Is this an appropriate reaction to his remarks?
What were his remarks?
Anyone who says something people don't like needs to lose his job.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 02:52:12 PM
What were his remarks?
QuoteNobel Prize winner Tim Hunt was roundly criticised when he detailed his thoughts about the "trouble with girls" at a conference of science journalists. "Three things happen when they are in the lab," he said, "you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry."
Apparently he was pressured to resign, not fired per se, but still. I am fine with the twitter campaign making fun of him for saying something stupid, but this is a bit too much.
Yeah he should have been made fun of for that, that is hilariously stupid, but fire him? So much for wanting gender to be a conversation. If you say something wrong in the conversation you will have your life ruined.
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2015, 02:54:13 PM
Anyone who says something people don't like needs to lose his job.
I'm outraged at your opinion.
Fire Spicey!
TAKE HIS STUFF
His employer seems a bit retarded.
He is right about the crying part though. Never seen a guy burst into tears in a professional setting. Seen it done by women at least a dozen of times.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
He is right about the crying part though. Never seen a guy burst into tears in a professional setting. Seen it done by women at least a dozen of times.
Fire Marty!
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
Never seen a guy burst into tears in a professional setting.
I have. :)
I didn't cry when that metal shelving busted my leg up. I was so manly in the emergency room asking for morphine repeatedly.
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2015, 03:05:28 PM
I have. :)
Was it when the Red Sox fans were celebrating winning the World Series when you worked across the street? Because I could get that.
I think it boils down to the conspiracy of extroverts.
It is a known fact that all greatest achievements in history have been accomplished by introverts. They are the hard-working, clever, disciplined, focused individuals willing to sacrifice their personal life for some goal - whether it is a work of art, an invention or an ideology. Conversely, extroverts are the grasshoppers and social butterflies, superficial, useless, lazy and generally dumb.
Unfortunately, in the modern day of media idiocy, the extroverts have somehow managed to convince the general public that their natural qualities - such as being willing to talk to total strangers or carrying a pointless conversation about some useless and time-wasting crap - are signs of a healthy personality - and that introverts are somehow emotionally stunted or inferior. Now they began to get introverts fired - personally, I'd rather have a Nobel prize winning genius asshole than a mediocre nice guy in any position of means.
Well they might be the only people who do not hate twitter.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:07:59 PM
Was it when the Red Sox fans were celebrating winning the World Series when you worked across the street? Because I could get that.
Nope, it was in an interview. This dude had been a lifer in the Army and when he got out the only work he could find was at the Charter Communications call center (which is actually in the building right next to me). He got fired from there because he took too long on each call and they have like an average time limit they can't exceed. For some reason the story of him telling me that made him burst into tears. My cold black heart stirred a little, but then I felt kind of gay. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on June 17, 2015, 03:16:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:07:59 PM
Was it when the Red Sox fans were celebrating winning the World Series when you worked across the street? Because I could get that.
Nope, it was in an interview. This dude had been a lifer in the Army and when he got out the only work he could find was at the Charter Communications call center (which is actually in the building right next to me). He got fired from there because he took too long on each call and they have like an average time limit they can't exceed. For some reason the story of him telling me that made him burst into tears. My cold black heart stirred a little, but then I felt kind of gay. :Embarrass:
Did you call security?
It's amazing a lifer couldn't get some federal job.
What's a lifer?
Being forced to work at a call center is indeed a tears worthy tale of woe.
But you didn't hire him amiright?
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:25:19 PM
What's a lifer?
Somebody who serves in the military for a full career.
To be fair, the "job" he was "fired" from was an honorary position with no pay and no actual duties. When your one job is to just sit around and look pretty and bring prestige to an institution I can understand why they might cut the cord when your bad PR tips the scales negatively.
That said this current trend of people losing their jobs over relatively harmless jokes and opinions is getting out of hand.
Quote from: sbr on June 17, 2015, 03:29:07 PM
That said this current trend of people losing their jobs over relatively harmless jokes and opinions is getting out of hand.
Seriously. Stay off twitter. Only say boring things on Facebook. Your career might depend on it.
Which of us will be the first to be publicly pilloried and fired for dumb shit we say on Languish? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2015, 03:40:36 PM
Which of us will be the first to be publicly pilloried and fired for dumb shit we say on Languish? :hmm:
It is not visible to the general public and not posted under our real names...well at least not most of us. I think we will be ok.
Which is why I found it funny Hortlund ditched us for his climb to power in Sweden.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:41:26 PM
It is not visible to the general public and not posted under our real names...well at least not most of us. I think we will be ok.
Which is why I found it funny Hortlund ditched us for his climb to power in Sweden.
I'm sympathetic with his choice. All it would take is a poster with a vendetta. Some of us post enough personal information to enable a patient stalker to track us down.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:10:09 PM
I think it boils down to the conspiracy of extroverts.
It is a known fact that all greatest achievements in history have been accomplished by introverts. They are the hard-working, clever, disciplined, focused individuals willing to sacrifice their personal life for some goal - whether it is a work of art, an invention or an ideology. Conversely, extroverts are the grasshoppers and social butterflies, superficial, useless, lazy and generally dumb.
Unfortunately, in the modern day of media idiocy, the extroverts have somehow managed to convince the general public that their natural qualities - such as being willing to talk to total strangers or carrying a pointless conversation about some useless and time-wasting crap - are signs of a healthy personality - and that introverts are somehow emotionally stunted or inferior. Now they began to get introverts fired - personally, I'd rather have a Nobel prize winning genius asshole than a mediocre nice guy in any position of means.
Wow. Spot on.
QuoteI'm sympathetic with his choice. All it would take is a poster with a vendetta. Some of us post enough personal information to enable a patient stalker to track us down.
Yeah I think BB promised to do something like that in his younger and rasher days.
And granted Hortlund had some opinions that were surprising in a Swede...or a human actually...but particularly a Swede.
Can't have posters like that.
Quote from: The Brain on June 17, 2015, 03:53:23 PM
Can't have posters like that.
They will be the death of this board -_-
:D
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:51:16 PM
QuoteI'm sympathetic with his choice. All it would take is a poster with a vendetta. Some of us post enough personal information to enable a patient stalker to track us down.
Yeah I think BB promised to do something like that in his younger and rasher days.
And granted Hortlund had some opinions that were surprising in a Swede...or a human actually...but particularly a Swede.
I did nothing of the sort! :ultra:
Doesn't sound like the Beeb I know. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2015, 03:58:58 PM
I did nothing of the sort! :ultra:
Didn't you do something like that to Marty at one point? Maybe I am mis-remembering. Anyway it was a long time ago -_-
The only rash thing Beeb has ever done is getting to second base with a slot machine.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 04:02:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2015, 03:58:58 PM
I did nothing of the sort! :ultra:
Didn't you do something like that to Marty at one point? Maybe I am mis-remembering. Anyway it was a long time ago -_-
I think Marty did threaten to out somebody a long time ago. He was in one of his momentary rages that we all love him for.
There was also an incident a long time ago where I had gotten tired of some of the racist nonsense some posters would post about muslims, so I made a thread about how those kinds of posts could quite possible qualify as hate crimes, and maybe people should reconsider what they type because the law does apply to the internet. Some people got into a rage about "ZOMG BB IS GOING TO CALL THE COPS" despite me repeatedly stating I was going to do no such thing, and only asked for people to consider their own actions.
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:25:19 PM
What's a lifer?
Somebody who serves in the military for a full career.
Yup. He was a tanker at Fort Knox.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 03:26:14 PM
Being forced to work at a call center is indeed a tears worthy tale of woe.
But you didn't hire him amiright?
I liked him and wanted to help him out, but he wasn't really qualified to do anything. I really shouldn't have called him in for an interview at all.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
Surprise!
Refutation!
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
Or maybe it sounded different in context? I assume that unless you're a total idiot, you probably save your best offensive jokes for the company that is least likely to be offended by them.
Given that this guy is a Nobel Prize winner he is probably more valuable to humanity than anyone on this board. I hate that we live in a world where this is not obvious.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 03:10:09 PM
personally, I'd rather have a Nobel prize winning genius asshole than a mediocre nice guy in any position of means.
I saved the only part of your post worth the electrons it took to post it.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
I dunno, it all depends on the context he said it in, doesn't it?
And really, I would rather have a nobel prize winner with poor social judgement working for me than...welll, almost anyone else.
I guess I would prefer a nobel prize winner with great social judgment, but it would seem that the set of people who win nobel prizes is rather small.
Ironically, if he was not such an accomplished human being, his social gaff would likely be ignored - it is only because he is so accomplished that there is enough of a faux internet outrage over it to warrant his being forced out by the howling mob.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2015, 04:53:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
Or maybe it sounded different in context? I assume that unless you're a total idiot, you probably save your best offensive jokes for the company that is least likely to be offended by them.
He was apparently called on it right after his speech by several journalists at his table, and he felt 100% justified in his comments. At the time, he didn't say it was a joke. That came later.... After the outcry.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 05:12:26 PM
Given that this guy is a Nobel Prize winner he is probably more valuable to humanity than anyone on this board. I hate that we live in a world where this is not obvious.
