Slashdot Mirror
Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage?
RedK writes: Connie St-Louis, on June 8th, reported on apparently sexist remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winning scientist, during an event organised for women in sciences. This led to the man's dismissal from his stations, all in such urgency that he did not even have time to present his side, nor was his side ever offered any weight. A leaked report a few days later suggests that the remarks were taken out of context. Further digging shows that the accuser has distorted the truth in many cases it seems. This is not the first time that people may have jumped the gun too soon on petty issues and ruined great events or careers.
I don't use either Twitter or Facebook so would not be worried if eithere or both of them went down
When a charge is this serious, the facts don't matter. /sarc
This is the same thing that happened to a Texas Firefighter who supposedly had praised that sadistic little shit Dylan Roof, on Facebook. However, the post was a response in a thread, and the Firefighter claims it was in response to another poster, who had donated to a fund for the victims of the shooting. The words were "He needs to be praised for the good deed he has done." He was immediately suspended and is now a social Pariah, a walking target. The disturbing trend in these kinds of situations is the accuser doesn't even have a chance to defend themselves before they find their lives ruined.
I love the idea that in an article about media outrage the author uses a Daily Mail article as evidence for why someone else's media outrage was wrong.
Yes.
Do it in the name of tolerance.
90% of "outrage" is virtue signalling and peer pressure.
We see this kind of outcome all over the place nowadays. It's mostly because those in positions of power are far too worried about public perception. (Of course, their almost complete lack of any firmly held moral principles leaves them adrift, and very much at the mercy of popular sentiment). Obviously Sir Tim Hunt is of infinitely more value to society than Connie St Louis - a glance at the Daily Mail story referred to in the summary makes that clear. So why was he forced to resign as a kneejerk reaction to a wave of ephemeral indignation, which will be forgotten by next week (and it's Saturday as I write)?
Recently I have been glued to a box set of the complete "Hill Street Blues" - yes, I know that telegraphs my age and unadventurous taste in TV. It was only the other night that I got quite angry at the spectacle of the police chief twisting Captain Furillo's arm to get him to abandon his defence of an apparently "bad cop". This guy, a narcotics agent, had shot and killed a young black man while interrupting some suspicious activity in the small hours. The cop claimed that he had given due warning, and fired only after being fired on - all of which was true. Also, the group he tried to apprehend were in fact committing crimes. Nevertheless, the police chief tells Furillo that it's vital for the department to be seen to throw this "bad cop" to the wolves. It's all about perception, he explains. The facts don't matter at all; all that counts is that this is a good time to throw someone to the wolves.
University College London (UCL) has indeed stained its reputation. Its refusal even to consider reinstating Professor Hunt makes matters worse. And Britain, which seems to prefer Ms St Louis to Professor Hunt, will get what it has chosen. Not to its advantage.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "social media".
It is the Progressive thought that prevails the Western Culture.
Political Correctness places style over substance. Or, speech over actions.
Pulling words out of context and the twisting of meaning to suit one's purpose is a long and effective tactic.
People are "convicted" for "crimes" they did not commit while people who have actually committed the same "crimes" are never bothered because they are Progressives and Politically Correct actors.
THAT's your complaint? In this time and age, with terrorism and an economy in the dump, your problem is that fags can marry?
Dude, get your priorities right. Or, in terms that you can understand, Matt 7,3.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Whether the reaction is "too quick" or not is the wrong question to ask. It is wrong to prosecute thoughtcrimes at all. Whether or not he is "sexist", he is still a brilliant scientist and a credit to whatever stations he was fired from.
Such prosecutions are not only unfair — and offensive to everyone, who values the First Amendment — they are also ineffective and counter-productive: people will not change their minds this way, they'll just learn to keep their mouths shut.
And, of course, it also exposes the preachers of tolerance and crusaders against bigotry as intolerant bigots. Some silver lining, I suppose...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If this is the rules that get you to jail if broken, you can as well break them.
You are already in a jail.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's right. Everybody is so busy attacking the speaker, nobody's watching the idiot followers who cause all the damage.
I detect yet another call for censorship here. Watch out!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sigh, sadly, we never seem to outgrow the worst of our predilections.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Internet veterans know to laugh at most of the outrage. You can't take it seriously. I think a lot of the problems come from old media trying to be hip and cool so they get on social media but they don't know how crazy people can be on the internet so they take people too seriously. And then crazy people get treated as anything but crazy people.
All this hyperventilating about various moron outrages. Just do what the internet does with these people. Give them a an "oh really nick cage"... or a "sarcastic wonka"... and move on.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
to separate one's well-being and financial security from the whims and control of others.
Requiem for the American Dream
Witch hunts like the hounding and summary destruction of Sir Tim Hunt's career for out of context comments like this are detrimental to progress, despite the fact that this movement is supposedly being run by so-called "progressives".
