If you were on the brink of death due to cancer, you'd be falling out of your chair laughing if someone was calling you egghead or laughing at your decline of health? I wouldn't be. But maybe it's just me.
There is a line between humor and blatant disrespect. If the comedian picked me out of the crowd and laughed at my impending demise it would be vastly different from joking about the disease. The above picture quite obviously never crossed that line.
If you were on the brink of death due to cancer, you'd be falling out of your chair laughing if someone was calling you egghead or laughing at your decline of health? I wouldn't be. But maybe it's just me.
There is a line between humor and blatant disrespect. If the comedian picked me out of the crowd and laughed at my impending demise it would be vastly different from joking about the disease. The above picture quite obviously never crossed that line.
There is a line between humor and blatant disrespect. If the comedian picked me out of the crowd and laughed at my impending demise it would be vastly different from joking about the disease. The above picture quite obviously never crossed that line.
"I have no problem with that, I'm Jewish and I can genuinely laugh at this: because tragedy is ok to be joked about just as anything is ok to be joked about :P"
Lol you are Jewish? smh...
Let this be a joke...please.
Bigoted speech should be tolerated by the government, but not necessarily by society. That's a key distinction that people often get wrong when it comes to free speech. They assume that if they are allowed to do something by the government, that nobody else can tell them to stop or that they're being an asshole. That's not what free speech means, and that's not how free speech works.
If you're saying what I perceive to be dickish things, it would be fully within my right (and I would argue within my moral responsibility) to call you out on it. I don't have to sit there and tolerate your nonsense just because I believe in free speech.
It's like talking on your cellphone. You are, of course, free to talk on your cellphone all you want in the privacy of your own home and out in public. But if you start talking on your cellphone in a movie theater while people are trying to watch a movie, you're going to piss them off and probably get yourself kicked out of the theater. That's not a violation of your free speech; that's you being treated like an asshole for being an asshole.
Of course everyone has a right to express their feelings, just as everyone has a right to ridicule those feelings. Racist speech is hate speech, which is harmful. It isn't something that should be supported simply for the sake of "free speech".
I don't think it's right but then again people have the right to speak their mind, if they act on it they'll be punished, letting people make such speech show you something about that specific person, it helps divide society from the equal and unequal.
Theres so many different views on this, just because something is funny doesn't make it any less wrong. If you are Racist and out on the streets, I would suggest hiding it or pretend you are not in public.. like many politicians do, feel free to be as racist as you want at home though where no one is affected by it but yourself and your family
So if a child grows up in a racist household, no amount of societal influence, rational thought or experience can change that? People are far less racist than they used to be, and that obviously due to the social environment.
Although I think we're talking about different kinds of tolerance. I could be wrong but I thought the OP was referring to potential legal action, not that whenever somebody says something atrocious we have to be like 'ho hum, isn't that lovely~'
No, it should not be tolerated.
Why? Well, racism, sexism, homophobia and other ideas will continue if not stopped. Yeah, we can teach fu… moreture generations that all people are as equal as the "normal" people, but racists, sexists and homophobic people (etc.) will also teach their views of the world to future generations. The important concept is not the "freedom to have hatred speech", but "freedom from hatred speech". You should not simply hate a group without being criticized.
I'd go ever further. Everybody talks about the government, but I think there needs to be some legal protection from the private sector. Nowadays you say something wrong - boom, fired. It's hard to draw the legally, and obviously you should be fired if you're working and you start calling a client every slur in the book, but if somebody tells an off-color joke on facebook they're immediately cut loose for 'damaging the reputation of the company.' We all like some prejudiced asshole getting his but it's a bad precident. Imagine living in a homophobic society (shouldn't be too hard), and somebody who is gay advocates for their rights - people would say eew, a gay works there - company loses profit - employee fired. Thats a matter of who somebody is, but it isn't hard to extrapolate the concept onto an unfavorable political belief.
Well, that's why there are LGBT anti-discrimination laws in some of the more progressive states. But I don't see why measures to keep minority groups from being discriminated against should be extended to protect political beliefs that discriminate against minorities. You shouldn't judge others on things like their race, gender, or sexual orientation, but what people say is a reflection of the content of their character. Even an off-color joke could give an employer insight into the employee's good sense, sensitivity, and maturity. Why shouldn't that factor into the evaluation of an employment?
