""Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab...
Not "three things can possibly happen" or "three things sometimes happen". No, it's "three things happen".
Tell my how you comprehend that statement. What is this highly-trained scientist actually saying? Maybe your superior reading comprehension allows you to read between the lines.
Think of it like Russian Roulette. Each time you're about to press the trigger is a crisis, but nothing bad really happens except for that one time.
That reminds me of the story of the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building. He gets to the 60th floor and passing an open window shouts, "So far so good!"
Somehow, I have a hard time putting "slowly unfurling" and "crisis" together in a meaningful way.
Crisis sort of suggests something that needs to be dealt with Right The Fuck Now, not in twenty or thirty or forty or fifty or one hundred years.
This is the logic that keeps some people from quitting smoking. "I don't have cancer or emphysema today, so why should I quit smoking if it's years away? It's not a crisis...yet."
Well, the problem is that the premise of this article is that the author somehow is superhuman and sees threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities.
Are you suggesting that the only threats we should see as real are those that can be perceived by common plebs with inferior mental capabilities?
Anyone who has ever had to remove a virus from someone's computer after they clicked a link in an email from "support@microshaft.com" knows first-hand what it means to see threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities.
"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 criticize them, they cry."
Let me as you a question. This is a scientist, who claims that every single woman who has ever worked in the lab has either become an object of his love, has fallen in love with him, or has cried when they were criticized. Does that pass the smell test with you? How do you feel about a scientist who commits three logical fallacies in the course of a two-sentence statement to a professional organization?
Remember, this is a scientist, who one would assume is at least familiar with logical fallacies.
Why are your rules ok but his not? Why should they have to leave?
Because not acting like a grownup is disruptive?
I eat food. That reduces food available to you, trivially increasing your starvation risk. I breathe air, that decreases the oxygen supply you can use. Maybe I drive a car, a 3,000 pound weapon that can kill you if I have a bad day or get a funny text. Perhaps I travel the globe, and might be exposed, knowingly or not, to infectious diseases. Maybe I take cough syrup and operate heavy machinery. Maybe I MIGHT one day go berserk and kill everyone on my foes list, or at least until the police stop me. I don't like you opinion and want to stop it without a lot of typing. Maybe I write sniper fan fiction and want to "truthiness" it up while I'm at it...
Well, suggesting that "science" would be better off without those pesky women around is kind of sexist, in an overtly sexist sort of way.
Let's look at his statement:
"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 criticize them, they cry."
If he had started the statement with, "Let me tell you about my trouble with Jews." Or, since he used the slightly degrading diminutive, "girls" to refer to adult women scientists, it's actually more like "Let me tell you about my trouble with the hebes."
Yeah, buddy. That there is what you call a sexist statement.
I wonder if the esteemed scientist Tim Hunt would be OK with women in the lab if we forced them to cover their bodies and faces in dark clothes and made sure they never looked the male scientists in the eye?
Or we could just do like the Ultra-Orthodox and make sure women just don't have face-to-face contact with any men who are not family.
Significant enough numbers of grown-ups are sufficiently unable to act like grownups that yeah, the rest of us really do need to fix it.
So, we need to set rules on human behavior based upon the limitations of the people who are unable to act like grownups?
You haven't thought this thing through, friend.
Why not just expect grownups to act like grownups and ask the ones who cannot to leave the lab?
Lastly, if you think that the world has survived without people having done anything to fix this, well, you [bible.com] haven't [archives.gov] been [ancient.eu] paying [luther.de] any [cornell.edu] attention [google.com] at [justice.gov.za] all [forbes.com].
If you look more closely at all those links, you will find that those efforts to "fix this" were based upon setting the expectations for behavior higher not lower as you would suggest.
We have already seen cultures decide to segregate men and women in the workplace. They are called "Fundamentalists" and they're a bunch of throwbacks causing nothing but trouble for the rest of us. In fact, those "fundamentalists" are exactly the kind of people who don't know how to act like grownups that you were talking about.
If you can't find Blazing Saddles funny, it's you who is broken.
Unless you're the guy who likes to repeat all the jokes from Blazing Saddles during an address at a professional fucking conference.
You don't tell a racist joke in a professional setting any more than you'd crap on the floor in church. Although maybe crapping on the floor is not such a good example, since a professional racist has been known to do exactly that.
There are lots of jokes about, say, black people or Jews that people find offensive and aren't suitable for retelling at a conference about issues facing black people or Jews.
So, two MRAs walk into a bar. One of the MRAs shouts to the bartender, "Hey, Joe. Set 'em up for me and my pal here." Then he turns to his slightly dim partner and boasts, "This is a great bar. For every two drinks you buy, the house gives you one. And the pinball machines in the back are free!" "That's not so great, "responds the slightly dim second MRA, "There's a bar across town That'll match you drink for drink, and you can get laid in the back for free." "Where is this place?" the first MRA exclaims. "Oh, I don't know," the dim MRA replies, "but my wife goes there all the time."
For context, he was invited to talk at a convention on women in science and journalism.
Then you would think he'd have sense enough not to refer to females in his lab as "girls". But to be fair, he might be one of those old guys who refers to the 50 year-old black cab driver as a "boy".
