What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[Svartalf]

Brian cox, never heard of a guy by that name beside this thread.

[pErvinalia]

Philistine!

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bria ... 8gXR2IDgDw

[Svartalf]

So, yeah, there are a number of notable brian coxes... none of whom I'm particularly ashamed not to know about.

[Forty Two]

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls," he reportedly said. "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."

I feel bad for the guy. He was making a joke or a quip -- he refers to himself - "my" trouble with girls. He unfortunately switches to the third person, but that's common speech pattern now, to use the pronoun "you" when really speaking in the first person or more generally -- i.e. in place of the word "one" which sounds more formal. He should have said either "I fall in love with them.... and when I criticize them, they cry." Or, when "one falls in love with them," etc. However, the use of the word "my" in the first bit seems to indicate that he's being kind of self-deprecating here -- this is HIS problem, not a problem in general.

That being said, when women and men work together, some men and women (and men/men, women/women) fall in love with each other, or are attracted to each other. Human interaction happens, and that can be viewed as a "problem" because it's something that has to be dealt with, given that relationships can be messy. Also, it is pretty much generally accepted that women cry more than men. Men, traditionally, had a hard time dealing with that - we men generally don't want women crying. And, we find, from time to time, that we can say something curtly or abruptly, even vulgarly, to a man, and he'll take it, but similar criticism to a woman is more likely to bring about an emotional reaction.

That also being said, he should know that you don't say stuff like that. You just don't. It's not PC, and you have to be really dense not to know that the mob will come after you. They will inundate an employer with complaints, they will create petitions, they will post endlessly online about it. It doesn't go away. The guy's career was ended because of this. He shouldn't have said it. He should have known.

[Forty Two]

Brian cox, never heard of a guy by that name beside this thread.

I think he's English, but he has two or three science-related shows on American television. He's a good communicator -- like a modern day Carl Sagan.

[Forty Two]

Your post, as usual, is unrelated to the thread. YOU are the one holding an authoritarian position. No one was compelled to do anything in this debacle. Everyone made a free choice. Like a lot of "liberal" conservatives, you bleat a lot about freedom, but understand fuck all about it.

Very true, it is an exercise of freedom for people to rise up in rage against other people, call for firings, boycotts, and other negative consequences to be meted out. And, it should generally be a private entity's decision to fire someone for what they say or do.

That being said, it is also an exercise of freedom to rise up against those that are rising up in rage. So, there is nothing authoritarian about saying that the people who drove Hunt out of his positions and caused him to get fired have overreacted. It's not authoritarian to take the position that they, not Hunt, are jerks and harpies.

[pErvinalia]

Is that right, Dave, sorry, I mean Forty Two? You, sorry, I mean he says that it is a "problem" when those people criticise the likes of Hunt and he gets sacked. How's it a "problem"? You either love free speech or you don't. You, sorry, I mean he basically pulled a "I'm not racist, but...". I.e. "I'm all for free speech, BUT..."

[Forty Two]

Is that right, Dave, sorry, I mean Forty Two? You, sorry, I mean he says that it is a "problem" when those people criticise the likes of Hunt and he gets sacked. How's it a "problem"? You either love free speech or you don't. You, sorry, I mean he basically pulled a "I'm not racist, but...". I.e. "I'm all for free speech, BUT..."

One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.

If it's free speech for folks to criticize Hunt, then it's free speech to criticize those who criticize Hunt.

I defend their right to say what they want about Hunt, but I think it's reactionary, overly-hyperbolic, and hysterical. There is no conflict there. It's not free speech, but [ something against free speech]. It's that I like free speech, but some people say really stupid shit. Take Creationists - I support their right to free speech, and I can't make the street preacher downtown go away, as annoying as I find his religious tripe -- but, I think what he says is silly, stupid, and sometimes hateful and intolerant. And, if he called for an atheist's firing from a job, I would use my free speech to oppose him.

[Mr.Samsa]

Even if we accept this as true, pissing people off as a PR person is surely valid grounds for being fired...

PR people piss me off all the time, but I never try to get them fired.

Maybe you should let their employers know, I don't imagine they'd like to learn that they're paying someone to do a bad job.

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls," he reportedly said. "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."

I feel bad for the guy. He was making a joke or a quip -- he refers to himself - "my" trouble with girls. He unfortunately switches to the third person, but that's common speech pattern now, to use the pronoun "you" when really speaking in the first person or more generally -- i.e. in place of the word "one" which sounds more formal. He should have said either "I fall in love with them.... and when I criticize them, they cry." Or, when "one falls in love with them," etc. However, the use of the word "my" in the first bit seems to indicate that he's being kind of self-deprecating here -- this is HIS problem, not a problem in general.

It wasn't a joke or a quip. His whole speech was mostly along those lines, then he was questioned during the speech and reasserted his belief, then he was questioned during the lunch by the journalist and reasserted his belief, then he made an apology where he reasserted his belief again, etc. It wasn't like he made an off-handed comment and then got lynched for it. He made a conscious decision to make that comment, was questioned multiple times and basically begged to reveal that it was just an ill-timed joke, and he refused to do so, continually making it clear that those were his unshakable beliefs.

That being said, when women and men work together, some men and women (and men/men, women/women) fall in love with each other, or are attracted to each other. Human interaction happens, and that can be viewed as a "problem" because it's something that has to be dealt with, given that relationships can be messy. Also, it is pretty much generally accepted that women cry more than men. Men, traditionally, had a hard time dealing with that - we men generally don't want women crying. And, we find, from time to time, that we can say something curtly or abruptly, even vulgarly, to a man, and he'll take it, but similar criticism to a woman is more likely to bring about an emotional reaction.