I'd go ever further. Everybody talks about the government, but I think there needs to be some legal protection from the private sector. Nowa… moredays you say something wrong - boom, fired. It's hard to draw the legally, and obviously you should be fired if you're working and you start calling a client every slur in the book, but if somebody tells an off-color joke on facebook they're immediately cut loose for 'damaging the reputation of the company.' We all like some prejudiced asshole getting his but it's a bad precident. Imagine living in a homophobic society (shouldn't be too hard), and somebody who is gay advocates for their rights - people would say eew, a gay works there - company loses profit - employee fired. Thats a matter of who somebody is, but it isn't hard to extrapolate the concept onto an unfavorable political belief.
I don't see why measures to keep minority groups from being discriminated against should be extended to protect political beliefs that discriminate against minorities.
because it's illegal to discriminate based on religion or beliefs, you don't get to choose which don't count, the ONLY thing that counts is wether the worker is qualified and does good work.
Well, that's why there are LGBT anti-discrimination laws in some of the more progressive states. But I don't see why measures to keep minori… morety groups from being discriminated against should be extended to protect political beliefs that discriminate against minorities. You shouldn't judge others on things like their race, gender, or sexual orientation, but what people say is a reflection of the content of their character. Even an off-color joke could give an employer insight into the employee's good sense, sensitivity, and maturity. Why shouldn't that factor into the evaluation of an employment?
the ONLY thing that counts is wether the worker is qualified and does good work.
And, as I said, one of the ways of judging that is through looking at what the person says publicly. For instance, if Telltale were to find out that one of its PR people exposed some homophobic rhetoric on a public profile of theirs, it would be ridiculous to force them keep that employee out of a desire to protect free speech.
I don't see why measures to keep minority groups from being discriminated against should be extended to protect political beliefs that discr… moreiminate against minorities.
because it's illegal to discriminate based on religion or beliefs, you don't get to choose which don't count, the ONLY thing that counts is wether the worker is qualified and does good work.
that's only because public image is the only thing PR guys are good for, having a bad public image makes him not do "good work"
and to be clear: a homosexual/communist/christian/muslim/conservative/atheist/bisexual/straight/red haired/whatever person with a shit public image should get fired from jobs where public image is a priority no matter where said public image comes from, we're supposed to be living in a meritocracy, if something makes someone's work less efficient than someone else, someone else should (ideally) have that job, no matter what that something is.
the ONLY thing that counts is wether the worker is qualified and does good work.
And, as I said, one of the ways of judging that is … morethrough looking at what the person says publicly. For instance, if Telltale were to find out that one of its PR people exposed some homophobic rhetoric on a public profile of theirs, it would be ridiculous to force them keep that employee out of a desire to protect free speech.
I'd go ever further. Everybody talks about the government, but I think there needs to be some legal protection from the private sector. Nowa… moredays you say something wrong - boom, fired. It's hard to draw the legally, and obviously you should be fired if you're working and you start calling a client every slur in the book, but if somebody tells an off-color joke on facebook they're immediately cut loose for 'damaging the reputation of the company.' We all like some prejudiced asshole getting his but it's a bad precident. Imagine living in a homophobic society (shouldn't be too hard), and somebody who is gay advocates for their rights - people would say eew, a gay works there - company loses profit - employee fired. Thats a matter of who somebody is, but it isn't hard to extrapolate the concept onto an unfavorable political belief.
The thing is, with how easily information gets disseminated over the internet, public image is becoming more and more important these days. Even if you're not directly in charge of your company's PR, your Facebook profile might indicate that you work for that company and thus you would still be seen as representing it to those who view your page. And if you use it to spout bigoted nonsense, then you are still damaging the company's public image and, thus, being a bad employee.
that's only because public image is the only thing PR guys are good for, having a bad public image makes him not do "good work"
and to be… more clear: a homosexual/communist/christian/muslim/conservative/atheist/bisexual/straight/red haired/whatever person with a shit public image should get fired from jobs where public image is a priority no matter where said public image comes from, we're supposed to be living in a meritocracy, if something makes someone's work less efficient than someone else, someone else should (ideally) have that job, no matter what that something is.
I do not want to prove a point nor win an argument, but if you don't mind me responding, here it is...
So if a child grows up in a racist household, no amount of societal influence, rational thought or experience can change that? People are far less racist than they used to be, and that obviously due to the social environment.