He probably was more valuable than the entire board combined.
But his value added as an Honorary Prof that gives light speeches and does committee work can be questioned.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2015, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
I dunno, it all depends on the context he said it in, doesn't it?
And really, I would rather have a nobel prize winner with poor social judgement working for me than...welll, almost anyone else.
I guess I would prefer a nobel prize winner with great social judgment, but it would seem that the set of people who win nobel prizes is rather small.
Ironically, if he was not such an accomplished human being, his social gaff would likely be ignored - it is only because he is so accomplished that there is enough of a faux internet outrage over it to warrant his being forced out by the howling mob.
He was at a gathering of women scientists and he said that there shouldn't be mixed labs because women were "too distracting" and "cried too much". The luncheon was about how to encourage growth in the sciences by women. He did not, at the time, say anything about it being a joke. (That came later.)
And again, his entire "job" (no pay) right now - Nobel Prize winner or not - is to go around lecturing and speaking on behalf of his University. He was there to represent his University on how to encourage growth in the sciences by women.
He failed spectacularly at his "job". Yes, he should have been fired.
Quote from: derspiess on June 17, 2015, 04:17:07 PM
Surprise!
If you disagree with what I'm saying, then say so, and why. Try to pretend that I'm something more than a vagina. It would make a nice change.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 05:33:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2015, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
QuoteOn 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?", in which he said:
" 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.[14]
So, I'm going to say that this kind of shows not only poor taste, but seriously poor judgment. He's effectively nothing but a lecturer and speaker now, and this is how he presents himself and his University. Yeah, he deserved to lose his "job" over this.
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
I dunno, it all depends on the context he said it in, doesn't it?
And really, I would rather have a nobel prize winner with poor social judgement working for me than...welll, almost anyone else.
I guess I would prefer a nobel prize winner with great social judgment, but it would seem that the set of people who win nobel prizes is rather small.
Ironically, if he was not such an accomplished human being, his social gaff would likely be ignored - it is only because he is so accomplished that there is enough of a faux internet outrage over it to warrant his being forced out by the howling mob.
He was at a gathering of women scientists and he said that there shouldn't be mixed labs because women were "too distracting" and "cried too much".
No, he did not say that at all. He never said that there should not be mixed labs.
This is exactly the problem with this kind of response - you are imagining him saying something he never said, and inventing the context for him. When he tries to explain the context of it being a joke, you reject it out of hand in favor of your own context, which he categorically denies.
His comments were problematic, even if joking. The response is almost worse though. He said something stupid in the setting he said it - but the response has been to esentially lie about what he said to try to turn him into some kind of stereotype ogre of the boorish man in science.
Quote
The luncheon was about how to encourage growth in the sciences by women. He did not, at the time, say anything about it being a joke. (That came later.)
You don't normally announce that the joke you just made is a joke. Only later, when someone demands that it was NOT a joke is there a need to explain that it was...of course, you can just assume he is lying if you wish, I am sure you know better than he does what he meant.
Quote from: Berkut on June 17, 2015, 05:47:24 PM
No, he did not say that at all. He never said that there should not be mixed labs.
Actually, he did say that exact thing.
LINK (http://time.com/3915617/women-science-tim-hunt-nobel-sexist/)
QuoteHunt, who was speaking at the World Conference of Science Journalists in the South Korean capital, Seoul, went on to say that scientists should work in gender-segregated labs, adding that he hoped not "to stand in the way of women," the Guardian reports.
Quote
This is exactly the problem with this kind of response - you are imagining him saying something he never said, and inventing the context for him. When he tries to explain the context of it being a joke, you reject it out of hand in favor of your own context, which he categorically denies.
His comments were problematic, even if joking. The response is almost worse though. He said something stupid in the setting he said it - but the response has been to esentially lie about what he said to try to turn him into some kind of stereotype ogre of the boorish man in science.
Um... yeah... except not.
Quote
Quote
The luncheon was about how to encourage growth in the sciences by women. He did not, at the time, say anything about it being a joke. (That came later.)
You don't normally announce that the joke you just made is a joke. Only later, when someone demands that it was NOT a joke is there a need to explain that it was...of course, you can just assume he is lying if you wish, I am sure you know better than he does what he meant.
Except that he was called on it right after his speech... and he didn't say anything about it being a joke. He didn't defend his comments at all until after the firestorm hit his doorstep the next day.
In fact, even his apology doesn't make mention of a joke. Instead, he says that he was "just trying to be honest".
Quote"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that people -- I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field," he said. "I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
"I'm really, really sorry I caused any offense, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually," he added.
The guy has no business being a talking head for a University anymore. Whatever his contributions to science, he clearly shouldn't be out giving speeches as a representative.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 05:12:26 PM
Given that this guy is a Nobel Prize winner he is probably more valuable to humanity than anyone on this board. I hate that we live in a world where this is not obvious.
:secret: Yasser Arafat also won a Nobel.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 04:13:03 PM
Should people lose their jobs for what they say on Facebook/Twitter? It depends entirely on what they say and what their job is. In this case, yes. In all cases? No.
So...yes unless if fulfills some arbitrary distinction. That arbitrary distinction being what? How much outrage it generates?
Well I disagree. This seems more likely to create an atmosphere of oppression and terror to me. Well it already has. Color me terrorized.
It seems though that this was not some comment on a social media site though. The hashtag and vagueness of Marty's explanation made me think that it was. If he said it under that context, at a conference of some kind, well that is different.
OK, I stand corrected - the guy is not just a minor dumbass, he is a complete dumbass. There is no "light hearted" way of saying that there should be segregated labs, especially when trying to clarify your comments, and then saying you stand my the basic content.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 05:12:26 PM
Given that this guy is a Nobel Prize winner he is probably more valuable to humanity than anyone on this board. I hate that we live in a world where this is not obvious.
doesn't seem like he's offered an extraordinary valuable to humanity for the past ten years. today, looks like he's just another has-been in his field.
anyway, re: context. this wasn't a joke among close friends at home. this was a speech at a conference. in those situations, there is never a time where non-comedians should make offensive jokes. it doesn't matter what the joke is. if "hitler was a great guy, and i applaud the holocaust" is unacceptable, then so is any other. it's inconsistent to disallow some offensive jokes but not others.
Frankly it is not even the fact people might get fired it is the very public and arbitrary manner they are pilloried that makes it horrifying.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 06:56:48 PM
Frankly it is not even the fact people might get fired it is the very public and arbitrary manner they are pilloried that makes it horrifying.
that seems like a complaint about modern technology more than anything.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 17, 2015, 06:41:58 PM
it's inconsistent to disallow some offensive jokes but not others.
If somebody says something inappropriate and they are removed from their position with fairness and discretion with apologies to those in attendance that is ok.
But I strongly disagree that it is ok to publicly destroy somebody's reputation for life at this arbitrary and unjust standard. Now this guys name is mud forever. That does not strike me as fairness or justice.
I hesitate to raise Shockley because his case is more malign and its not a fair comparison. But it does get to what I see is misguided about Martinis' point. For the first 50 years or so of his life, Shockley contributions were truly gargantuan. For the last 10 years of his life, he was a nasty racist boob. His sad twilight years don't undo the significance of his contributions, by the same token, the great benefit he brought to the human race doesn't give him a pass for his later advocacy.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 17, 2015, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 06:56:48 PM
Frankly it is not even the fact people might get fired it is the very public and arbitrary manner they are pilloried that makes it horrifying.
that seems like a complaint about modern technology more than anything.
Yes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 07:04:07 PMYes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?
i'm not ok with reigns of terror, oppression, and paranoia, no. i am, however, ok with something that's always happened continue to happen. technology has just made it easier for info to travel.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
So...yes unless if fulfills some arbitrary distinction. That arbitrary distinction being what? How much outrage it generates?
Well I disagree. This seems more likely to create an atmosphere of oppression and terror to me. Well it already has. Color me terrorized.
It seems though that this was not some comment on a social media site though. The hashtag and vagueness of Marty's explanation made me think that it was. If he said it under that context, at a conference of some kind, well that is different.
I certainly don't think it would be an "arbitrary distinction", no. I think that when someone is in a job that represents a company - or in a job that requires that everyone in their care feel safe and respected - what they say on social media should not do harm to either of those things.
For instance:
Quote"The blacks are the ones causing the problems and this 'racial tension. I guess that's what happens when you flunk out of school and have no education... I'm almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town so they can hurt each other and leave the innocent people alone."
From a teacher who is responsible for teaching black kids should probably not keep her job after posting something like that on Facebook. Why? Because she's now created a hostile environment for every child of color in her classroom, and made for a very uncomfortable situation for everyone of those children's parents. They won't believe that she will care for their children the same way that she cares for the white children. Not only that, but she's put the school that she works for in a very precarious situation. Parents of black kids will, if they're smart, request that she not teach their children, which will put an undue burden on the other teachers.
On the other hand:
Quote"He did nothing wrong. He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions."
Should not have cost a Principal of a high school that is 99% minority this job. He was supporting a police officer, and not degrading his students at all.
