We're talking about very specific examples of an email offense to a minority here, but if 'good sense, sensitivity, and maturity' are hiring… more 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 inter… [view original content]
they're never happy with an apology. when they get an apology is when they see their target of hate is showing weakness, and that's when they strike harder
i'm pro-meritocracy, so i am against them being able to fire scientists over a single statement.
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 ha… moreve 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.
Who is this "they" you're referring to? Anyone who was offended by Tim Hunt's dumb remarks? That's quite a lot of people to be generalizing about. Many of whom are the female scientists who have every right to take issue with what he said. These include his own colleagues, who later on went to petition UCL to reinstate his job.
Just because someone complains about someone doesn't mean that they demand that terrible things happen to the subject of their complaint. Hell, if I were in that audience, I'd be bothered by what he said. Doesn't mean I think he should have been immediately asked to resign, no questions asked.
they're never happy with an apology. when they get an apology is when they see their target of hate is showing weakness, and that's when the… morey strike harder
i'm pro-meritocracy, so i am against them being able to fire scientists over a single statement.
While I feel that racism, being anti-homosexuality, etc. is simply not acceptable, freedom of speech is a thing. Someone can call me a fag if they want to, and I can retaliate. Everyone loves a flame war once in a while.
This is 100% true. Just because some people don't view what someone says as a joke, that doesn't mean it isn't. For every person who gets offended, there will be someone who laughs.
What he implied about homosexuals in that one thread that he was banned for was far from being respectful. I forget the details, but I remember Flog explaining and I was shocked.
Who is this "they" you're referring to? Anyone who was offended by Tim Hunt's dumb remarks? That's quite a lot of people to be generalizing … moreabout. Many of whom are the female scientists who have every right to take issue with what he said. These include his own colleagues, who later on went to petition UCL to reinstate his job.
Just because someone complains about someone doesn't mean that they demand that terrible things happen to the subject of their complaint. Hell, if I were in that audience, I'd be bothered by what he said. Doesn't mean I think he should have been immediately asked to resign, no questions asked.
Apparently "spoiled children" includes a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford and a former chief scientific adviser to the European Commission president, as well as all these female scientists. It was still an offensive comment. What he said was the sexist equivalent of "In my experience, black people always steal things. But seriously..." There's nothing "immature" about voicing your offense at that.
people who take upon themselves to bitch and moan about some guy's jokes on the internet until shit happens to him, that's what "they" refer… mores to
his own colleagues did not get offended by what he said, mostly because his colleagues are mature adults, not spoiled children.
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. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And 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.
anyone that throws a tantrum and plays the sexism card for that quote IS 100% a spoiled child that has no fucking clue what "sexism" means. women that cry about this kind of thing only serve to prove his statement so kudos to them i guess.
i can understand people who only read the first part (because fucking journos and their raging boner for scandals, controversy and chances to throw "sexist/racist" at people) but the second part is just a google search away from them, but they were too preoccupied to demand blood and vengeance on fucking twitter to turn their brains on and because of that we lost some Nobel guy.
and to be perfectly clear, "black people are statistically more likely to do crimes" isn't racism, it's fact(at least in 2013 US), is it offensive? who cares, facts > feelings.
now please go ahead and tell me how much of a racist misogynist bigot i am.
Apparently "spoiled children" includes a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford and a former chief scientifi… morec adviser to the European Commission president, as well as all these female scientists. It was still an offensive comment. What he said was the sexist equivalent of "In my experience, black people always steal things. But seriously..." There's nothing "immature" about voicing your offense at that.
While I feel that racism, being anti-homosexuality, etc. is simply not acceptable, freedom of speech is a thing. Someone can call me a fag if they want to, and I can retaliate. Everyone loves a flame war once in a while.
Censorship is bad.
sex·ism (noun)
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Yeah...pretty sure that quote counts as sexist. Hell, he admits that it was sexist. That was essentially the point. His comments basically amounted to "I'm a sexist who thinks that girls in labs cause problems because of their feelings. But, hey, don't let that stop you gals from doing what you do." Apparently failing recognize that admitting to having sexist thoughts doesn't free you from the ramifications of expressing those sexist thoughts.
None of the women I cited "threw tantrums." They expressed disapproval at what he said and joked about how dumb his comments were, but none of them called for his resignation or sent him hate mail or anything like that. There's nothing wrong with not liking something that someone has to say and then rebuking them for it.
If you feel more apprehension when around black people than white people because you feel that they are more likely to commit crimes then, yes, you are a racist.