Well, I'm not so sure that people can change their personal ideas as easy as it can seem like with influence, thought and/or experience. Nowadays, people are more repressed upon such topic in the social environment and people, in general, just do not express themselves in public if it goes against the masses (disindividualization).
Okay, so I'm going to give you an example. This example is quite extream and weird, but I just need a good example that is easy to understand. So, a child is born in a X household that really believes and follows X, but they live in a country where all of the people are Y and follow extrem strict Y rules (one of them is not tolerating X). Societal influence says that X is not tolerated. The citizens Y ONLY express rational thoughts of Y. In the child’s experience, people Y hate the people X for their view, the child can see that the Y are happier and friendlier than X, Y have better jobs than X, etc.
So, do you think that the X child will change its view just because people disagree with him or her? I think not, but instead feel the need to feel proud of being an X, but won’t want to say it to not go against the masses. Disindividualization is what happens due to the social environment.
Although I think we're talking about different kinds of tolerance. I could be wrong but I thought the OP was referring to potential legal action, not that whenever somebody says something atrocious we have to be like 'ho hum, isn't that lovely~'
Yeah, I think you're right about how the OP is referring to potential legal action (I understand the same as you) so, basically, what I wanted to say was how there is, in my idea, supposed to have some legal action towards hatred speech. I'm going to re-write a part of my comment so that you (and others) can read it in another context. Now, imagine that I am talking about the potential legal action.
The important concept is not the "freedom to have hatred speech", but "freedom from hatred speech". You should not simply hate a group without being criticized.
So, in other words, there should not have free speech in blogs, newspapers, films, TV and social media if it is hatred towards a group and that, who speeches hatred, should prepare himself or herself from other's judgment.
So if a child grows up in a racist household, no amount of societal influence, rational thought or experience can change that? People are f… morear less racist than they used to be, and that obviously due to the social environment.
Although I think we're talking about different kinds of tolerance. I could be wrong but I thought the OP was referring to potential legal action, not that whenever somebody says something atrocious we have to be like 'ho hum, isn't that lovely~'
The thing is, with how easily information gets disseminated over the internet, public image is becoming more and more important these days. … moreEven if you're not directly in charge of your company's PR, your Facebook profile might indicate that you work for that company and thus you would still be seen as representing it to those who view your page. And if you use it to spout bigoted nonsense, then you are still damaging the company's public image and, thus, being a bad employee.
What I was talking about was simply accepting that some people have viewpoints that we might find harsh or unfair. if someone is trying to force those viewpoints on others, then they should absolutely get called out on them. I also don't think kids should be taught those views and if they are, they should be presented as nothing more than that; opinions.
The main point of my post was simply to tolerate and accept the fact that some people have unpopular viewpoints. Nobody should be criticized simply because of an opinion or political leaning, because it's just what they believe in. Nobody chooses what to believe, they just believe it.
So if a child grows up in a racist household, no amount of societal influence, rational thought or experience can change that? People are f… morear less racist than they used to be, and that obviously due to the social environment.
Although I think we're talking about different kinds of tolerance. I could be wrong but I thought the OP was referring to potential legal action, not that whenever somebody says something atrocious we have to be like 'ho hum, isn't that lovely~'
That's precisely where I think this concept of 'damaging a company's public image' as a judstification for firing is a bridge too far.
I wouldn't use the example of PR - public perception is the job, and that is a little more difficult to defend; but lets continue with the Telltale example, assume it wasn't PR, but one of the programmers made an offensive comment on their personal twitter with no official connection to Telltale. Should they be fired for it?
There comes a line where if there is a potential lawsuit then the employee might be let go, but holding employees to a permanent standard of 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity,' is not only untenable, it's hypocritical. We're talking about very specific examples of an email offense to a minority here, but if 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity' are hiring and firing standards, who makes the judgment? What is the line? If somebody laughs at a dick joke on Family Guy are they sufficiently immature to be fired? What about one of the jokes about women on the show? What if they tweet it out to their friends? Is that sufficiently insensitive? That's obviously an extreme example, but my point is about what legal precidents are being set, and I think people able to fire people left and right for something they post on facebook or twitter in their private time is ridiculous.
I think what I'm really complaining about here is the sense of priorities; if you have somebody who is good at their job, who can do their job, but sent out something off color on twitter/facebook, making it a firable offense is tantamout to policing thought by the private sector, which is just as pernicious as when the government does it.