So yes, there are times when I feel that it is warranted, and times when I do not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 05:12:26 PM
Given that this guy is a Nobel Prize winner he is probably more valuable to humanity than anyone on this board. I hate that we live in a world where this is not obvious.
:secret: Yasser Arafat also won a Nobel.
Ok cut out Nobel Peace Prize of this statement. :P
Quote from: LaCroix on June 17, 2015, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 07:04:07 PMYes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?
i'm not ok with reigns of terror, oppression, and paranoia, no. i am, however, ok with something that's always happened continue to happen. technology has just made it easier for info to travel.
This is like the argument that modern surveillance system is nothing new, you could always go to a public library to look up public records. Total bullshit, in other words. The nature of technology changes some things to the point that they become something else entirely. Internet makes it much easier to organize a viral lynch mob, and have it gather critical mass before something else catches the fancy of would-be mob members. It's yet another example that sometimes total freedom results in oppression.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2015, 07:03:09 PM
I hesitate to raise Shockley because his case is more malign and its not a fair comparison. But it does get to what I see is misguided about Martinis' point. For the first 50 years or so of his life, Shockley contributions were truly gargantuan. For the last 10 years of his life, he was a nasty racist boob. His sad twilight years don't undo the significance of his contributions, by the same token, the great benefit he brought to the human race doesn't give him a pass for his later advocacy.
Well, that's another point. I support the right of old people to be cranky, socially inept and out-of-touch ogres, especially if they have some great achievements and contributions behind their belts. It's like when Billy Crystal was recently pilloried for saying he would like to see fewer men kissing each other on tv. Sure, that was somewhat homophobic and perhaps not very smart, but he is an old guy so has every right to be out of touch.
And he is Billy Crystal. Cut him some slack.
I think the problem is that the media have created this "holistic" approach where we are expecting people to be flawless (of course every group defines "flawless" in a different way) in each aspect of their life or personality no matter how relevant it is for their public or social function - and anyone who stumbles one way or another is immediately pilloried.
It started with politicians where it was arguably justified, at least when it showed hypocrisy (a "family values" politician having a mistress for example). But then it spread to all public figures and now, with everybody being a de facto public figure thanks to twitter and Facebook, it applies to everyone.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 07:48:57 PM
From a teacher who is responsible for teaching black kids should probably not keep her job after posting something like that on Facebook. Why? Because she's now created a hostile environment for every child of color in her classroom, and made for a very uncomfortable situation for everyone of those children's parents. They won't believe that she will care for their children the same way that she cares for the white children. Not only that, but she's put the school that she works for in a very precarious situation. Parents of black kids will, if they're smart, request that she not teach their children, which will put an undue burden on the other teachers.
I guess it depends on the level at which she teaches. At lower levels (grad school, possibly middle school), a teacher is more about empathy and guidance than about simply passing on knowledge - so that would be right. But if she was an academic teacher or a high school teacher, I don't see how her being racist (unless she is expressing her racist views in class) affects her ability to teach her subject (unless, I guess she is teaching racial studies).
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2015, 02:51:02 PM
Is this an appropriate reaction to his remarks?
Of course. Feelings were hurt.
Well this is more than feelings.
If you are a young girl with aspirations to become a scientist, then hear one of the scientist with the most prestigious awards saying that you should stay the fuck away because you can only do harm, what would you think? It is in the interest of science as a whole to very publicly and obviously state that the larger scientific community severly disagree with him. Cutting his allowance for a pretend job is exactly the way to do it.
"Haha, he is such a jerk, silly fellow" would not have been enough.
I still think the comet shirt was a worse offence. That was worse than Himmler.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 04:49:32 AM
Cutting his allowance for a pretend job is exactly the way to do it.
"Haha, he is such a jerk, silly fellow" would not have been enough.
Crimethink must be punished. :yes:
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 04:49:32 AM
If you are a young girl with aspirations to become a scientist, then hear one of the scientist with the most prestigious awards saying that you should stay the fuck away because you can only do harm, what would you think?
No reason there can't be both boys and girls teams. Well, besides that it is juvenile.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 04:56:38 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 04:49:32 AM
Cutting his allowance for a pretend job is exactly the way to do it.
"Haha, he is such a jerk, silly fellow" would not have been enough.
Crimethink must be punished. :yes:
You must be terrified of women. Every time there is a public reaction (overblown or not) against a guy who made an assholish remark on females, you appear to defend him.
The guy was the public face of the organisation. Turned out he has views the organisation didn't want to have as his public image. He was asked to step down. What is the story here?
Thank you for educating me on social justice Tamas. I see it now, I was just terrified of women all along.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 05:05:54 AM
Thank you for educating me on social justice Tamas. I see it now, I was just terrified of women all along.
I hate even the term social justice. This has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the PR face of an organisation making a major blunder and being forced to resign. Most natural thing ever.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 05:11:53 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 05:05:54 AM
Thank you for educating me on social justice Tamas. I see it now, I was just terrified of women all along.
I hate even the term social justice. This has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the PR face of an organisation making a major blunder and being forced to resign. Most natural thing ever.
:yes:
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 05:11:53 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 05:05:54 AM
Thank you for educating me on social justice Tamas. I see it now, I was just terrified of women all along.
I hate even the term social justice. This has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the PR face of an organisation making a major blunder and being forced to resign. Most natural thing ever.
But you don't understand. The "major blunder" was an insult to females and only femi-nazis and SJWs care about that. If you were a real man you would understand how this undermines us.
The largest donor to British universities: Saudi Arabia.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb)
LOL
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 06:31:39 AM
The largest donor to British universities: Saudi Arabia.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb)
LOL
When I was at Harvard the Kennedy School of Government had a Bin Laden Fellowship. That was kind of a problem when 9/11 happened. :pinch:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 06:31:39 AM
The largest donor to British universities: Saudi Arabia.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b276dcc0-0893-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dPbAlOQb)
LOL
That's a pretty serious comprehension fail
QuoteOver the past decade, Saudi Arabia has been the largest source of donations from Islamic states and royal families to British universities
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 04:49:32 AM
"Haha, he is such a jerk, silly fellow" would not have been enough.
Why not? Why is condemnation of wrong ideas as wrong not sufficient? Why must people be crushed as well and not just ideas? Must eggs be broken to make omelettes?
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 05:36:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 05:11:53 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 05:05:54 AM
Thank you for educating me on social justice Tamas. I see it now, I was just terrified of women all along.
I hate even the term social justice. This has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the PR face of an organisation making a major blunder and being forced to resign. Most natural thing ever.
:yes:
I do not even necessarily disagree that he should have lost his job under these circumstances. But the way these things go down is disproportionate to the crime. If this guy ever needed to get another job well a quick google of him during the hiring process would make him unemployable forever.
QuoteI think the problem is that the media have created this "holistic" approach where we are expecting people to be flawless (of course every group defines "flawless" in a different way) in each aspect of their life or personality no matter how relevant it is for their public or social function - and anyone who stumbles one way or another is immediately pilloried.
Yep.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 07:40:29 AM
If this guy ever needed to get another job well a quick google of him during the hiring process would make him unemployable forever.
:huh:
Doesn't he have a Nobel Prize?
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2015, 11:41:36 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 17, 2015, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 07:04:07 PMYes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?
i'm not ok with reigns of terror, oppression, and paranoia, no. i am, however, ok with something that's always happened continue to happen. technology has just made it easier for info to travel.
This is like the argument that modern surveillance system is nothing new, you could always go to a public library to look up public records. Total bullshit, in other words. The nature of technology changes some things to the point that they become something else entirely. Internet makes it much easier to organize a viral lynch mob, and have it gather critical mass before something else catches the fancy of would-be mob members. It's yet another example that sometimes total freedom results in oppression.
people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? that's the gist of the argument i'm seeing here. at least the "what he said wasn't bad!" makes sense assuming those people also agree that hitler jokes aren't bad.
Quote from: merithyn on June 17, 2015, 05:38:44 PM
If you disagree with what I'm saying, then say so, and why.
I just think people are too sensitive about stuff like this. Will what this guy said seriously deter any wimmenz from becoming scientists? If anything it may strengthen their resolve, to prove the guy wrong and whatnot. Unless I'm totally incorrect and all women are delicate flowers that must be coddled.
QuoteTry to pretend that I'm something more than a vagina. It would make a nice change.
Hey now. I'm not the one who reduces women to their private parts. That's Code Pink's shtick.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 07:56:04 AM
people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? that's the gist of the argument i'm seeing here. at least the "what he said wasn't bad!" makes sense assuming those people also agree that hitler jokes aren't bad.
I'm saying that a punishment should fit the crime. A concept that many lynch mobs have historically had problems with. Permanent unemployability is not a just punishment for making one stupid comment that happened to go viral.
Dames! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 18, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
:huh:
Doesn't he have a Nobel Prize?
He will be fine. I am talking about the phenomenon in general. I don't give two fucks about this asshole but all the rest of us assholes.
Quotepeople shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions?