But do we really have to keep calling them "Libtard SJWs"? I don't like them very much myself, but name-calling just makes everyone who is rightly disgusted with the activities of the toxic Political Correctness witch hunt look like 10 year olds having a tantrum. Unless you're meaning to troll, make your arguments articulately, because you don't need to resort to that kind of invective for people to understand that the correctness movement is a destructive mess, and you're just feeding their shrillness and persecution complexes.
Tim Hunt was attacked and dismissed from UCL, the Royal Society and other bodies, based on nothing more than lies. Anybody can, with enough manipulation, be ostracized for comments taken out of context. Anybody.
If Tim Hunt is not reinstated, and the liar(s) that caused his reputation to be tarnished, will not bear the consequences of their dishonest behavior, our society is going towards a very scary future. We have not learned anything from the lessons of the past, and any Goebbels wannabe is going to fuck us up.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
So entitled to being an insufferable twat twice for the price of one?
So please listen, lady. You're not entitled to anything. And neither is anyone else due to the color of their face, their sexual orientation, their gender, their upbringing, their place of birth or ANYTHING else. The only thing you are entitled to is the SAME treatment that anyone else gets who isn't part of $minority_group (albeit I fail to see how "female" is a minority in any kind of context except maybe when it comes to who pisses standing up).
You can complain if you suffer from having other/fewer/inferior rights and treatment due to your $minority_group. You will see me in the first row center in a march for equality, be it equal pay for women and men or equal marriage rights for gays and heterosexuals. But THAT IS IT!
You are NOT entitled to be except from being made fun of because of your $minority_group. You are NOT entitled to not being the butt of jokes because you are $minority_group. You are NOT entitled of better or preferred treatment because of belonging to your fucking minority group!
Equality, yes. And I will gladly fight for it, even if I don't belong to your minority group because I do think people have the right, the absolute and unalienable right, to be treated the SAME way as everyone else independent of anything you could think of.
Entitlement, no. Not now, not ever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Asking "should they be acting slower?" is missing the point.
The problem isn't how quickly they acted, it's how stupidly they acted.
You mean like when that city assessor was dismissed because he called his fellow council membars nigardly in their use of money. Odd since that word has nothing to do with their offence.
I guess all homonyms are bad because they're homo.
Last week in my country, a new political party overrun the previous party in charge of the municipality for about 30 years (yes, those thing happen in Europe sometimes).
The day the new government took charge, the displaced party dug out some four-year-old tweets containing a silly joke about nazis (the kind that would gather a +5 funny and some grammar nazi "corrected for you" replies around here) when the man had not even a politician. The same day, all the traditional media were reporting on their front pages as if it was the man's true opinion instead of a joke, reaching international press and forcing the councillor to resign (you may have heard about it as the "communist politician supporting the holocaust").
As long as the public falls for such obvious tactics, and until politicians learn to trim their twitter and facebook timelines when they run for office, this is bound to happen again and again.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I sometimes wonder how justified the 'Social' is in 'Social Media'.
Yes.
Take that, Betteridge!
Nothing posted to
..and he got terminated from all of his positions.
If it stopped at him being mocked, that would be fine. Still an overreaction, because his comments were taken out of context and completely not understood (perhaps *willfully* misunderstood, as was the case with may who piled on Justine Sacco). But, whatever.
But he also got fired. And that's why this is a serious problem.
That is all.
People didn't make fun of him, they got him fired. I am in favor of shaming people for incorrect behavior that is still legal behavior. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to socially unacceptable views on women and ethical or sexual minorities. We need to shame politicians and business people that give the appearance of impropriety in their dealings too. And we should be proportional in our response. If someone makes a bad joke, and then softens it when they realize it was a bad joke, we shouldn't get them fired, we should humiliate them for "acting like an ass in public" and watch them more closely to see if they are acting like an ass consistently towards people they work with. The latter is grounds for firing someone, but not a different sense of humor. Even if he was a misogynist, racist, homophobe, it wouldn't really matter as long as he treated all his coworkers with respect and based all decisions on merit. People are allowed to be stupid, and we are allowed (and encouraged) to laugh at them, but not fire them.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!
People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin.
People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully.
But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You haven't provided the rest of the speech I expect because you're a fucking moron. So why don't you read all about it here and discover to your surprise that the women who started this is a fraud (so often the case with PC outrage). And whilst you're at it, why don't you read a letter to the editor from one of his accomplished former female graduate students.
When you're done, come back here and give us some more of your sanctimonious shite.
Maybe, that's because none of the earlier dead have, actually, been innocent. Michael Brown in particular deserved to die (even if Eric Garner didn't).
Or, maybe, because these are a church-going folk — you know, the stupid, illogical, bigoted and parochial believers in a sky-god...
I don't know — but you are right in that their tolerance is sincere, and not a result of some "grass-roots" organisation making emphasis on tolerance one of the bullet points on a strategy memo. To be discarded and replaced with the opposite, when the situation changes.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Twitter especially. People put way too much importance on a service that expressly limits you to short comments and allows/encourages you to block other people with dissenting views. The end result being collections of threads that oversimplify issues and give the illusion of overwhelming support, little feel good 'me too' clubs with convenient linkable permanence.