YES, it includes them, the quote was:
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You… more fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And 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.
anyone that throws a tantrum and plays the sexism card for that quote IS 100% a spoiled child that has no fucking clue what "sexism" means. women that cry about this kind of thing only serve to prove his statement so kudos to them i guess.
i can understand people who only read the first part (because fucking journos and their raging boner for scandals, controversy and chances to throw "sexist/racist" at people) but … [view original content]
the only thing he failed to recognise was the internet thought police. his female colleagues stated multiple times that he helped female scientists, that alone means he's not fucking discriminating in the work place.
what those in that twitter hashtag (because today everything is a fucking twitter hashtag) failed to recognise was that their experience doesn't automatically invalidate his.
multiple scientific studies suggest that sexes ARE different both biologically and in behaviour, is reality sexist? is absolutely no preemptive thought allowed based on gender? am i sexist if i reckon a woman is more likely to have boobs?
are you trying to say that "black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes" is wrong? keep in mind i'm not implying people of afroamerican origin are somehow genetically more prone to crime.
sex·ism (noun)
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Yeah...pretty sure that … morequote counts as sexist. Hell, he admits that it was sexist. That was essentially the point. His comments basically amounted to "I'm a sexist who thinks that girls in labs cause problems because of their feelings. But, hey, don't let that stop you gals from doing what you do." Apparently failing recognize that admitting to having sexist thoughts doesn't free you from the ramifications of expressing those sexist thoughts.
None of the women I cited "threw tantrums." They expressed disapproval at what he said and joked about how dumb his comments were, but none of them called for his resignation or sent him hate mail or anything like that. There's nothing wrong with not liking something that someone has to say and then rebuking them for it.
If you feel more apprehension when around black people than whi… [view original content]
I didn't accuse him of discriminating in the workplace. I'm pointing out that his comments stereotype women in science. And stereotyping is part of the definition of sexism.
There's a difference between acknowledging statistical or factual differences between groups and holding different attitudes towards those groups because of those statistical differences, despite how narrow and simplistic they are.
Saying that you have trouble with girls in your lab because you think they'll cry or fall in love with you is sexist. Again, just as saying that you have trouble with black people in your workplace because you think they'll steal from you is racist. Do you disagree with this?
the only thing he failed to recognise was the internet thought police. his female colleagues stated multiple times that he helped female sci… moreentists, that alone means he's not fucking discriminating in the work place.
what those in that twitter hashtag (because today everything is a fucking twitter hashtag) failed to recognise was that their experience doesn't automatically invalidate his.
multiple scientific studies suggest that sexes ARE different both biologically and in behaviour, is reality sexist? is absolutely no preemptive thought allowed based on gender? am i sexist if i reckon a woman is more likely to have boobs?
are you trying to say that "black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes" is wrong? keep in mind i'm not implying people of afroamerican origin are somehow genetically more prone to crime.
if you're not saying he's sexist at work then what's the issue? a fucking hyperbole on a public speech? a joke? that's all it takes to brand some guy sexist? even in front of testimonies who openly state the opposite?
he DOSNT hold different attitudes based on gender, unless you think his female colleagues are liars.
do you think "racism" and "sexism" are intrinsically bad concepts? if so sorry to break it to you, reality is both of those things.
I didn't accuse him of discriminating in the workplace. I'm pointing out that his comments stereotype women in science. And stereotyping is … morepart of the definition of sexism.
There's a difference between acknowledging statistical or factual differences between groups and holding different attitudes towards those groups because of those statistical differences, despite how narrow and simplistic they are.
Saying that you have trouble with girls in your lab because you think they'll cry or fall in love with you is sexist. Again, just as saying that you have trouble with black people in your workplace because you think they'll steal from you is racist. Do you disagree with this?
That's all it takes to brand his comments sexist, yes. And until his colleagues later came to vouch for his support of women in science, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that someone who made the sexist comments he made was, in fact, sexist.
he DOSNT hold different attitudes based on gender, unless you think his female colleagues are liars.
He claimed to in his speech...Calling himself a chauvinist and suggesting that maybe there should be separate labs for men and women. He later clarified his remarks as facetious, but even his wife commented on what a stupid thing it was to say.
do you think "racism" and "sexism" are intrinsically bad concepts?
...yes? What kind of question is this?
if so sorry to break it to you, reality is both of those things.
