Forty Two wrote: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.
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.
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.
You sounded outraged. And it wasn't a joke, I proved that, remember?
Forty Two wrote:My objection is not with his employer for firing him. My objection is with the torch and pitchfork crowd who jump on every perceived slight or un-PC statement to ruin people's lives. I think their reaction is over the top.
Sure, but I demonstrated that it wasn't a case of any perceived slight or a case of it being "un-PC". He was criticised for saying something objectively stupid and performing poorly at his job. The reaction was simply people discussing the issue on Twitter and saying he sounded like an idiot. How is that "over the top"? What would have happened in your ideal world - ban all people from criticising him?
Haha I love that you're going to try to use pseudoscience to back up your sexism. Let's accept that men and women will sometimes date or fool around when they work together. So what? Men also date men and women also date women. Having single sex labs isn't going to help if that's your concern. Plus we have codes of ethics and professionalism to curb it actually affecting work.
And let's assume that women do cry more than men, so what? How is that at all relevant to the idea that trained female scientists, experts in their field, will break down and cry at the merest mention of criticism?
Forty Two wrote: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.
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.
Well sure, but that's just because you're a bigot who believes the same thing. Of course you wouldn't want to identify yourself as a bigot by calling him out on his bigotry. The rest of the world can see though.
Forty Two wrote:Mr.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.".
And, now Chris Rock won't play college campuses because of this same crap...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/0 ... 50308.html
I don't see how that's relevant, he's not talking about wanting to spread bigotry and not being allowed to. He did however stop using his "nigga" joke when a bunch of white people used it as an excuse to call black people niggers.
Forty Two wrote: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.
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.
Those myths do hurt people though, what are you talking about?
Forty Two wrote: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?
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.
Don't worry, I have a good idea that you'll be as eager to defend the racist as you are to defend the sexist.
Forty Two wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:
DaveDodo is literally saying that.
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.
The problem is that you're also saying it. The only thing that has happened is that people on Twitter criticised him. You said it was an "overreaction", which means that you think the speech should be curbed (i.e. censorship).
Forty Two wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:
Just to be clear, nobody petitioned his firing and nobody contacted his employer.
That's not true. Lots of people contacted his employer.
Can you link to the evidence there?
Forty Two wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:
So you're anti free speech and free expression?
No, of course not. I'm using mine to express my opinion as to whose right and whose wrong in this instance.
You are saying that, if it happened, there would be a problem with people protesting him holding the position he did after making those comments (i.e. curbing free expression).
Forty Two wrote: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.
According to many feminists, they can't be sexist, because they are in the disempowered group.
It's not a straw person. Ex. Prof. Mary Daly
It is a straw person, or at the very least a woeful misunderstanding of the science on bigotry. Feminists are a political group not an oppressed minority. I assume you were thinking of feminists only consisting of women. In that case, the scientific definition of sexism does say that women cannot be sexist towards men because they are the dominant group and women don't have the social power for it to constitute sexism. But that doesn't mean women can't be sexist to other women, or black people racist towards other black people. They can repeat the bigotry and harmful social norms that attack their groups even when they are members of it.
Jesus christ, why don't bigots just pick up a science book every now and then?
Notice how most of them don't seem to know the specifics of what happened or present any evidence or reasoning to think a "lynch mob" happened?
It's also kind of hilarious that they'd choose the term "lynch mob" (which refers to a bunch of racists gathering together to attack black people) to describe a bigot being criticised for attacking women...
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
You, I mean he, is a former member here who buggered off basically because I hounded you, I mean him, off the site for being a bigot. Some people thought I was nasty. If you are him, or simply appear similar to him, I don't want to revisit old ground (me being nasty).
[this forum has the best emoticons ever...]