The use of social media should be protected, again, insofar as it is not using official media and doing so outside of work hours. Social media offers new connectivity, and yes, there are problems with that but I also think certain protections need to made. Sometimes tweeting something is the 21st century equivalent of yelling something in a bar, and I don't think you should lose your job over it now on social media anymore than than you'd be fired back then, just because more people are likely to see it shouldn't matter.
The thing is, with how easily information gets disseminated over the internet, public image is becoming more and more important these days. … moreEven if you're not directly in charge of your company's PR, your Facebook profile might indicate that you work for that company and thus you would still be seen as representing it to those who view your page. And if you use it to spout bigoted nonsense, then you are still damaging the company's public image and, thus, being a bad employee.
We're talking about very specific examples of an email offense to a minority here, but if 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity' are hiring and firing standards, who makes the judgment?
Well...the employer. And the market they wish to serve. This is an area where I think it's appropriate for the government to step back and let the people decide what they find acceptable. As long as the decision isn't based in discrimination, I don't see why the government should step in and tell private employers what they can and cannot do in their business.
Yes, this can lead to people getting fired for really stupid and minor reasons, but people get fired for stupid and minor reasons all the time. It's an at-will employment system. Sometimes, your boss just happens to be a grumpy prick. And while we may have personal disagreements with the hiring and firing practices of said grumpy prick, that isn't sufficient reason to require government intervention to force him to change the way he wants to conduct business.
As a larger point, I don't see the problem with private individuals policing each other's thought and speech. That's how society works. If a person says something that those around them find abhorrent, then they will be shunned. Yes, this can seem really brutal and unfair at times, like when a good employee is fired for a benign joke or when a religious family disowns their atheist child, but...well...that's freedom.
That's precisely where I think this concept of 'damaging a company's public image' as a judstification for firing is a bridge too far.
I … morewouldn't use the example of PR - public perception is the job, and that is a little more difficult to defend; but lets continue with the Telltale example, assume it wasn't PR, but one of the programmers made an offensive comment on their personal twitter with no official connection to Telltale. Should they be fired for it?
There comes a line where if there is a potential lawsuit then the employee might be let go, but holding employees to a permanent standard of 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity,' is not only untenable, it's hypocritical. We're talking about very specific examples of an email offense to a minority here, but if 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity' are hiring and firing standards, who makes the judgment? What is the line? If somebody laughs at a dick joke on Family Guy are they su… [view original content]
The decision to force Tim Hunt to resign was made by UCL, not the people who were upset at his remarks. I imagine that most of them would have settled for a simple apology. And while I do agree that UCL shouldn't have done what they did, I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't have been able to do it.
yes, Tim Hunt, that genius science guy that resigned because small pieces of human-shaped cancer threw a childish bitchfit over a joke
i … moremean who cares if human science got kneecapped in the balls? their feelings were hurt! some of them probably suicided or got PTSD!
Comments
Some things just aren't funny. If you had cancer, would you be laughing about cancer jokes?
If they're funny. Life without laughter is dreadfully tedious. Offense is never given, only taken.
If you were on the brink of death due to cancer, you'd be falling out of your chair laughing if someone was calling you egghead or laughing at your decline of health? I wouldn't be. But maybe it's just me.
There is a line between humor and blatant disrespect. If the comedian picked me out of the crowd and laughed at my impending demise it would be vastly different from joking about the disease. The above picture quite obviously never crossed that line.
Ok ,now I understand what you were getting at.
Excuse me? I'm going to laugh at whatever the fuck I want, Anne Frankly, I'll be proud of it.
Bigoted speech should be tolerated by the government, but not necessarily by society. That's a key distinction that people often get wrong when it comes to free speech. They assume that if they are allowed to do something by the government, that nobody else can tell them to stop or that they're being an asshole. That's not what free speech means, and that's not how free speech works.
If you're saying what I perceive to be dickish things, it would be fully within my right (and I would argue within my moral responsibility) to call you out on it. I don't have to sit there and tolerate your nonsense just because I believe in free speech.
It's like talking on your cellphone. You are, of course, free to talk on your cellphone all you want in the privacy of your own home and out in public. But if you start talking on your cellphone in a movie theater while people are trying to watch a movie, you're going to piss them off and probably get yourself kicked out of the theater. That's not a violation of your free speech; that's you being treated like an asshole for being an asshole.