They should be held responsible for their actions. By arbitrary mob justice? No. Please show me an example where that has ever been a good way to hold people responsible.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 08:45:49 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 18, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
:huh:
Doesn't he have a Nobel Prize?
He will be fine. I am talking about the phenomenon in general. I don't give two fucks about this asshole but all the rest of us assholes.
Quotepeople shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions?
They should be held responsible for their actions. By arbitrary mob justice? No. Please show me an example where that has ever been a good way to hold people responsible.
The guy stood out with the full weight of his "street cred" in science and said "women do not belong in science" then he tried to explain that with "well they could work in science I guess just make sure they are segregated".
This is not a blurry statement blown out of proportion by the usual (and cringeworthy) social justice crowd. This is a major blunder, a highly derogatory statement, which you either distance yourself from, or agree with it. The guy just didn't leave any middle ground.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 08:31:11 AM
I just think people are too sensitive about stuff like this. Will what this guy said seriously deter any wimmenz from becoming scientists? If anything it may strengthen their resolve, to prove the guy wrong and whatnot. Unless I'm totally incorrect and all women are delicate flowers that must be coddled.
Tamas said it best.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 08:57:19 AM
The guy stood out with the full weight of his "street cred" in science and said "women do not belong in science" then he tried to explain that with "well they could work in science I guess just make sure they are segregated".
This is not a blurry statement blown out of proportion by the usual (and cringeworthy) social justice crowd. This is a major blunder, a highly derogatory statement, which you either distance yourself from, or agree with it. The guy just didn't leave any middle ground.
And his "street cred" is a Nobel Prize in Science. Basically, a Nobel Prize winner and renowned Scientist stood up and said, "You're not wanted," at a conference intended, at least in part, to BRING MORE WOMEN TO SCIENCE.
Ignore that this is about women. Imagine that he went to an NAACP conference to encourage those there to get into Science, and then said, "We don't want you, but if you're going to come anyway, you should really be segregated into your own labs."
Yes. He should have lost his job. This isn't about an overreaction because we have estrogen. This is insanely wrong on every possible level. Is he a bad person? I think he's an old man with no clue of what's acceptable in today's society, but I don't think he's an evil person. Should he have the job anymore? Hmmm... no.
Would you two feel differently, if the guy was actually heading a high profile research institute (so he was doing actual scientific work rather than PR work)?
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 09:03:59 AM
Would you two feel differently, if the guy was actually heading a high profile research institute (so he was doing actual scientific work rather than PR work)?
So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 08:31:11 AM
I just think people are too sensitive about stuff like this. Will what this guy said seriously deter any wimmenz from becoming scientists? If anything it may strengthen their resolve, to prove the guy wrong and whatnot. Unless I'm totally incorrect and all women are delicate flowers that must be coddled.
Tamas said it best.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 08:57:19 AM
The guy stood out with the full weight of his "street cred" in science and said "women do not belong in science" then he tried to explain that with "well they could work in science I guess just make sure they are segregated".
This is not a blurry statement blown out of proportion by the usual (and cringeworthy) social justice crowd. This is a major blunder, a highly derogatory statement, which you either distance yourself from, or agree with it. The guy just didn't leave any middle ground.
And his "street cred" is a Nobel Prize in Science. Basically, a Nobel Prize winner and renowned Scientist stood up and said, "You're not wanted," at a conference intended, at least in part, to BRING MORE WOMEN TO SCIENCE.
Ignore that this is about women. Imagine that he went to an NAACP conference to encourage those there to get into Science, and then said, "We don't want you, but if you're going to come anyway, you should really be segregated into your own labs."
Yes. He should have lost his job. This isn't about an overreaction because we have estrogen. This is insanely wrong on every possible level. Is he a bad person? I think he's an old man with no clue of what's acceptable in today's society, but I don't think he's an evil person. Should he have the job anymore? Hmmm... no.
So race and sex are equal, for instance when it comes to self-identification or reassignment surgery?
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:08:37 AM
So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.
In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.
Considering that they literally let an SS officer head rocket science research I think a guy should be safe.
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 08:57:19 AM
The guy stood out with the full weight of his "street cred" in science and said "women do not belong in science" then he tried to explain that with "well they could work in science I guess just make sure they are segregated".
This is not a blurry statement blown out of proportion by the usual (and cringeworthy) social justice crowd. This is a major blunder, a highly derogatory statement, which you either distance yourself from, or agree with it. The guy just didn't leave any middle ground.
I completely agree. I am not defending him in any way.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2015, 09:16:17 AM
Considering that they literally let an SS officer head rocket science research I think a guy should be safe.
Different times. Besides that was hardly common knowledge at the time :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:01:07 AM
This isn't about an overreaction because we have estrogen. This is insanely wrong on every possible level.
Second sentence sorta contradicts the first. I mean, *insanely* wrong? You can't simply disagree with anyone these days-- they have to be insanely wrong.
Anyway, do you honestly think his statement, bad joke, or whatever it was will deter women from entering the field of science? If so, then making this big a deal out of it did more damage than his original statement, which only would have been heard by a select few.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:14:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:08:37 AM
So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.
In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.
If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job. Was censored, of course, but kept his job. But his thinking is that women don't belong in Science. Under those circumstances, he can't be allowed to dictate how resources are allocated. He simply can't be trusted to do so fairly based on skill and research if he's willing to stand in front of a room full of women Scientists and tell them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
He lost his job because he was a talking head for the University, and he stood up in front of a room full of women Scientists and told them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:27:06 AM
I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.
Because it isn't? What you are saying is very specific to this circumstance and not some standard procedure that happens whenever somebody says something horrible. At least that is my impression.
QuoteIf he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job.
Which is impossible. If he was doing his own research he would have a grant that he would be responsible for spending.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 09:26:15 AM
Second sentence sorta contradicts the first. I mean, *insanely* wrong? You can't simply disagree with anyone these days-- they have to be insanely wrong.
As a representative of the University, he did the exact opposite of what he was sent to do. I'm not sure how saying that he should keep his job is even on the table.
Quote
Anyway, do you honestly think his statement, bad joke, or whatever it was will deter women from entering the field of science? If so, then making this big a deal out of it did more damage than his original statement, which only would have been heard by a select few.
:mellow:
He made the statements to a room full of journalists. He knew he was in a room full of journalists when he made his statements. And he came back the next day and said that he was "just being honest" that he believed that women shouldn't be in labs with men. A Nobel Prize winner.
Yeah, I'm going to go with this might deter women from entering the field of science. Why go into a field where the top-most Scientists are allowed to say those things and no one bats an eye? Had it been ignored by the university. Had it been laughed off or otherwise condoned, that sends a message that if women do go into science, they will get zero support.
Not to say that all women would react that way, because against general opinion estrogen doesn't make us all the same person, but enough will to make it a problem. And it's already a problem that women don't go into sciences. Enough so that there are conferences to try to encourage them to do so. Conferences like the one this guy attended and made such awful statements.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:33:44 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:27:06 AM
I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.
Because it isn't?
The guy was sent out to do a job (encourage women scientists) and did the exact opposite of what he was asked to do (told women scientists that they weren't welcome nor wanted). He lost his job. Yeah, actually, it is.
Quote
QuoteIf he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job.
Which is impossible. If he was doing his own research he would have a grant that he would be responsible for spending.
For his own research, usually. Which he can do however he chooses. On his own. In his own lab.
If he can't handle treating people as equals while they work in his lab, then he shouldn't be allowed to supervise anyone in his lab. This is the same in any job. You don't put people - no matter how brilliant - in a position of authority when they can't treat those people they supervise with respect and parity.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:38:34 AM
The guy was sent out to do a job (encourage women scientists) and did the exact opposite of what he was asked to do (told women scientists that they weren't welcome nor wanted). He lost his job. Yeah, actually, it is.
So you think this should be a universal situation? If you ever say something horrible you should lose you job? It is simple and straightforward?
Quote
For his own research, usually. Which he can do however he chooses. On his own. In his own lab.
If he can't handle treating people as equals while they work in his lab, then he shouldn't be allowed to supervise anyone in his lab. This is the same in any job. You don't put people - no matter how brilliant - in a position of authority when they can't treat those people they supervise with respect and parity.
So you think that everybody who has a personality flaw in this fashion should be banned from ever supervising anybody? What should the burden of proof be? I do not think it is that cut and dry. Or maybe it is. But if it is than the answer to Marty's question is no.
I think it is a common part of human nature: to be continually lauded as an absolutely top expert in one field swells the ego, until the person starts to assume he's an equal genius in everything else - including whatever cranky bigotry he or she may develop on completely unrelated topics.
This could explain why this fellow thought it made sense to press for gender segregation in a room full of women scientists.
I tend to agree that such a person can't be retained in a spokesperson role, though I do loathe with every fibre the modern tendency of social media to arouse mobs. This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2015, 09:42:41 AM
This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.
Yep. Though he got pilloried on social media anyway.
Should have just been silently fired or reprimanded in such a way that would satisfy the injured parties.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 07:56:04 AM
people shouldn't be held responsible for their own actions? that's the gist of the argument i'm seeing here. at least the "what he said wasn't bad!" makes sense assuming those people also agree that hitler jokes aren't bad.