Ah. Well, if you truly do believe that racism and sexism are based in reality, there's not much point in discussing further.
if you're not saying he's sexist at work then what's the issue? a fucking hyperbole on a public speech? a joke? that's all it takes to brand… more some guy sexist? even in front of testimonies who openly state the opposite?
he DOSNT hold different attitudes based on gender, unless you think his female colleagues are liars.
do you think "racism" and "sexism" are intrinsically bad concepts? if so sorry to break it to you, reality is both of those things.
it was a joke, he even said "now seriously" after it. why the fuck would a sexist say "ignore me go do more science"? anyone with half a brain'd have thought "this guy sucks at jokes", not "omg muh soggy knees"
Well, if you truly do believe that racism and sexism are based in reality, there's not much point in discussing further.
this is not what i said, reality is sexist because it discriminates on people based on gender (unless males can get preggers)
but yes, racism/sexism (in the stricter term, not the "every knowledge of differencies between genders you have") is, like pretty much every superstition, based on reality.
sexists think women are weak because the average woman is weaker than the average man, sexists think man are perverts because testosterone and nuts do that.
the sexist that thinks "that's a guy therefore he wants to fuck stuff" has a pretty fair chance of being right, with only gender as info about a person gender related statistics (which means sexism apparently) is the only viable data to base an assumption upon, and depending on how clear the statistics are, that assumption might be right with that data alone.
that's all it takes to brand some guy sexist?
That's all it takes to brand his comments sexist, yes. And until his colleagues later … morecame to vouch for his support of women in science, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that someone who made the sexist comments he made was, in fact, sexist.
he DOSNT hold different attitudes based on gender, unless you think his female colleagues are liars.
He claimed to in his speech...Calling himself a chauvinist and suggesting that maybe there should be separate labs for men and women. He later clarified his remarks as facetious, but even his wife commented on what a stupid thing it was to say.
do you think "racism" and "sexism" are intrinsically bad concepts?
...yes? What kind of question is this?
if so sorry to break it to you, reality is both of those things.
Ah. Well, if you truly do believe that racism and sexism are based in reality, there's not much point in discussing further.
The way I see it, when we begin to put a ban or limit peoples freedom of speech, true freedom has been lost. I say let people say what they feel, and soon others around them will know that and either:
A: Kick the f-ing shit out of them, and they learn not to say hateful, ignorant, or stupid things in public. And who knows, they might learn a thing or 2.
B: Ask they to elaborate on their feelings. Watch them make a fool of themselves. Point out their flawed logic and point of view. Inform them of why they could be wrong. Wish them a polite day and hope they learn from their mistake, or leave them to live in their fantasy world of bull shit.
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond. (Or share our view on things.)
it was a joke, he even said "now seriously" after it. why the fuck would a sexist say "ignore me go do more science"? anyone with half a brain'd have thought "this guy sucks at jokes", not "omg muh soggy knees"
Because, again, if someone said something like "I think black people are lazy and they steal. But seriously, you guys keep doing what you're doing" people would still be right to go "What the fuck, man?" Which is what they did.
the sexist that thinks "that's a guy therefore he wants to fuck stuff" has a pretty fair chance of being right
They also have a pretty fair chance of being wrong. As it is so often said "not all men are like that." Judging a person as having a certain trait before they demonstrate that trait is the definition of prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it makes you form wrong opinions about people without getting to know them. And when these prejudices get ingrained, they cause systematic biases that causes societies to treat people differently based on certain traits regardless of the actual content of their character. You know. The thing MLK fought against...
it was a joke, he even said "now seriously" after it. why the fuck would a sexist say "ignore me go do more science"? anyone with half a bra… morein'd have thought "this guy sucks at jokes", not "omg muh soggy knees"
Well, if you truly do believe that racism and sexism are based in reality, there's not much point in discussing further.
this is not what i said, reality is sexist because it discriminates on people based on gender (unless males can get preggers)
but yes, racism/sexism (in the stricter term, not the "every knowledge of differencies between genders you have") is, like pretty much every superstition, based on reality.
sexists think women are weak because the average woman is weaker than the average man, sexists think man are perverts because testosterone and nuts do that.
the sexist that thinks "that's a guy therefore he wants to fuck stuff" has a pretty fair chance of being right, with only gender as info about a … [view original content]
I'm tagging all of you because I don't exactly know where to start in this conversation. Tim Hunt didn't even insult women or be sexist, merely stated something he noticed in his workplace (When two different genders are around each others, it's likely they could be distracted and disrupt work.) He stated that gender separate labs could be beneficial, he never stated women shouldn't be in science or that they're stupid. He didn't discriminate, he wasn't being sexist, he was joking and forbid some actually make a joke about real life emotions between men and women. People are getting butthurt about this...People got butthurt over some guy wearing a shirt during a major event in astronomy...Shouldn't be surprised.
