Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Lightknight]

As mentioned several times, he later clarified the joke by saying it was all true. And the job that he was fired from was representing the institution, not doing anything actually academic.

Yep, it is scientifically true that women cry four times as much as men and are specifically far more likely to do so under stressful situations like having your work criticized.

He made a factually accurate joke. Are we complaining that he said women cry or that men fall in love with women?

If it's factually true, then why can't you prove it? You've tried, and even you didn't try to call it "proof". It's your opinion, you should stop presenting it as fact. A reasonable person would conclude either that you're mistaken or being intentionally deceptive.

You know what? I've got time, I'm just going to keep playing your game. Here are some of the studies that were referenced by the articles. They are actual evidence that women cry more than men by a fair margin and specifically when under stress whereas men are far less likely to cry when under stress or at all. Now, I already cited these studies, so if you do not belief that this wealth of information that is universally accepted in academia is correct, feel free to tell me what constitutes fact.

Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh (Journal of Research in Personality, 2011 (they also referenced the 1980 study by biochemist William H. Frey, PhD that mirrored the same results). These studies found that women cry four times as much as men.

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/45/4/399.short (in which women cry more than men across all cultures and societies)

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/emotional-tears-facilitate-the-recognition-of-sadness-and-the-perceived-need-for-social-support/ (In which a clear biological advantage is established for people who display tears than people who don't)

I mean, this is so universally established that researchers have moved on from proving that women cry more and instead have begun to research how it impacts their jobs and ways to mitigate the damage it can cause in a work place:

<youtube=StKNjNjpR_k>

That's the first of a multiple part series on the impact/consequences of women crying in the workplace as a natural response to stress.

Here's an article detailing the findings of one of the foremost researchers in the subject who had studied the topic since the 1980s (he's also the guy that proved that emotional tears contain stress-related hormones whereas tears due to something like onions does not):

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-06-29/its-my-office-and-ill-cry-if-i-want-to

That's Frey of the 1980 study I cited above that was recently confirmed in 2011 by Lauren Bylsma, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh in the Journal of Research in Personality

It isn't that women are wimps, or weaker than men emotionally. It's just a series of facts, PROOF, that I've already mentioned:

1. Women's tear ducts are shaped in a way that encourages tear formation whereas men's tear ducts are meant to hold as much tear material as possible. So men more regularly get misty eyed and women more regularly full-on cry.
2. Women have a much higher level of the hormone prolactin which is present in stress or emotional tears. They have 60% more concentration of it than men. Boys and girls have the same levels and are known to cry at similar rates until the age of 12 where prolactin increases in females.
3. At puberty men also start to have increased levels of testosterone which has been linked with decreasing tearing up too.
4. Women cry four times more than men.
5. Women crying is seen the same way as when we see babies crying. It triggers a desire to protect and help.
6. Women are more likely to cry due to stress than men.

This is actually a known problem for women in the workforce. The academic community has responded to this by establishing seminars on how to avoid crying, seminars discussing the negative impacts of crying, and seminars on how company culture needs to stop looking at crying as weakness or instability.

What a lot of NOT proof.

Did I miss you presenting any counter-proof to the studies I already cited?

Please, cite specific examples that you think are false. Then, I want you to give me the same courtesy I've been giving you and cite evidence backing up your claim that these academic professionals are wrong and that despite the entire academic community backing up everything I've been saying with no detractions.

 

[Lightknight]

Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but an account by the European Commission was leaked and published in The Times [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece] (Note: The Times is behind a paywall, but this Independent column [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-demands-apology-from-sir-tim-hunts-critics-and-claims-leaked-transcript-shows-sexist-comments-were-lighthearted-banter-10341160.html] includes a lot of the pertinent details).

This is the wider context surrounding the remark;

"It?s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. 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.?

Emphasis mine.

Anyway, I'm not offering a particular opinion of my own right here, but it's highly relevant information, and (many would argue) changes the tone altogether.

Whoa, that's a major shift in tone and context. That certainly explains why he said it at all.