I'm saying that a punishment should fit the crime. A concept that many lynch mobs have historically had problems with. Permanent unemployability is not a just punishment for making one stupid comment that happened to go viral.
then are you arguing employers shouldn't be allowed to dismiss employees when an employee brings about public embarrassment? lynching is a mob bypassing a court system to execute a person. what has the social media mob bypassed?
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:41:46 AM
So you think this should be a universal situation? If you ever say something horrible you should lose you job? It is simple and straightforward?
I think that when a spokesperson, in the doing of his job, makes his employer look like an ass, yes, he should lose his job for what he said.
This wasn't at a party with friends. He was in his official capacity with the university doing his job, and he openly insulted the very people he was sent to woo.
Quote
So you think that everybody who has a personality flaw in this fashion should be banned from ever supervising anybody? What should the burden of proof be? I do not think it is that cut and dry. Or maybe it is. But if it is than the answer to Marty's question is no.
:blink:
Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:43:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2015, 09:42:41 AM
This isn't a good example of what I loathe though - a speech in a public setting by a spokesperson.
Yep. Though he got pilloried on social media anyway.
Should have just been silently fired or reprimanded in such a way that would satisfy the injured parties.
:blink:
He was at a conference of scientists and JOURNALISTS. This isn't about social media. This was never going to be silent, even if it had happened before Facebook and Twitter ever hit the 'net.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:50:05 AM
:blink:
Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.
Well I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be. I don't think things are that simple. I am not sure why that blows your mind.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:51:19 AM
:blink:
He was at a conference of scientists and JOURNALISTS. This isn't about social media. This was never going to be silent, even if it had happened before Facebook and Twitter ever hit the 'net.
Do you honestly do not get my concerns at all here? I get where you are coming from you don't need to capitalize things and go :blink: constantly. There is something about it that makes me feel uneasy.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:52:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:50:05 AM
:blink:
Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.
Well I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be. I don't think things are that simple. I am not sure why that blows your mind.
Because that's a basic rule of management. You don't put people in a supervisory position when they can and will hurt people simply because of their skin color, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc. That is an invitation to a lawsuit, at the very least.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:34:07 AM
Yeah, I'm going to go with this might deter women from entering the field of science. Why go into a field where the top-most Scientists are allowed to say those things and no one bats an eye? Had it been ignored by the university. Had it been laughed off or otherwise condoned, that sends a message that if women do go into science, they will get zero support.
Then maybe women aren't as strong as I thought. I guess I've just been spoiled by the women in my life, all of which would be strong & thick-skinned enough not to let a bad joke like this get to them.
The dude made a bad joke that he shouldn't have made-- I will agree with that much. But all the shrieking & outrage (faux or otherwise) surprises me even in this day and age.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:52:23 AMWell I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be.
East Germany.
Marty, you ARE aware I hope that basically this guy's reasoning applies 100% to gay men. If you do not accept women because they put sex in the mind of themselves and the straight men in the team, then you cannot have more than one gay men per team either.
And we all know that if he DID talk about gay men instead of women, you would be organising a protest to execute him. :P
Good maneuver there, Tamas :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Because that's a basic rule of management. You don't put people in a supervisory position when they can and will hurt people simply because of their skin color, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc. That is an invitation to a lawsuit, at the very least.
I have a feeling I am not getting through to you at all.
And that is alright this is not a good example of my concerns. But given how things tend to go a better one will come along soon enough.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:56:09 AM
Do you honestly do not get my concerns at all here? I get where you are coming from you don't need to capitalize things and go :blink: constantly. There is something about it that makes me feel uneasy.
I get your concerns, but they aren't warranted in this particular case. Which I said, ages ago. That on a case-by-case basis, it may or may not be fair to fire someone based on what they say in social media. This wasn't on social media, so it doesn't apply, which is why I'm confused on why you are complaining about what happened to the guy.
As for your other concerns regarding social media, I like the "Right to be Forgotten" bills that are being put forward. I don't think that someone should be "unhireable" forever due to a single lapse in judgment, no.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:04:37 AM
I get your concerns, but they aren't warranted in this particular case. Which I said, ages ago. That on a case-by-case basis, it may or may not be fair to fire someone based on what they say in social media.
Cool then perhaps we are done here. Except I don't think the mob is capable of making careful and just determinations based on a case-by-case basis. But it sounds like we basically agree. I am shedding no tears for this particular dude he is retired and had a non-job.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:04:37 AM
As for your other concerns regarding social media, I like the "Right to be Forgotten" bills that are being put forward. I don't think that someone should be "unhireable" forever due to a single lapse in judgment, no.
Those bills sound like "Right to Misunderstand Technology" to me.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 09:56:47 AM
Then maybe women aren't as strong as I thought. I guess I've just been spoiled by the women in my life, all of which would be strong & thick-skinned enough not to let a bad joke like this get to them.
The dude made a bad joke that he shouldn't have made-- I will agree with that much. But all the shrieking & outrage (faux or otherwise) surprises me even in this day and age.
You're missing the point. This isn't about how strong or otherwise women are or are not. This wasn't a bad joke, and he never said it was. (His wife called it that; he didn't.) This is about an institutional record of women being treated poorly in the workplace, so why go into that workplace? This is about creating a hostile work environment, and then saying, "You just have to be tough." Why do that to yourself when there are other options?
As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note), there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:52:23 AMWell I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be.
East Germany.
I do think about how much they would have loved the internet age. If only they could have stayed around for a few more decades.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 10:12:40 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:52:23 AMWell I am not necessarily disagreeing. I am just concerned about where that might lead or what the implications might be.
East Germany.
I do think about how much they would have loved the internet age. If only they could have stayed around for a few more decades.
Aye, STASI would have made Twitter usage mandatory, for instance.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2015, 09:42:41 AM
I think it is a common part of human nature: to be continually lauded as an absolutely top expert in one field swells the ego, until the person starts to assume he's an equal genius in everything else - including whatever cranky bigotry he or she may develop on completely unrelated topics.
Fuck you.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 09:44:42 AM
then are you arguing employers shouldn't be allowed to dismiss employees when an employee brings about public embarrassment?
I doubt that would work, but may be better than nothing. Right now it's all too easy for employers to take the easy cowardly way out rather than stick up for what could've been a very valuable and loyal employee. Even if the whole reason the company is brought public embarrassment is because some Twitter sociopaths bring the company into it to get the victim fired.
Quotelynching is a mob bypassing a court system to execute a person. what has the social media mob bypassed?
Congrats on picking out the least relevant aspect of that comparison. The point is that the person is being judged by a crowd in the heat of the moment, rather than in an organized process that lets the accused defend himself, and lets people meting out the punishment consider what is fitting.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:10:05 AM
You're missing the point. This isn't about how strong or otherwise women are or are not. This wasn't a bad joke, and he never said it was. (His wife called it that; he didn't.) This is about an institutional record of women being treated poorly in the workplace, so why go into that workplace? This is about creating a hostile work environment, and then saying, "You just have to be tough." Why do that to yourself when there are other options?
To be fair, the first story I read about this devoted the second half of it to the accounts of women scientists who actually were working for him or with him. They all has positive things to say about him, and claimed that they were treated very fairly, and were sad that one incident like that would define his career.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 11:35:45 AM
To be fair, the first story I read about this devoted the second half of it to the accounts of women scientists who actually were working for him or with him. They all has positive things to say about him, and claimed that they were treated very fairly, and were sad that one incident like that would define his career.
People are not judged by what they actually do. They are judged by whatever sound byte goes public.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 11:27:06 AM
Congrats on picking out the least relevant aspect of that comparison. The point is that the person is being judged by a crowd in the heat of the moment, rather than in an organized process that lets the accused defend himself, and lets people meting out the punishment consider what is fitting.
Yep.
Women being treated unfairly in a professional scientific setting can have horrible results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs10Bd2zh8U
It is not like women were better treated in fields they now are doing very well in. I don't think it is a matter of scientists just being extraordinarily more viciously misogynistic than lawyers or doctors ever were. But I don't really have a good explanation.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 11:27:06 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 09:44:42 AM
then are you arguing employers shouldn't be allowed to dismiss employees when an employee brings about public embarrassment?
I doubt that would work, but may be better than nothing. Right now it's all too easy for employers to take the easy cowardly way out rather than stick up for what could've been a very valuable and loyal employee. Even if the whole reason the company is brought public embarrassment is because some Twitter sociopaths bring the company into it to get the victim fired.
Quotelynching is a mob bypassing a court system to execute a person. what has the social media mob bypassed?
Congrats on picking out the least relevant aspect of that comparison. The point is that the person is being judged by a crowd in the heat of the moment, rather than in an organized process that lets the accused defend himself, and lets people meting out the punishment consider what is fitting.
then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions. do you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting? how do you think they reached their decision to fire him - do you think it was a different process than they use in other situations? to me, it sounds like they used the same process they would use if an employee was indicted with murder or rape. the only difference is you seem to dislike the result this process reached in this particular instance. that's your personal opinion rather than an anything objective.
re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 02:57:10 PM
Yeah he should have been made fun of for that, that is hilariously stupid, but fire him? So much for wanting gender to be a conversation. If you say something wrong in the conversation you will have your life ruined.