This is more of the same kind of bullshit that got him fired... This isn't the 50s any more.

That also being said, he should know that you don't say stuff like that. You just don't. It's not PC, and you have to be really dense not to know that the mob will come after you. They will inundate an employer with complaints, they will create petitions, they will post endlessly online about it. It doesn't go away. The guy's career was ended because of this. He shouldn't have said it. He should have known.

Well, the problem isn't that it's "not PC". Saying something isn't "PC" is just code for saying: "People got mad when I voiced my bigotry in public".

Is that right, Dave, sorry, I mean Forty Two? You, sorry, I mean he says that it is a "problem" when those people criticise the likes of Hunt and he gets sacked. How's it a "problem"? You either love free speech or you don't. You, sorry, I mean he basically pulled a "I'm not racist, but...". I.e. "I'm all for free speech, BUT..."

One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.

If it's free speech for folks to criticize Hunt, then it's free speech to criticize those who criticize Hunt.

Except nobody has said that they're not free to criticise those who criticise Hunt. The problem is that those people aren't just criticising but instead they're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to criticise Hunt. Have a look at DaveDodo's comments in this thread where he wants to implement a restriction on how people can react to bigotry. That is obviously inconsistent with free speech.

[pErvinalia]

Is that right, Dave, sorry, I mean Forty Two? You, sorry, I mean he says that it is a "problem" when those people criticise the likes of Hunt and he gets sacked. How's it a "problem"? You either love free speech or you don't. You, sorry, I mean he basically pulled a "I'm not racist, but...". I.e. "I'm all for free speech, BUT..."

One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.

If it's free speech for folks to criticize Hunt, then it's free speech to criticize those who criticize Hunt.

I defend their right to say what they want about Hunt, but I think it's reactionary, overly-hyperbolic, and hysterical. There is no conflict there. It's not free speech, but [ something against free speech]. It's that I like free speech, but some people say really stupid shit. Take Creationists - I support their right to free speech, and I can't make the street preacher downtown go away, as annoying as I find his religious tripe -- but, I think what he says is silly, stupid, and sometimes hateful and intolerant. And, if he called for an atheist's firing from a job, I would use my free speech to oppose him.

Are you saying you actually are Dave? It was late and I was feeling cheeky, so accused you of being him. But then afterwards, I thought you might actually be a sock of Seth. Now I just don't know if I'm being paranoid (and unfair), or whether you might be.

Anyway, Dave said that the SJW's and employers free speech was a "problem". It's not a problem if you believe in free speech. He might personally disagree with either's free speech, but that doesn't make it a "problem". He is claiming something greater. That's why I suggest he doesn't really care about free speech. He only cares about the freedom of speech he likes. Like so many "liberal" conservatives.

[DaveDodo007]

Your post, as usual, is unrelated to the thread. YOU are the one holding an authoritarian position. No one was compelled to do anything in this debacle. Everyone made a free choice. Like a lot of "liberal" conservatives, you bleat a lot about freedom, but understand fuck all about it.

I'm advocating against witch hunts in general in which this thread is a perfect example. Mob rule is never a good idea no matter what anyone's stance is. It is even worse because this is a university which is suppose to be a bastion of free speech, free thought and a market place of ideas. I would like to know were I'm being authoritarian as I haven't ask for anybody else to be banned, blocked, silenced or sacked. I'm just countering bad speech and bad behaviour with better speech and better behaviour, there have been no demands on my part. There is nothing authoritarian about pointing out that witch hunts are not congruent with a free society.

[cronus]

Your post, as usual, is unrelated to the thread. YOU are the one holding an authoritarian position. No one was compelled to do anything in this debacle. Everyone made a free choice. Like a lot of "liberal" conservatives, you bleat a lot about freedom, but understand fuck all about it.

I'm advocating against witch hunts in general in which this thread is a perfect example. Mob rule is never a good idea no matter what anyone's stance is. It is even worse because this is a university which is suppose to be a bastion of free speech, free thought and a market place of ideas. I would like to know were I'm being authoritarian as I haven't ask for anybody else to be banned, blocked, silenced or sacked. I'm just countering bad speech and bad behaviour with better speech and better behaviour, there have been no demands on my part. There is nothing authoritarian about pointing out that witch hunts are not congruent with a free society.

Sexism is so ingrained no institution is out side the remit for change. Yes, it is horrible to be a paragon for free thinking then realize you forgot half the weight of responsibility. So grow up? what is the problem here?

[DaveDodo007]

Lol, Australia, the new Sweden.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55655238.jpg

[DaveDodo007]

Your post, as usual, is unrelated to the thread. YOU are the one holding an authoritarian position. No one was compelled to do anything in this debacle. Everyone made a free choice. Like a lot of "liberal" conservatives, you bleat a lot about freedom, but understand fuck all about it.

I'm advocating against witch hunts in general in which this thread is a perfect example. Mob rule is never a good idea no matter what anyone's stance is. It is even worse because this is a university which is suppose to be a bastion of free speech, free thought and a market place of ideas. I would like to know were I'm being authoritarian as I haven't ask for anybody else to be banned, blocked, silenced or sacked. I'm just countering bad speech and bad behaviour with better speech and better behaviour, there have been no demands on my part. There is nothing authoritarian about pointing out that witch hunts are not congruent with a free society.

Sexism is so ingrained no institution is out side the remit for change. Yes, it is horrible to be a paragon for free thinking then realize you forgot half the weight of responsibility. So grow up? what is the problem here?

When you have anything substantial to add, please let me know. I'm six foot, two inches tall, how big do you want me to be?

[Brian Peacock]

You're still not too big to go over my knee young man.