I always suspected you were the kinky sort.Brian Peacock wrote:You're still not too big to go over my knee young man.

I always suspected you were the kinky sort.Brian Peacock wrote:You're still not too big to go over my knee young man.
So what? If one's unshakable belief is that, in labs, men fall in love with women, women fall in love with me, and women are more likely to cry when gruffly criticized, is that really something that ought to get people fired? To get fired for that seems to be a very dangerous precedent. After all, to paraphrase Hamlet, use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?Mr.Samsa wrote: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.Forty Two wrote: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.Scumple wrote: "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 notice you you didn't lead with it not being true.Mr.Samsa wrote:This is more of the same kind of bullshit that got him fired... This isn't the 50s any more.Forty Two wrote: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 is certainly "a" problem. The PC movement since the late 80s early 90s has a "chilling effect" on public expression of ideas. People have to be very careful not to express the wrong opinions, or the boycott-fire-petition mob will come in force.dMr.Samsa wrote: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".Forty Two wrote: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.
No, they're not saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to criticize Hunt. They're saying they SHOULDN'T criticize him, in the sense of petitioning him to lose his job and hounding his employer to fire the guy. Of course everyone is allowed to say what they want. The difference is that those who "criticize" Hunt are expressly trying to shut him up by driving him out of his positions. Those that criticize the folks who go after Hunt are basically just saying, "come on you lot, fuck off with this hyper-sensitive PC crap."Mr.Samsa wrote: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.Forty Two wrote:One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.rEvolutionist wrote: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..."
If it's free speech for folks to criticize Hunt, then it's free speech to criticize those who criticize Hunt.
No, my name isn't Dave. But, is being that guy a crime?rEvolutionist wrote:Are you saying you actually are Dave? It was late and I was feeling cheeky, so accused you of being him.Forty Two wrote:One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.rEvolutionist wrote: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..."
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.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.
That is not what Hunt got fired for. He got fired for advocating the view that women have no place in men's laboratories. He prefaced his joke with this statement: "I am in favour of single-sex labs." Considering how few women have persevered in science despite the enduring male chauvinism among scientists, engineers, lawyers, medical doctors and other traditionally male-dominated professionals, this is tantamount to shutting them up in a ghetto. It's quite contrary to the Nobel-laureate's alleged opinion that he does "not want anything to stand in the way of women".Forty Two wrote:If one's unshakable belief is that, in labs, men fall in love with women, women fall in love with me, and women are more likely to cry when gruffly criticized, is that really something that ought to get people fired?
Tu quoque much?Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too...
So you support free speech and you don't support free speech.Forty Two wrote:No, my name isn't Dave. But, is being that guy a crime?rEvolutionist wrote:Are you saying you actually are Dave? It was late and I was feeling cheeky, so accused you of being him.Forty Two wrote:One can love free speech without loving everything anyone says.rEvolutionist wrote: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..."
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.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.
Oh, I don't think free speech is a problem. I don't view the concept of free speech, however, as meaning that we can't think what other people say is stupid. I think what Creationists say is stupid. I think what the people complaining about Hunt are stupid.
Even though I support free speech, I sometimes oppose someone else choosing to exercise that right. For example, I support the right of the Westboro Bapits church to spew their nonsense, but I think they're asshats for picketing funerals. The should stop it. They suck for doing it. Similarly, anyone who got so up in arms about Hunt's comments that they petitioned for the guy to be fired is an asshat. They should cut that shit out.
I wouldn't support running a feminist professor or scientist out of a job for advocating single-sex labs either.Hermit wrote:Tu quoque much?Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too...
In such a scenario we might also presume that the touted 'campaign' could simply be colleagues expressing that their working relationship with this individual has be damaged beyond repair. What's an employer to do?Forty Two wrote:I wouldn't support running a feminist professor or scientist out of a job for advocating single-sex labs either.Hermit wrote:Tu quoque much?Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too...
I disagree with single-sex labs, but I don't think voicing an opinion like this could possibly warrant destroying a person's career over it.
