Nobel laureate forced out of studies after making joke about women

[Lightknight]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

Yeh...

The media who misrepresent to get a story are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The crowd who mob/dogpile before getting the facts are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The employers who crack under the pressure and fire people just to save face are culpable for their lack of spine.

The idea that this is all on the individual that said the thing is fucking stupid. Multiple forces conspire to make these controversies happen, and they're all responsible for the parts they play. To suggest otherwise seems to be to suggest that these journos and twitter activists have tiny-squirrel-brains and can't be expected to behave reasonably, and to use slithers of information wisely. No...

If you're willing to ruin the livelihood/social standing of individuals based on low-rent journalism, herd behaviour and some vague idea of "doing what's right"... You might want to reassess your values. Are you a thoughtful human being who assesses each case individually, do you withhold your opinion until you feel like it's sufficiently informed to go public with? Or are you just following the herd and its leaders? A thoughtless, willing pawn for some media-class assholes with an agenda?

 

[Lightknight]

There is nothing in your or his post that hasn't been conclusively addressed and abandoned by others making the same points earlier in this thread. There is no need to rehash them because some people have short memories.

They were generally dropped by you in that you did not respond to the points and just started to then respond to other posters in the thread until they brought up the same points at which point you would then move on to another poster to respond to. At no point did posters here themselves drop these points except in an attempt to avoid circular debate with you, a thing which I have plenty of time to do.

Besides, you're not exactly the forum police. No need to criticize posters for not meeting your own personal qualifications for what should or shouldn't be "rehashed".

Do you feel comfortable demonizing a man that was encouraging women to enter STEM fields and getting him removed from his position? What cause do you feel like you're justifying this in the name of? Feminism? No, his loss was a loss for feminism as he was quite clearly encouraging women to join STEM fields. So then whom are you defending here? People who get offended at jokes they don't fully understand because they weren't given the context by media? Is it so important to word police society that we want to harm everyone who says anything that even mildly seems offensive regardless of context?

This would be as silly as Al Sharpton saying, "What is a racist? A racist says, 'Black people are dumb'" and then getting fired due to articles running stories about how Al Sharpton said "Black people are dumb" without any context. In fact, it's exactly that silly because the entire point of the quoted paragraph was to give an example of what a chauvinist would say and the followup paragraph was to implore women to rise above that kind of bigotry and keep pursuing a career in the hard sciences.

As long as you continue to support the notion that he was actually being sexist then I will continue to bring up the same points that make you wrong. Either agree to disagree or keep arguing the point. You don't get to be the arbitrator of when someone is "rehashing". You are rehashing your notion that he was being sexist and that is also a subject that your collaborators dropped once the full context of his speech was revealed. You don't see me complaining that you are rehashing. Instead you see me repeating points of evidence that conflict with your claims. That is the hallmark of a legitimate debate. When points are being addressed rather than handwaving away points or strawmanning.

But this is a man who has been falsely accused out of ignorance to the point of facing significant personal losses. I will champion his cause until you and/or I are blue in the face because it doesn't look like he has that many allies and he certainly deserves them. This lynch mob mentality has absolutely got to be checked. Let's try to have some semblance of order in getting at least some of the facts straight.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

you come to Panda

[Sarcasm]WHAT? How day you accuse us of getting sexual gratification from pandas! Please report yourself to your place of employment that you told people that they finish themselves sexually towards pandas (presumably to National Geographic footage or something) since it's an inherently offensive claim. Pure slander.[/sarcasm]

Look, this was a guy encouraging women to join the STEM fields, particularly science. His speech was an overt tongue in cheek way to ridicule people who would actually think or talk that way and to tell women to pursue a career in the field despite those who would view women as just non-contributing criers. Like "All in the Family", the joke was to parody bigotry rather than to support it and just like back then, it went over people's head and a lot of people who didn't understand the joke just didn't get why shows like the Jefferson were spinning off of the show if it was so "racist". But the joke was on Archie Bunker, not the black neighbors and that was the point.

It is hilariously sad that self-proclaimed feminists would expose such ignorance and/or an extreme lack of humor as to not even realize what satire is nor that that's was going on here.

