt to a changing economic and technological environment. Guess what? If I want to be employable, I'll be expected to do the same throughout my entire life. If I don't, I'll rightfully be fired for it... because someone better than me, who can adapt, will be there to cover my loss of labour.

You sure know this guy awfully well. I couldn't possibly make a judgement about his overall character based on what little I know about him. Perhaps he was a complete jerk all the time. But if so then THIS comment shouldn't have what got him fired.

Even though anybody else saying such with his non-pology would have been fired? How 'bout ... he got fired like anybody else for being a fuckwit? I've been fired from a job for what I said .... boo-fucking-hoo. I learnt my lesson, didn't repeat the same mistake.

It sucks to be in a one-strike-and-you're-out institution. I'd like to think most people can learn from their mistakes, but I guess we're better off not taking that chance.

He had a chance to apologize and smooth the edges, and maybe try to get his job back. Only to re-examine his piss-poor attitude in the non-pology and reiterate that maybe he should be seen as a dinosaur. Also, losing your job is a chance to learn from your mistakes. It's not like he was executed for losing his job. He's still alive.

 

[Kwak]

...
How is that then any fault barring his own?

It's the fault of the 'journalists' who misrepresented his words and started a campaign against him, the spineless bureaucrats who chose to side with reactionist public opinion over finding the full truth, and the people celebrating his public evisceration as the outcome of inevitable social justice against a stereotypical cliche of everything they hate; when his only crime was making a clumsy personal anecdote in an impromptu speech. Given the full text of his speech, anyone who maintains he deserved any of what he got is so lost in zealotry there's no hope for them, and I really do feel disgusted to witness it.
Some people you just can't talk with.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

It's the fault of the 'journalists' who misrepresented his words and started a campaign against him, the spineless bureaucrats who chose to side with reactionist public opinion over finding the full truth, and the people celebrating his public evisceration as the outcome of inevitable social justice against a stereotypical cliche of everything they hate; when his only crime was making a clumsy personal anecdote in an impromptu speech. Given the full text of his speech, anyone who maintains he deserved any of what he got is so lost in zealotry there's no hope for them, and I really do feel disgusted to witness it.
Some people you just can't talk with.

Hyperbole, got it. You know, I would be feeling more sympathy if he didn't turn around and stick his foot in his mouth again in the BBC radio interview. But no, he got what a thousand other people get for running their mouth. What's more galling is that he attended a summit in India only ... three or four months prior? For a long segment they invited women to the stage, recounting their stories in scientific endeavour (involving sexual assault, threats of rape, ostracism and other garbage) ... then maybe, just maybe, he actually believes in what he's talking about and he got caught for it?

After all, as if South Korean women in science have it hard... they make up a WHOPPING 11% of the scientific research personnel... it's not like they're pressured by family and society in general to drop out of public life when they get married... oops. Ever wonder why it was a group like the South Korean Women into Science and Technology that have spoken out against him?

Image is everything. Particularly when it should reflect the very worst attitudes that women face. Particularly bad, when you should echo the same garbage that likely even their family tells them, to their face, in an event that should hope to highlight their efforts and the reasons why they should persist in scientific research. Pretty fucking funny! Right!? You know, if I had a PR spokesperson pull this shit, I'd can their arse too.

 

[Kwak]

Hyperbole, got it.

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.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

As opposed to my balanced retelling of my comments? Why exactly should I extend you the same courtesy you seem to fail telling mine. It's not fair, it's not balanced. Image rarely is. People get fired for running their mouths. Also, 'beyond hope' indeed. What it was is a storm. Particularly after revelations that Raivich was allowed to keep his position after being apprehended for multiple accounts of sexual assault and molestation (Seriously, look the guy up), and only when it became SO APPARENT that they couldn't bury the fact and that him dropping out of public profile working at UCL was the only means to save their bacon, did they let him go.

The difference is, and I must stress this, people lose their jobs for the same blunders. Decrying one case of spectacular, and repeated, stupidity ... and differentiating it from the thousands of other times that someone gets fired for sticking their foot in their mouth, is what is ludicrous. UCL was in damage control, probably STILL in damage control from last year. The most galling aspect of this, is that people expect people to be employed regardless of what they say. If you have controversial views, you pick your moments and events.

This guy chose poorly. Put it this way, this isn't a man or woman thing. Condoleezza Rice had to step down from the same position at Rutgers because of her public standing on the Iraq War, being a famous example. He resigned as an honorary professor, at a university already reeling from last year, because he tanked not only a speech ... at an international summit, in a place which has the LOWEST participation of women in scientific endeavour and public life in the OECD ... of which then he went on to tank two interviews ... of which one of them he tried to defend his views.

It's not 'fair' that someone loses their job over a slip of the tongue (or five) ... but it's not exactly a new phenomena. Unless people want to start touting Condoleezza Rice's forced resigning as being unfair ... I mean, she probably deserves more slack than Hunt.

 

[The Lunatic]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

Oh please, enlighten me. How exactly is it better telling companies that they should employ people regardless? 'Witch-hunt' ... try 'free market'. If image alone is able to get other people like him fired from ostensibly the SAME JOB ... why exactly would he be immune?

 

[The Lunatic]

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.

Pretty much.

I mean, yeah, there's obviously a fairness in that people have a right to an opinion on something, and I think that institutions and companies should be informed of actions individuals perform that are unacceptable. But, I don't agree with the idea of mobbing them until the company has to choose between getting even more bad press from these outlets and firing before any investigation can be given.

I guess the problem really lies with organisations actually listening to these people. There should be a due process to this, an investigation, a consideration period and so on. To be sacked almost over night based on the misrepresentive tweet of somebody who has it out for you, is extremely unfair, and becoming unfortunately more common.