Yeah, it's all better if someone says, "Jews are filthy and greedy, but you can't run banks without them." Such a gentile monster now.

This is hardly the same as this. It's a joke followed by a "But seriously...", implying that the first was purely in jest and that women play a vital role in the lab.

Sorry you didn't find it funny, but not only is the joke anchored in a real and known gender difference but it certainly wasn't equivalent to anti-Semitism. You just went Godwin's law up in here.

 

[Kwak]

You're right, he's actually clarified that he meant exactly what he said.

His clarification where he says women are important in science you mean, *right after the first part*?

Sorry you didn't find it funny, but not only is the joke anchored in a real and known gender difference but it certainly wasn't equivalent to anti-Semitism. You just went Godwin's law up in here.

It wasn't a joke, unless your idea of humor is rooted in bigotry. That last bit of course is cute, but I hope that most people here understand the different between metaphor and comparison.

It was a joke, *if that's how he meant it*; it doesn't mater that it was not what you personally consider humorous, as it is plainly obvious to all but the deliberately obtuse that he meant the first in a way to satirise his own attitudes, the second as an encouragement to persist in spite of attitudes such as the one he satirically characterised.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Their RIGHT to fire him is not something I dispute. An employer should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they want. I just don't see how it's a sensible (or decent) thing to do given the situation.

Why exactly is 'feelings' suddenly important to the equation?

What's hypocritical about that? Also, your analogy lacks the irony of the original incident. He called them thin-skinned, and they reacted in a thin-skinned manner. Calling an officer an egotistical pig would only be similarly ironic if the officer then did something egotistical and/or piglike.

The hypocrisy is that, because people are defending his right to work according to their feelings, but then concluding that feelings people have to wishing his departure (for a sexist diatribe and a non-pology) is somehow an 'overreaction'. Or did you miss that facet? If I said the same thing, every business I've worked for or run would have me fired, or possibly brought up with a warning from a union/industry liaison.


Guy got fired for being a dick. End of story.

Did you just call old people "dinosaurs"? How offensive. Lol Stop going on like an ageist "fuckwit".

Dinosaur, someone who fails to evolve to the modern workplace. Guess what!? Every older person who still works does it. Guess what? So will I, you, and your friends! Has nothing to do with age (thanks for assuming that), it has everything to do with refusing to accept the modern workplace.

If it was poor teamwork skills and inability to coordinate that got him sacked that comment would be relevant.

Which is the modern laboratory. And no, his job was about image ... and guess what? He's not good at image.

It's a pointless sacrificial bloodletting. Whenever an organization gets involved in a scandal that threatens their image they have to fire the people most closely involved and publicly disavow them, regardless of what history they have, and then return to business as usual.

Whjich has been a business practice since he, and HIS predecessors, also laboured under. If he didn't learn his lesson in 40 years of employment, then sucks to be him.

 

[Kwak]

It's not an excuse, it's the thing he said immediately after which puts it into context. You not 'believing' that is persisting to deny reality to justify your view, and frankly, childish.

 

[Kwak]

I am trying.
You said you don't have to 'believe his excuse after he got nailed' - I assume you mean when he said it was a joke after the outcry against him. But the actual words of the speech, the thing that everyone is arguing about, show that he provably did mean it as a joke, in the way he took a satirical view of his past relationships with women in the lab, as a preface to saying that women should persist in that environment. It may be poor humour or a misjudged way to encourage women, but it is not just an empty excuse - it is what actually happened proven by the words of the address.
So unless you're referring to another controversial comment that he tried to pass off as a joke, he was not making an excuse that can be believed or disbelieved, he is making a true statement that can be checked objectively against the evidence and found true.

 

[Lightknight]

See, the problem is that you're only really sourcing some of your claims, then trying to pretend you've sourced them all. Nobody is debating that women cry more, your assertion was very specific about WHY they cry.