Agreed. It happens with many issues.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:10:05 AM
As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note), there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.
I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the existence of systematic bias against women.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2015, 01:24:44 PM
I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the existence of systematic bias against women.
It suggests that women went to Law and Medicine because there was less systematic sexism in those fields. Which is ridiculous. Scientists are not abnormally sexists and certainly not to the extent those careers used to be.
The evidence is simply that there are fewer women in science. The explanation is abuse and bias against women by science professionals. Science is not pure or has its hands clean so it cannot be proven that is not true but I have a hard time being convinced. There is/was sexism against women everywhere. I have my doubts that is sufficient to account for the fewer number of women.
But it is a hard thing to prove either way.
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 07:04:07 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 17, 2015, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 06:56:48 PM
Frankly it is not even the fact people might get fired it is the very public and arbitrary manner they are pilloried that makes it horrifying.
that seems like a complaint about modern technology more than anything.
Yes perhaps modern technology is the end of privacy and beginning of a reign of terror, oppression, and paranoia. Are you ok with that?
:)
Quote from: KRonn on June 18, 2015, 01:21:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 02:57:10 PM
Yeah he should have been made fun of for that, that is hilariously stupid, but fire him? So much for wanting gender to be a conversation. If you say something wrong in the conversation you will have your life ruined.
Agreed. It happens with many issues.
And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2015, 01:40:54 PM
And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.
Entirely? No. But more than I originally thought. After all it was delivered to me in hashtag form.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 01:42:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2015, 01:40:54 PM
And seems entirely tangential to this particular case.
Entirely? No. But more than I originally thought. After all it was delivered to me in hashtag form.
Yes. As Meri noted, social media had little to do with this guy getting bounced, as well as little to do with whether his name would be associated with this on the net. Well unless you think journalists would not have run with this story...
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.
No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache. That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.
Quotedo you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?
They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.
Quote
re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?
Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion. That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 01:50:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.
No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache. That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.
Quotedo you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?
They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.
Quote
re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?
Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion. That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.
Seems sound to me that a company makes decisions based on cost/benefit.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2015, 01:44:30 PM
Yes. As Meri noted, social media had little to do with this guy getting bounced, as well as little to do with whether his name would be associated with this on the net. Well unless you think journalists would not have run with this story...
So the fury over this was in newspapers and not in social media?
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:10:05 AM
You're missing the point. This isn't about how strong or otherwise women are or are not. This wasn't a bad joke, and he never said it was. (His wife called it that; he didn't.)
Incorrect.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins
Quote"I stood up and went mad," he admits. "I was very nervous and a bit confused but, yes, I made those remarks – which were inexcusable – but I made them in a totally jocular, ironic way. There was some polite applause and that was it, I thought. I thought everything was OK. No one accused me of being a sexist pig."
QuoteThis is about an institutional record of women being treated poorly in the workplace, so why go into that workplace? This is about creating a hostile work environment, and then saying, "You just have to be tough." Why do that to yourself when there are other options?
Sounds like you're creating a strawman. I said women (or anyone) ought to be tough enough not to allow a stupid joke to deter them from making a career decision. Seems really bizarre to me how much feminists tend to infantilize women.
QuoteAs for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note),
Do I use the term that often? I don't remember the last time I used it, but I think it definitely applies in this case.
Quotethere is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.
As evidenced by what? Disproportionate representation of males in science? You're not gonna get 50/50 male/female representation in every study/profession. There may be some sexism in science or there may be practically none, but my guess is that it's just not something that tends to interest most women. Why try to force it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2015, 01:24:44 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 10:10:05 AM
As for the "shrieking" (which is a term you reserve for women and gays being upset, I should note), there is systemic sexism in the sciences. Numerous studies have shown this. Perhaps if it's brought up and fought against, it will stop, and women will be able to go into the sciences without going into a hostile work environment. I see no problem with that.
I've read a number of articles that took sexism in the sciences as a starting premise, then went on to discuss what could be done to ameliorate this, but none that proved the existence of systematic bias against women.
Systemic <> systematic
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:27:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:14:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:08:37 AM
So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.
In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.
If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job. Was censored, of course, but kept his job. But his thinking is that women don't belong in Science. Under those circumstances, he can't be allowed to dictate how resources are allocated. He simply can't be trusted to do so fairly based on skill and research if he's willing to stand in front of a room full of women Scientists and tell them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
He lost his job because he was a talking head for the University, and he stood up in front of a room full of women Scientists and told them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.
I think I'd rather have a brilliant scientist work in a position where he can put his genius to work even if it made some of his employees uncomfortable, than not. The purpose of a work place is not to make you feel good about yourself, to feel appreciated or comfortable - it is to achieve results. Only if, on balance, his behaviour would make him and his team less efficient because of his behaviour, he should be fired - but not if he can deliver what others cannot despite him being an asshole.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:27:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:14:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:08:37 AM
So long as he's not in any way overseeing other scientists or dictating who gets what labs, resources, etc., I don't really care.
In what possible circumstances would somebody heading high profile reasearch not be making these sorts of decisions? But he did not have that authority in his former position.
If he worked in a lab, doing his own research, and didn't have the authority to say who got what resources or lab time, then I don't mind if he did what he did and kept his job. Was censored, of course, but kept his job. But his thinking is that women don't belong in Science. Under those circumstances, he can't be allowed to dictate how resources are allocated. He simply can't be trusted to do so fairly based on skill and research if he's willing to stand in front of a room full of women Scientists and tell them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
He lost his job because he was a talking head for the University, and he stood up in front of a room full of women Scientists and told them they shouldn't be in labs with men.
I'm baffled that this isn't cut and dried.
I disagree. There should be a cost and benefit analysis applied. If his intellect and talent outweighs the negative cost of him being in a position of authority and power, he should be in that position.
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2015, 02:27:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 01:50:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.
No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache. That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.
Quotedo you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?
They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.
Quote
re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?
Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion. That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.
Seems sound to me that a company makes decisions based on cost/benefit.
Yes, but coercion is putting the thumb on the cost side of the scale.
Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.
This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?
Meri is right, I was wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.
This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?
Meri is right, I was wrong.
White knight :rolleyes:
:P
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 09:41:46 AM
So you think this should be a universal situation? If you ever say something horrible you should lose you job? It is simple and straightforward?
I think that when a spokesperson, in the doing of his job, makes his employer look like an ass, yes, he should lose his job for what he said.
This wasn't at a party with friends. He was in his official capacity with the university doing his job, and he openly insulted the very people he was sent to woo.
Quote
So you think that everybody who has a personality flaw in this fashion should be banned from ever supervising anybody? What should the burden of proof be? I do not think it is that cut and dry. Or maybe it is. But if it is than the answer to Marty's question is no.
:blink:
Yes, I do. I think that if a person has a "personality flaw" that means that they cannot supervise people fairly, they shouldn't be supervising people. This man, when he was a tenured professor, could make or break careers entirely at his own whim. Should he be in that position, knowing that he has deep-seated biases against certain people? No. He shouldn't.
Sorry, but he is a fucking Nobel prize winner. You, on the other hand, have never achieved much in a professional field, from what I understand. You do not get to dictate how he should be treated and I hate that we live in a world where this is even a possibility.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 02:51:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.
This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?
Meri is right, I was wrong.
White knight :rolleyes:
:P
:perv:
I was about to say...you might not be far off with Berkut and Meri :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:51:05 PM
Sorry, but he is a fucking Nobel prize winner. You, on the other hand, have never achieved much in a professional field, from what I understand. You do not get to dictate how he should be treated and I hate that we live in a world where this is even a possibility.
So if he was a Nobel Prize winner who got up in a conference about tolerance in the workplace and said "Yeah, gays are fine, but they really don't belong in the same room as normal people" you would be all "ZOMG HE HAZ NOBEL PRIZE!!! I CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE AN OPONION ABOUT HIM HE SO SMART!!!"
I rather doubt it. I think rather you would be more along the lines of "Yeah, clearly a super smart guy in whatever it was he has a nobel for (as long as it isn't "Peace" of course) but fuck him! Fire his ass!"
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 10:02:38 AM
Marty, you ARE aware I hope that basically this guy's reasoning applies 100% to gay men. If you do not accept women because they put sex in the mind of themselves and the straight men in the team, then you cannot have more than one gay men per team either.
And we all know that if he DID talk about gay men instead of women, you would be organising a protest to execute him. :P
Not really. If he is brilliant then tough luck - I would not work for him, but I would rather have brilliant assholes in charge of developing cutting edge stuff for our world than have nice guys some nurse somewhere considers to be nice.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:54:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:51:05 PM
Sorry, but he is a fucking Nobel prize winner. You, on the other hand, have never achieved much in a professional field, from what I understand. You do not get to dictate how he should be treated and I hate that we live in a world where this is even a possibility.
