What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[Brian Peacock]

[rainbow]

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.

That is just spin. He was fired because the university were afraid of facing the outrage of a minority.

[pErvinalia]

Who cares. It was the university's decision. Why do you people hate freedum so much?!

[Mr.Samsa]

This thread pleases me.

I agree, it's the gift that keeps on giving!

I fight for freedom and the American way, I won't let these communists turn this great country into their dream totalitarian state!

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/

He held an honorary position, it's not like he was really doing any science.

And why does the article describe it as a "mob"?

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.

That is just spin. He was fired because the university were afraid of facing the outrage of a minority.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? Even if we accept this as true, pissing people off as a PR person is surely valid grounds for being fired...

[DaveDodo007]

The problem with a social philosophy where the ends justify the means should be obvious: the ends will only be as good as the people in power. And your group (no matter what it is) won't always be in power. if a large enough social group decided that their political truth was that feminists needed to be hounded out of their jobs? Seriously, what then? What principle do you have left to defend yourself after you've just proclaimed that might makes right, and the noisiest bully should get their way, so long as they fervently believe that their way is best?

Some of you posters here need to educate (and be entertained at the same time) yourselves. All you need to do is watch the Crucible, The Witchfinder General and A Man for all Seasons.

A clip from A Man for all Seasons.

[pErvinalia]

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.

[Brian Peacock]

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.

Indeed. Freedom does not mean you get to say and do whatever you want, or that freedom itself is conditional on you getting, doing, or saying whatever you want. For those of us who've thought about this seriously the concept of freedom is neither something to be applied to justify the will or action of the majority position, or to immunise a minority position from due criticism or restraint, or to authorise the actions of select group or body. Freedom of speech is a (or perhaps, the) fundamental freedom, because without it one really cannot have any other liberties, but even this doesn't grant a licence to say whatever you like, whenever you like, about whatever you like, to whomever you like, without recourse. It's interesting that pointing out this obviousness invariably brings charges of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and comparison to witch hunts or mob rules, from those who think that they have a special and privileged right to do or say anything that suits them.

[Mr.Samsa]

The problem with a social philosophy where the ends justify the means should be obvious: the ends will only be as good as the people in power. And your group (no matter what it is) won't always be in power. if a large enough social group decided that their political truth was that feminists needed to be hounded out of their jobs? Seriously, what then? What principle do you have left to defend yourself after you've just proclaimed that might makes right, and the noisiest bully should get their way, so long as they fervently believe that their way is best?

But all that's happened is that ideas have been criticised and the employers have independently agreed that the actions aren't appropriate for the position he held. If power was "reversed" (the idea that feminists are "in power" is hilarious, btw), then I'd equally welcome such a situation. The reason for this is that I reject your approach which suggests that the ends justify the means, where your "means" involve clamping down on people voicing their opinions and on employers having the right to fire unsuitable candidates.

And keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the "noisiest bully" as there was no loud campaign to get him fired. People laughed at him and deconstructed his claims. That's what we want from a free society, and the more people engaging in critical thinking is a good thing that shouldn't be shut down like you're demanding.

You didn't answer my question from earlier: if we want to allow freedom (i.e. people having the ability to voice their objection), and you think they've gone too far then what is your proposal to limit their speech in some way that somehow retains freedom? Do we limit the number of people who can speak up, do we limit the amount each person can speak, do we stop employers from being able to fire shitty employees? What is your solution? The dude fucked up in his job, essentially violated his contract in ways that resulted in a PR man pissing off a lot of people (i.e. bringing bad PR), so are you saying that the employer shouldn't be free to fire him if they choose?

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've never understood this neoreactionary idea that "freedom" means that people are only allowed to do things that they agree with and if they diverge from that then they need to be punished and have their objection beaten out of them. That sounds like a shitty kind of freedom to me.

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.

Indeed. Freedom does not mean you get to say and do whatever you want, or that freedom itself is conditional on you getting, doing, or saying whatever you want. For those of us who've thought about this seriously the concept of freedom is neither something to be applied to justify the will or action of the majority position, or to immunise a minority position from due criticism or restraint, or to authorise the actions of select group or body. Freedom of speech is a (or perhaps, the) fundamental freedom, because without it one really cannot have any other liberties, but even this doesn't grant a licence to say whatever you like, whenever you like, about whatever you like, to whomever you like, without recourse. It's interesting that pointing out this obviousness invariably brings charges of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and comparison to witch hunts or mob rules, from those who think that they have a special and privileged right to do or say anything that suits them.

Good post. It's also important to point out that you can still have freedom of speech whilst having places which restrict what you can and can't say. Specifically, private entities can support free speech whilst telling you to get the fuck out. Any kind of free speech which forces private entities to host speech they don't agree with is really no kind of free speech at all.

[klr]

Well it took me a while to work out that the Brian Cox I kept reading about in the popular science stories wasn't the famous actor by the same name...

It happens.

[pErvinalia]

[rainbow]

That is just spin. He was fired because the university were afraid of facing the outrage of a minority.[/quote]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? [/quote]
You are probably correct.

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.

[Svartalf]

Not fired, cooked

[rainbow]

Not fired, cooked

Oh, I've had them cooked, but fired? Never!

[rachelbean]

Well it took me a while to work out that the Brian Cox I kept reading about in the popular science stories wasn't the famous actor by the same name...

It happens.

Yeah, I did the same

[pErvinalia]