Obviously, folks are free to boycott, petition, and run internet "torch and pitchfork" campaigns against whomever they like. To me, however, such campaigns whose effort is shut people up are misguided and self-defeating.
Well it's important because your initial outrage was predicated on the idea that he got fired for a joke. He didn't and I was mostly just pointing out that you held a wrong belief.Forty Two wrote:So what? If one's unshakable belief is that, in labs, men fall in love with women, women fall in love with me, and women are more likely to cry when gruffly criticized, is that really something that ought to get people fired? To get fired for that seems to be a very dangerous precedent. After all, to paraphrase Hamlet, use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?Mr.Samsa wrote: 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.
Sorry, I thought "same kind of bullshit" and the reference to the time period notable for it's horrific misunderstanding of facts relating to gender was enough to indicate that your beliefs aren't true. Is that clarification enough or did you need a signed formal document?Forty Two wrote:I notice you you didn't lead with it not being true.Mr.Samsa wrote: This is more of the same kind of bullshit that got him fired... This isn't the 50s any more.
I think when you say it's had a "chilling effect", I think you mean that it's had a chilling effect on bigots. Because, as I mention, all it means to be "politically correct" is to be called out for being a bigot. So whilst bigots might have had a hard time since we've been discussed social issues more seriously, the rest of the world has absolutely been loving it as it's opened up free expression to levels never before experienced. No longer is it appropriate to dismiss black people or women on the assumption that they aren't smart enough to have opinions worth sharing! I know that idea is scary and foreign to bigots, but that's just the truth.Forty Two wrote:That is certainly "a" problem. The PC movement since the late 80s early 90s has a "chilling effect" on public expression of ideas. People have to be very careful not to express the wrong opinions, or the boycott-fire-petition mob will come in force.dMr.Samsa wrote:
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".
What do you mean he didn't hurt anyone? He's perpetuating myths that are actively holding back women in the field, and he's doing so from a position where he's supposed to educate the public on issues in science and give good PR to the university.Forty Two wrote:Even in the least charitable interpretation of the guy's comments, it's just a bit antiquated. He didn't hurt anyone, and there is no allegation that he's been unfair to women as an employer.
DaveDodo is literally saying that.Forty Two wrote:No, they're not saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to criticize Hunt.Mr.Samsa wrote:
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.
Just to be clear, nobody petitioned his firing and nobody contacted his employer.Forty Two wrote:They're saying they SHOULDN'T criticize him, in the sense of petitioning him to lose his job and hounding his employer to fire the guy.
So you're anti free speech and free expression?Forty Two wrote:Of course everyone is allowed to say what they want. The difference is that those who "criticize" Hunt are expressly trying to shut him up by driving him out of his positions. Those that criticize the folks who go after Hunt are basically just saying, "come on you lot, fuck off with this hyper-sensitive PC crap."
And those people are sexist idiots too. If they hold senior positions, especially as PR people, then they should be fired too. Luckily I don't think people made of straw hold any university positions.Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too, just like many support single sex gyms, single sex clubs, single sex schools, etc.
You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.Forty Two wrote:No, I support free speech. In what way do you believe I have suggested otherwise?
Do you think support for free speech means we don't criticize other people for what they say?
Mr.Samsa wrote:Well it's important because your initial outrage was predicated on the idea that he got fired for a joke. He didn't and I was mostly just pointing out that you held a wrong belief.Forty Two wrote:So what? If one's unshakable belief is that, in labs, men fall in love with women, women fall in love with me, and women are more likely to cry when gruffly criticized, is that really something that ought to get people fired? To get fired for that seems to be a very dangerous precedent. After all, to paraphrase Hamlet, use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?Mr.Samsa wrote: 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.
As to why the belief itself is important, well that's because discrimination in the workplace is both morally and legally wrong. A person who holds a PR position who is objectively bad at PR probably doesn't deserve that job. It doesn't seem at all dangerous for someone who is bad at their job to be fired from that job. In fact, that seems to be the sensible and expected outcome.