I guess these mobs will always exist. However, I do dearly hope our reaction to them gets a little more mature as time goes on.

Snip

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

That's right. He was off'ed his honorary position from a university for his image, like thousands other people who act like a fuckwit in public. He's not the first, he's not the last. He lost an honorary professor position. It's not the end of the world. We all lose a job. Whether it's fair or not is hardly the point. This is why I bring up the Rice scenario. She has every right (not really; but let's take your argument) to be an honorary spokepersons as a doctorate of politics and give a speech at Rutgers .... afterall, she's been in one of the highest stations of political power there is in the world.

Her image alone made it so that she was forced to rescind that position. How is her situation different from his? Why exactly do people think this is a new phenomena or somehow any more indicative of a 'witch-hunt' than her situation? Funny enough, image matters. And how this situation played out? He's not good at image.

(edit) The only difference in this case, I can see, is one is a fabricated shitstorm (or 'witch-hunt'), and the other is just accepted as suitable business 'engagement'. Being fired over image, in a career built on image, is not new.

 

[Olas]

What do you mean?

Losing one's job is a serious, life altering affair.

How is that then any fault barring his own?

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. Saying it's his fault for doing the initial thing that triggered their overreaction sounds like victim blaming to me.

Yes I did miss that facet because I never assumed the only objection people could have to this was based solely on their gut reaction to it. Certainly there's an emotional reaction when unusually harsh punishments are used against people for petty bullshit, but there's reasonable utilitarian arguments against it as well. Does the momentary satisfaction that the public felt knowing this man was unemployed outway the harm done to him and his dependents? Maybe, but the point is that there's plenty of arguments against this. Could a society function if a person's political correctness was seen as a more valuable job skill than... you know... skill?

Playing nice and following the rules are more important than 'skill'

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. What exactly is the "rule" he broke here anyway? Don't ever say anything negative about women? Is that a rule we all have to follow now? Because if so a lot of comedians are screwed, especially female ones.

(he was actually a shitty teacher according to many, and he's not doing anything 'skillful' from the place that he was discharged from).

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?

Also, as a former employer of people, I'd rather hire people who are capable of leaving their garbage at home. If you can't, then you're a migraine waiting to happen

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.

I don't believe that, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it right.

Feel free not to believe it ... your opinion means very little to me. Stick your foot in your mouth, go on a sexist/racist/etc diatribe, prepare to be fired for it. He's not the first, he won't be the last.

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.

The dinosaurs didn't fail to evolve. They were wiped out in a massive meteorite impact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume that's truly all you meant.

That's the definition ...

dinosaur
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: dino|saur
Pronunciation: /ˈdʌɪnəsɔː/
Definition of dinosaur in English:
noun

Image of dinosaur
1A fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
The dinosaurs are placed, according to their hip structure, in two distantly related orders (see ornithischian and saurischian). Some of them may have been warm-blooded, and their closest living relatives are the birds. Dinosaurs were all extinct by the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), possibly as a result of a catastrophic asteroid impact in the Gulf of Mexico

2A person or thing that is outdated or has become obsolete because of failure to adapt to changing circumstances.

(Source: Oxford dictionary)

(Edit) Also, might I add ...? That's the definition in every other dictionary I've thought to look up.

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.

You sure know this guy awfully well. I couldn't possibly make a judgement about his overall character based on what little I know about him. Perhaps he was a complete jerk all the time. But if so then THIS comment shouldn't have what got him fired.

Even though anybody else saying such with his non-pology would have been fired? How 'bout ... he got fired like anybody else for being a fuckwit?

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.

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.

I've been fired from a job for what I said .... boo-fucking-hoo. I learnt my lesson, didn't repeat the same mistake.

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.

It sucks to be in a one-strike-and-you're-out institution. I'd like to think most people can learn from their mistakes, but I guess we're better off not taking that chance.

He had a chance to apologize and smooth the edges, and maybe try to get his job back. Only to re-examine his piss-poor attitude in the non-pology and reiterate that maybe he should be seen as a dinosaur. Also, losing your job is a chance to learn from your mistakes. It's not like he was executed for losing his job. He's still alive.

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.

 

[Olas]

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

That's right. He was off'ed his honorary position from a university for his image, like thousands other people who act like a fuckwit in public. He's not the first, he's not the last. He lost an honorary professor position. It's not the end of the world. We all lose a job. Whether it's fair or not is hardly the point.

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.

 

[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.

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.

Pretty much.

I mean, yeah, there's obviously a fairness in that people have a right to an opinion on something, and I think that institutions and companies should be informed of actions individuals perform that are unacceptable. But, I don't agree with the idea of mobbing them until the company has to choose between getting even more bad press from these outlets and firing before any investigation can be given.

I guess the problem really lies with organisations actually listening to these people. There should be a due process to this, an investigation, a consideration period and so on. To be sacked almost over night based on the misrepresentive tweet of somebody who has it out for you, is extremely unfair, and becoming unfortunately more common.

I guess these mobs will always exist. However, I do dearly hope our reaction to them gets a little more mature as time goes on.

Snip

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

No. They're just "informing" them over and over and over and over. They're actually being very helpful, and will all get their Twitter-scout informant badges.

Does anyone honestly believe that these employers are like "What? He said something trans-phobic on twitter once?... Tell him to clear out his desk by the end of the day!"?

There's a good chance that they're going to have to have "transphobia" or whatever else explained to them to start with. But, come on... They're trying to get the angry mob to leave them alone because they don't want the press picking up on it because it will hurt their brand, they're not using the information just as they would if it were unknown to the shrill, angry twitter public. How naive can you be?