$2,000 worth of dicking around, in a nutshell. Everything from gaming, to programming/coding/web design, professional document creation, photo/video editing, web browsing, netflix watching, etc. 2x 1440p Monitors + 55" Samsung LED i5 3570K @ 4.4GHz on a Corsair H100 Gigabyte GTX 970 WFx3 16GB of Patriot DDR3 RAM 2x 128GB SSDs 4TB RAID0
That is very nearly my exact rig, except for the 55" Samsung.
Agreed, but these private schools are only available at a premium in many locales, placing them outside the budget of many poor Southern families, ironically where the Creationist belief set is most prevalent.
Then teach your kids creationism in church or at home.
It just seems clear there are going to be pockets of the population in some school districts where belief in the almighty approaches 100%.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with the science curriculum in public schools?
To be fair, I am against a lot of things they do in public schools, yet I'm forced to pay property tax to support them.
I'm curious. Are there parts of the public school curriculum to which you object? Or are the things you're against more part of the public school administration and management?
Imagine the uproar that ensues when it is revealed a group of people predisposed to religious belief are found to sponsoring that belief set for the education of their children.
That's what they make parochial schools for. This was done in public schools, meaning people without those beliefs are also paying for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not "three things can possibly happen" or "three things sometimes happen". No, it's "three things happen".
Tell my how you comprehend that statement. What is this highly-trained scientist actually saying? Maybe your superior reading comprehension allows you to read between the lines.
That reminds me of the story of the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building. He gets to the 60th floor and passing an open window shouts, "So far so good!"
This is the logic that keeps some people from quitting smoking. "I don't have cancer or emphysema today, so why should I quit smoking if it's years away? It's not a crisis...yet."
That's why so many people win the lottery.
You should have led with that and saved us some time.
Are you suggesting that the only threats we should see as real are those that can be perceived by common plebs with inferior mental capabilities?
Anyone who has ever had to remove a virus from someone's computer after they clicked a link in an email from "support@microshaft.com" knows first-hand what it means to see threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities.
OK, we can do this again. Here is the quote:
Let me as you a question. This is a scientist, who claims that every single woman who has ever worked in the lab has either become an object of his love, has fallen in love with him, or has cried when they were criticized. Does that pass the smell test with you? How do you feel about a scientist who commits three logical fallacies in the course of a two-sentence statement to a professional organization?
Remember, this is a scientist, who one would assume is at least familiar with logical fallacies.
Because not acting like a grownup is disruptive?
8chan Sociology 101
Well, suggesting that "science" would be better off without those pesky women around is kind of sexist, in an overtly sexist sort of way.
Let's look at his statement:
If he had started the statement with, "Let me tell you about my trouble with Jews." Or, since he used the slightly degrading diminutive, "girls" to refer to adult women scientists, it's actually more like "Let me tell you about my trouble with the hebes."
Yeah, buddy. That there is what you call a sexist statement.
I wonder if the esteemed scientist Tim Hunt would be OK with women in the lab if we forced them to cover their bodies and faces in dark clothes and made sure they never looked the male scientists in the eye?
Or we could just do like the Ultra-Orthodox and make sure women just don't have face-to-face contact with any men who are not family.
So, we need to set rules on human behavior based upon the limitations of the people who are unable to act like grownups?
You haven't thought this thing through, friend.
Why not just expect grownups to act like grownups and ask the ones who cannot to leave the lab?
If you look more closely at all those links, you will find that those efforts to "fix this" were based upon setting the expectations for behavior higher not lower as you would suggest.
We have already seen cultures decide to segregate men and women in the workplace. They are called "Fundamentalists" and they're a bunch of throwbacks causing nothing but trouble for the rest of us. In fact, those "fundamentalists" are exactly the kind of people who don't know how to act like grownups that you were talking about.
I like to imitate an Apache Attack Helicopter with my penis. In fact, I'm doing it right now.
I'm not kidding.
Unless you're the guy who likes to repeat all the jokes from Blazing Saddles during an address at a professional fucking conference.
You don't tell a racist joke in a professional setting any more than you'd crap on the floor in church. Although maybe crapping on the floor is not such a good example, since a professional racist has been known to do exactly that.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.c...
So, two MRAs walk into a bar. One of the MRAs shouts to the bartender, "Hey, Joe. Set 'em up for me and my pal here." Then he turns to his slightly dim partner and boasts, "This is a great bar. For every two drinks you buy, the house gives you one. And the pinball machines in the back are free!" "That's not so great, "responds the slightly dim second MRA, "There's a bar across town That'll match you drink for drink, and you can get laid in the back for free." "Where is this place?" the first MRA exclaims. "Oh, I don't know," the dim MRA replies, "but my wife goes there all the time."
Without male/female interactions, we'd soon run out of scientists.
Don't bring sexual orientation into this discussion.
Then you would think he'd have sense enough not to refer to females in his lab as "girls". But to be fair, he might be one of those old guys who refers to the 50 year-old black cab driver as a "boy".
That is very nearly my exact rig, except for the 55" Samsung.
Then teach your kids creationism in church or at home.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with the science curriculum in public schools?
I'm curious. Are there parts of the public school curriculum to which you object? Or are the things you're against more part of the public school administration and management?
That's what they make parochial schools for. This was done in public schools, meaning people without those beliefs are also paying for it.
Well, that's the trick, innit? You gotta get married and stay married.
You want potatoes or cheese grits with that?
God bless Edward Snowden. I hope there are hundreds more just like him.
Look, a brother's got to write his PhD thesis on something, you know? Don't be a spoil-sport.