What? Emotional/stress tears contain prolactin as opposed to other tears which do not. Women have 60% higher levels of the hormone in their system (which is also associated with lactation, fyi) and are known to cry in situations of stress far more than males at comparable stress levels. We've known this since Frey's study in the 1980's which have only be verified in subsequent studies. Women also cry far more during their periods and when they have children which also happen to be times where they have higher levels of stress.

Are you making the claim that women do not cry due to stress? What sort of evidence are you willing to present to conflict with my claims and the current working theory of, again, all of academia on the subject. Medical and Psychological arenas agree with this being the cause.

I'm unsure what your goal is here. Do you think I'm calling women weak or incompetent at their jobs? I'm saying that this is a quality women have for better or worse. I personally believe that crying is an excellent natural method of reducing stress and so is a biological advantage that women have over men. I actually find it fascinating. But if you think you're somehow defending or championing women here, you're not. Your denying a natural process that is unique to women that they could instead be celebrating where beneficial and mitigating damage where not. Denial (unfounded denial) is the basest of responses in understanding ourselves.

The rest is honestly not very interesting, and naturally has nothing to do with this discussion at all.

If you don't find something interesting, don't post. Derision of discussion of subject matter you don't like is covered under the "Don't be a jerk" clause in the site's code of conduct. Kudos on not crossing the line though, you're really good at subtextual insults in a way I suspect will never warrant so much as a warning for you. It's a very delicate line to walk and you're doing it splendidly. Alternately, there's the possible that you don't know how you're coming across which would itself be an impressive feat.

It's all either a reflection of your understanding of the issue, or extremely dishonest.

Or, and this is my favorite possibility, perhaps your understanding of the issue is what is severely lacking or you're the on that is being extremely dishonest. You've presented no evidence, none. If my position is the one that's in line with professional researchers then you may want to reevaluate which one of us is ignorant of the topic.

What is your goal here? To claim that women don't disproportionately cry at work? To claim that women don't cry in response to stress at a far higher likelihood than men?

Or are you just taking offense to my claim that it is involuntary and therefore usually non-manipulative even though it can have its benefits? Generally events which are caused by higher levels of hormones in the system aren't due to cold calculation of social perception and are instead biological which is what leads me to believe that the crying is mostly involuntary.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm NOT talking

Yes you are. I can clearly see that you're talking (posting) so why would you say that you're not talking? Surely there's no additional context in your post following that phrase that would have elaborated your meaning, right? You said it so you must have meant it and no additional words could possibly paint that in a different light...

The context of the scientist's second paragraph explains the reason for the first. He wasn't calling women cry babies. He was calling the question posed to him ridiculous. He was ridiculing the sort of man who would think that way and actively called them bad people. His comment is more like "OF COURSE women played an important role" and he is encouraging women to pursue a career in it despite anyone who would say that kind of silly thing. This has been an incredibly misplaced attempt at a lynch mob to strike out at sexism against a man who was decidedly doing the opposite. Holy Poe's Law Batman...

 

[Lightknight]

SNIP

A glance shows absolutely no citations, so nothing new.

I already cited Frey's 1980 study and the 2011 study published in the Journal of Research in Personality by Dr. Lauren Bylsma.

I'm unsure what you want. Do you want me to go into the studies themselves and just copy and paste their results? Is that it? That you can't be bothered to click on the links I provide to the full studies that already list their overall findings in the abstract and have been regularly cited by the supporting articles I presented?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears#Types

" Tears brought about by emotions have a different chemical make-up than those for lubrication; emotional tears contain more of the protein-based hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and leucine enkephalin (a natural painkiller) than basal or reflex tears."

If you follow the citation of that phrase you'll see it refers back to the Frey study in 1980 [http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/ScienceOfTears.cfm] where he discovered that the content of emotional tears (crying when emotionally upset or stressed) is different from other tears in that it contains a lot more hormones like prolactin which women have 60% more of after puberty (that puberty comment is important because prepubescent boys and girls have the same amount of prolactin and cry the same amount of time).