Well...saying that female scientists cry when you criticize them is kinda demeaning, don't you think? It suggests that women aren't emotionally strong enough to stand up to criticism in a field based entirely around people criticizing each other.
Granted, he was joking, but it was still a joke that reinforces negative stereotypes about women in science. Again, even he and his wife admit that his remarks were "inexcusable" and "unbelievably stupid" and that "You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim." They clearly felt that some negativity towards his comments were warranted, but that much of it was overblown and led to UCL making the very rash and harsh decision to force him to resign. Which is pretty much where I stand on the issue.
@Aaira @DomeWing333
I'm tagging all of you because I don't exactly know where to start in this conversation. Tim Hunt didn't even insult … morewomen or be sexist, merely stated something he noticed in his workplace (When two different genders are around each others, it's likely they could be distracted and disrupt work.) He stated that gender separate labs could be beneficial, he never stated women shouldn't be in science or that they're stupid. He didn't discriminate, he wasn't being sexist, he was joking and forbid some actually make a joke about real life emotions between men and women. People are getting butthurt about this...People got butthurt over some guy wearing a shirt during a major event in astronomy...Shouldn't be surprised.
"I think black people are lazy and they steal. But seriously, you guys keep doing what you're doing"
depends on how it's said. if it is said as an attempted joke then it's mostly ok.
Prejudice is bad
not always, not by definition, there's a kind of prejudice called "common sense", those with no common sense are usually called fools.
it has a chance of being wrong according to the situation, according to how clear the statistics (or amount of previous experience) is, as i've already said.
and what the fuck does MLK have to do with this? we're not discussing rights here, you can't just say "important figure was related to the matter at hand this means i'm right", and i stated that it works when you have no better data to base judgement on.
it was a joke, he even said "now seriously" after it. why the fuck would a sexist say "ignore me go do more science"? anyone with half a bra… morein'd have thought "this guy sucks at jokes", not "omg muh soggy knees"
Because, again, if someone said something like "I think black people are lazy and they steal. But seriously, you guys keep doing what you're doing" people would still be right to go "What the fuck, man?" Which is what they did.
the sexist that thinks "that's a guy therefore he wants to fuck stuff" has a pretty fair chance of being right
They also have a pretty fair chance of being wrong. As it is so often said "not all men are like that." Judging a person as having a certain trait before they demonstrate that trait is the definition of prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it makes you form wrong opinions about people without getting to know them. And when these prejudices get ingrained, they cause systematic biases… [view original content]
Well...saying that female scientists cry when you criticize them is kinda demeaning, don't you think? It suggests that women aren't emotionally strong enough to stand up to criticism in a field based entirely around people criticizing each other.
Pretty sure you're taking this too literal. Pretty sure he wasn't saying cry, cry can also mean complain, which means arguments and disagreements and ruins relationships and creates a pretty...inefficient workplace.
Granted, he was joking, but it was still a joke that reinforces negative stereotypes about women in science.
Negative stereotypes? What that as humans, we suck at accepting criticism and differing opinions?
Again, even he and his wife admit that his remarks were "inexcusable" and "unbelievably stupid" and that "You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim."
Unbelievably stupid to say it to anyone but your friends...Much less the internet. People are easily offended now a days about the little stuff and they majorly take it out of context.
that much of it was overblown and led to UCL making the very rash and harsh decision to force him to resign.
Completely stupid he had to resign...Ugh.
Which is pretty much where I stand on the issue.
I somewhat disagree with you but at least you find his resignation outrageous.
Tim Hunt didn't even insult women
Well...saying that female scientists cry when you criticize them is kinda demeaning, don't you thi… morenk? It suggests that women aren't emotionally strong enough to stand up to criticism in a field based entirely around people criticizing each other.
Granted, he was joking, but it was still a joke that reinforces negative stereotypes about women in science. Again, even he and his wife admit that his remarks were "inexcusable" and "unbelievably stupid" and that "You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim." They clearly felt that some negativity towards his comments were warranted, but that much of it was overblown and led to UCL making the very rash and harsh decision to force him to resign. Which is pretty much where I stand on the issue.
When it's said at an academic conference by a well-respected authority figure? No, it's not. Pretty much everyone involved, including Tim Hunt and his wife acknowledge that it's not.
Racist/sexist prejudices are not "common sense." They are ignorance, reflective of a lack of experience with a group such that you believe they can be represented by a series of stereotypes.
and what the fuck does MLK have to do with this?