So if he was a Nobel Prize winner who got up in a conference about tolerance in the workplace and said "Yeah, gays are fine, but they really don't belong in the same room as normal people" you would be all "ZOMG HE HAZ NOBEL PRIZE!!! I CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE AN OPONION ABOUT HIM HE SO SMART!!!"
I rather doubt it. I think rather you would be more along the lines of "Yeah, clearly a super smart guy in whatever it was he has a nobel for (as long as it isn't "Peace" of course) but fuck him! Fire his ass!"
Nope, I said already before, using examples of homophobic stuff coming from great people.
So basically 'if we are going to put up with your bigoted ass you better be brilliant'?
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:55:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 10:02:38 AM
Marty, you ARE aware I hope that basically this guy's reasoning applies 100% to gay men. If you do not accept women because they put sex in the mind of themselves and the straight men in the team, then you cannot have more than one gay men per team either.
And we all know that if he DID talk about gay men instead of women, you would be organising a protest to execute him. :P
Not really. If he is brilliant then tough luck - I would not work for him, but I would rather have brilliant assholes in charge of developing cutting edge stuff for our world than have nice guys some nurse somewhere considers to be nice.
But that isn't the job he was fired from - he was fired from a position where he goes around giving talks and stuff.
If he was some kind doing active, brilliant work, and he said something completely outside that work, then I am absolutely in agreement with you. You gently nudge him back to his lab and smooth the waters with the masses.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:55:17 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 18, 2015, 10:02:38 AM
Marty, you ARE aware I hope that basically this guy's reasoning applies 100% to gay men. If you do not accept women because they put sex in the mind of themselves and the straight men in the team, then you cannot have more than one gay men per team either.
And we all know that if he DID talk about gay men instead of women, you would be organising a protest to execute him. :P
Not really. If he is brilliant then tough luck - I would not work for him, but I would rather have brilliant assholes in charge of developing cutting edge stuff for our world than have nice guys some nurse somewhere considers to be nice.
But that isn't the job he was fired from - he was fired from a position where he goes around giving talks and stuff.
If he was some kind doing active, brilliant work, and he said something completely outside that work, then I am absolutely in agreement with you. You gently nudge him back to his lab and smooth the waters with the masses.
Notice that the discussion has shifted - I asked a question if he should have been fired, if he was heading a cutting edge research institute. Meri's response was yes.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.
This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?
Meri is right, I was wrong.
I think most of us (except Marty) have gone on to make an argument in general about "social justice". Sometimes real murderers get lynched, but that doesn't mean that you can't have problems with the lynching system just the same. I don't think that Twitter rage storm is a force that can be applied selectively, so I'm dismayed when it succeeds, regardless of how karmic the result is.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 02:57:58 PM
So basically 'if we are going to put up with your bigoted ass you better be brilliant'?
Yes. Most brilliant, great people were assholes. Michelangelo was a sexist, mysoginistic ogre who rarely if ever showered. Mozart was a self-centred narcissistic asshole. Turing was borderline autistic, unempathetic jerk. I'd rather have them in the world - and give them as much leeway as necessary to work their genius than have mediocre nice guys instead.
Too bad there's not some kind of third alternative. Anyway punishing this guy is not going to lose us World War II. The loss (whatever it is, as I note you've made no substantive claim) of his services being outweighed by the instructive effect of a good knuckle-slapping.
I also love derspeiss' argument, which boils down to "people should be tough, so I should be able to say whatever I want. Now about those black people..."
Quote from: Ideologue on June 18, 2015, 03:13:19 PM
I also love derspeiss' argument, which boils down to "people should be tough, so I should be able to say whatever I want. Now about those black people..."
I bet you do, 'cept I didn't say that.
Good try impersonating Seedy, anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:51:05 PM
You do not get to dictate how he should be treated and I hate that we live in a world where this is even a possibility.
I can state with confidence that there is zero possibility that merithyn dictates high level personnel decisions of University College London. Those decisions are presumably made by the provost and council who are full of equally or nearly equally eminent professionals. So both you and Dr. Hunt can rest assured that any decisions to can him are being made by people with plenty of fancy degrees, titles, and honors.
Quote from: Berkut on June 18, 2015, 02:48:21 PM
Yeah, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. I was thinking this was kind of similar to the guy who got fired for a comment some female overheard him make to someone else during a conference, which she then tweeted, and which he never intended for her to hear in the first place. This is not the same thing at all.
This is not someone being hoist for comments he never intended to be public, it is for something he said in a speech TO the public. He can hardly complain or feel like it was not fair that people would have an opinion about comments he made in his role and to journalists. He had a chance to walk them back, and declined - which I guess kudos to him for sticking by his beliefs?
Meri is right, I was wrong.
:yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2015, 03:16:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 02:51:05 PM
You do not get to dictate how he should be treated and I hate that we live in a world where this is even a possibility.
I can state with confidence that there is zero possibility that merithyn dictates high level personnel decisions of University College London. Those decisions are presumably made by the provost and council who are full of equally or nearly equally eminent professionals. So both you and Dr. Hunt can rest assured that any decisions to can him are being made by people with plenty of fancy degrees, titles, and honors.
But he felt better having told Meri she doesn't get to decide these things. Let him have his victory of stating the obvious.
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
Mozart was a self-centred narcissistic asshole
With a major scat fetish. :x
Bee-bap-bap-badam-bam. Bap-bap-badam-bam.
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 02:57:58 PM
So basically 'if we are going to put up with your bigoted ass you better be brilliant'?
Yes. Most brilliant, great people were assholes. Michelangelo was a sexist, mysoginistic ogre who rarely if ever showered. Mozart was a self-centred narcissistic asshole. Turing was borderline autistic, unempathetic jerk. I'd rather have them in the world - and give them as much leeway as necessary to work their genius than have mediocre nice guys instead.
Quit making this conversation all about yourself Martinus. :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2015, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 02:57:58 PM
So basically 'if we are going to put up with your bigoted ass you better be brilliant'?
Yes. Most brilliant, great people were assholes. Michelangelo was a sexist, mysoginistic ogre who rarely if ever showered. Mozart was a self-centred narcissistic asshole. Turing was borderline autistic, unempathetic jerk. I'd rather have them in the world - and give them as much leeway as necessary to work their genius than have mediocre nice guys instead.
Quit making this conversation all about yourself Martinus. :P
I thought it was a pretty good post as well. :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 11:35:45 AMThey all has positive things to say about him, and claimed that they were treated very fairly, and were sad that one incident like that would define his career.
It's not going to define his career. Winning a Nobel prize doesn't fall off one's resume even if you spout nonsense around afterwards. I mean, Watson is still remembered for discovering the structure of DNA even after also embarrassing himself in public with controversial statements several times.
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
gender studies :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 01:50:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
then your complaint is with the companies that fired him rather than those that complained about his actions.
No, my complaint is with the people that create conditions where the employers just want to rid themselves of the headache. That makes them cowardly, but that doesn't make them the entities that created the headache.
Quotedo you think the companies that fired him didn't consider the punishment fitting?
They didn't consider anything other that the cost/benefit of defending the victim of mob justice.
Quote
re: your first comment, do you think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to fire someone for statements he makes in public?
Sometimes I think it's a good idea to remove companies' ability to give in to coercion. That often makes the coercion itself go away, when those that perpetrate it know that the legal situation of the target will not allow them to succeed.
where's the coercion here? was a gun pointed to these organizations' heads - no, there was no gun, and this wasn't "coercion." this was a situation where companies chose to fire someone because he made public comments that resulted in backlash. there's no difference between what this guy said and someone publicly promoting rape. the only difference is that your personal opinions find the latter horrific but not the former. that's on you. like i said in my first post in this thread, if you think someone should never be fired for any statement they make, OK. that's consistent. but if you think it's OK for someone to be fired for a statement they make, then, well, you're gonna see situations like this.
i think the real problem here is that society has changed to the point where it's no longer acceptable to say X when twenty years ago saying X was fine, and some don't like that. things change, and what's acceptable to say now isn't gonna be acceptable to say twenty years from now. that's always been the case.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
where's the coercion here?
Coercion is when the victim's employer is identified, attacked for employing the victim, and is spammed by the lynch mob. At that point it's rational for employer to wash their hands of the employee regardless of anything else.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
Are you now going to question the validity or relevance of his Nobel prize? Wow. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2015, 11:13:10 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on June 18, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
where's the coercion here?
Coercion is when the victim's employer is identified, attacked for employing the victim, and is spammed by the lynch mob. At that point it's rational for employer to wash their hands of the employee regardless of anything else.
Yeah, he wasn't pressed to resign after he said these things at the conference - it was only after a torrent of tweets with calls for him to go being made on social media.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 12:22:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
Are you now going to question the validity or relevance of his Nobel prize? Wow. :lol:
Says the guy who said dismiss the Peace Prize winners.
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
He shared the medicine prize with two others - research in cell cycle regulators
Quote from: katmai on June 19, 2015, 01:46:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 12:22:08 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
Are you now going to question the validity or relevance of his Nobel prize? Wow. :lol:
Says the guy who said dismiss the Peace Prize winners.