The composition of tears and prolactin's impact on them is universally accepted. Article after article citing Frey's 1980 study time and time again as well as newer studies confirming his findings. We know that the body releases these hormones when stressed.

You are literally arguing against one of the most firmly proven biological facts that science has to offer simply because of how frequently it has been confirmed and how readily it can be confirmed. Is your insistence that I haven't cited anything just you being unwilling to click links? If so, get over it.

 

[EvilRoy]

Snip

Dude, you are putting way to much effort into this. Normally I just read and think when it comes to this stuff, but right here I need to sound off. Not only is Dynast clearly not even reading your responses, but he hasn't actually contributed in any way to the thread yet. Every response thus far has ranged from one sentence to about a paragraph, but is typically devoid of any content at all.

He seems to be attempting to take a position of superiority and 'grade' your response, but you getting an 'A' isn't going to help you, and I've already read all the posts and sources and I can tell doing the ridiculous little bits of extra credit for him isn't really going to expand on anything in particular.

 

[EvilRoy]

@EvilRoy: The irony of claiming that I've added nothing to a discussion while all you're offering is invective, isn't lost on me at least.

I'm offering advice to Light. I've seen him post on the forum for long enough to know that, although he tends to be overly verbose, his points are typically made clearly and backed up - and he has way too much patience for this kind of stuff for his own good.

Consider the self-quoted portion of your post. Re-reading the thread, this single quote is the first and only time you have ever actually explained what you felt was lacking in Lights arguments. It took you seven posts and three days to make it there. Since then you have similarly offered nothing, even an explanation of what specifically in his sources is failing to support the 'why', and clearly out of hand refused to read whole posts he has written to you on the basis that you didn't see blue text.

I'm simply advising Light that attempting to finish out this conversation is at best not worth it, and at worst an act of self flagellation.

 

[EvilRoy]

It seems that you still have a more careful reading to do then, and this recent post does reinforce just how pointlessly hostile that other was. Did you think that you actually invented passive aggression?!

I could quote each post of yours, and explain why they fail to actually communicate at all what specifically you felt Light was failing to demonstrate, but we both know that is a waste of time.

As to my hostility, I can't really deny that it is pointless, but I do feel it is necessary to point out that it is in no way passive. This is absolutely how I feel about you, after never having a conversation with you and you being here about a week. You have broken several records, and I feel as though I must somehow acknowledge it to you. This conversation serves that purpose.

 

[Lightknight]

Snip

Dude, you are putting way to much effort into this. Normally I just read and think when it comes to this stuff, but right here I need to sound off. Not only is Dynast clearly not even reading your responses, but he hasn't actually contributed in any way to the thread yet. Every response thus far has ranged from one sentence to about a paragraph, but is typically devoid of any content at all.

He seems to be attempting to take a position of superiority and 'grade' your response, but you getting an 'A' isn't going to help you, and I've already read all the posts and sources and I can tell doing the ridiculous little bits of extra credit for him isn't really going to expand on anything in particular.

I must concede that you are right and I am wasting far too much time with nothing to show for it. I was trying to get a better gauge of the poster. Was hoping to get them to expose some bit of actual knowledge on the topic. But the responses are the same each time, void of information or specificity. I figured at worst I would benefit from researching the topic more thoroughly but the more I research the more they just keep saying the same thing. So with no benefit, I'll take your advice.

Judging from your posts below this one I'm quoting, I'll return the favor and advise you do the same.

Thank you for stepping in. I do appreciate it. I was unsure if I was the only person seeing this.

 

[Lightknight]

Forgive me for a moment, EvilRoy, but this is the first genuine response I've gotten from Dynast here in a long time and it includes an actual complaint that I can directly respond to. Shame the first real response also includes a poorly veiled insult.

No, from what I've seen here you probably share the views and general perceptions of a few dozen (mostly) guys. I doubt it's a coincidence that you all spend what appears to be a lot of time and energy in a mostly closed circle of cultural and ideological reinforcement. In my experience that's an indication of aimlessness and hostility, but then what do I know.