But of course, the way his words were reported was devoid of context so how can we really blame the internet lynch mobbers that much? Shame on media outlets that set out a witch hunt against someone just for click bait articles and ultimately got a pro-women in science nobel laureate fired. Real classy.

I just hope that as people realize what they've done they become ashamed of themselves. Even if they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the error of their ways publicly due to the shame of it.

Yeh...

The media who misrepresent to get a story are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The crowd who mob/dogpile before getting the facts are culpable for their irresponsibility.
The employers who crack under the pressure and fire people just to save face are culpable for their lack of spine.

The idea that this is all on the individual that said the thing is fucking stupid. Multiple forces conspire to make these controversies happen, and they're all responsible for the parts they play. To suggest otherwise seems to be to suggest that these journos and twitter activists have tiny-squirrel-brains and can't be expected to behave reasonably, and to use slithers of information wisely. No...

If you're willing to ruin the livelihood/social standing of individuals based on low-rent journalism, herd behaviour and some vague idea of "doing what's right"... You might want to reassess your values. Are you a thoughtful human being who assesses each case individually, do you withhold your opinion until you feel like it's sufficiently informed to go public with? Or are you just following the herd and its leaders? A thoughtless, willing pawn for some media-class assholes with an agenda?

There is nothing in your or his post that hasn't been conclusively addressed and abandoned by others making the same points earlier in this thread. There is no need to rehash them because some people have short memories.

You keep accusing me of not saying anything whilst saying significantly less.

Posting just to be dismissive is low-impact. It might even get you moderator attention. I've warned you about this once already and it resulted in you becoming indignant at me about it in comical fashion.

You didn't conclusively rebut me, you didn't answer my questions... I'm unsatisfied. Stop acting like you took us to school. You did no such thing. You knee-jerked a response based on some scummy journalism and when the facts came out you dug your heels in rather than admitting that the circumstances surrounding the whole thing were absurd and misleading.

Trying people in kangaroo court based on tailored evidence is not progressive. It's not even close to progressive. It's some echoes-of-the-past bullshit if ever I've seen it. This wasn't a good thing, this was a dumb thing, an irresponsible thing. Anyone who helped instigate it should reassess their values and how they're conducting themselves, because this is shameful and we're rightly criticising it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I can write a volume on something that doesn't actually offer anything, and I will have written more. Objectively however, I will not have done any better making a point. Discussions are not weighed by volume, but quality. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

In either case you'd still be coming up short, in my honest opinion.

There are 13 pages of this thread, and what I said was simply true. Nothing that you offered in your post is new to THIS THREAD, and I don't feel like repeating it. If you feel that means you need to threaten me with moderation, that is of course your right.

I'm not threatening you, I don't have the ability to threaten you. I'm telling you that what you're doing could be frowned upon by moderators... It's different. It's not my fault you can't separate "low-content" as an insult from what moderators might describe as "low-content". I was genuinely trying to help you in the first instance.

If it's the case that I didn't cover anything that hasn't already been covered(which I'm not sure I agree with, but is besides the point since you don't dictate forum etiquette) then your disapproval is already on the record too... So why are you still posting 1-note dismissive rubbish that is redundant by your own standards? Are you sure you're not trying to police the thread?

You're right, I didn't, the entire thread has acted to do that. I'm not alone here, and each page doesn't exist in a vacuum. You want to go over settled points because I suspect they are what you have. I don't because they are settled, and I don't want to waste time an energy on that. It's not rude to point that out, it isn't disruptive, it isn't low content.

It is low content, and redundant by your own criteria. I'm not convinced that the points are settled, that's your opinion that they are... So what? Impasse? If you don't want to waste time and energy on me, don't waste time and energy on me. That doesn't mean that I'm going to disappear from existence because you want me to. You don't respond to me for 2 days and then you give me a pointless, dismissive, utterly low-content post and I'm supposed to think that I'm the bad guy?

Nonsense. If you want this dropped, then drop it. You don't control what I do. I actually gave you an out earlier in the thread, and you came back at me afterwards. This is completely ridiculous.

If anything I would argue that cynically repeating discredited points from earlier in a thread to essentially necro the topic is far more against the spirit of honest discussion anyway.

I'm sharing opinions on a discussion board. You quit the discussion that we were having but pop back in periodically to be dismissive and add nothing to the discussion. You're in the wrong, and stop trying to police me.

