Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

Hyperbole, got it. You know, I would be feeling more sympathy if he didn't turn around and stick his foot in his mouth again in the BBC radio interview. But no, he got what a thousand other people get for running their mouth. What's more galling is that he attended a summit in India only ... three or four months prior? For a long segment they invited women to the stage, recounting their stories in scientific endeavour (involving sexual assault, threats of rape, ostracism and other garbage) ... then maybe, just maybe, he actually believes in what he's talking about and he got caught for it?

After all, as if South Korean women in science have it hard... they make up a WHOPPING 11% of the scientific research personnel... it's not like they're pressured by family and society in general to drop out of public life when they get married... oops. Ever wonder why it was a group like the South Korean Women into Science and Technology that have spoken out against him?

Image is everything. Particularly when it should reflect the very worst attitudes that women face. Particularly bad, when you should echo the same garbage that likely even their family tells them, to their face, in an event that should hope to highlight their efforts and the reasons why they should persist in scientific research. Pretty fucking funny! Right!? You know, if I had a PR spokesperson pull this shit, I'd can their arse too.

 

[Kwak]

Hyperbole, got it.

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

As opposed to my balanced retelling of my comments? Why exactly should I extend you the same courtesy you seem to fail telling mine. It's not fair, it's not balanced. Image rarely is. People get fired for running their mouths. Also, 'beyond hope' indeed. What it was is a storm. Particularly after revelations that Raivich was allowed to keep his position after being apprehended for multiple accounts of sexual assault and molestation (Seriously, look the guy up), and only when it became SO APPARENT that they couldn't bury the fact and that him dropping out of public profile working at UCL was the only means to save their bacon, did they let him go.

The difference is, and I must stress this, people lose their jobs for the same blunders. Decrying one case of spectacular, and repeated, stupidity ... and differentiating it from the thousands of other times that someone gets fired for sticking their foot in their mouth, is what is ludicrous. UCL was in damage control, probably STILL in damage control from last year. The most galling aspect of this, is that people expect people to be employed regardless of what they say. If you have controversial views, you pick your moments and events.

This guy chose poorly. Put it this way, this isn't a man or woman thing. Condoleezza Rice had to step down from the same position at Rutgers because of her public standing on the Iraq War, being a famous example. He resigned as an honorary professor, at a university already reeling from last year, because he tanked not only a speech ... at an international summit, in a place which has the LOWEST participation of women in scientific endeavour and public life in the OECD ... of which then he went on to tank two interviews ... of which one of them he tried to defend his views.

It's not 'fair' that someone loses their job over a slip of the tongue (or five) ... but it's not exactly a new phenomena. Unless people want to start touting Condoleezza Rice's forced resigning as being unfair ... I mean, she probably deserves more slack than Hunt.

 

[The Lunatic]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

Oh please, enlighten me. How exactly is it better telling companies that they should employ people regardless? 'Witch-hunt' ... try 'free market'. If image alone is able to get other people like him fired from ostensibly the SAME JOB ... why exactly would he be immune?

 

[The Lunatic]

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

Pretty much.

I mean, yeah, there's obviously a fairness in that people have a right to an opinion on something, and I think that institutions and companies should be informed of actions individuals perform that are unacceptable. But, I don't agree with the idea of mobbing them until the company has to choose between getting even more bad press from these outlets and firing before any investigation can be given.

I guess the problem really lies with organisations actually listening to these people. There should be a due process to this, an investigation, a consideration period and so on. To be sacked almost over night based on the misrepresentive tweet of somebody who has it out for you, is extremely unfair, and becoming unfortunately more common.

I guess these mobs will always exist. However, I do dearly hope our reaction to them gets a little more mature as time goes on.

Snip

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

That's right. He was off'ed his honorary position from a university for his image, like thousands other people who act like a fuckwit in public. He's not the first, he's not the last. He lost an honorary professor position. It's not the end of the world. We all lose a job. Whether it's fair or not is hardly the point. This is why I bring up the Rice scenario. She has every right (not really; but let's take your argument) to be an honorary spokepersons as a doctorate of politics and give a speech at Rutgers .... afterall, she's been in one of the highest stations of political power there is in the world.