I just spent a "lot of time and energy" with you trying to get some sort of information out of you to learn from or to engage in dialogue. So what does that make you then? A member of my mythical closed circle? Thanks for being presumptive and insulting, though.

All of this has certainly served to distract from the gulf between your essential claim of women as manipulative criers, and the reality that women cry more than men according to research.

Hahaha, what? Every post from the very start has been me explicitly stating that women do not cry more voluntarily. I specifically said, multiple times, that it is not for manipulative purposes because it is involuntary and I made this statement from my very post here. Do some women cry to manipulate? Sure, and people also lie to manipulate.

Why in the world would you arrive at the belief that I'm somehow saying women do it to be manipulative when I'm citing works that show women do it because of biological differences like hormones and the shape of the tear ducts that they have no control over? A biological difference is the opposite of cold and calculated manipulation. More importantly, why would you come to that conclusion when I took specific care to say that it is involuntary? But hey, I'll leave you with one of several quotes of me in which I tell you directly that it ISN'T manipulation in this thread. So if your beef all this time has been because you thought I was calling women manipulative then... *sigh*. Everyone's time wasted for want of you actually reading posts before responding to them.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.877096-Nobel-laureate-forced-out-of-studies-after-making-joke-about-women?page=11#22089868

" It isn't a manipulative one, since it is involuntary, but it is something that triggers an emotional response from the person causing the tears. "

How very disappointing. To think, all you had to do was tell me that you didn't believe women were manipulative criers and I could have agreed with you. Instead you had to drag me down your rabbit hole thinking I was some sort of imaginary stereotype of whatever group you're on a crusade to combat. Have fun with that.

 

[EvilRoy]

Judging from your posts below this one I'm quoting, I'll return the favor and advise you do the same.

Thank you for stepping in. I do appreciate it. I was unsure if I was the only person seeing this.

Yeah I know, I let myself get pulled in too often despite the lurker status I claim I have - my post count is proof enough of that. Its just some times and some people are too much to ignore. At any rate I'm still going to claim victory because it seems an actual real statement got squeezed out, even if it is just basically proof that: no, he wasn't actually reading any of your posts.

 

[Lightknight]

Judging from your posts below this one I'm quoting, I'll return the favor and advise you do the same.

Thank you for stepping in. I do appreciate it. I was unsure if I was the only person seeing this.

Yeah I know, I let myself get pulled in too often despite the lurker status I claim I have - my post count is proof enough of that. Its just some times and some people are too much to ignore. At any rate I'm still going to claim victory because it seems an actual real statement got squeezed out, even if it is just basically proof that: no, he wasn't actually reading any of your posts.

At least now we know. Otherwise this would have been one of those mysteries rattling around in the back of my brain until BAM aneurism.

Heh, he was right, I wasn't providing evidence that women are manipulative criers because I was specifically making the case for the opposite.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, you did say that, which is unfortunately a contradiction. Involuntary and manipulative is still manipulative. It's another in a long series of semantic arguments you're making, and I'm ignoring.

No, manipulation requires intent as does willful deceit. Something that is beneficial and unintentional is not manipulative. The individuals don't cry because they want to be treated better and so are crying to control (aka, manipulate) others to their will, they are crying out of frustration and other emotions because they aren't being treated better. So it's caused and noncausative in that respect even if it occasionally benefits them by showing someone what they're doing to the person. Not only that, but as I stated, there are also negative consequences such as being viewed as weak or emotionally unstable which ultimately prevents them from advancing their career. Not to mention the sheer embarrassment they face. That's why so many of the studies and resources I linked included resources to help women deal with the problems it can cause.

Crying because you're stressed or because someone is criticizing you isn't manipulative. Crying in order to control or influence someone to do something would be. But that's also being done voluntarily.

You can complain and try to grandstand on the idea that you've been trying to have a detailed and reasonable conversation, but hopefully people who actually read it will understand it's not the case. Much of what you've written is just a lot of "stuff" on tangents like "women cry more" or "It's not manipulative because it's involuntary!".