Stop it with all of these Holocaust jokes! They render me most führious!
Missed opportunity. You could have said "I see what JEW did there".
Jew gotta be kidding me.
I believe my compatriot that we have a dissenter lying within our ranks that must be reprimanded accordingly.
Come at me, bro.
Did Nazi that coming! I was going to tell a gay joke... butt fuck it.
Of course everyone has a right to express their feelings, just as everyone has a right to ridicule those feelings. Racist speech is hate speech, which is harmful. It isn't something that should be supported simply for the sake of "free speech".
You guys are really pushing me out of mein kampfort zone
I don't think it's right but then again people have the right to speak their mind, if they act on it they'll be punished, letting people make such speech show you something about that specific person, it helps divide society from the equal and unequal.
Theres so many different views on this, just because something is funny doesn't make it any less wrong. If you are Racist and out on the streets, I would suggest hiding it or pretend you are not in public.. like many politicians do, feel free to be as racist as you want at home though where no one is affected by it but yourself and your family
Such vile violation of character is due to get punished. I am definitely in agreement.
Aw shit.
So if a child grows up in a racist household, no amount of societal influence, rational thought or experience can change that? People are far less racist than they used to be, and that obviously due to the social environment.
Although I think we're talking about different kinds of tolerance. I could be wrong but I thought the OP was referring to potential legal action, not that whenever somebody says something atrocious we have to be like 'ho hum, isn't that lovely~'
I'd go ever further. Everybody talks about the government, but I think there needs to be some legal protection from the private sector. Nowadays you say something wrong - boom, fired. It's hard to draw the legally, and obviously you should be fired if you're working and you start calling a client every slur in the book, but if somebody tells an off-color joke on facebook they're immediately cut loose for 'damaging the reputation of the company.' We all like some prejudiced asshole getting his but it's a bad precident. Imagine living in a homophobic society (shouldn't be too hard), and somebody who is gay advocates for their rights - people would say eew, a gay works there - company loses profit - employee fired. Thats a matter of who somebody is, but it isn't hard to extrapolate the concept onto an unfavorable political belief.
Well, that's why there are LGBT anti-discrimination laws in some of the more progressive states. But I don't see why measures to keep minority groups from being discriminated against should be extended to protect political beliefs that discriminate against minorities. You shouldn't judge others on things like their race, gender, or sexual orientation, but what people say is a reflection of the content of their character. Even an off-color joke could give an employer insight into the employee's good sense, sensitivity, and maturity. Why shouldn't that factor into the evaluation of an employment?
if it exists, someone will find it funny
because it's illegal to discriminate based on religion or beliefs, you don't get to choose which don't count, the ONLY thing that counts is wether the worker is qualified and does good work.
And, as I said, one of the ways of judging that is through looking at what the person says publicly. For instance, if Telltale were to find out that one of its PR people exposed some homophobic rhetoric on a public profile of theirs, it would be ridiculous to force them keep that employee out of a desire to protect free speech.
that's only because public image is the only thing PR guys are good for, having a bad public image makes him not do "good work"
and to be clear: a homosexual/communist/christian/muslim/conservative/atheist/bisexual/straight/red haired/whatever person with a shit public image should get fired from jobs where public image is a priority no matter where said public image comes from, we're supposed to be living in a meritocracy, if something makes someone's work less efficient than someone else, someone else should (ideally) have that job, no matter what that something is.
Tim Hunt anyone?
The thing is, with how easily information gets disseminated over the internet, public image is becoming more and more important these days. Even if you're not directly in charge of your company's PR, your Facebook profile might indicate that you work for that company and thus you would still be seen as representing it to those who view your page. And if you use it to spout bigoted nonsense, then you are still damaging the company's public image and, thus, being a bad employee.
I do not want to prove a point nor win an argument, but if you don't mind me responding, here it is...
Well, I'm not so sure that people can change their personal ideas as easy as it can seem like with influence, thought and/or experience. Nowadays, people are more repressed upon such topic in the social environment and people, in general, just do not express themselves in public if it goes against the masses (disindividualization).
Okay, so I'm going to give you an example. This example is quite extream and weird, but I just need a good example that is easy to understand. So, a child is born in a X household that really believes and follows X, but they live in a country where all of the people are Y and follow extrem strict Y rules (one of them is not tolerating X). Societal influence says that X is not tolerated. The citizens Y ONLY express rational thoughts of Y. In the child’s experience, people Y hate the people X for their view, the child can see that the Y are happier and friendlier than X, Y have better jobs than X, etc.