Her image alone made it so that she was forced to rescind that position. How is her situation different from his? Why exactly do people think this is a new phenomena or somehow any more indicative of a 'witch-hunt' than her situation? Funny enough, image matters. And how this situation played out? He's not good at image.

(edit) The only difference in this case, I can see, is one is a fabricated shitstorm (or 'witch-hunt'), and the other is just accepted as suitable business 'engagement'. Being fired over image, in a career built on image, is not new.

 

[Olas]

What do you mean?

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

How is that then any fault barring his own?

Yes, because he didn't know the comment would get him fired, the comment SHOULDN'T have gotten him fired, and wouldn't have in most normal circumstances. Saying it's his fault for doing the initial thing that triggered their overreaction sounds like victim blaming to me.

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'

That definitely depends on the importance of the rules were talking about. If the rules are pointless or arbitrarily then I don't see how following them could possibly be important. What exactly is the "rule" he broke here anyway? Don't ever say anything negative about women? Is that a rule we all have to follow now? Because if so a lot of comedians are screwed, especially female ones.

(he was actually a shitty teacher according to many, and he's not doing anything 'skillful' from the place that he was discharged from).

Maybe he was a shit employee also, in which case his termination was fair, but then that has nothing to do with the comment he was fired immediately after. Anyway, you just said playing by the rules is more important than skill, so why do you keep defending his dismissal by arguing that he lacked skill?

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

What "garbage"? You make it sound like he was making a personal attack against specific people. Maybe we're reading the comment differently, but to me it reads like mild observational humor. If it was him going on about his ex-wife or something that would be worse, still not deserving of termination, but definitely more inappropriate.

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.

Lol. I've said worse things than he did while at work. I'm pretty sure my bosses have as well. As have we all at some point. If you work in some sugarplum palace where people always act like complete saints 100% percent of the time then so be it. But that doesn't mean those are the standards everywhere, and frankly I'd be nervous working at a place that uptight and unforgiving.

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: /ˈdʌɪnəsɔː/
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.

Fine, victory is yours. I'd just never heard the term used in a manner where it wasn't intended as a derogatory word for old people.

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?

You said he wasn't good at image. That goes beyond one single comment. The fact that you don't mind ruining someone's life over a single almost completely innocuous comment aside, you claim to have knowledge of his general character as if you know him personally.

Also, he shouldn't have to fucking apologize for this, and forcing someone to make an apology over an issue this trivial is asking for a "non-pology" as you like to call it.

I've been fired from a job for what I said .... boo-fucking-hoo. I learnt my lesson, didn't repeat the same mistake.

Then I feel sorry for you, and sorry for the fact that you accept that kind of thing. I can't believe how lightly you talk about being fired. As if it isn't the kind of thing that can ruin a person's life and career. As if finding a job is super fucking easy. If I lost my job, my reaction wouldn't be "boo-fucking-hoo" and I don't even have a good one.

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.

You're right, they didn't execute him. I guess we should happy that saying women cry isn't a capital offense on the level of mass murder. :/ Do you even read your own comments before you post them? Losing your job isn't a chance to learn from your mistakes, by then it's TOO LATE!!! The way you learn from your mistakes is by having you're boss point out your mistakes to you, and telling you not to repeat them. I've made mistakes on the job before. REAL MISTAKES. As in things that actually impacted the work I was doing. Did my boss chew me out a bit? Ya, sure. But I became a better employee because I learned from it. But you can't learn and improve as an employee if you've been fired.

 

[Olas]

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

That's right. He was off'ed his honorary position from a university for his image, like thousands other people who act like a fuckwit in public. He's not the first, he's not the last. He lost an honorary professor position. It's not the end of the world. We all lose a job. Whether it's fair or not is hardly the point.

No, actually I believe it is the point. The entire point. What other point is there? The legality of it? I don't think we're disputing that.

You keep droning on about how common and normal and not-a-big-deal this is, which isn't even remotely true, as if prior precedent would make this more acceptable.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

Free speech is a term of art referring to the legal precept of protected speech under the US 1st amendment. If you want to make a case for expression without consequences, you need a new phrase for that.