Own your claims, and stop this.

Perhaps you've misread the situation and my intentions? Consider this, why would I put so much time and effort to cite my claims and to speak with you if I had deceptive or ill-intentions towards you? Why would I encourage you to list specific complaints about if I wasn't genuinely interesting in open dialogue? Methinks you may have jumped the gun on me. Had you just openly said from the start that you disagreed with the comments on "manipulation" then we would have had a succinct discussion and quick agreement. Either that or we would have at least been having a useful dialogue on the nature of manipulation rather than deflection after deflection. You should reconsider how you debate with people. Especially if you want to contribute to people by broadening their thinking with your perspective. If you don't, if you just want to make enemies and waste everyone's time. Then just keep barreling forward making all kinds of wild assumptions about people to erroneously inform your debates in ways they have no perception of until you finally say them.

 

[Olas]

Their RIGHT to fire him is not something I dispute. An employer should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they want. I just don't see how it's a sensible (or decent) thing to do given the situation.

Why exactly is 'feelings' suddenly important to the equation?

What do you mean?

Losing one's job is a serious, life altering affair. To fire someone over something as trivial as a rude sounding comment seems like an enormous overreaction. Let's be honest here. This guy's crime wasn't what he said. It was being in a highly visible position within the company. If anybody could be fired this easily nobody would be able to hold a job for any substantial amount of time.

What's hypocritical about that? Also, your analogy lacks the irony of the original incident. He called them thin-skinned, and they reacted in a thin-skinned manner. Calling an officer an egotistical pig would only be similarly ironic if the officer then did something egotistical and/or piglike.

The hypocrisy is that, because people are defending his right to work according to their feelings, but then concluding that feelings people have to wishing his departure (for a sexist diatribe and a non-pology) is somehow an 'overreaction'. Or did you miss that facet?

Yes I did miss that facet because I never assumed the only objection people could have to this was based solely on their gut reaction to it. Certainly there's an emotional reaction when unusually harsh punishments are used against people for petty bullshit, but there's reasonable utilitarian arguments against it as well. Does the momentary satisfaction that the public felt knowing this man was unemployed outway the harm done to him and his dependents? Maybe, but the point is that there's plenty of arguments against this. Could a society function if a person's political correctness was seen as a more valuable job skill than... you know... skill?

If I said the same thing, every business I've worked for or run would have me fired, or possibly brought up with a warning from a union/industry liaison.

I don't believe that, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it right.

Did you just call old people "dinosaurs"? How offensive. Lol Stop going on like an ageist "fuckwit".

Dinosaur, someone who fails to evolve to the modern workplace. Guess what!?

The dinosaurs didn't fail to evolve. They were wiped out in a massive meteorite impact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume that's truly all you meant.

Every older person who still works does it. Guess what? So will I, you, and your friends! Has nothing to do with age (thanks for assuming that), it has everything to do with refusing to accept the modern workplace.

What? It sounds like you just directly contradicted yourself. First you said that every older person does it (you should be careful when using the word "every") and then said it has nothing to with age. Which is it?

If it was poor teamwork skills and inability to coordinate that got him sacked that comment would be relevant.

Which is the modern laboratory. And no, his job was about image and guess what? He's not good at image.

You sure know this guy awfully well. I couldn't possibly make a judgement about his overall character based on what little I know about him. Perhaps he was a complete jerk all the time. But if so then THIS comment shouldn't have what got him fired.

It's a pointless sacrificial bloodletting. Whenever an organization gets involved in a scandal that threatens their image they have to fire the people most closely involved and publicly disavow them, regardless of what history they have, and then return to business as usual.

Whjich has been a business practice since he, and HIS predecessors, also laboured under. If he didn't learn his lesson in 40 years of employment, then sucks to be him.

It sucks to be in a one-strike-and-you're-out institution. I'd like to think most people can learn from their mistakes, but I guess we're better off not taking that chance.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

What do you mean?

Losing one's job is a serious, life altering affair.

