What Nobel winner Tim Hunt's sexist outburst actually says

[pErvinalia]

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?

You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.

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.

I can think they shouldn't say X while supporting their right to say X.

It's the whole concept of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lol, but you're not defending their right to say it. You are literally saying they shouldn't say it. Coito or Seth. It's hard to tell. You have the logic and reasoning skills of Seth, but write like Coito. What a mystery this is!

[Forty Two]

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?

You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.

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.

I can think they shouldn't say X while supporting their right to say X.

It's the whole concept of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lol, but you're not defending their right to say it. You are literally saying they shouldn't say it. Coito or Seth. It's hard to tell. You have the logic and reasoning skills of Seth, but write like Coito. What a mystery this is!

Saying that you shouldn't say X is not the same as saying you don't have the right to say X. Example - IMO Nazis have a right to say the holocaust should happen again. But I think they shouldn't say it. Or, young earthers hav a right to say the earth is young, but they shouldn't

[cronus]

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?

You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.

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.

I can think they shouldn't say X while supporting their right to say X.

It's the whole concept of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lol, but you're not defending their right to say it. You are literally saying they shouldn't say it. Coito or Seth. It's hard to tell. You have the logic and reasoning skills of Seth, but write like Coito. What a mystery this is!

Saying that you shouldn't say X is not the same as saying you don't have the right to say X. Example - IMO Nazis have a right to say the holocaust should happen again. But I think they shouldn't say it. Or, young earthers hav a right to say the earth is young, but they shouldn't

People say what they like. It is the critical reception of information that protects us against the dangers of ignorance or twisted thinking. Easy to say don't say that, this or that and this....out of sight it is said anyway and maybe to more effect as taboo contraband ups in value. Civilization begins with the ear not the mouth.

[pErvinalia]

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?

You said they should "cut that shit out". If you believed in free speech you would support their right to say that.

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.

I can think they shouldn't say X while supporting their right to say X.

It's the whole concept of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lol, but you're not defending their right to say it. You are literally saying they shouldn't say it. Coito or Seth. It's hard to tell. You have the logic and reasoning skills of Seth, but write like Coito. What a mystery this is!

Saying that you shouldn't say X is not the same as saying you don't have the right to say X. Example - IMO Nazis have a right to say the holocaust should happen again. But I think they shouldn't say it. Or, young earthers hav a right to say the earth is young, but they shouldn't

This simply makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe in free speech, that means you believe in people saying what they like (within whatever reasonable bounds one places on "freedom", or not). You can't say that people shouldn't say something, but they have a right to say it. That's an oxymoron.

[Forty Two]

Yes, point taken There is a difference, whoever, between disagreeing with someone, or thinking that something is impertinent or shouldn't be said, and hounding someone or drumming them out of a career as a result of what they said. I have no issue with folks disagreeing with Mr. Hunt. My only problem was with the way this was handled, which appeared to be like villagers with torches and pitchforks chasing the monster out of The town.

I liken it to ministers and creationist idiots. I wouldn't want people drumming them out of their careers because they express a non-PC opinion, but I certainly think they should wise up.

[Forty Two]

Revolutionist, It is not an oxymoron.

I'll try to explain it another way.

If a preacher is preaching against gay marriage, I completely disagree with that. Not only that, I think he shouldn't preach against gay marriage. He still has every right to preach against gay marriage. And I support that right. I think he should have the right. He should not have to follow my request that he not preach against gay marriage.

My right to free speech, however, includes the right to voice my opinion on what other people should and should not do and say.

[rainbow]

That's an oxymoron.

Wheras you're simply a moron.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, point taken There is a difference, whoever, between disagreeing with someone, or thinking that something is impertinent or shouldn't be said, and hounding someone or drumming them out of a career as a result of what they said. I have no issue with folks disagreeing with Mr. Hunt. My only problem was with the way this was handled, which appeared to be like villagers with torches and pitchforks chasing the monster out of The town.

I hear what you are saying, but think of it this way: For years women and minorities (literally and in terms of power) were on the receiving end of pretty much that. If they dared to come out of the kitchen, they would be hounded back there by bigoted men. And there's still a degree of that happening today, as can definitely be evidenced by Hunt and the like. Two wrongs don't make a right? I guess not. But it does make the complaints from the privileged ring a little hollow when the shoe is on the other foot. It's probably not right, but I have very little sympathy for the likes of Hunt.

[pErvinalia]

That's an oxymoron.

Wheras you're simply a moron.

And you can't spell, moran.

[Forty Two]

Yes, point taken There is a difference, whoever, between disagreeing with someone, or thinking that something is impertinent or shouldn't be said, and hounding someone or drumming them out of a career as a result of what they said. I have no issue with folks disagreeing with Mr. Hunt. My only problem was with the way this was handled, which appeared to be like villagers with torches and pitchforks chasing the monster out of The town.