Free-speech is a concept that is bigger than the USA, and predates the USA by many centuries. Feel free to let me know what is and isn't regionally permissable, but there's no reason for me to limit the definition to what is law in your neck of the woods.

At any stretch. It's fucking difficult to argue that you're culturally embodying the ideal of free-speech when you're actively using yours to stifle everyone elses under threat of pariah status and joblessness, no? I get that some people are imagining scales-of-justice here, but I'm imagining pitch-forks and torches. I certainly don't think this is terribly progressive behaviour, or anything to be applauded.

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

Pretty much.

I mean, yeah, there's obviously a fairness in that people have a right to an opinion on something, and I think that institutions and companies should be informed of actions individuals perform that are unacceptable. But, I don't agree with the idea of mobbing them until the company has to choose between getting even more bad press from these outlets and firing before any investigation can be given.

I guess the problem really lies with organisations actually listening to these people. There should be a due process to this, an investigation, a consideration period and so on. To be sacked almost over night based on the misrepresentive tweet of somebody who has it out for you, is extremely unfair, and becoming unfortunately more common.

I guess these mobs will always exist. However, I do dearly hope our reaction to them gets a little more mature as time goes on.

Snip

I'm really sure what you're trying to say here. I've never expressed it is better. I think companies should make up their own mind about who they hire. But, I think there's also a place for companies to be informed of the actions of those that they do hire.

"Being informed" is very different than "Hounded on twitter by crazies" however.

No. They're just "informing" them over and over and over and over. They're actually being very helpful, and will all get their Twitter-scout informant badges.

Does anyone honestly believe that these employers are like "What? He said something trans-phobic on twitter once?... Tell him to clear out his desk by the end of the day!"?

There's a good chance that they're going to have to have "transphobia" or whatever else explained to them to start with. But, come on... They're trying to get the angry mob to leave them alone because they don't want the press picking up on it because it will hurt their brand, they're not using the information just as they would if it were unknown to the shrill, angry twitter public. How naive can you be?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yes, because he didn't know the comment would get him fired, the comment SHOULDN'T have gotten him fired, and wouldn't have in most normal circumstances.

Yep, international summit held in Seoul .... normal.

That definitely depends on the importance of the rules were talking about. If the rules are pointless or arbitrarily then I don't see how following them could possibly be important.

Yeah, heaven forbid if an invited spokesperson is expected not to give a speech where his own friends say it was inappropriate. You know ... or maybe he shouldn't be expected to hold an honorary position at a university that has had one of his colleagues arrested for sexually assaulting and molesting 58 women only 6 months prior. Heaven forbid if a company is in damage control and he would realise that something that might provide a thumbs up, and tanking it, insulting his hosts, and tanking it in two more interviews in defence of himself, is grounds for termination.

As if that would be grounds for dismissal from a largely image-based honorary position at a university? You've convinced me ... he TOTALLY nailed it. He did SUCH A GREAT JOB that his university fired him SOLELY because it's only downhill from here. Not because people like me, who is apparently the only one with a memory over 6 months long, remember when the UCL is trying to bury its very recent past, and doing nothing would be seen as a second indictment against its promise to provide a gender equality environment.

You'll forgive me if I find your argument vapid.

Maybe he was a shit employee also, in which case his termination was fair, but then that has nothing to do with the comment he was fired immediately after. Anyway, you just said playing by the rules is more important than skill, so why do you keep defending his dismissal by arguing that he lacked skill?

Because I don't need to? I can show you people terminated from the SAME POSITION with zero fuss, and zero muss. Simply because of their image and nothing else. Nobody kicked up a fuss then, it seems fucking ridiculous that people should kick up a fuss about this. His position was largely bragging points ... suddenly the bragging points seemed less 'bragable' (to coin a word) (edit: Actually, scratch that. 'bragable' is a word).

What "garbage"? You make it sound like he was making a personal attack against specific people. Maybe we're reading the comment differently, but to me it reads like mild observational humor. If it was him going on about his ex-wife or something that would be worse, still not deserving of termination, but definitely more inappropriate.

'Mild observational humour' ... I -- ... nope. No, I'm not reading his comments differently. I just seem to trying to rationalize both sides of the argument, rather than labouring in ignorance pretending like this form of termination doesn't happen.

