What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[pErvinalia]

Ok. As long as you promise not to shoot me!

[Svartalf]

Do you eat the sharks you shoot from your boat with that marmalade?

[laklak]

Hákarl with orange marmalade. Interesting idea...

[Svartalf]

I thought fresh shark steak, hàkarl is something I wish only on my enemies.

[DaveDodo007]

Oh yeah. The apelusters do thrive on getting upset about stuff like that. But then every social grouping has its small segment of oversensitive idiots. I don't think Dodo and you are representative of men either.

Representative of men?? Jesus I bloody hope not. You should see the knuckle-dragging simians that pass for male in the Deep South. OK, I do go fishing and like guns, but I'm also in touch with my feminine side. I can even knit, after a fashion, and I make the best orange marmalade.

I do all the cooking in our place, you haven't lived until you have tasted my risotto. It's MY kitchen and other people are only allowed to visit it.

[Brian Peacock]

Then put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea. I've had a hard day.

[DaveDodo007]

Then put your knickers on and make me a cup of tea. I've had a hard day.

Well at least you didn't ask for a sammich.

[Mr.Samsa]

God there are some pathetic people posting on this board. I notice you don't have a problem with #killallmen and #killallwhitemen what about my fee fees. The 'diversity officer' bans men from a 'diversity' meeting at Goldsmiths university. A member of the Liberal Democrats posts kill all men on twitter. I notice your outrage is all one way, how about being consistent.

Why would it be a problem if a diversity officer bans men from a diversity meeting? It's not censorship or a violation of free speech, in the same way academic conferences only allow academics to give talks or give academics entry.

I said I support free speech and I do, doesn't mean people could and will suffer the consequences of their free speech especially when it comes to your employment but if you need to get someone fire because he has opinions you don't like then you are a pathetic crybaby.

But nobody tried to get him fired. He made stupid comments, and people had a laugh about them. It turns out that the university wasn't happy with it and used their right to choose who they employ and decided against him.

If you are pro censorship then I will fight you and join groups who will fight you every step of the way. Fuck busy bodies and fuck their enablers.

If you want to control who employers have to employ and fire by preventing them from firing people who demonstrably do bad at their job, then that's the kind of censorship I can't get on board with.

Everyone has a right to free speech and everybody has the right to criticize others free speech. It is when you hound people out of their work and they lose their employment because they hold opinions you don't like is a fucking problem. If you can't see that then well done you, you have just taken the first step to totalitarianism.

But nobody has "hounded" him. They talked about his stupid comments in social media and had a laugh about it. He was fired/forced to resign because he held an honorary position dedicated to the public education and advancement of science, and then he publicly made very bad comments that reflected terribly on the university and science itself. You cannot expect to hold a PR position and be objectively bad at PR.

What kind of "free expression" world do you live in where businesses are forced to pay people who are bad at their jobs? That is totalitarianism. Giving people the power to voice their opinions and reactions, and allow people to receive the consequences of their actions, is a free world.

The problem is that you're claiming that "censorship is bad" because you feel like the wrong people are being censored. You're still clearly and undeniably pro-censorship, you just want the people who disagree with you to shut up. That's the problem with your position as it's inherently self-contradictory. I assume you'll disagree with that so let's put it another way: how do you propose we limit someone's ability to respond to comments like Hunt's? Is it a numbers thing where we allow 1000 people to write a tweet and then no more? Or is it a limit per person? What is it?

It's not like these people harassed him personally. They didn't send threats. They didn't hunt him down and tackle him in the street. They didn't even message or petition the university to remove him from his position. Where exactly is the "hounding" in this situation that you want to curb through censorship?

I see Dodo has joined Laklak's "Let's all get upset about women issues" club.

Excellent. It adds to our laughter.

Upset? Nah, I just find all the hand-wringing from both sides quite amusing. I haven't had the nerve to sign onto A+ yet, imagine the choked, impotent outrage. They've probably got entire threads with trigger warnings. People have likely expired from righteous apoplexy.

Mate, if you're interested in choked, impotent rage then you should check out your own comments! They're hilarious.

[Scott1328]

This thread pleases me.

[JimC]

This thread amuses us...

(I just did a royal wee...)

[Brian Peacock]

[JimC]

[DaveDodo007]

Hmmmm.

Lets lose the expertise of a Nobel Prize winning scientist because of some hurt fee fees.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/15/3-w ... t-too-far/

[Brian Peacock]

Or we could just resolve to put stupid sexist bollocks out in the backyard with the other trash. You'll like it there.

[laklak]

Mate, if you're interested in choked, impotent rage then you should check out your own comments! They're hilarious.

Well, they're supposed to be, glad you finally twigged!