Sorry, I thought "same kind of bullshit" and the reference to the time period notable for it's horrific misunderstanding of facts relating to gender was enough to indicate that your beliefs aren't true. Is that clarification enough or did you need a signed formal document?Forty Two wrote:I notice you you didn't lead with it not being true.Mr.Samsa wrote: This is more of the same kind of bullshit that got him fired... This isn't the 50s any more.
I think when you say it's had a "chilling effect", I think you mean that it's had a chilling effect on bigots. Because, as I mention, all it means to be "politically correct" is to be called out for being a bigot. So whilst bigots might have had a hard time since we've been discussed social issues more seriously, the rest of the world has absolutely been loving it as it's opened up free expression to levels never before experienced. No longer is it appropriate to dismiss black people or women on the assumption that they aren't smart enough to have opinions worth sharing! I know that idea is scary and foreign to bigots, but that's just the truth.Forty Two wrote:That is certainly "a" problem. The PC movement since the late 80s early 90s has a "chilling effect" on public expression of ideas. People have to be very careful not to express the wrong opinions, or the boycott-fire-petition mob will come in force.dMr.Samsa wrote:
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".
Also, it reminds me of the line from Chris Rock: "For the first time in the history of the world, the white man has to watch what he says.".
What do you mean he didn't hurt anyone? He's perpetuating myths that are actively holding back women in the field, and he's doing so from a position where he's supposed to educate the public on issues in science and give good PR to the university.Forty Two wrote:Even in the least charitable interpretation of the guy's comments, it's just a bit antiquated. He didn't hurt anyone, and there is no allegation that he's been unfair to women as an employer.
Did you also defend Watson when he got in trouble for saying that the problem with Africans is that they are inherently stupid even though they can make good janitors?
DaveDodo is literally saying that.Forty Two wrote:No, they're not saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to criticize Hunt.Mr.Samsa wrote:
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.
Just to be clear, nobody petitioned his firing and nobody contacted his employer.Forty Two wrote:They're saying they SHOULDN'T criticize him, in the sense of petitioning him to lose his job and hounding his employer to fire the guy.
So you're anti free speech and free expression?Forty Two wrote:Of course everyone is allowed to say what they want. The difference is that those who "criticize" Hunt are expressly trying to shut him up by driving him out of his positions. Those that criticize the folks who go after Hunt are basically just saying, "come on you lot, fuck off with this hyper-sensitive PC crap."
And those people are sexist idiots too. If they hold senior positions, especially as PR people, then they should be fired too. Luckily I don't think people made of straw hold any university positions.Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too, just like many support single sex gyms, single sex clubs, single sex schools, etc.
I do support their right to say that. However, supporting their right to say it doesn't mean I think they should choose to say it. Like cursing at a baseball or soccer game - I think they have a right to do so, but I think they shouldn't.rEvolutionist wrote:You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.Forty Two wrote:No, I support free speech. In what way do you believe I have suggested otherwise?
Do you think support for free speech means we don't criticize other people for what they say?
I wasn't outraged, i was opposed. And, it was a joke comment. It also doesn't matter to me whether it was a joke or not.Mr.Samsa wrote:Well it's important because your initial outrage was predicated on the idea that he got fired for a joke. He didn't and I was mostly just pointing out that you held a wrong belief.Forty Two wrote:So what? If one's unshakable belief is that, in labs, men fall in love with women, women fall in love with me, and women are more likely to cry when gruffly criticized, is that really something that ought to get people fired? To get fired for that seems to be a very dangerous precedent. After all, to paraphrase Hamlet, use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?Mr.Samsa wrote: 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.
As to why the belief itself is important, well that's because discrimination in the workplace is both morally and legally wrong. A person who holds a PR position who is objectively bad at PR probably doesn't deserve that job. It doesn't seem at all dangerous for someone who is bad at their job to be fired from that job. In fact, that seems to be the sensible and expected outcome.