How is that then any fault barring his own?

Yes I did miss that facet because I never assumed the only objection people could have to this was based solely on their gut reaction to it. Certainly there's an emotional reaction when unusually harsh punishments are used against people for petty bullshit, but there's reasonable utilitarian arguments against it as well. Does the momentary satisfaction that the public felt knowing this man was unemployed outway the harm done to him and his dependents? Maybe, but the point is that there's plenty of arguments against this. Could a society function if a person's political correctness was seen as a more valuable job skill than... you know... skill?

Playing nice and following the rules are more important than 'skill' (he was actually a shitty teacher according to many, and he's not doing anything 'skillful' from the place that he was discharged from). Also, as a former employer of people, I'd rather hire people who are capable of leaving their garbage at home. If you can't, then you're a migraine waiting to happen ... and I fucking loathe migraines. I tend to avoid them. It's not 'unusually harsh' ... this is standard. So ... world's smallest violin.

He got fired for doing something anybody would be fired for. Boo fucking hoo.

I don't believe that, and even if it were true that wouldn't make it right.

Feel free not to believe it ... your opinion means very little to me. Stick your foot in your mouth, go on a sexist/racist/etc diatribe, prepare to be fired for it. He's not the first, he won't be the last.

The dinosaurs didn't fail to evolve. They were wiped out in a massive meteorite impact. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume that's truly all you meant.

That's the definition ...

dinosaur
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: dino|saur
Pronunciation: /&#712;d&#652;&#618;n&#601;s&#596;&#720;/
Definition of dinosaur in English:
noun

Image of dinosaur
1A fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
The dinosaurs are placed, according to their hip structure, in two distantly related orders (see ornithischian and saurischian). Some of them may have been warm-blooded, and their closest living relatives are the birds. Dinosaurs were all extinct by the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), possibly as a result of a catastrophic asteroid impact in the Gulf of Mexico

2A person or thing that is outdated or has become obsolete because of failure to adapt to changing circumstances.

(Source: Oxford dictionary)

(Edit) Also, might I add ...? That's the definition in every other dictionary I've thought to look up.

What? It sounds like you just directly contradicted yourself. First you said that every older person does it (you should be careful when using the word "every") and then said it has nothing to with age. Which is it

It has to do with the natural pressures of growing older. A: I'm 30, B: I'm not old, C: I've had to adapt to a changing economic and technological environment. Guess what? If I want to be employable, I'll be expected to do the same throughout my entire life. If I don't, I'll rightfully be fired for it... because someone better than me, who can adapt, will be there to cover my loss of labour.

You sure know this guy awfully well. I couldn't possibly make a judgement about his overall character based on what little I know about him. Perhaps he was a complete jerk all the time. But if so then THIS comment shouldn't have what got him fired.

Even though anybody else saying such with his non-pology would have been fired? How 'bout ... he got fired like anybody else for being a fuckwit? I've been fired from a job for what I said .... boo-fucking-hoo. I learnt my lesson, didn't repeat the same mistake.

It sucks to be in a one-strike-and-you're-out institution. I'd like to think most people can learn from their mistakes, but I guess we're better off not taking that chance.

He had a chance to apologize and smooth the edges, and maybe try to get his job back. Only to re-examine his piss-poor attitude in the non-pology and reiterate that maybe he should be seen as a dinosaur. Also, losing your job is a chance to learn from your mistakes. It's not like he was executed for losing his job. He's still alive.

 

[Kwak]

...
How is that then any fault barring his own?

It's the fault of the 'journalists' who misrepresented his words and started a campaign against him, the spineless bureaucrats who chose to side with reactionist public opinion over finding the full truth, and the people celebrating his public evisceration as the outcome of inevitable social justice against a stereotypical cliche of everything they hate; when his only crime was making a clumsy personal anecdote in an impromptu speech. Given the full text of his speech, anyone who maintains he deserved any of what he got is so lost in zealotry there's no hope for them, and I really do feel disgusted to witness it.
Some people you just can't talk with.