Twitter gives you a soapbox to stand on and shout to the world, but some people are too busy feeling important to notice that they give everyone else a box too.
As for the idea that he was taken out of context, the linked article which is supposed to support that idea quotes him as saying:
False, you did not read the Independent article. You simply reposted the original quote. Read it thoroughly, here is the relevant context submitted by the EU official :
"He allegedly continued: âoeNow seriously, Iâ(TM)m impressed by the economic development of Korea.
âoeAnd women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me."
I'll give you a pass, the Independent's article is formatted in a way you might not have noticed that the first 3 paragraphs are not the entire article, it continues after the image. I suggest giving a 2nd read through, fully :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sir-tim-hunts-claims-that-remarks-on-girls-in-science-not-sexist-backed-by-leaked-eu-report-10341309.html
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Outrage is almost always a sign that someone is trying to manipulate you (either for page views, or something else).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In this time and age, with terrorism and an economy in the dump...
I really don't think that, in the US at least, there's a terrorism problem. We've had 2 problems in ~14 years, even less if you go farther back in history. I think to be a relevant charge terrorism would have to be more frequent. Car accidents kill around 32k people a year, so . For the couple trillion piddled away in Iraq / Afghanistan you could have given away self driving cars and saved ~450k people in addition to not having lots of vets with PTSD. So with the facts in mind, please don't list terrorism as a top 5 concern. On the economy you are correct. A real recovery, one for more than just the 1%, would be greatly appreciated.
I think what he did was endearing. The talk about women in the lab was a reference to his wife whom he met while she worked in a lab.
..and he got terminated from all of his positions.
He resigned from an honorary position at University College London. His day job is Principal Scientist at Cancer Research UK. As far as I can find out, he still has that job.
Jo Brand and Roseanne Barr got applause when they "joked" about wanting to stab men through the heart. Isn't that far worse than calling someone thin-skinned?
More here.
Every single one of your 'concerns' arises in cases of divorce, too. But there was no well-financed national campaign to maje divorce more difficult. Nobody tried to amend any Constitutions to ban no-fault divorce. No, it was the numerically small, historically persecuted minority that got that kind of attention. I think the true priorities are pretty clearly seen from the actions taken.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
But I got better.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
People are too quick, and frankly from what I've seen it should be called "anti-social media" because it is so insipid, so cruel, and it's manufactured sociopathy.
But in the can of Tim Hunt the person media raping him is a trifecta of unassailability, she is elderly, black and female.
In this age of neo-feminism that makes her untouchable.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This behavior is inherent in being human. You think conservatives don't partake of hysteria?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Rarely do people do fact checking. Propaganda is really easy to push on social media if you know how to do it right, causing people to stand up for causes, buy products or to make someone public enemy #1. This is the downside of popular opinion social media sites, if its wrong, yet a popular opinion, everyone gets a wrong popular opinion. Fortunately not all astroturfers understand how to pull on heart strings yet.
God spoke to me
The story shows that who throws the first stone can later be hunted down by the same forces which have been evoked. The resume and previous statements of the twitter author have been checked and dissected by journalists and it does not look pretty. The episode also shows that humour can be tough to understand and that there are many flavours. Outside the UK, some seem to have a hard time parsing British humour. And it can take time to appreciate it. A lot of the Monty Python skits need time to be assimilated. Even so not always politically correct, the jokes are not meant to be offensive. The worst are hypocrites, condemning things which were intended to be funny, but who have have a questionable moral code themselves.
Sir Tim’s claims that his remarks were an “idiotic joke” and not meant to be taken seriously.
Ah, I see. Hilarious! How did I miss that?
Here's a good one for you: "Blacks are such an inconvenience in the summer. Maybe we should have separate water fountains? What we really need to do is start hanging more of them."
That's a real side-splitter right there! Oh, boy! I can't take many more of these "jokes", I'll bust a gut!
Required reading for internet skeptics
And the hypersensitivity of people these days is just ridiculous - especially when they aren't even in the group being "insulted". I find myself just not making jokes and making the most banal conversation now because of fear of pissing off an idiot and getting screamed at or shot. For example, back when that whole bullshit of those pizza place people not wanting to serve gay people, I didn't think it was a big deal - I DIDN'T say it was right, btw. But fucking A, I got screamed at by a straight person for being a bigot, and god forbid when I posted something like that on Reddit, I got voted down into oblivion. That couldn't have possibly have been from gay people because they are a very very very small minority. It was all sanctimonious bullies.
And I think that is where a lot of this PC backlash is originating from: sanctimonious bullies.
Self-aware much?
Who even said anything about raising kids? Marriage is not about kids. It used to be, granted, but these days, marriage is about taxes, inheritance, renting, who gets to visit whom in hospitals and a load of other things that are very different whether you're married or not.
Not to mention the whole "love" thing...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, that's true here on Slashdot, unless the social media outrage involves:
1) Ethics in Game Journalism
2) Aaron Swartz
3) Terry Childs
4) Julian Assange
5) Edward Snowden
Then all the social media outrage you can muster is COMPLETELY warranted.