Because you are defending prejudice and so I feel like i have to remind you of the people who struggled against it.
and i stated that it works when you have no better data to base judgement on.
There is better data to base judgement on. It's called interacting with people instead of making broad assumptions about what they are like based on what they are.
"I think black people are lazy and they steal. But seriously, you guys keep doing what you're doing"
depends on how it's said. if it… more is said as an attempted joke then it's mostly ok.
Prejudice is bad
not always, not by definition, there's a kind of prejudice called "common sense", those with no common sense are usually called fools.
it has a chance of being wrong according to the situation, according to how clear the statistics (or amount of previous experience) is, as i've already said.
and what the fuck does MLK have to do with this? we're not discussing rights here, you can't just say "important figure was related to the matter at hand this means i'm right", and i stated that it works when you have no better data to base judgement on.
Pretty sure you're taking this too literal. Pretty sure he wasn't saying cry, cry can also mean complain, which means arguments and disagreements and ruins relationships and creates a pretty...inefficient workplace.
Well let's say for the sake of argument that his usage of the word "cry" was referring to the act of bursting into tears. Would you then agree with me that the remarks were kind of offensive?
Negative stereotypes? What that as humans, we suck at accepting criticism and differing opinions?
He didn't say humans. He singled out women. That's what makes it a problem.
Well...saying that female scientists cry when you criticize them is kinda demeaning, don't you think? It suggests that women aren't emotiona… morelly strong enough to stand up to criticism in a field based entirely around people criticizing each other.
Pretty sure you're taking this too literal. Pretty sure he wasn't saying cry, cry can also mean complain, which means arguments and disagreements and ruins relationships and creates a pretty...inefficient workplace.
Granted, he was joking, but it was still a joke that reinforces negative stereotypes about women in science.
Negative stereotypes? What that as humans, we suck at accepting criticism and differing opinions?
Again, even he and his wife admit that his remarks were "inexcusable" and "unbelievably stupid" and that "You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim."
Unbelievably stupid to say it to anyone but your friends...Much less the… [view original content]
Well let's say for the sake of argument that his usage of the word "cry" was referring to the act of bursting into tears. Would you then agree with me that the remarks were kind of offensive?
If he literally meant bursting into tears...it still wouldn't be offensive.
He didn't say humans. He singled out women. That's what makes it a problem.
The problem doesn't exist though, he said my problems with girls...The real issue is how he actually had experiences with this. Humans are like that, women, despite being "stereotypical" is accurate. Woman, despite if you want to deny it, are more emotional than men.
Pretty sure you're taking this too literal. Pretty sure he wasn't saying cry, cry can also mean complain, which means arguments and disagree… morements and ruins relationships and creates a pretty...inefficient workplace.
Well let's say for the sake of argument that his usage of the word "cry" was referring to the act of bursting into tears. Would you then agree with me that the remarks were kind of offensive?
Negative stereotypes? What that as humans, we suck at accepting criticism and differing opinions?
He didn't say humans. He singled out women. That's what makes it a problem.
Racist/sexist prejudices are not "common sense." They are ignorance, reflective of a lack of experience with a group such that you believe they can be represented by a series of stereotypes.
you clearly haven't followed the discussion.
i find your prejudice against prejudice unsettling.
There is better data to base judgement on. It's called interacting with people
holy shit, it's what i said, racist prejudices work when YOU HAVE NO OTHER DATA TO BASE JUDGEMENT UPON, are you going to ask every random guy down a road their opinion about violent theft before judging wether it's wise to walk that particular road at night?
if it is said as an attempted joke then it's ok.
When it's said at an academic conference by a well-respected authority figure? No, … moreit's not. Pretty much everyone involved, including Tim Hunt and his wife acknowledge that it's not.
Racist/sexist prejudices are not "common sense." They are ignorance, reflective of a lack of experience with a group such that you believe they can be represented by a series of stereotypes.
and what the fuck does MLK have to do with this?
Because you are defending prejudice and so I feel like i have to remind you of the people who struggled against it.
and i stated that it works when you have no better data to base judgement on.
There is better data to base judgement on. It's called interacting with people instead of making broad assumptions about what they are like based on what they are.
The problem doesn't exist though, he said my problems with girls...The real issue is how he actually had experiences with this.
If he's actually genuine in saying that he has a problem with girls because he is afraid to criticize them out of fear that they would burst into tears, then he does, in fact, have a problem with women in science.
Well let's say for the sake of argument that his usage of the word "cry" was referring to the act of bursting into tears. Would you then agr… moreee with me that the remarks were kind of offensive?