So, do you think that the X child will change its view just because people disagree with him or her? I think not, but instead feel the need to feel proud of being an X, but won’t want to say it to not go against the masses. Disindividualization is what happens due to the social environment.
Yeah, I think you're right about how the OP is referring to potential legal action (I understand the same as you) so, basically, what I wanted to say was how there is, in my idea, supposed to have some legal action towards hatred speech. I'm going to re-write a part of my comment so that you (and others) can read it in another context. Now, imagine that I am talking about the potential legal action.
So, in other words, there should not have free speech in blogs, newspapers, films, TV and social media if it is hatred towards a group and that, who speeches hatred, should prepare himself or herself from other's judgment.
that's an issue of idiots on the internet, not racist workers.
Guess not
What I was talking about was simply accepting that some people have viewpoints that we might find harsh or unfair. if someone is trying to force those viewpoints on others, then they should absolutely get called out on them. I also don't think kids should be taught those views and if they are, they should be presented as nothing more than that; opinions.
The main point of my post was simply to tolerate and accept the fact that some people have unpopular viewpoints. Nobody should be criticized simply because of an opinion or political leaning, because it's just what they believe in. Nobody chooses what to believe, they just believe it.
That's precisely where I think this concept of 'damaging a company's public image' as a judstification for firing is a bridge too far.
I wouldn't use the example of PR - public perception is the job, and that is a little more difficult to defend; but lets continue with the Telltale example, assume it wasn't PR, but one of the programmers made an offensive comment on their personal twitter with no official connection to Telltale. Should they be fired for it?
There comes a line where if there is a potential lawsuit then the employee might be let go, but holding employees to a permanent standard of 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity,' is not only untenable, it's hypocritical. We're talking about very specific examples of an email offense to a minority here, but if 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity' are hiring and firing standards, who makes the judgment? What is the line? If somebody laughs at a dick joke on Family Guy are they sufficiently immature to be fired? What about one of the jokes about women on the show? What if they tweet it out to their friends? Is that sufficiently insensitive? That's obviously an extreme example, but my point is about what legal precidents are being set, and I think people able to fire people left and right for something they post on facebook or twitter in their private time is ridiculous.
I think what I'm really complaining about here is the sense of priorities; if you have somebody who is good at their job, who can do their job, but sent out something off color on twitter/facebook, making it a firable offense is tantamout to policing thought by the private sector, which is just as pernicious as when the government does it.
The use of social media should be protected, again, insofar as it is not using official media and doing so outside of work hours. Social media offers new connectivity, and yes, there are problems with that but I also think certain protections need to made. Sometimes tweeting something is the 21st century equivalent of yelling something in a bar, and I don't think you should lose your job over it now on social media anymore than than you'd be fired back then, just because more people are likely to see it shouldn't matter.
Well...the employer. And the market they wish to serve. This is an area where I think it's appropriate for the government to step back and let the people decide what they find acceptable. As long as the decision isn't based in discrimination, I don't see why the government should step in and tell private employers what they can and cannot do in their business.
Yes, this can lead to people getting fired for really stupid and minor reasons, but people get fired for stupid and minor reasons all the time. It's an at-will employment system. Sometimes, your boss just happens to be a grumpy prick. And while we may have personal disagreements with the hiring and firing practices of said grumpy prick, that isn't sufficient reason to require government intervention to force him to change the way he wants to conduct business.
As a larger point, I don't see the problem with private individuals policing each other's thought and speech. That's how society works. If a person says something that those around them find abhorrent, then they will be shunned. Yes, this can seem really brutal and unfair at times, like when a good employee is fired for a benign joke or when a religious family disowns their atheist child, but...well...that's freedom.
yes, Tim Hunt, that genius science guy that resigned because small pieces of human-shaped cancer threw a childish bitchfit over a joke
i mean who cares if human science got kneecapped in the balls? their feelings were hurt! some of them probably suicided or got PTSD!
The decision to force Tim Hunt to resign was made by UCL, not the people who were upset at his remarks. I imagine that most of them would have settled for a simple apology. And while I do agree that UCL shouldn't have done what they did, I wouldn't go so far as to say they shouldn't have been able to do it.