Tried? Court? Colorful language doesn't shape reality, and I for one never claimed to be progressive.

What happened to language being everything? I thought it was the battleground and the weapons, and God-knows-what-else. Still... You're saying nothing here.

So you don't claim to be progressive. Whatever. The people performing these twitter-crusades most definitely do claim to be, those are the people I'm talking broadly about. This isn't all about you, that's why you shouldn't periodically arrive in the thread just to be dismissive and make it all about yourself.

No it isn't, as Paul and others have literally proven, it is incredibly routine.

You are welcome to re-do this entire thread if you want, but please don't get upset when people such as myself dismiss that strategy and point out why it can't work.

It being routine wouldn't make it right, and you're not making it sound like you think I should be welcome to say whatever I please, whether it's old or new ground(as defined by you)... You seem to have a problem with it.

I'm not upset, I'm confused by what you're doing. You're all over the map and not making a whole load of sense. You claim that you already discredited everything I'm saying. I read the whole thread, and I didn't see it. Sorry... I'm under no obligation to feel satisfied by what you've put out there.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Ok, stick with the Gallop, and argue with air then. I'll let the rest of the thread stand as my rebuttal.

I guess I'll just assume this was aimed at me.

You read a wiki page on logical-fallacies, congratulations... It's very impressive.

I could do what you do and just flap my arms in your general direction whilst reminiscing about imaginary past glories. Didn't you know that I proved all of your "points" wrong on page 1?... I didn't even post on page 1, that's how good I am, that's how enlightened I am, man! Check-mate!

Hope it was as good for you as it was for me.

 

[Galletea]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

Why make this many concessions though?

Now, an account by a European Commission official printed in The Times expands on the comments he made during the conference.

The official quotes Sir Tim as saying: ?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.?

The official also claimed that Sir Tim did not ?thank women for making lunch?, as was previously reported.

The story seems to be that a man was purposely misquoted by media sources to create a story, and that unscrupulous people jumped at the chance to sacrifice another individual to the gods of progress.

There is blatant wrong-doing here, and it really doesn't seem to be by Tim Hunt.

source: 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

Make your own mind up.

 

[Lightknight]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like;
"OMG how sexist, sack him, sack him now. Kill him, drag his sexist carcass through the streets" and so on.
There seems to be an atmosphere of hate about everything these days, it's like fox news is taking over.

No one is saying he said the right thing, but I wasn't there, I don't know the context and that is almost certainly the same for 95% of the people calling for his head. Surely it is a matter for his employers. If he's constantly embarrasing them, then fine, get rid, but this is first time I've heard of him saying such things, so the reaction seems harsh to me. Then again, like I said, I don't know the full extent of the situation so I couldn't say for sure.

If you happen to read the full quote, the guy was giving a speech encouraging women to pursue careers in STEM fields regardless of what chauvinists monsters (his words) may say to discourage them.

He was literally satirizing chauvinist idiots in support of females entering the scientific community and somehow people arrived at things like "Old man makes sexist remark". It horribly out of context. As with Panda's quote above, here is what he said in context:

"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."

I would say shame on everyone who jumped to this conclusion. But the biggest share of the blame falls on the shoulders of the news agencies who made this singular joke into a click bait link without context. Then there's shame on the facility that pressured him to resign in response to the criminally libelous articles. But yeah, still shame on people who witch hunted this pro-feminism guy without reading anything into the context. Congratulations all of these people. They are the lynch mob who hung an innocent.

 

[Lightknight]

You know five years ago this would have been;
"Old man makes sexist remark, big whoop" and he would have been forced to make a statement in public apologising and saying how insensitive and foolish he was to say it.
Now it's like SNIP

Well for one thing it's like times have changed, and people who used to be unable to stir public sentiment in their favor, now can. For another thing he had that chance, but instead decided to do a classic "Sorry-not-sorry" and stuck by what he said.

And so a man who's only remaining contribution was to draw a paycheck and be august, is doing less of both. The world is fine.

He was making a speech to encourage women to join the STEM fields. Who do you think wins for him being struck down? You say that just his joke is worthy of firing but does the context really make no difference to you? Does the fact that it's satire aimed against that sort of bigot rather than being expressed as a real sentiment entirely miss any criteria you have of wrong doing? How do you justify this to yourself? That you're striking down a man who was actively supporting feminism in the name of what? Feminism? That's (the notion of decrying a person's comments as sexist when they're actually satirizing sexists) a joke and you should know that full well.