The US has a terrorism problem. It's not the terrorists that make the problem, though. It's the response to the perceived threat.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Connie St-Louis, on June 8th, reported on apparently sexist remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt, a nobel prize winning scientist, during an event organised for women in sciences
The event was the World Conference of Science Jormalists
Hosted by the Korea Science Journalists Association and the World Federation of Science Journalists. The first to be held in East Asia.
The morning session of the opening day kicked off with Tim Hunt speaking on "Creative Science - Only A Game?"
and Deborah Blum on "Listening to the Past - Why history makes journalists smarter." WCSJ 2015 Program Schedule
Blum is a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The Poisoner's Handbook, a page-turning introduction to the coming-of-age of modern forensic science.
All Tim Hunt was asked to do was to stay on message and not step out on the stage wearing one of Matt Taylor's lingerie print tee shirts.
It wasn't a single reporter who did him in but hundreds broadcasting to a global audience. The morning-after apology for something you said that blew up in your face never comes across as entirely convincing.
Hunt hasn't seen the inside of lab in years, but he remained a powerful voice inside the top-tier committees which award research grants and fellowships --- and that had many women crying foul.
"Now seriously..." doesn't stop a sexist joke from being sexist.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Specifically with UCL, it was tantamount to constructive dismissal, and I hope he sues their pants off for that alone.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with "the right to never be offended" at all. This is simply about social consequences for offensive speech.
Had Hunt said something like "I hate seeing filthy n**** in the lab." or "gays are ruining science" and people and related organizations denounced him and disassociated themselves from him, would you still think this is about "the right to never be offended"? Of course not. You'd realize that people and organizations generally don't want to be associated with bigots. They're under no obligation to continue their association.
Say any idiotic thing you want. Just don't expect that you won't have to face any social consequences for that speech. It could be as simple as a verbal thrashing, or as serious as a lost career.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Not either-or, but all of the above. The state's interest in defining marriage has a lot to do with kids.
Yeah! Those Libtard SJWs and the lamestream media! Theyr'e all just sheeple who love the Muslim Obummer!
Someone should find the Facebook account of this Betteridge fellow...
Sir Tim Hurt ultimately doesn't care; he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone anymore, and I'm sure he's financially secure enough not to worry about it.
The whole thing mostly hurts University College London, who are losing a skilled and accomplished scientist.
Sexist jokes aren't inherently wrong. There's a difference in advocating sexist policies (lab seggregation, that women don't belong in STEM) and a sexist joke.
It's a good way to introduce a serious talk where he congratulates women in science in fact. "Women don't belong in science, pfwaaahh, look at all this neat stuff they have done!" is a sexist joke followed by a very serious praise. Haven't you ever used sarcasm or irony to then show how the opposite is the desired outcome ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I don't get why a once off comment should destroy a person. Obviously being on the receiving end of it sucks, but what most people want is an apology if damage is done by the comments and improved awareness of the issues. Very few, except the media it seems, want people's lives destroyed to the point where there is little left for them.
I'm bisexual and I doubt many in the 70+ age bracket would be aware of every politically correct sensitivity they should have about bisexuality. Do I want them hung in the square if they say something wrong? Not at all. If it is something not damaging and a joke, I'd probably laugh. If it is carelessly damaging, then bring it up and talk about how to improve it. Intent matters and unless it is something like an outright malicious attack then backlash is an inappropriate response and just sets more fires and divisions.
In terms of science, I'm not sure anything a person can say can destroy their legacy as a scientist, except maybe that they made it all up and committed scientific fraud.
Outrage is almost always a sign that someone is trying to manipulate you (either for page views, or something else).
An angry outburst is temporary insanity. You are not rational while you are angry, and anything you are thinking of saying or doing is going to be irrational and stands a high degree of making your problem worse. If you will train yourself to relax as your default habit whenever something frustrates you, and adopt the rule that you won't say or do anything until you have calmed down, you will actually train the neurons in your brain to focus on rational problem solving instead of producing an angry outburst, and you will be able to come up with much better solutions to your problems.
A debt collector knows that if you are thinking rationally when they call, you will not pay them, so they seek to get you upset so you will do something irrational. Politicians exploit the exact same thing.
As a parent I know the most important thing I need to do in raising my children is to keep my head and stay calm and relaxed so that the solutions I come up with to parenting difficulties will be rational solutions, the best solutions possible so I can do a good job of raising my kids.
This works for nearly any problem in life.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I've actually gone polar opposite. I've pretty well stopped caring who I offend, and push it as far as I can whenever possible. Of course, I don't have much to lose, as my job is not particularly special, and I don't have a reputation of any kind to begin with. The point is, I'm sick of everyone being 'offended on behalf of X' and have made a hobby out of pushing people to it, and then calling them on their bullshit. I'll probably lose my job over it some day, but until then, its all hands on deck to teach people to mind their own bloody business.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Except the person that started this firestorm is British.
