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.
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.
Yes.
90% of "outrage" is virtue signalling and peer pressure.
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.
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.
The Daily Mail article is not about how Connie was wrong. The Independent piece provides the alternative version to Connie's, in which Tim Hunt's comments are framed as a sarcastic protrayal of "what is keeping women out of STEM" (the classic boys club accusation) and adds the follow-up he did, telling women to not be discouraged by it and to go forward.
The Daily Mail simply did some digging into who exactly this Connie St Louis person is, and why maybe we should ask questions before we simply give her 100% trust in this matter.
"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."
Forced to resign. His wife got the call from HR, which was basically "either he resigns, or we remove him" while he was on the plane back from Seoul. Which makes it all the worse, the guy isn't even back from his conference, and without even meeting him, they ask for his resignation.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
If anything, this whole debacle has made me question the Royal Society and UCL, It speaks poorly upon those organizations that they would go off half cocked without collecting evidence and performing a full investigation, which is the hallmark of good science.
And it makes me wonder how well they could handle a real controversy in the scientific community, when they can't weather a twitter storm of questionable origin. If you can't bear the slightest political intrigue, what makes you qualified to answer questions about the world? Just post the questions to twitter and let the masses decide the properties of time.
And especially now, when we have had similar occurrences in recent memory, with Donglegate and whatnot, I expect institutions of the pedigree of the Royal Society to show a little more discernment in handling situations like these. I mean christ, Sir Newton wasn't exactly an uncontroversial figure in his day, and that whole row was dealt with with more class and sobriety than this.
The scary future is here.