Keep in mind that the full context of what he was saying is new news. You don't have to continue your witch hunt of this guy now that you know the full story but for some reason you're continuing it even after the context has been revealed and news organizations are beginning to redact their comments. Numerous other Nobel Laureates are beginning to speak out for him as well as people resigning from the University in disgust of the treatment Hunt recieved.

Connie St Lewis, the liar that broke the story in the first place, she dismissed him losing his job because he was forced to resign rather than being "fired" and the idiot goes on to say that the real problem is that no one is addressing the issue that there aren't more women in science. What a poor fool, to have just created a witch hunt against someone literally supporting women in joining the field and then to claim that no one's doing it.

What's the benefit now of imploring women to join the field? Some asshole like Connie St Lewis will just lie about what you said and set the whole world against you for doing it. Might as well just avoid any talk about women at all. That's what she's doing. She's actively damaging the pursuit and then bitching, like a fool, about how sad it is that no one is addressing the issue. What a joke. I hope she gets sued for libel. They already just discovered that she misrepresented her credentials but nothing came of that.

 

[Olas]

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?

Nothing. If it's wrong now it was wrong then. You aren't really standing by the argument that something is okay so long as it's been done before, are you? That's a gigantic can of worms.

Many things we consider horrible today used to be commonplace. I don't see how precedent can ever be used as justification.

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'.

Fine, I won't.

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?

I didn't think it was very confusing. I support the LEGAL RIGHT to do X (because of the precedent banning it would set), but that doesn't mean I like or encourage the act itself. In other words I don't "totally get behind why they would do that kind of stuff". I just think trying to enforce laws regarding what reasons an employer is allowed to fire someone for is unreasonable and ultimately futile since there are easy workarounds.

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...

Anyways ... sorry mate ... both of us sacrificed that moral highground of the argument LONG ago.[/quote]

What? I was trying to show some sympathy. What's wrong with that? Did you thing I was being sarcastic or something?

Anyway, I'm not trying to take the 'moral highground', I just prefer a civil conversation to one where both people are being rude and degrading. I'm sorry about jumping on your ass about the dinosaur comment, and anything else immature I said. Although I generally believe in being respectful towards those you disagree with, I slip up sometimes.

 

[Random Gamer]

But the biggest share of the blame falls on the shoulders of the news agencies who made this singular joke into a click bait link without context.

These journalists and those who do the same kind of dirty tricks are insane. This can only have one consequence, which is that part of the population just stops trusting the media and journalists.
This is tragic not because news media will lose revenue - I don't give much damn about that -, but because sooner or later, a major democracy will get into trouble and will have some rising group/party or even government that will want to curbstomp the press - and when this happens, only the level of trust and liking the people will still have for their media will be able to save them (and avoid a closer move towards tyranny).
Basically, such disgusting yellow journalism just increases the odds people will think "journalism is shit, we might as well get rid of it and we won't see the difference".

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Yes, how dare they report what a man said, then ask him to clarify it, then report that he said he stood by what he said. Monsters.

The media does a lot wrong, this is not one of those things.

A slightly more accurate way of stating this would be:

How dare the media selectively quote-mine a speech to create an artificial outrage incident where none existed, ask him to clarify his statement, allow him to honestly state how the the selective quote was part of a much larger statement that was actually a joke, then falsely claim he stood behind the distorted implication created with the selective quote-mining.

The media does a lot of wrong and this is a shining example of one of those things.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Yes, how dare they report what a man said, then ask him to clarify it, then report that he said he stood by what he said. Monsters.

The media does a lot wrong, this is not one of those things.

A slightly more accurate way of stating this would be:

How dare the media selectively quote-mine a speech to create an artificial outrage incident where none existed, ask him to clarify his statement, allow him to honestly state how the the selective quote was part of a much larger statement that was actually a joke, then falsely claim he stood behind the distorted implication created with the selective quote-mining.

The media does a lot of wrong and this is a shining example of one of those things.