Lol. I've said worse things than he did while at work. I'm pretty sure my bosses have as well. As have we all at some point. If you work in some sugarplum palace where people always act like complete saints 100% percent of the time then so be it. But that doesn't mean those are the standards everywhere, and frankly I'd be nervous working at a place that uptight and unforgiving.

Yeah, and funnily enough I don't bring the comments to the general public. I especially don't if I'm a spokesperson. I especially especially don't when if becomes apparent that my university is paying me merely for the brand label I bring.

Fine, victory is yours. I'd just never heard the term used in a manner where it wasn't intended as a derogatory word for old people.

Oh, I meant it as a derogatory comment. In the same way if I fuck up, I expect someone to tell me I fucked up.

You said he wasn't good at image. That goes beyond one single comment. The fact that you don't mind ruining someone's life over a single almost completely innocuous comment aside, you claim to have knowledge of his general character as if you know him personally.

When did I claim this? Also, yes ... his life is ruined. What will he do without his honorary university position? What will he do as a 71 year old successful scientist, with a wife also employed at the same university as an honorary university professor? I weep for his utterly destroyed livelihood.

Also, he shouldn't have to fucking apologize for this, and forcing someone to make an apology over an issue this trivial is asking for a "non-pology" as you like to call it.

You know what? That would have been preferable over his performance over the subsequent airwaves...

Then I feel sorry for you, and sorry for the fact that you accept that kind of thing. I can't believe how lightly you talk about being fired. As if it isn't the kind of thing that can ruin a person's life and career. As if finding a job is super fucking easy. If I lost my job, my reaction wouldn't be "boo-fucking-hoo" and I don't even have a good one.

Might have something to do with me having once been self-employed. I'm capable of being this thing called 'levelled' and realising that the world is not merely black and white. Realising that this is not the first nor the last of people being fired over problems of their image of their career that exists solely because of their image.

I weep for him.

You're right, they didn't execute him. I guess we should happy that saying women cry isn't a capital offense on the level of mass murder. :/ Do you even read your own comments before you post them? Losing your job isn't a chance to learn from your mistakes, by then it's TOO LATE!!! The way you learn from your mistakes is by having you're boss point out your mistakes to you, and telling you not to repeat them. I've made mistakes on the job before. REAL MISTAKES. As in things that actually impacted the work I was doing. Did my boss chew me out a bit? Ya, sure. But I became a better employee because I learned from it. But you can't learn and improve as an employee if you've been fired.

Hyperbole, got it. He's 71 years old. He's not a junior employee in some radioshack.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

No, actually I believe it is the point. The entire point. What other point is there? The legality of it? I don't think we're disputing that.

You keep droning on about how common and normal and not-a-big-deal this is, which isn't even remotely true, as if prior precedent would make this more acceptable.

Right, it's totally abnormal for people to be fired over image? Whatever. This is perhaps the reason why you didn't even bother to quote the rest of my message where I give an example of a person far more famous and powerful (with far more allies) than this Tim Hunt getting fired solely for her image. Funnily enough, largely from the same position Tim Hunt was getting axed from ... seems pretty hypocritical to me.

As for 'droning' on, you're the evidently entitled person telling private people how they should manage their associations. Particularly honorary positions. Why not take your moralising and come up with a law that should dictate who universities should consider for honorary status?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As opposed to your balanced re-telling of events?
Quote his words that reflect 'the very worst attitudes that women can face.'
I'm beyond hope of understanding anyone who insists this was a balanced and deserved reaction to the words he actually said; at this point they all just sound like sociopaths to me.

You have to realise, on the internet, and within these groups especially, to accept that you're wrong about something is completely unacceptable and makes you look very weak as a person.

It's why, after these crazed and overblown witch-hunts we never once hear a "Sorry, I didn't know the whole story".

For some reason, it's considered better to look out of touch and do harm to every movement you claim to support than to simply accept that perfection eludes us as humans, and sometimes we jump to conclusions incorrectly and too quickly.

Witch-hunts? I think you mean "the free market at work".