Apples and oranges. :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 18, 2015, 08:03:57 PM
Anyone even know what this guy won the Nobel for?
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/press.html
QuoteTimothy Hunt (born 1943), Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London, is awarded for his discovery of cyclins, proteins that regulate the CDK function. He showed that cyclins are degraded periodically at each cell division, a mechanism proved to be of general importance for cell cycle control.
Which, together with his women comment, lands him somewhere between Hitler and Nicki Minaj.
"Distinguished for his studies of the control of protein synthesis in animal cells and for the discovery of cyclin, a protein which regulates the eukaryotic cell cycle. Together with Jackson and their students, he defined steps in formation of the initiation complex in protein synthesis, showing that the 40S ribosomal subunit binds initiator tRNA before it binds mRNA, and that this step was the target of inhibitors such as double-stranded RNA or haem deficiency. They showed that inhibition of protein synthesis is mediated by reversible phosphorylation of initiation factor eIF-2 by two distinct protein kinases and they elucidated the unexpected roles of thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase in protein synthesis. With Ruderman and Rosenthal, he demonstrated selective translational control of mRNA in early clam embryos. This led to Hunt's discovery of cyclin as a protein which is selectively destroyed in mitosis. He subsequently cloned and sequenced cyclin cDNA from sea urchins and frogs and showed by elegant mRNA ablation experiments that cyclin translation is necessary for mitosis in frog embryos. He has also shown that cyclin is a subunit of the mitosis-promoting factor which regulates entry into mitosis. His discovery and characterization of cyclin are major contributions to our knowledge of cell cycle regulation in eukaryotic cells."
:hmm:
So, in other words, he advanced humanity towards the goal of finding cure for cancer. But yeah, let's pillory him for saying something stupid.
Interesting how you trivialize his recent actions.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2015, 02:30:39 AM
Interesting how you trivialize his recent actions.
His recent actions were trivial.
According to you.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 02:05:56 AM
So, in other words, he advanced humanity towards the goal of finding cure for cancer. But yeah, let's pillory him for saying something stupid.
That's the pro-Shockley argument. Doesn't work.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 02:05:56 AM
So, in other words, he advanced humanity towards the goal of finding cure for cancer. But yeah, let's pillory him for saying something stupid.
In other words, he was part of a team of equally or near-equally talented people who likely could've done it without him, and who also failed to be morons in public a decade later.
Your understanding of science is somewhat bizarre, and a little lazy. You do realize that scientific discoveries, however brilliant, are not simply conjured by Chosen Ones, right? And that the human species produces sufficient intellects to understand them that your alleged Necessary Men could be superseded readily enough by others in most cases?
This is coming from me, and I practically think a STEM degree should be a requirement to vote. Just because someone is smarter than you or I in a given field and you've heard his name because of the publicity of a Nobel win doesn't mean he's absolutely unique.
Turns out his life was ruined by a feminist con artist. Whoops.
QuoteThe report began by confirming that Sir Tim had joked about falling in love with women in laboratories and 'making them cry'. However, it said he'd prefaced those comments with an ironic introduction, joking that they would illustrate what a 'chauvinist monster' he was.
The report then revealed the existence of an entire second half of the controversial toast. In it, Sir Tim was said to have told his audience that his remark about 'making them cry' was, indeed, an ironic joke.He purportedly said, 'now seriously . . .' before going on to speak enthusiastically about the 'important role' women scientists play. He ended by joking that his largely female audience should pursue their trade, 'despite monsters like me'.
The report's author added: 'I didn't notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media,' going on to describe the speech as 'warm and funny'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html)
Read further, she's a real piece of work.
On the one hand it's dailymail, on the other it'd be funny if the stupidity she started comes around and wrecks her too. Karma and what not.
I'll bet she's actually white too.
Quote from: HVC on June 29, 2015, 08:18:40 AM
On the one hand it's dailymail, on the other it'd be funny if the stupidity she started comes around and wrecks her too. Karma and what not.
Yeah hard hitting factual reporting from them of all places. :lol:
Of course this won't make any difference, female feelz were hurt by the fabrication.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 08:22:44 AM
I'll bet she's actually white too.
She probably identifies as otherkin.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2015, 07:45:39 AM
Turns out his life was ruined by a feminist con artist. Whoops.
QuoteThe report began by confirming that Sir Tim had joked about falling in love with women in laboratories and 'making them cry'. However, it said he'd prefaced those comments with an ironic introduction, joking that they would illustrate what a 'chauvinist monster' he was.
The report then revealed the existence of an entire second half of the controversial toast. In it, Sir Tim was said to have told his audience that his remark about 'making them cry' was, indeed, an ironic joke.He purportedly said, 'now seriously . . .' before going on to speak enthusiastically about the 'important role' women scientists play. He ended by joking that his largely female audience should pursue their trade, 'despite monsters like me'.
The report's author added: 'I didn't notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media,' going on to describe the speech as 'warm and funny'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html)
Read further, she's a real piece of work.
I would wait until it's confirmed in reputable sources, but it's not surprising at all if it does get confirmed. As I said in my first post in this thread, common sense would indicate that given that he spoke to women in that event, there must've been a context from which the quote was ripped.
The Times should be highbrow enough. Although the "reputable" sources seem to be staffed by retards who just directly write their twitter feeds into articles and call it a day. Gotta get those clicks in and fast.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece)
Wow. I'd like to hear Meri's take on these new developments.
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 08:52:55 AM
Wow. I'd like to hear Meri's take on these new developments.
That's not fair. She was proceeding on the assumption that the allegations were true, as were the rest of us.
And it must be said that science boy did a shit job of defending himself against the allegation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 08:52:55 AM
Wow. I'd like to hear Meri's take on these new developments.
That's not fair. She was proceeding on the assumption that the allegations were true, as were the rest of us.
That's not fair either. Mobs form precisely because everyone "proceeds on the assumption", and few stop to think "wait, wait, this makes no sense at all, there most be more to the story".
He's not a PR flack and his colleagues couldn't throw him under the bus fast enough.
Well this story just summed up everything I hate and fear about social media even more than I had originally thought.
QuoteThat's not fair either. Mobs form precisely because everyone "proceeds on the assumption", and few stop to think "wait, wait, this makes no sense at all, there most be more to the story".
I presume nobody here participated in the mob but yes. Besides it was not like Meri ever suggested that it was an assumption and the man might not be a monster. You can never defend yourself in social media, you are guilty. Well I hope everybody was proud of getting another person fired and their life destroyed.
In terms of arguing on the 'net though, we can only 'proceed on the assumption' that what is reported is in fact accurate. This though was a failure of traditional journalism not social media - the speech was public (lending support to the assumption it was accurately reported).
Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
In terms of arguing on the 'net though, we can only 'proceed on the assumption' that what is reported is in fact accurate. This though was a failure of traditional journalism not social media - the speech was public (lending support to the assumption it was accurately reported).
The failure of social media was then launching a campaign of character assassination and public pressure and mob action. This is fundamentally unjust, you cannot defend yourself from this kind of attack, there can be no witnesses called or a fair hearing had. Traditional Journalism got it right eventually but social media works lightning fast. By the time we discovered the situation was more complicated than we thought, the pound of flesh from the mob terror had already been extracted. People who knew the truth of the situation were coerced into firing him.
It is garbage and horrifying.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2015, 09:28:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 29, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
In terms of arguing on the 'net though, we can only 'proceed on the assumption' that what is reported is in fact accurate. This though was a failure of traditional journalism not social media - the speech was public (lending support to the assumption it was accurately reported).
The failure of social media was then launching a campaign of character assassination and public pressure and mob action. This is fundamentally unjust, you cannot defend yourself from this kind of attack, there can be no witnesses called or a fair hearing had. Traditional Journalism got it right eventually but social media works lightning fast. By the time we discovered the situation was more complicated than we thought, the pound of flesh from the mob terror had already been extracted. People who knew the truth of the situation were coerced into firing him.
It is garbage and horrifying.
Oh, I agree that it sucks.
Chicks. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2015, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 08:52:55 AM
Wow. I'd like to hear Meri's take on these new developments.
That's not fair. She was proceeding on the assumption that the allegations were true, as were the rest of us.
All I'm saying is I would like to hear what she has to say. But since you went there, it would be quite fair for me to call her out on this. Always a good idea to wait for all the facts to be known before you start calling for someone's life to be ruined.
QuoteAnd it must be said that science boy did a shit job of defending himself against the allegation.
Well, I'm sure you know that the shitstorm began and then spread rapidly while he was flying back home. He had no way of defending himself before certain people had already made up their minds. But maybe he should have hired a PR firm before he boarded his flight from Korea, dunno.
Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2015, 09:44:32 AM
Well, I'm sure you know that the shitstorm began and then spread rapidly while he was flying back home. He had no way of defending himself until certain people had already made up their minds. But maybe he should have hired a PR firm before he boarded his flight from Korea, dunno.
Interesting that is exactly the same way the woman who made the AIDS joke got fired and defamed.
Did Meri call for his life to be ruined?
If this unfortunate experience teaches us anything, it's that we should never take the word of a woman over that of a man. :sleep: