Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

Jack Action

Not a premium member.
Sep 6, 2014
296
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
I'm sure that Jack felt the same way about Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, that poor sick old man just wanted to be with his family at the end after all! Ooh...

Get ready for a hard sharp turn, a bunch of new "points" you need to address, and a bunch of anger in tag-team; people do not like being cornered. When people already demonstrate a lack of desire or ability to cope with being mistaken or incorrect, you can usually expect more of the same. I wish you luck!
I think you just might be my new favorite poster around here. On a related note, I never said how *I* feel about anybody.
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Dynast Brass said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Dynast Brass said:
TheIronRuler said:
thaluikhain said:
TheIronRuler said:
It's a joke.
Which he later clarified by saying he thought it was absolutely true.
.
They fired him from his work because of a perceived sexist comment. He's a Nobel laureate - a scientist with decades worth of knowledge - and they boot him because somebody's feelings got hurt.
Don't feel bad, most people like him are only meaningfully productive in a narrow band around their 20's and 30's. Mostly what he'd have been doing now is making female students and co-workers uncomfortable, and cashing checks while jockeying with the bureaucracy.
The man is 72 and was awarded a nobel prize for his work in 2001.
Lets deal with one wrong statement at a time.

He was awarded the Nobel in 2001 for his work from the very early 80's. Want to start over from there or is your mind so made up that reality has no impact on the end result?
Why do I get the feeling that you're going to make me contemplate suicide?

I concede the point. Scientists older than 40 are not worth their salt, and we should be flippant about their professional value as of that milestone.

Anything else you have a problem with?
I don't know, you seem like someone who wants to make a point without the hard work of actually making your point. I do tend to drive people like that to rage, but I've never seen self-harm yet. Personally, I find that people who back what they say, and are not just pimping their opinions don't seem nearly as frustrated by me, so maybe it's just a matter of who I'm talking to.

I guess you want to pretend that being snarky is a substitute for support, but I don't. The notion that scientists, mathematicians, and other such researchers and theoreticians are often most productive in their 20's and 30's. You think I'm wrong, so you shared a bit of misinformation. Upon being corrected you accept that, but instead of trying to actually support yourself you just lash out.

I think you're actually believing that I'm bullshitting you, but you're not willing to check? I'd urge you to, my claim is exceptionally well accepted:

Older researchers publish more, but produce less which is real and valuable. Of course they are paid more, and more and more dominate the lives and careers of those beneath them. If you've never been in that world, you probably have no concept of how it really works.

I'd urge you to consider matters such as the most productive periods of the great physicists, for one example. It's not as though Einstein stopped being impressive as he aged, but his breakthroughs came in his younger days. Sadly in fact, as he became older he joined with some who rejected implications of quantum mechanics, a la the famous 'PDR' paper. It is axiomatic that power and wages grow with age in these fields, while what you produce may increase with volume it declines in quality.
Yes yes, you have a magical personality that separates the wheat from the chaff... It's a gift, it is...

But... Have you considered that you're a nightmare? Not only are you harping on the least important thing I said, but you're doing it in a fairly condescending way. You wouldn't be trying to "hold your opinions over" me, would you?

I mean, seriously. Imagine you're me, just for a minute (feels good, right?... don't get too comfortable). Now imagine you're me reading your post. Do you see the problem? Do you think I have any interest in having a long point-by-point about the waning likelihood of revolutionary ideas coming from an individual as they age? I don't.

Read what you wrote about him again. Were you being fair? Were you being presumptive? Were you being flippant?

Secondhand Revenant said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Secondhand Revenant said:
Jack Action said:
Dynast Brass said:
No, you should probably stick to the obvious differences between policing, and the condemnation by your peers. It's a danger of argument from analogy, that you get lost in it.

You might also want to consider that what you want is, what? To have an external authority to reach in and overrule private an institutional employment choices? To shut up Twitter? Sounds to me like you just don't like how the chips are falling, and instead of defending ideas, people would rather play the victim.
Sure. Whatever floats your boat, chief. Just remember that no matter how much you tell yourself you're one of the good people to whom... how did you put it... "backwards thinking" would never occur, one day you'll find yourself on the wrong end of this.
Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense
Care to elaborate on who "we" and "those other people" are? Also, what's the "plan"? Not being insufferably judgmental and devoid of compassion? Crazy plan you're hatching their, Jack. Stop being so human, it'll get in the way of all the wonderful progress that's happening.

Yes not approving of sexism is terrible and makes kittens cry, you got me!

But nah its fucking obvious. He is suggesting people will be on the wrong side of these tactics and apparently his way of handling it is to not use said tactics. Seems like a shitty argument, why the hell would it stop people from using said tactics if we do not? What makes someone think said tactic is okay is supposed to be that they saw someone else use it? Pfft.

And that human thing, really XD

I might as well jump to cheap excuses and say I'm just being human. Try a real argument
I doubt you'd make a kitten cry unless it said something un-progressive.

What are the examples of "those other people" using these tactics before the GG crowd adopted them to such comical effect? Seems to me like "what goes around, comes around" isn't completely without merit. Somebody popularised it...
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
I'm fairly certain that it stopped being a joke the moment people asked him about it afterwards and he confirmed that yes, he seriously thinks women are too emotional and should get their own labs, which is probably one bit of stupidity that you should avoid saying at a lunch hosted by an organization of female scientists. It's fair to consider what happened an overreaction, but let's not just take an interview with Hunt as the absolute, unbiased, objective truth so we can paint him as some great victim who's never done anything wrong but make a bad joke.

Source [https://storify.com/deborahblum/tim-hunt-and-his-jokes-about-women-scientists]
Also let's remember that this is bigger than one statement - he wasn't kicked out for making a joke, he was kicked out for holding *serious, shitty views* about women.

Think about all the women who have worked under and with him for decades. Do we really think someone who holds opinions like this treats female colleagues well?
 

Jack Action

Not a premium member.
Sep 6, 2014
296
0
0
Secondhand Revenant said:
And my point is my use of it will not somehow enable the next use. It's not like legal precedent. When the next person does it only an idiot will try to justify it with "Well other people did it!" That isn't going to be the excuse they use.

And standards aren't going to get 'lower'. They will shift according to opinion. Lower implies it's some defined scale. It isn't.

And if you make a slippery slope argument you should expect that. The way to not make one would be to show how it logically follows, not just try to set up a boogeyman.

Lastly, pay some attention to the democracy comparison. Sometimes it's not the method, it's the goal. And the method won't vanish.
True, the excuse they use would most likely be "I'm right to do this". As for lowering standards, what would it have taken for this to happen say... 6 years ago? I'd say something along the lines of "heil hitler," if not something worse. And then I would've agreed with you that he deserved some backlash. It went all the way from that, to a t-shirt last year, and an off-color joke this year. Call me paranoid if you want, but there it is.
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,564
139
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Dynast Brass said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Dynast Brass said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Dynast Brass said:
TheIronRuler said:
thaluikhain said:
TheIronRuler said:
It's a joke.
Which he later clarified by saying he thought it was absolutely true.
.
They fired him from his work because of a perceived sexist comment. He's a Nobel laureate - a scientist with decades worth of knowledge - and they boot him because somebody's feelings got hurt.
Don't feel bad, most people like him are only meaningfully productive in a narrow band around their 20's and 30's. Mostly what he'd have been doing now is making female students and co-workers uncomfortable, and cashing checks while jockeying with the bureaucracy.
The man is 72 and was awarded a nobel prize for his work in 2001.
Lets deal with one wrong statement at a time.

He was awarded the Nobel in 2001 for his work from the very early 80's. Want to start over from there or is your mind so made up that reality has no impact on the end result?
Why do I get the feeling that you're going to make me contemplate suicide?

I concede the point. Scientists older than 40 are not worth their salt, and we should be flippant about their professional value as of that milestone.

Anything else you have a problem with?
I don't know, you seem like someone who wants to make a point without the hard work of actually making your point. I do tend to drive people like that to rage, but I've never seen self-harm yet. Personally, I find that people who back what they say, and are not just pimping their opinions don't seem nearly as frustrated by me, so maybe it's just a matter of who I'm talking to.

I guess you want to pretend that being snarky is a substitute for support, but I don't. The notion that scientists, mathematicians, and other such researchers and theoreticians are often most productive in their 20's and 30's. You think I'm wrong, so you shared a bit of misinformation. Upon being corrected you accept that, but instead of trying to actually support yourself you just lash out.

I think you're actually believing that I'm bullshitting you, but you're not willing to check? I'd urge you to, my claim is exceptionally well accepted:

Older researchers publish more, but produce less which is real and valuable. Of course they are paid more, and more and more dominate the lives and careers of those beneath them. If you've never been in that world, you probably have no concept of how it really works.

I'd urge you to consider matters such as the most productive periods of the great physicists, for one example. It's not as though Einstein stopped being impressive as he aged, but his breakthroughs came in his younger days. Sadly in fact, as he became older he joined with some who rejected implications of quantum mechanics, a la the famous 'PDR' paper. It is axiomatic that power and wages grow with age in these fields, while what you produce may increase with volume it declines in quality.
Yes yes, you have a magical personality that separates the wheat from the chaff... It's a gift, it is...

But... Have you considered that you're a nightmare? Not only are you harping on the least important thing I said, but you're doing it in a fairly condescending way. You wouldn't be trying to "hold your opinions over" me, would you?

I mean, seriously. Imagine you're me, just for a minute (feels good, right?... don't get too comfortable). Now imagine you're me reading your post. Do you see the problem? Do you think I have any interest in having a long point-by-point about the waning likelihood of revolutionary ideas coming from an individual as they age? I don't.

Read what you wrote about him again. Were you being fair? Were you being presumptive? Were you being flippant?

Secondhand Revenant said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Secondhand Revenant said:
Jack Action said:
Dynast Brass said:
No, you should probably stick to the obvious differences between policing, and the condemnation by your peers. It's a danger of argument from analogy, that you get lost in it.

You might also want to consider that what you want is, what? To have an external authority to reach in and overrule private an institutional employment choices? To shut up Twitter? Sounds to me like you just don't like how the chips are falling, and instead of defending ideas, people would rather play the victim.
Sure. Whatever floats your boat, chief. Just remember that no matter how much you tell yourself you're one of the good people to whom... how did you put it... "backwards thinking" would never occur, one day you'll find yourself on the wrong end of this.
Because clearly if only we didn't so it those other people wouldn't either. Surely their conscience will stop them if we follow your plan. Maybe I'll get a magic charm as a back up defense
Care to elaborate on who "we" and "those other people" are? Also, what's the "plan"? Not being insufferably judgmental and devoid of compassion? Crazy plan you're hatching their, Jack. Stop being so human, it'll get in the way of all the wonderful progress that's happening.

Yes not approving of sexism is terrible and makes kittens cry, you got me!

But nah its fucking obvious. He is suggesting people will be on the wrong side of these tactics and apparently his way of handling it is to not use said tactics. Seems like a shitty argument, why the hell would it stop people from using said tactics if we do not? What makes someone think said tactic is okay is supposed to be that they saw someone else use it? Pfft.

And that human thing, really XD

I might as well jump to cheap excuses and say I'm just being human. Try a real argument
I doubt you'd make a kitten cry unless it said something un-progressive.

What are the examples of "those other people" using these tactics before the GG crowd adopted them to such comical effect? Seems to me like "what goes around, comes around" isn't completely without merit. Somebody popularised it...
It's lovely you think it must be some old adage, but a far more reasonable interpretation is that it's merely modernized social disapproval and once a method appears it will not vanish if one small segment of people decide not to use it out of some sort of superstitious fear of it being used on them. Cat is out of the bag, trying to stop others from using it by not using it yourself is like trying to use a magic charm for defense.

I also didn't even mention other people using them before, so please read more carefully before asking me for examples of things I never mentioned, mkay?
 

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,564
139
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Jack Action said:
Secondhand Revenant said:
And my point is my use of it will not somehow enable the next use. It's not like legal precedent. When the next person does it only an idiot will try to justify it with "Well other people did it!" That isn't going to be the excuse they use.

And standards aren't going to get 'lower'. They will shift according to opinion. Lower implies it's some defined scale. It isn't.

And if you make a slippery slope argument you should expect that. The way to not make one would be to show how it logically follows, not just try to set up a boogeyman.

Lastly, pay some attention to the democracy comparison. Sometimes it's not the method, it's the goal. And the method won't vanish.
True, the excuse they use would most likely be "I'm right to do this". As for lowering standards, what would it have taken for this to happen say... 6 years ago? I'd say something along the lines of "heil hitler," if not something worse. And then I would've agreed with you that he deserved some backlash. It went all the way from that, to a t-shirt last year, and an off-color joke this year. Call me paranoid if you want, but there it is.
And I highly doubt it was a matter of 'lowering'. It is not some scale. It's a matter of people's opinions shifting. It doesn't reflect some sort of attribute of the method, it reflects how people's opinions of crap change. You imagine some sort of 'direction' to it that it will slide towards. Personally I think people's opinions are a bit more complex than a sliding scale.
 

B0nz0

New member
Dec 26, 2010
2
0
0
"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."

HA what a jerk!
 

Dr. Crawver

Doesn't know why he has premium
Nov 20, 2009
1,100
0
0
inu-kun said:
You know, I really love free speech, remember those times?
I disagree with him getting fired. Maybe put on suspension for a week if that feels needed, sure. But being fired? Excessive.

That said, it's worth pointing out this is free speech in action. Free speech allows you to say whatever you want (which he did), but it does not protect you from the consequences of it (unless we mean governmental consequences, where there were none. It was a private institution not run by the government).

Once again I agree that his firing is far beyond the pail of what's fair, but don't start muddling and spoiling the discussion by making it a free speech thing when it isn't. All I want to say on it.