If he literally meant bursting into tears...it still wouldn't be offensive.
He didn't say humans. He singled out women. That's what makes it a problem.
The problem doesn't exist though, he said my problems with girls...The real issue is how he actually had experiences with this. Humans are like that, women, despite being "stereotypical" is accurate. Woman, despite if you want to deny it, are more emotional than men.
That's against the fact that he entirely says differently. It's a joke based on how emotional women are. You know that if a woman scientist asked for gender based labs then they would get it without any problem, even if they said the same thing and they would get tons of support. This entire thing is pathetic to say it's sexism over a joke.
The problem doesn't exist though, he said my problems with girls...The real issue is how he actually had experiences with this.
If h… moree's actually genuine in saying that he has a problem with girls because he is afraid to criticize them out of fear that they would burst into tears, then he does, in fact, have a problem with women in science.
are you going to ask every random guy down a road their opinion about violent theft before judging wether it's wise to walk that particular road at night?
Are you going to assume that every black person who walks pass you on the street is going to rob you at gun point?
Racist/sexist prejudices are not "common sense." They are ignorance, reflective of a lack of experience with a group such that you believe t… morehey can be represented by a series of stereotypes.
you clearly haven't followed the discussion.
i find your prejudice against prejudice unsettling.
There is better data to base judgement on. It's called interacting with people
holy shit, it's what i said, racist prejudices work when YOU HAVE NO OTHER DATA TO BASE JUDGEMENT UPON, are you going to ask every random guy down a road their opinion about violent theft before judging wether it's wise to walk that particular road at night?
It should be tolerated by the government because we have the right to free speech but that right doesn't protect hate speech from other people who won't tolerate it.
So if a person is gonna spew ignorant hate speech they should use caution, the freedom of speech won't protect them from others.
Edit: My views are pretty much what the comment above me said.
Comments
i don't know how labor unions works in wherever you're from, but people getting fired for stupid reasons is, well, stupid.
they're never happy with an apology. when they get an apology is when they see their target of hate is showing weakness, and that's when they strike harder
i'm pro-meritocracy, so i am against them being able to fire scientists over a single statement.
Who is this "they" you're referring to? Anyone who was offended by Tim Hunt's dumb remarks? That's quite a lot of people to be generalizing about. Many of whom are the female scientists who have every right to take issue with what he said. These include his own colleagues, who later on went to petition UCL to reinstate his job.
Just because someone complains about someone doesn't mean that they demand that terrible things happen to the subject of their complaint. Hell, if I were in that audience, I'd be bothered by what he said. Doesn't mean I think he should have been immediately asked to resign, no questions asked.
Union workers negotiate more specific contracts and so aren't considered "employees at will."
While I feel that racism, being anti-homosexuality, etc. is simply not acceptable, freedom of speech is a thing. Someone can call me a fag if they want to, and I can retaliate. Everyone loves a flame war once in a while.
Censorship is bad.
This is 100% true. Just because some people don't view what someone says as a joke, that doesn't mean it isn't. For every person who gets offended, there will be someone who laughs.
I believe I remember the thread you're referring to. It pissed me off, honestly.
Sadly, we are not allowed to talk about banned members.
totally lame. i'll edit it out of my comment.
Eh, as long as you don't push it then there's no problem.
people who take upon themselves to bitch and moan about some guy's jokes on the internet until shit happens to him, that's what "they" refers to
his own colleagues did not get offended by what he said, mostly because his colleagues are mature adults, not spoiled children.
I have somewhat of a reputation of shitposting without realizing it's a shitpost, so better safe than sorry.
Apparently "spoiled children" includes a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford and a former chief scientific adviser to the European Commission president, as well as all these female scientists. It was still an offensive comment. What he said was the sexist equivalent of "In my experience, black people always steal things. But seriously..." There's nothing "immature" about voicing your offense at that.
YES, it includes them, the quote was:
anyone that throws a tantrum and plays the sexism card for that quote IS 100% a spoiled child that has no fucking clue what "sexism" means. women that cry about this kind of thing only serve to prove his statement so kudos to them i guess.
i can understand people who only read the first part (because fucking journos and their raging boner for scandals, controversy and chances to throw "sexist/racist" at people) but the second part is just a google search away from them, but they were too preoccupied to demand blood and vengeance on fucking twitter to turn their brains on and because of that we lost some Nobel guy.
and to be perfectly clear, "black people are statistically more likely to do crimes" isn't racism, it's fact(at least in 2013 US), is it offensive? who cares, facts > feelings.
now please go ahead and tell me how much of a racist misogynist bigot i am.
is there any sort of protection against employers firing employees for no reason?