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No. And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion. Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
Learn to love Alaska
We are back to the mob rule of the Roman days. An angry mob gets to decide someone's life. We even have bread and circus in the form of mass media and healthcare subsidies. This is human nature. It is ugly and feral. It takes civility and a republic to keep it in check. We have neither today. Welcome back to the "Good Old Days", circa 50 A.D.
He should've at least been allowed to defend himself.
I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!
People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin.
People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully.
But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.
People have the right to free speech, but unfortunately that does not extend to free speech without consequence from your employers. The employer isn't firing you because of anyone's right not to be offended, they're doing it because keeping him around keeps them in the news cycle and makes it be one of the first things you see about them when you look them up. Like the girl who got fired for poor-judgment tweeting about white privilege and not getting HIV.
Err, why exactly would it be a bad idea to pay debts?
I wondered that, too, the first time I heard this. The answer is that it would be a bad idea to make debt payments if you are spending your rent or grocery money to do so. This is why we have things like bankruptcy laws.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In this case, what was said was not properly reviewed, nor was the context properly framed and the accuser was believed and trusted 100% and only their account was considered to issue punishment.
This is the issue. Not that speech shouldn't have consequences, that the consequences to speech shouldn't be given so quickly in reaction to a social media cabal, before everything is properly assessed.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Depends who "we" are. His employer was immediately opened up to bring sued or having exam results for his classes questioned by female students who could argue he has demonstrated bias. It would have been nice to see them fight if they thought he was really joking (and it seems like he wasn't, as he publicly stood by his words later) but they were under no obligation to do anything other than limit their liability.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you even grant a teeny tiny possibility that there are advantages to having a child to be raised by their biological mother and father?
No.
Glad you were able to fill us in on that. :)
And I've never seen any study that could be construed to lead to that conclusion.
There are studies that show pretty much everything in the social sciences that somebody wants to show, so if you haven't seen a particular result, it's pretty much for lack of looking. (And yes, that is a pathetic state of affairs in social sciences.) I'd suggest that the "equality of marriages" with regard to child development outcomes is just as firmly established as that increases in CO2 lead to more frequent and intense hurricanes. The science is settled, people! /sarcasm
Your assertion is that adopted kids are inferior. That has been studied, and hasn't been found to be true.
Nah, that's a straw man. I will readily agree that adopted kids can turn out really great, and better in many cases than with their lousy birth parents. A selection of data points doesn't refute the existence of a trend in a noisy dataset.
So your assertions seem to be based on bigotry, not reason.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
(Unfortunately, the current political climate harshly punishes thinking honestly about it,
Yeah, like when interracial marriage was talked about, and "the half-breed kids will belong to neither race, and will obviously be inferior to either" was "honest" talk. Thankfully, your type of "honest" talk is considered irrational bigotry. That's not a fault in the "political climate" as you assert.
You are a real jerk, aren't you? Since you prefer insults to courteous debate, I have no interest in engaging further with you.
Anyone who joined that twitter mob to accuse that guy of being sexist should be ashamed of themselves, and immediately join the twitter mob that accuses that woman of faking her credentials.
lucm, indeed.
It's time to get over your sexist attitudes about women in science. If that's lost on you, then, at the very least, keep your sexist comments to yourself.
First, I suggest reading through all the links, Connie's assertions were not fully backed, the 2 "witnesses" only confirm the joke was made (which Sir Tim Hunt doesn't deny, since he made it), and have steered clear from denying the 2nd report that frames the context.
Second, the about what I quoted : Questionning whether or not we as a society are failing to follow proper procedure and take in all evidence and try to uncover the truth before we make these decisions, and do base our decisions only on the initial emotional reaction is not us being Sexist.
Questionning emotional reactions of people is Skepticism. Not Sexism. If you're going to accuse a bunch of people of being sexist because they refuse to push your narrative and instead decide to dig deeper, you are part of the issue I'm raising. If the man truly is sexist and bigoted, give us the time to gather evidence so we can come to this conclusion based on truth rather than emotional outrage on twitter.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
offensensitivity
Social Media Justice != Social Justice
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Amusing Ourselves to Death
In this case, what was said was not properly reviewed, nor was the context properly framed
I'll disagree. I've read the article, several others, his defense, his wife's defense, defenses from his students.
The initial assessment was quick, but perfectly correct. (The only point of contention is that it was a 'joke' which changes absolutely nothing.) Even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate! He's just upset about how quickly he was judged, not about the accuracy of the judgement. He was upset that he wasn't extended the courtesies to which he believed he was entitled.
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
the consequences to speech shouldn't be given so quickly in reaction to a social media cabal
Speed is a misdirection. "It happened too quickly" is just a way to imply that the situation hasn't been properly assessed. It's a way to cast doubt. Well, the facts are in and his comments are still inappropriate, he should still offer a real apology, and those organizations are right to disassociate with him.