Take Brendan Eich. He had the sheer gall to be anti-gay-marriage. Nevermind that his ideological offence happened 6 years prior to the scandal, and at a time when both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also openly against it. You can't have scumbags like that in comfortable positions in companies they helped build with their own talents. No... People like that belong in the white-house.

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Free speech isn't only about government, it's about culture too. Governments aren't desperate to give it to us, so it'll only last as long as it remains a cultural ideal. Once it's gone, the best you can hope for is a restrictive state built upon your own values. That doesn't sound so good to me.

Free speech is a term of art referring to the legal precept of protected speech under the US 1st amendment. If you want to make a case for expression without consequences, you need a new phrase for that.

Free-speech is a concept that is bigger than the USA, and predates the USA by many centuries. Feel free to let me know what is and isn't regionally permissable, but there's no reason for me to limit the definition to what is law in your neck of the woods.

At any stretch. It's fucking difficult to argue that you're culturally embodying the ideal of free-speech when you're actively using yours to stifle everyone elses under threat of pariah status and joblessness, no? I get that some people are imagining scales-of-justice here, but I'm imagining pitch-forks and torches. I certainly don't think this is terribly progressive behaviour, or anything to be applauded.

Once I sift through the inflammatory language and unfair metaphors, you're actually just disagreeing with the severity and broadness of the reaction. A man who was hired for what amounts to a glorified PR/Fundraising position said something in that capacity which caused his employer to fire him. That you may agree with what he said, or hate that it's possible for him to be subject to public censure really doesn't touch anything like a free speech debate.

I'm as free to organize a campaign to have you fired for your speech, as you're free to speak. You can't separate those rights of individuals to assemble and express themselves, just because you don't like the ideology of one.

You're throwing out all of these emotional appeals, but there's nothing concrete.

"It's not censorship, it's social consequence". Got it.

Concrete? As if we're trying to resolve something?

Group x has the right to destroy individual y's livelihood/social standing over a comment (possibly taken out of context by an irresponsible media) but I'm not allowed to say what I think of the behaviour/values of group x?

That's what we're doing here. You can tell me over and over how how many laws weren't infringed upon, but that's not gonna make me think that these people aren't gross and that their behaviour isn't irresponsible. That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.

I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out.

What I want is for people/companies to stand up to the twitter mob when they think they're wrong or being unreasonable, which I have a feeling would be pretty damn often. I exactly want people to feel like they can have opinions, and opinions on opinions... I don't think that's what we have, and I don't like that.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

snip - Anyone who wants the full quotes can see the post above. No need to waste lots of page space with it.

1. I summed up what you said.

2. The pressure is applied to individual y through employer Z, who, depending on the example, may or may not have a damn thing to do with the grievance... It sounds a lot like you're suggesting that might is right, that it's fine to wield "power" because it can be done? Or is the argument that 2 wrongs do indeed make a right? Or maybe you feel there's nothing questionable about the behaviour at all?

I wonder how you feel about blackmail?

3. Are we only talking about this 1 example now? I've been talking more broadly.

"You kind of ARE saying that your "feelzies" should be law". Elaborate please? "I think this is indecent and I'm saying as much." Seems to be fine when it's coming from another source, but not when I'm saying it... In a less extreme way, might I add.

I've yet to call for anyone's head, as much as I appreciate your attempts to paint me in the same light.

4. ...

5. Is that what habitually leaning on the employers of perceived ideological opponents to punish them for their sins is?... "Not agreeing"? ... Jesus.

You know... It sounds a lot like you're trying to convince me that there is nothing sinister at work here. Then you say things like:

"Words hurt. Words were what made Herman Goering strong. Words have a lot of power. Language is a weapon, and control of language is like control of terrain in a battle."

And... It makes me wonder.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

This is quite literally nothing, not a real response, not a real point made, no actual counter-points offered.

Very well. I'll say goodbye until the next contentious comment then.

Go careful with the low content posting.

Edit - Whoops, botched the quote.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

This is quite literally nothing, not a real response, not a real point made, no actual counter-points offered.

Very well. I'll say goodbye until the next contentious comment then.

Go careful with the low content posting.

Edit - Whoops, botched the quote.

You'll say goodbye instead of actually offering more than your opinion, dressed up as something more? I don't think I'm the one who's running from content here.