When they're at will employees? No.
Fagit poop hed
Yeah...pretty sure that quote counts as sexist. Hell, he admits that it was sexist. That was essentially the point. His comments basically amounted to "I'm a sexist who thinks that girls in labs cause problems because of their feelings. But, hey, don't let that stop you gals from doing what you do." Apparently failing recognize that admitting to having sexist thoughts doesn't free you from the ramifications of expressing those sexist thoughts.
None of the women I cited "threw tantrums." They expressed disapproval at what he said and joked about how dumb his comments were, but none of them called for his resignation or sent him hate mail or anything like that. There's nothing wrong with not liking something that someone has to say and then rebuking them for it.
If you feel more apprehension when around black people than white people because you feel that they are more likely to commit crimes then, yes, you are a racist.
Oops wrong thread.
the only thing he failed to recognise was the internet thought police. his female colleagues stated multiple times that he helped female scientists, that alone means he's not fucking discriminating in the work place.
what those in that twitter hashtag (because today everything is a fucking twitter hashtag) failed to recognise was that their experience doesn't automatically invalidate his.
multiple scientific studies suggest that sexes ARE different both biologically and in behaviour, is reality sexist? is absolutely no preemptive thought allowed based on gender? am i sexist if i reckon a woman is more likely to have boobs?
are you trying to say that "black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes" is wrong? keep in mind i'm not implying people of afroamerican origin are somehow genetically more prone to crime.
cries
I didn't accuse him of discriminating in the workplace. I'm pointing out that his comments stereotype women in science. And stereotyping is part of the definition of sexism.
There's a difference between acknowledging statistical or factual differences between groups and holding different attitudes towards those groups because of those statistical differences, despite how narrow and simplistic they are.
Saying that you have trouble with girls in your lab because you think they'll cry or fall in love with you is sexist. Again, just as saying that you have trouble with black people in your workplace because you think they'll steal from you is racist. Do you disagree with this?
if you're not saying he's sexist at work then what's the issue? a fucking hyperbole on a public speech? a joke? that's all it takes to brand some guy sexist? even in front of testimonies who openly state the opposite?
he DOSNT hold different attitudes based on gender, unless you think his female colleagues are liars.
do you think "racism" and "sexism" are intrinsically bad concepts? if so sorry to break it to you, reality is both of those things.
That's all it takes to brand his comments sexist, yes. And until his colleagues later came to vouch for his support of women in science, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that someone who made the sexist comments he made was, in fact, sexist.
He claimed to in his speech...Calling himself a chauvinist and suggesting that maybe there should be separate labs for men and women. He later clarified his remarks as facetious, but even his wife commented on what a stupid thing it was to say.
...yes? What kind of question is this?
Ah. Well, if you truly do believe that racism and sexism are based in reality, there's not much point in discussing further.
it was a joke, he even said "now seriously" after it. why the fuck would a sexist say "ignore me go do more science"? anyone with half a brain'd have thought "this guy sucks at jokes", not "omg muh soggy knees"
this is not what i said, reality is sexist because it discriminates on people based on gender (unless males can get preggers)
but yes, racism/sexism (in the stricter term, not the "every knowledge of differencies between genders you have") is, like pretty much every superstition, based on reality.
sexists think women are weak because the average woman is weaker than the average man, sexists think man are perverts because testosterone and nuts do that.
the sexist that thinks "that's a guy therefore he wants to fuck stuff" has a pretty fair chance of being right, with only gender as info about a person gender related statistics (which means sexism apparently) is the only viable data to base an assumption upon, and depending on how clear the statistics are, that assumption might be right with that data alone.
The way I see it, when we begin to put a ban or limit peoples freedom of speech, true freedom has been lost. I say let people say what they feel, and soon others around them will know that and either:
A: Kick the f-ing shit out of them, and they learn not to say hateful, ignorant, or stupid things in public. And who knows, they might learn a thing or 2.
B: Ask they to elaborate on their feelings. Watch them make a fool of themselves. Point out their flawed logic and point of view. Inform them of why they could be wrong. Wish them a polite day and hope they learn from their mistake, or leave them to live in their fantasy world of bull shit.
If we limit their freedom of speech, one day it might mean we limit our own freedom to respond. (Or share our view on things.)
Because, again, if someone said something like "I think black people are lazy and they steal. But seriously, you guys keep doing what you're doing" people would still be right to go "What the fuck, man?" Which is what they did.
They also have a pretty fair chance of being wrong. As it is so often said "not all men are like that." Judging a person as having a certain trait before they demonstrate that trait is the definition of prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it makes you form wrong opinions about people without getting to know them. And when these prejudices get ingrained, they cause systematic biases that causes societies to treat people differently based on certain traits regardless of the actual content of their character. You know. The thing MLK fought against...
@Aaira @DomeWing333
I'm tagging all of you because I don't exactly know where to start in this conversation. Tim Hunt didn't even insult women or be sexist, merely stated something he noticed in his workplace (When two different genders are around each others, it's likely they could be distracted and disrupt work.) He stated that gender separate labs could be beneficial, he never stated women shouldn't be in science or that they're stupid. He didn't discriminate, he wasn't being sexist, he was joking and forbid some actually make a joke about real life emotions between men and women. People are getting butthurt about this...People got butthurt over some guy wearing a shirt during a major event in astronomy...Shouldn't be surprised.
Well...saying that female scientists cry when you criticize them is kinda demeaning, don't you think? It suggests that women aren't emotionally strong enough to stand up to criticism in a field based entirely around people criticizing each other.
Granted, he was joking, but it was still a joke that reinforces negative stereotypes about women in science. Again, even he and his wife admit that his remarks were "inexcusable" and "unbelievably stupid" and that "You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn’t know Tim." They clearly felt that some negativity towards his comments were warranted, but that much of it was overblown and led to UCL making the very rash and harsh decision to force him to resign. Which is pretty much where I stand on the issue.
depends on how it's said. if it is said as an attempted joke then it's mostly ok.
not always, not by definition, there's a kind of prejudice called "common sense", those with no common sense are usually called fools.
it has a chance of being wrong according to the situation, according to how clear the statistics (or amount of previous experience) is, as i've already said.
and what the fuck does MLK have to do with this? we're not discussing rights here, you can't just say "important figure was related to the matter at hand this means i'm right", and i stated that it works when you have no better data to base judgement on.
Pretty sure you're taking this too literal. Pretty sure he wasn't saying cry, cry can also mean complain, which means arguments and disagreements and ruins relationships and creates a pretty...inefficient workplace.
Negative stereotypes? What that as humans, we suck at accepting criticism and differing opinions?
Unbelievably stupid to say it to anyone but your friends...Much less the internet. People are easily offended now a days about the little stuff and they majorly take it out of context.
Completely stupid he had to resign...Ugh.
I somewhat disagree with you but at least you find his resignation outrageous.
When it's said at an academic conference by a well-respected authority figure? No, it's not. Pretty much everyone involved, including Tim Hunt and his wife acknowledge that it's not.
Racist/sexist prejudices are not "common sense." They are ignorance, reflective of a lack of experience with a group such that you believe they can be represented by a series of stereotypes.
Because you are defending prejudice and so I feel like i have to remind you of the people who struggled against it.
There is better data to base judgement on. It's called interacting with people instead of making broad assumptions about what they are like based on what they are.
Well let's say for the sake of argument that his usage of the word "cry" was referring to the act of bursting into tears. Would you then agree with me that the remarks were kind of offensive?
He didn't say humans. He singled out women. That's what makes it a problem.
If he literally meant bursting into tears...it still wouldn't be offensive.
The problem doesn't exist though, he said my problems with girls...The real issue is how he actually had experiences with this. Humans are like that, women, despite being "stereotypical" is accurate. Woman, despite if you want to deny it, are more emotional than men.
you clearly haven't followed the discussion.
i find your prejudice against prejudice unsettling.
holy shit, it's what i said, racist prejudices work when YOU HAVE NO OTHER DATA TO BASE JUDGEMENT UPON, are you going to ask every random guy down a road their opinion about violent theft before judging wether it's wise to walk that particular road at night?
If he's actually genuine in saying that he has a problem with girls because he is afraid to criticize them out of fear that they would burst into tears, then he does, in fact, have a problem with women in science.
That's against the fact that he entirely says differently. It's a joke based on how emotional women are. You know that if a woman scientist asked for gender based labs then they would get it without any problem, even if they said the same thing and they would get tons of support. This entire thing is pathetic to say it's sexism over a joke.
Are you going to assume that every black person who walks pass you on the street is going to rob you at gun point?
It should be tolerated by the government because we have the right to free speech but that right doesn't protect hate speech from other people who won't tolerate it.
So if a person is gonna spew ignorant hate speech they should use caution, the freedom of speech won't protect them from others.
Edit: My views are pretty much what the comment above me said.