Yes, there is a real danger in putting a persons life in the hands of the "social media cabal" and there are countless examples you could find to support that. This particular case, however, is not one of them.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Scientist Tim Hunt responds to criticism of 'girls in labs' comments
Transcript of BBC 4 "Today" clip. 10/6/2015
''I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,'' he said.
''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.
''I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
''I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually.''
Tim Hunt's version of events changes a little even before a friendly interviewer.
His brief remarks contained 39 words that have subsequently come to haunt him.
'''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,'' he told delegates.
''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.''
[Hunt's wife] clutches her head as Hunt talks. ''It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,'' she says. ''You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn't know Tim. But really it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s. Nevertheless he is not sexist. I am a feminist, and I would not have put up with him if he were sexist.''
The next morning, as he headed for Seoul airport, Hunt...recorded a clumsily worded phone message [for "Today.''] ''It was a mistake to do that as well. It just sounded wrong.''
Tim Hunt: ''I've been hung out to dry. They haven't even bothered to ask for my side of affairs''
The audience at the conference was expected to be about 40% Asian. "If you don't know Tim..." as well as his wife? No in Seoul could be reasonably be expected to know him that well. No one in the audience for Radio 4.
Are We Too Quick to Act on Social Media Outrage?
Sure. Probably. But, it should have no bearing upon how institutions, (employers, law enforcement, schools, government, news media, etc...), behave. We can't have the Twitterverse making decisions for us, especially in this era where people seem to derive identity from victimhood, and derive victimhood from the mildest transgressions. And, the last thing one can expect from the internet, on any topic, is a proportionate response.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Depends who "we" are. His employer was immediately opened up to bring sued or having exam results for his classes questioned by female students who could argue he has demonstrated bias. It would have been nice to see them fight if they thought he was really joking (and it seems like he wasn't, as he publicly stood by his words later) but they were under no obligation to do anything other than limit their liability.
Are you really so dim that you would really take the thus far unsubstantiated word of a couple of activists over tens of the worlds most eminent female scientists? That you believe that sexist jokes are a bigger issue than plagiarism? In the science world (yeah, I used to work as one) plagiarism is the biggest sin one can commit. Religion ideals like you tend to espouse? Not so much.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
We can have a reasonable discussion about the severity of the response, if it was too severe or not sever enough. We cannot disagree that his comments were inappropriate.
The consequences, in this particular case, is that the someone will forever be shunned by institutions. The only good thing to come out of this is that they will never work again. Their name is forever tainted due to the large amount of non-science that they did. The other party of this little drama will continue being a well-respected nobel prize-winner working on cancer research, with offers of employment and requests for assistance pouring in.
The witch-hunter in this round fully got what she deserved. When your publicly available CV does not match up to publicly available information *AND* that particular fact is the first hit on google you may as well kill yourself - no one else is ever going to believe a word you say about your competence again.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I don't suppose anyone wants to talk about the fact that the survival of any species including humans depends 100% on males "falling in love with" females of that species and vice-versa? Or that our attention to the pursuits of the intellect and will, including all of science, are easily trumped by the reproductive urge, because life depends on it, and this urge has evolved in us to be very strong and distracting? Any species with a reproductive urge that is not strong and distracting is bound for the evolutionary scrap heap.
So the guy is correct on both counts. The next sentence is the dubious part: Whether "girls" cry when you criticize them... well yeah they're usually called women actually, and whether they cry or not depends on who it is, how narcissistic she is, what culture you're in, the degree to which she has "fallen in love with" the criticizer, what kind of day she's having, and how much of an ass the criticizer is being in their criticism.
Nonsense. Asking questions and discussing issues is not bigotry.
Yes, like the poll questions near election time. "Did you hear the accusation that sidelash rapes under-age, dead, squirrels?" After all, it's just a question. But asking in that manner is designed to cause deliberate and measurable harm, and from the studies, works.
Your implication is that questions can't be bigoted. Reality proves you wrong, but you refuse to live in reality, as it doesn't agree with your bigoted world view.
Learn to love Alaska
Wait a second. Why are you talking about "studies" in your post above? I thought some questions should never be asked, and even to ask them is bigoted and wrong. So why would there be studies?
You open yourself up to criticism when you say something, publicly distribute it, and sign your name on it by putting it on your Facebook account.
Facebook causes divorces, fights, arguments, trending-social-cancers, etc. Facebook is news for busybodies, stuff that doesn't matter.
Facebook is a stupid site for people lacking common sense. Yes, it's a lot of people I realize. These two points lead one to the natural conclusion that a lot of people don't have common sense. Yes. I know.
A public diary? What could go wrong?
also, /. looks super-retarded with all these layout mods. no Read more, etc. Facebook buttons on it... read above. So stupid. Dice should literally hire Tim Hunt as website manager.
Playing dumb, you do it so well.
You didn't catch me in a contradiction. You just stated you aren't smart enough to word a delicate question in an ethical manner. That your ethics is lacking isn't a surprise.