The entire idea of "quote mining" falls apart because, once again, when asked to clarify his statement he stood by it. They didn't invent the quote, they didn't invent the outrage at the quote. They did what the media does, they dug up something and ran it, and people picked it up unlike MOST of what the media lays down.

Trying to shift blame from the man who SAID what he said, and stood by it, to the people who only reported what he said is just not working. What you and others don't seem to appreciate is that people can disagree with you about this, and NOT be corrupt, or evil, or tricky. You just happen to be both in the wrong, and on the wrong side of history here, but lucky for you, anonymous as well.

Now if you want to claim that his standing by that was falsified, that you need to prove.

The entire idea of quote-mining was already shown in this very thread when the entire statement was given, showing that the statement made was, indeed, within the context of the entire quote a jest, a jape, a self-depreciating bit of humor. When asked about the statement later, he maintained that the statement had been a joke, as it has been shown to actually be.

By isolating a couple of sentences from the context in which they were given, the reporter quote-mined, distorted the meaning of the statement. In effect, yes, the reporter falsified the statement and the follow-up questioning which did not give the full context of the quote-mined piece did create a false statement.

After all, the quote you are claiming as the evidence to call him guilty in the court of public opinion did not say what you have repeatedly claimed it said. The context of the statement shows that the statement was actually a joke and was presented as such to the audience to whom the statement was addressed.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to create here, but I have to try and deal with the facts before I can call someone guilty of something.

 

[Random Gamer]

You just happen to be both in the wrong, and on the wrong side of history here, but lucky for you, anonymous as well.

Thankfully, the last 30 years tend to show I'm on the "right side" and shit happens, alas, exactly as I feared it would.
As a friendly advice, I'd tell you to stockpile plenty of popcorn, considering how much "fun" lies ahead

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

*Snipped to save space*

You mean earlier in this thread, when that whole issue was trotted out, and then debunked since he defended the whole statement? Please don't try to repeat arguments that have been settled pages ago.

I n the interest of fairness, I went back to re-read that section of the thread. Your assessment of that part of the discussion appears flawed.

You debunked nothing. Indeed, I find it interesting that your rebuttal was to offer no evidence, claim your opinion as universal fact, and pointedly ignore the evidence brought forward. Specifically, on page 12 in post 388.

As for my own opinion, I have to two possible explanations for this discrepancy between your claim here and what is actually present on page 12 of this thread. 1) Either you are choosing deliberately to offer nothing constructive to the discussion by your actions of citing nothing, rebutting nothing and just dismissing statements out of hand, and generally taking a tone that is generally antagonistic. Or, 2) you honestly do not understand how you come across to others in text, in which case you are an interesting analog for the row over Tim Hunt.

Either way, seeing as how you offer nothing constructive in this conversation and are continually condescending to those who disagree with you (or at least that is how you come across in your text), I see little profit to be had continuing this banter. While you may choose to believe otherwise, I truly wish you the best and hope your weekend goes well.

Beyond that, I am out. Good day and goodbye.

 

[Kwak]

You just happen to be both in the wrong, and on the wrong side of history here, but lucky for you, anonymous as well.

That sounds like a threat. What punishment would be appropriate for someone you deem to be on the wrong side of history but not, as you might say, lucky enough to be anonymous?

Now if you want to claim that his standing by that was falsified, that you need to prove.

What is it you are so determined to fail to understand here?
His quote where he stands by his comments.

?I did mean the part about having trouble with girls. It is true that I have fallen in love with people in the lab and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me. It?s very disruptive to science, because it?s terribly important in the lab that people are on a level playing, and I?ve found that these emotional entanglements have made life difficult.
I?m really really sorry that I caused any offence, that?s awful. I just meant to be honest, actually.?

So what about that statement proves he is a sexist monster?
Relationships can interfere with quality of work. Is this a controversial point that you dispute? He had that problem. He mentioned it, as an ironic set-up to a final point, where it was clear he meant that 'issue' needed to be gotten past.

Or are you insisting he meant he was honest about something he didn't *actually* say but you have inferred, such as he thinks women are unsuited to do science or something? If so, what is your evidence and reasoning for that, using his words?

 

[Jack Action]

In this, and interestingly enough in the rest of the post snipped, you never mention what is flawed, how I failed, or any reference that would allow the reader or even me to figure out what exactly in 14 pages you're talking about.