If the scope of all of this is getting away from you though, why not just answer this basic question:

How can this:

I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out.

and

That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.

Both be true for you?

Your feelings have been essentially hurt, because society doesn't share your "subjective sense of decency", but the feelings of that society can't be a factor, they're "gross"?

It's not "Low Content" to ignore your attempt to get away from the facts here.

All of this remember, is based on (in part) your claim that,

I have an issue with the idea that scaring companies and individuals into compliance is somehow "the free market". I suppose it's "the free market" in the same sense that the Mafia were an extension of the free market too. Money... Control of what can be said/thought... Who cares what the goal is, right? "Nice shop/life you got here... Would be a shame if something happened to it".

Where is this moneyed mafia-esque group? The Mafia by definition was "Organized Crime", so where is this organization with it's "Money... Control"?

Sounds like you really DO want speech without consequences, including being questioned about your statements. Please don't try to run away under cover of a threat of moderation, and pretend that what you're doing isn't wrong.

The sexual tension between us is too much. Can we just get a room already?

I meant word content, not... I didn't want to see you moderated for your single sentence post.

I actually did ask you some questions and shared some opinions, so I wasn't particularly impressed by your response. Though I would have respected if you didn't want to engage with it.

By the way, "opinion"... Yes, "opinion"! I'm happy in the knowledge that this is what I'm offering. This is what I've been offering the whole time. Yes... Obviously. What are you trying to say?

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I'm saying: The behaviour of these people is icky, and they gross me out

Sexual Harassment Panda:
That's what my subjective sense of decency tells me. I'm not trying to get anyone fired from their job, or exiled from polite society, and I'm not suggesting that my feelzies should be law.


I don't understand why you think those 2 held opinions somehow detract from eachother... They clearly don't. Try explaining why they do.

Where is this moneyed mafia-esque group? The Mafia by definition was "Organized Crime", so where is this organization with it's "Money... Control"?

I said the Mafia leaned on people for money, and that these people lean on others for control of what can be said/thought. In this instance "said", in the wider picture and in the long run... "thought".

Sounds like you really DO want speech without consequences, including being questioned about your statements. Please don't try to run away under cover of a threat of moderation, and pretend that what you're doing isn't wrong.

"Questioned". Is that what happened? It sounds a bit like a media source did a pretty shady job representing what a man was saying, and then some people demanded his head. You might call that "questioning", but I would not.

Your rhetoric is so out of whack. What I'm doing is not "wrong". I'm only having an opinion. I'm not lobbying, I'm not affecting change. I'm not doing much of anything. How is this so problematic?

Your feelings have been essentially hurt, because society doesn't share your "subjective sense of decency", but the feelings of that society can't be a factor, they're "gross"?

Think you might be imagining that the twitter crusaders are more representative of society than they really are. I think you might be imagining that they're more informed than they really are too. There was a scandal over something that happened on a radio show in my country a few years ago. A heck of a lot more people complained than listened to the damn thing. So... They got their information from media outlets that want to make a scandal to make money? More people got that same information 2nd hand from friends?... And all these people now have an opinion on it based on those possible misrepresentations and hearsay.

That's outrage culture for you. Don't underestimate the power of social-pressure, and how readily people will dogpile without having the full picture... Especially if it's for the perceived greater good or whatever.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

The core of this, that you come to Panda, and that all of the people here are dancing around is:

"Questioned". Is that what happened? It sounds a bit like a media source did a pretty shady job representing what a man was saying, and then some people demanded his head. You might call that "questioning", but I would not.

No. Actually what he said, in total, WAS STILL GOING TO GET HIM FIRED. That some people don't LIKE that doesn't change that simple reality. When he was later asked to clarify he stood by those remarks, so any confusion over the initial remarks doesn't matter.

What this comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is a very wordy way of saying, "I don't like this, because he didn't say anything wrong really."

Yes he did, and while you're welcome to share his views or be distressed by their reception, please just own that and stop these games.

In essence... "He did wrong". I already knew you felt that way...

When you say it "WAS STILL GOING TO GET HIM FIRED" you're saying that without evidence. The reporting and the moral outrage played a very real part in the thing that ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, and you can't separate those things based on the hypothetical that you ran inside your own head.