Learn to love Alaska
(Hands AK Marc even more rope in morbid curiosity to see what happens next.)
gays are ruining science
I fail to see how someone's sexual orientation has any effect on their ability to perform in the scientific fields Narcc. You sound like a homophobic bigot when you say stuff like that.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Tim Hunt backed Connie St. Louis' report. He did so in a BBC interview recorded soon after the shit hit the fan on Twitter. That's the evidence, in full audible glory. He's not under duress. He's not being misquoted. It's 100% calm and collected Tim Hunt repeating his sexist comments. He's not joking as anyone with any first grade grasp on the English language can tell.
Only after it dawned on him that it was 2015 and that sort of stuff doesn't fly anymore that he changed his story.
A real recovery, one for more than just the 1%, would be greatly appreciated.
Not gonna happen until all the private debt we've accumulated in the last 50 years is gone.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
In Hunt's case, his comments were NOT taken out of context. That is, unless you believe the "it's a joke" excuse. Though even if you accept that it was indeed a joke, it's still wildly inappropriate as illustrated by another post I made here. Calling a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statement a joke does not make that statement any less racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted.
This isn't complicated.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Sorry, but until you apologize for your statement that I can't really have a dialog with a homophobe.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
No, I call it the foolishness of the crowd. Somebody's annoyance adds to somebody else's annoyance in feedback loop that soon turns to rage. This is no different from otherwise well-behaved individuals rioting when the opportunity presents itself.
Yes, I'm hanging myself by clearly proving you wrong, over and over.
Learn to love Alaska
Why would gay marriage lead to more children being raised without their mothers?
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
Then you are not noticing. Read the news, read the internet blogs, you will find someone behind them trying to manipulate you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Let's state five basic facts;:
Someone is not racist if they tell a racist joke.
Someone is not sexist if they tell a sexist joke.
Someone is not a homophobe if they tell a homophobic joke.
Jokes at an after dinner speech are not inappropriate.
Hunt's comments were taken out of context.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress it into some narrow minded thought policed travesty.
He started the distraction argument as going both ways though, thus placing the issue firmly on humans and not those of specific gender.
Of course most workplaces get through this challenge just fine.
What?
If someone likes to tell racist jokes, that's a pretty strong indicator that they're racist. Why would they tell them otherwise? Who, aside from racists, would find them funny?
To tell that kind of unfortunate "joke" at an event like that tells me that he thought that those attitudes and values expressed in his "joke" are normal and socially acceptable. He was very wrong. We live in an enlightened society that does not view homophobic, misogynistic, or racist comments as acceptable. Not in private (some small bigoted circles excepted) and certainly not at an event like the one in question.
All that aside, you can believe that his "joke" was, in fact, a joke and that telling such a "joke" does not reflect his personal views and still see that it was completely inappropriate.
Put his comment in any reasonable context and it's still inappropriate. Ascribe to him any personal qualities you like and his comment is still completely inappropriate.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress it into some narrow minded thought policed travesty.
You're in for quite a surprise! See, we already live in an enlightened society. We don't find racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other bigoted speech acceptable. We think it's wrong to discriminate against others. We find bigoted attitudes and values to be harmful. If you tell bigoted jokes, you should expect to face social consequences.
This will really flip your lid: We've lived in an enlightened society for a VERY long time. 44 years ago, there was a TV program called All in the Family. The show was about a bigot trying to cope with the world as it was at the time -- a world that left his attitudes and values behind.
You're one of the last holdouts of a long dead society. We've moved on. We moved on ages ago. Before you know it, we'll look at homophobia and misogyny the same way we look at racism. We'll look upon those who insist on promoting those disturbing attitudes the same way we look at skinheads and other hate groups today.
When you make "jokes" or disgusting comments like Hunt did, don't expect to be rewarded. Don't expect people to laugh. Certainly don't expect people to freely associate with you. Don't expect spread that kind of ugly speech with impunity. The world has moved on without out you. Hunt's case is a clear-cut example of that.
Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress others with your narrow minded attitudes and values.
Required reading for internet skeptics
"Ask what you can do for your country" is a fad of the past, get with the times. People don't give any more a fuck about what their country wants than their country does about what they want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What?
"Jumping the gun" by its very definition implies acting too soon; it refers to a false start in athletics. Are you suggesting it isn't even loaded yet?
At the bottom of the
NPR also had a few interviews with the author of So You've Been Publicly Shamed .
Most of the examples were people that made tongue in cheek jokes to a small audience (their friends) and someone got 'outraged' at it and then they had the entire internet doxxing them and trying to ruin their lives.
Who, aside from racists, would find them funny?
The rest of us.
See, we already live in an enlightened society. We don't find racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other bigoted speech acceptable.
We do however find racist, misogynistic, homophobic and other jokes funny. You forgot the disabled, jokes about the events in Tunisia on Friday and jokes about the bus crash in Belgium this morning.
It's called humour. Maybe you lack it, but you can go fuck yourself if you want the rest of us to abandon it.