It's like a strawman, but somehow less substantial.

Run away from discussion if you like, but don't try to pretend it's anything less than that.

No one's running away from a discussion with you, they just realize they're arguing with the text equivalent of a B-1 battle droid with an expanded vocabulary.

 

[Kwak]

Stop trying to pretend that your personal biases are the same as proof.

Using his quoted words is closer to proof than your empty rhetorical petulance has yet been.
Point out which of my personal biases invalidate his quoted words or interfere with the conclusion.

What exactly do his quoted words prove he was standing by other than his experience, as opposed to a sexist belief that women cannot do science or are an impediment to science or whatever the hell it is you think he 'confirmed'? Why can't you simply demonstrate to us all the closed case you insist this is?

 

[Kwak]

Since you seem to have "forgotten", I was asking for proof that his quote was intentionally misreported, which you claimed earlier.

That he said what he said, that he stood by it when asked, and that the public reaction wasn't unusual has been debated to what any reasonable person would consider a conclusion. Literally the only thing I'm curious about is your wild claim, which you keep trying not to support with all kinds of maneuvering.

Okay my mistake, I was under the impression we were operating with the same basic information.
So, at a conference he made these remarks:

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.

which when reported on in the media became:

Scientists should work in gender-segregated labs, according to a Nobel laureate, who said the trouble with ?girls? is that they cause men to fall in love with them and cry when criticised.

Tim Hunt, an English biochemist who admitted that he has a reputation for being a ?chauvinist?, said to the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea: ?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.?

Hunt said he was in favour of single-sex labs, adding that he didn?t want to ?stand in the way of women?.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs

Then came ?the trouble with girls?. Or rather, Hunt?s contention at a conference in Seoul, delivered at a lunch held for women science journalists, that there was such a thing. The problem, he proposed, was that men and women fall in love in the lab and that this was disruptive to science. Moreover, he said, women cry when their work is criticised. For the good of science, he suggested, labs might be sexually segregated.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/12/tim-hunt-trouble-with-girls-in-science-comment

This was before the full remark had been made publicly available.
So while perhaps the guardian can not be proven to have deliberately misquoted him, those who were present and tweeted the edited comment without the full context definitely can be shown to have been either dishonest or mistaken, such as:

Connie St Louis, the source for many of the journalists, gave only 37 words of the remark (from "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls" to "when you criticise them they cry") but said "he just ploughed on for about five to seven minutes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#Remarks_about_women_in_science

However, when the full text of his words were made available, which confirmed what he had maintained (that it was a clear use of ironic self-parody), the guardian then repeated the claim:

Hunt, 72, caused outrage earlier this month when he accused female scientists of being disruptive and has also been forced to resign from other academic posts.

He has since admitted he had made an ?idiotic joke? during a conference in Seoul, South Korea, but insisted his remarks had not been fully reported and that he had the support of hundreds of female scientists.

Hunt had told the audience of his ?trouble with girls ... you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry?, but, he said, he had gone on to say ?now seriously? before praising the role of women in science.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/30/jonathan-dimbleby-resigns-ucl-sir-tim-hunt

It is three weeks since Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winner, shared his sexist opinion of female scientists ? distractingly sexy, prone to weep when criticised and best segregated at work ? with a room full of science writers.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/the-guardian-view-on-the-tim-hunt-affair-an-explosive-combination-of-science-sexism-and-social-media

clearly omitting the available full quote in favour of keeping the narrative train on the tracks.
So that is how I formed my opinion, and make my wild claim, that the quote has been intentionally misreported.

Edit to add:
There was also this disappointing piece by Phil Plait in Slate on the 1st of July:

What he said there is now Internet history. He made a series of sexist comments, saying that the problem with ?girls? in science is that they fall in love with the men; the men fall in love with them; and when you confront them, they cry. He then went on to suggest labs should be single-sex.
....
A lot of electrons have been spilled over whether Hunt went on to say, ?Now seriously?,? which would indicate he was actually joking. Seife (who, again, was there at the luncheon) says Hunt never said this.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/01/tim_hunt_nobel_laureate_s_comments_about_girls_and_science.html

which I see as an unforgivably dishonest article, especially at this stage in the whole saga.