I hear what you are saying, but think of it this way: For years women and minorities (literally and in terms of power) were on the receiving end of pretty much that. If they dared to come out of the kitchen, they would be hounded back there by bigoted men. And there's still a degree of that happening today, as can definitely be evidenced by Hunt and the like. Two wrongs don't make a right? I guess not. But it does make the complaints from the privileged ring a little hollow when the shoe is on the other foot. It's probably not right, but I have very little sympathy for the likes of Hunt.

Not just women and minorities. Anyone with unpopular opinions. Communists, atheists, you name it.

Hunt didn't hound anyone, though. He expressed an opinion, and the main quote we're talking about has objective evidence to support it. He didn't ask for anyone to be fired. He didn't create petitions. He didn't demand anyone lose their job. His opinion may have been wrong (in other people's opinions), but he didn't actually do anything wrong.

[pErvinalia]

His opinion is part of a broader narrative. To change the narrative you've got to address the individual opinions.

[Forty Two]

His opinion is part of a broader narrative. To change the narrative you've got to address the individual opinions.

Not everyone wants the narrative changed, and there are many opinions on what the narrative should be changed to.

Address them all you want.

However, what they did to Hunt is much like what folks did to Bertrand Russell back in the day when folks got him fired from Trinity College and later from City College of NY.

He was publishing views that were part of a broader narrative that offended a lot of people.

The modern witch hunt mentality seems in a way worse, because it is coming from people who mostly call themselves liberal. It's a disturbing trend, where we hear words like "harmful opinions" and "online violence", or even more vomitous, "microaggression."

It even has a potential to be cannibalistic, like with the rather disconcerting use of an equal rights for women in education law to go after the liberal college Professor Laura Kipnis for publishing an article discussing university policies on sexual misconduct, relationships between students and faculty and free speech on campuses. This was at prestigious Northwestern University, not some piddly little college. Graduate students tried to get her fired by making a title IX complaint about her article, claiming the opinions were "harassing" them.

This is where we are in the United States today. Maybe, hopefully, it's different elsewhere.

[cronus]

Bertrand Russell was a nonce.

[pErvinalia]

His opinion is part of a broader narrative. To change the narrative you've got to address the individual opinions.

Not everyone wants the narrative changed, and there are many opinions on what the narrative should be changed to.

Address them all you want.

However, what they did to Hunt is much like what folks did to Bertrand Russell back in the day when folks got him fired from Trinity College and later from City College of NY.

He was publishing views that were part of a broader narrative that offended a lot of people.

This sort of reason doesn't cut it, as there's a large difference between deconstructing bigoted opinions (or at least ones that reinforce wider bigotry) and rational opinions.

The modern witch hunt mentality seems in a way worse, because it is coming from people who mostly call themselves liberal. It's a disturbing trend, where we hear words like "harmful opinions" and "online violence", or even more vomitous, "microaggression."

As Samosa said, people of privilege are always going to feel confronted by having their bigotry pointed out to them. My sympathy gland is largely dried up in this case. Don't want to be subject to a witch hunt? Then treat people as equitably as possible.

[Forty Two]

His opinion is part of a broader narrative. To change the narrative you've got to address the individual opinions.

Not everyone wants the narrative changed, and there are many opinions on what the narrative should be changed to.

Address them all you want.

However, what they did to Hunt is much like what folks did to Bertrand Russell back in the day when folks got him fired from Trinity College and later from City College of NY.

He was publishing views that were part of a broader narrative that offended a lot of people.

This sort of reason doesn't cut it, as there's a large difference between deconstructing bigoted opinions (or at least ones that reinforce wider bigotry) and rational opinions.

This is just saying that it's o.k. to drum someone out of the job if their opinions are those I don't agree with.

Nothing in what Hunt said was bigoted, first of all. And, whether it's an exercise of "deconstructing" anything is a matter which is clearly subject to a variety of opinion.

And, nothing was "irrational" about what Hunt said either. How was what he said "irrational?"

Further, on almost any issue, both sides believe they are being rational. So, it then becomes a battle of who is the most vicious in terms of running people out of town on a rail. Whose vigilante mob has the most pitchforks, if you will? Do you really want the unpopular viewpoint, the radical viewpoint, to have to go up against the majority in contest of my villagers vs. your villagers?

The modern witch hunt mentality seems in a way worse, because it is coming from people who mostly call themselves liberal. It's a disturbing trend, where we hear words like "harmful opinions" and "online violence", or even more vomitous, "microaggression."

As Samosa said, people of privilege are always going to feel confronted by having their bigotry pointed out to them. My sympathy gland is largely dried up in this case. Don't want to be subject to a witch hunt? Then treat people as equitably as possible.

That's certainly one way to look at it, but what's good for the goose is usually considered good for the gander.