Using sarcasm to convey political messages is a path fraught with danger (learned that a long time ago as a topical songwriter). That's especially true at a boring dinner where 90% the people aren't paying close attention.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
That audio clip is also taken out of context.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Outrage is almost always a sign that someone is trying to manipulate you (either for page views, or something else).
This, and social media is just the latest form of doing it.
For a long time this kind of manipulation has been the domain of major news agencies. They'd print inflammatory statements and headlines with the express intent of stirring up public outrage, trial by media such as the Chamberlain case is a classic example. With social media its gotten worse as a single person can fabricate enough half truths, exaggerations and outright lies to create the same kind of outrage.
On one hand, people should be more sceptical and mistrustful of random news sources, on the other hand humans are emotional and irrational creatures. The one unintended and good side effect of regular false outrage that we're experiencing is that people are developing a resistance to outrage, which explains why newspapers like the Daily Mail which relies on creating false outrage to sell hate social media outrage.
I would guess that the answer is "yes" we are too quick to act on media outrage (no matter if it is social or traditional) but that's human nature.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Social interaction, not "social media". Hunt went to someone else's event, and his speech pissed on his hosts. He lost an honorary position because he was an embarrassment. Here's the statement from the hosts, and Hunt's apology. No "social media" in sight. The world's sexists really are good at making up excuses for crappy behaviour. https://conniestlouis.files.wo...
It's hard to look at it as anything but a joke, considering his wife is a scientist and many of his female colleagues supported him - they thought it was an ill-advised joke, but not indicative of his actual views. Several other people have said that he prefaced it by saying "Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am" - which in this case would indicate he was using satire to attack sexism, not endorse it.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Like I've said many times already, it doesn't matter if it's a joke. It's still wildly inappropriate.
He's already admitted that his comments were inappropriate. What more do you want? Why not take him at his word?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Doesn't it matter why they were inappropriate though? It's one thing to be well-intentioned but make a mistake, and another thing entirely to have bad intentions to start with. The response we as a society should have to something like this should take intention into account, at least in my opinion. Satire in particular is underappreciated, and while poorly executed satire (as this was) doesn't work, satire in general should be used more often, even if that means making racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted statements, as long as the point is to make fun of people who actually believe them. Context matters.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I think the females-in-leadership thing is often a regional/occupational issue. In many jobs I've had, middle to upper management has been at worst a 50/50 split, and many of my direct reports were female.
In fact, my better bosses have often been female, but again there seems to be some tie-in between the role and female participation. Often, is the role interesting to a predominantly male or female crowd. Trying to make all roles/positions equally gender-interesting is kinda like trying to get rock musicians interested in becoming climatologists.
This doesn't apply to all cases of course, in some cases the "ol' boys club" is in full effect (and more than just women are getting shut out there).
You're jumping to a huge conclusion.
Let's assume the third-hand preface you mentioned in your last post is true:
"Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am"
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
Rather than excuse his "joke" it actually makes it worse.
Again, even he agrees that his comments were inappropriate. We've moved beyond the kinds of attitudes and values "jokes" like that exemplify.
Required reading for internet skeptics
"Let me tell you what a chauvinist monster I am"
To me, that looks like an admission that he knows the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, and he'll look like a monster, but he intends to stand by them none-the-less.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster? I think in this scenario, his demeanor is important - was he acting in a joking manner, trying to be self-deprecating, or was he acting arrogant and self-righteous? As we only have text records to go by, we can't be sure. However, given that a number of his female colleagues have said it is in character to make self-deprecating jokes, and they support him, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Moreover, you didn't really address the broader issue in my comment; setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter? Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
And to me, it looks like he knows that the comments to follow will be viewed as chauvinistic, but that he doesn't stand by them - who wants to be seen as a monster?
Then why say it at all? I get "This is what some people with think, but I don't care."
I don't see how you've managed to interpret it in any other way. Particularly in light of the fact that Hunt agrees that his comments were inappropriate!
setting aside this particular instance, does intent matter?
Yes, intent matters. He's already stated his intent -- it wasn't satire -- it was an inappropriate joke.
Have we moved beyond satirizing idiotic viewpoints?
No we haven't. Though in this particular case, it's completely irrelevant as his comments were clearly not satirical. Don't take my word for it, take his!
Required reading for internet skeptics
Poorly timed or executed satire can be inappropriate though! If you don't do a good job of it, you don't convey your message, and then you just offend people without actually making fun of your target. If you say something and people get offended, and you didn't mean for them to, then those comments can be inappropriate even if you had a good intent. Just the fact that he agrees they were inappropriate doesn't mean it wasn't satire.
He clearly doesn't actually hold the viewpoints he expressed via the bad joke; if he did; the female senior scientists he worked with wouldn't have stood up for him.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You're the only person who thinks it's satire.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Given that he said "Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me." doesn't the joke itself count as satire?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Everybody should be cautious of making any remarks. This may ruin a life or a career. Making it expressed for very much important. Now a days social media is very strong. It can change a monarchy even. We should show some respect for others