What this comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is a very wordy way of saying, "I don't like this, because he didn't say anything wrong really."

I think what we're actually saying is that it took more than the 1 element (Tim Hunt) to make what happened happen, and that the failing isn't all his own. Don't confuse the lack of outrage in certain individuals for endorsement, that's stupid.

I think "what this comes down to" is that there are people who love to criticise the values/opinions/behaviour of others, but can't handle it when their own is called into question. I have questions about the morality of all of this, do you understand that? I honestly think it's strange that the people doing this seem so resolute about it all.

Yes he did, and while you're welcome to share his views or be distressed by their reception, please just own that and stop these games

What games? I've been very clear that I'm unimpressed by the reception his words got after being filtered through media sources looking for hits, to a public that's looking to be outraged.

What part don't you get? And when are you gonna tell me why those 2 opinions from before can't co-exist?

 

[Olas]

No, actually I believe it is the point. The entire point. What other point is there? The legality of it? I don't think we're disputing that.

You keep droning on about how common and normal and not-a-big-deal this is, which isn't even remotely true, as if prior precedent would make this more acceptable.

Right, it's totally abnormal for people to be fired over image? Whatever. This is perhaps the reason why you didn't even bother to quote the rest of my message where I give an example of a person far more famous and powerful (with far more allies) than this Tim Hunt getting fired solely for her image. Funnily enough, largely from the same position Tim Hunt was getting axed from ... seems pretty hypocritical to me.

You still don't seem to understand what hypocrisy is, but I'll set semantics aside. Your argument seems to be that this has happened before elsewhere, so that makes it okay. AS IF PRIOR PRECEDENT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE ACCEPTABLE.

And I didn't quote the rest of your comment because I didn't see how it was relevant.

As for 'droning' on, you're the evidently entitled person telling private people how they should manage their associations. Particularly honorary positions. Why not take your moralising and come up with a law that should dictate who universities should consider for honorary status?

I already told you that I thought bosses should be legally permitted to fire anyone for any reason. Kinda like how I think people should be legally allowed to fly swasticas over their house if they want. Just because I don't agree with legally banning something, that doesn't mean I support the behavior or agree with their decision to do it on moral grounds.

Lastly, I'm not TELLING anyone how to run their business. I disagree with this decision, it's an opinion. Kinda like how people have opinions about politics and other things larger than themselves. If that makes me "entitled" then I'm entitled. I also have opinions about the Iraq War, that doesn't mean I think presidents should take orders from me when deciding foreign policy.

Frankly I'm getting kinda sick of your accusatory language. The fact that we disagree doesn't require you to diride me everywhere you can.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Your argument seems to be that this has happened before elsewhere, so that makes it okay. AS IF PRIOR PRECEDENT WOULD MAKE THIS MORE ACCEPTABLE.

Yes, it has happened countless times. Also, yeah ... precedent does have that effect on people. If it happens a whole bunch of times before ... and nobody seemed to have a problem then, what makes this any different?

I already told you that I thought bosses should be legally permitted to fire anyone for any reason. Kinda like how I think people should be legally allowed to fly swasticas over their house if they want. Just because I don't agree with legally banning something, that doesn't mean I support the behavior or agree with their decision to do it on moral grounds.

Good! By all means ... complain away. Just don't call it 'abnormal'.

Lastly, I'm not TELLING anyone how to run their business. I disagree with this decision, it's an opinion. Kinda like how people have opinions about politics and other things larger than themselves. If that makes me "entitled" then I'm entitled. I also have opinions about the Iraq War, that doesn't mean I think presidents should take orders from me when deciding foreign policy.

You disagree that honorary positions should be a university decision? What does this even mean exactly?

>>> "Oh, no ... I don't disagree with the idea of hiring and firing people over their image... I totally get behind why they do that sort of stuff. I just don't agree..."

What does this even mean?

Frankly I'm getting kinda sick of your accusatory language. The fact that we disagree doesn't require you to diride me everywhere you can.

As opposed to the person who said;

"Then I feel sorry for you, and sorry for the fact that you accept that kind of thing...