You are seriously saying that men and women working together don't result in some men and some women falling in love with each other? Come on now... http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ance-2013/ - up to 59% of the workforce has been involved in romance or dating with a work colleague.Mr.Samsa wrote:Sorry, I thought "same kind of bullshit" and the reference to the time period notable for it's horrific misunderstanding of facts relating to gender was enough to indicate that your beliefs aren't true. Is that clarification enough or did you need a signed formal document?Forty Two wrote:I notice you you didn't lead with it not being true.Mr.Samsa wrote: This is more of the same kind of bullshit that got him fired... This isn't the 50s any more.
That isn't all it means, as the Hunt example shows. He's not a bigot in the least, nor was what he said bigoted.Mr.Samsa wrote:I think when you say it's had a "chilling effect", I think you mean that it's had a chilling effect on bigots. Because, as I mention, all it means to be "politically correct" is to be called out for being a bigot. So whilst bigots might have had a hard time since we've been discussed social issues more seriously, the rest of the world has absolutely been loving it as it's opened up free expression to levels never before experienced. No longer is it appropriate to dismiss black people or women on the assumption that they aren't smart enough to have opinions worth sharing! I know that idea is scary and foreign to bigots, but that's just the truth.Forty Two wrote:That is certainly "a" problem. The PC movement since the late 80s early 90s has a "chilling effect" on public expression of ideas. People have to be very careful not to express the wrong opinions, or the boycott-fire-petition mob will come in force.dMr.Samsa wrote:
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".
And, now Chris Rock won't play college campuses because of this same crap... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/0 ... 50308.htmlMr.Samsa wrote:
Also, it reminds me of the line from Chris Rock: "For the first time in the history of the world, the white man has to watch what he says.".
I mean that nobody was hurt. These aren't myths. Men and women do get romantically involved in labs, as any other workplace, and women do cry much more and for longer time periods, than men. That's not a myth.Mr.Samsa wrote:What do you mean he didn't hurt anyone? He's perpetuating myths that are actively holding back women in the field, and he's doing so from a position where he's supposed to educate the public on issues in science and give good PR to the university.Forty Two wrote:Even in the least charitable interpretation of the guy's comments, it's just a bit antiquated. He didn't hurt anyone, and there is no allegation that he's been unfair to women as an employer.
Post what he really said, not your recasting of it. As for what he really said, I'd support proving him wrong, not driving him out of his position.Mr.Samsa wrote:
Did you also defend Watson when he got in trouble for saying that the problem with Africans is that they are inherently stupid even though they can make good janitors?
Well, I don't know what Dave Dodo said, but of course they should be and are "allowed" to criticize Hunt. The big problem is not mere criticism, but rather a mob driving him out of his job.Mr.Samsa wrote:DaveDodo is literally saying that.Forty Two wrote:No, they're not saying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to criticize Hunt.Mr.Samsa wrote:
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.
That's not true. Lots of people contacted his employer.Mr.Samsa wrote:Just to be clear, nobody petitioned his firing and nobody contacted his employer.Forty Two wrote:They're saying they SHOULDN'T criticize him, in the sense of petitioning him to lose his job and hounding his employer to fire the guy.
No, of course not. I'm using mine to express my opinion as to whose right and whose wrong in this instance.Mr.Samsa wrote:So you're anti free speech and free expression?Forty Two wrote:Of course everyone is allowed to say what they want. The difference is that those who "criticize" Hunt are expressly trying to shut him up by driving him out of his positions. Those that criticize the folks who go after Hunt are basically just saying, "come on you lot, fuck off with this hyper-sensitive PC crap."
According to many feminists, they can't be sexist, because they are in the disempowered group.Mr.Samsa wrote:And those people are sexist idiots too. If they hold senior positions, especially as PR people, then they should be fired too. Luckily I don't think people made of straw hold any university positions.Forty Two wrote:I'm sure there are feminists out there who support single sex labs, too, just like many support single sex gyms, single sex clubs, single sex schools, etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests