Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage? 371
RedK writes: Connie St-Louis, on June 8th, reported on apparently sexist remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winning scientist, during an event organised for women in sciences. This led to the man's dismissal from his stations, all in such urgency that he did not even have time to present his side, nor was his side ever offered any weight. A leaked report a few days later suggests that the remarks were taken out of context. Further digging shows that the accuser has distorted the truth in many cases it seems. This is not the first time that people may have jumped the gun too soon on petty issues and ruined great events or careers.
Social Media Outage (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't use either Twitter or Facebook so would not be worried if eithere or both of them went down
Re:Social Media Outage (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people. All they need to do is create a fake Facebook profile. The scam is:
1. Acquire targets name, some basic information.
2. Create Facebook profile.
3. Post some cat pictures, get friends.
4. Run a scam / Post defamatory post
5. ***
6. Profit / Watch target get fired
Non-participation in social networks is no protection.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When a charge is this serious, the facts don't matter. /sarc
hysteria [wikipedia.org]: "for at least two thousand years of European history until the late nineteenth century hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek hystera "uterus")". /irony!
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexism/racism/homophobia are the new witchcraft.
Accusation is enough to justify burning someone at the stake.
Progressives are essentially puritans, only without explicit mention of a god.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
O rly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:O rly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you find them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why you must never use pronouns on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
+10 Sad but True
Re:O rly (Score:4, Funny)
DailyWail (Score:3, Interesting)
I love the idea that in an article about media outrage the author uses a Daily Mail article as evidence for why someone else's media outrage was wrong.
Re:DailyWail (Score:5, Informative)
The Daily Mail article is not about how Connie was wrong. The Independent piece provides the alternative version to Connie's, in which Tim Hunt's comments are framed as a sarcastic protrayal of "what is keeping women out of STEM" (the classic boys club accusation) and adds the follow-up he did, telling women to not be discouraged by it and to go forward.
The Daily Mail simply did some digging into who exactly this Connie St Louis person is, and why maybe we should ask questions before we simply give her 100% trust in this matter.
Re:DailyWail (Score:4, Insightful)
The catch is whether to trust Daily Mail's supposed digging. It doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation for accuracy.
Re:DailyWail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The catch is whether to trust anything at face value. Don't take the Daily Mail article at face value, just like you don't take Ms. St-Louis' comments at face value.
The thing is, ironically the Daily Mail is trying to point out that we should be more sceptical when the DM in itself is one of the publications which is most deserving of scepticism.
The DM may be having one of it's "broken clock" moments, but even then you can bet there's an agenda behind it.
Point in short, you should never take the Daily Mail at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
She claimed that she wrote for the Daily Mail, so its sort of bizarre that you're blindly defending her.
BTW, the Daily Mail checked with their accounting department and other internal record searches and she had never written for them. If the Daily Mail is lying, wouldn't you be able to produce an article?
Tim Hunt - In HIs Own Words (BBC Radio 4) (Score:3)
Scientist Tim Hunt responds to criticism of 'girls in labs' comments [bbc.co.uk]
Transcript of BBC 4 "Today" clip. 10/6/2015
''I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,'' he said.
''It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field.
''I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
''I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually.''
Tim Hunt's version of events changes a little even before a friendly interviewer.
His brief remarks contained 39 words that have subsequently come to haunt him.
'''Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. 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,'' he told delegates.
''I stood up and went mad,'' he admits. '' I was very nervous and a bit confused but, yes, I made those remarks --- which were inexcusable --- but I made them in a totally jocular, ironic way. There was some polite applause and that was it, I thought. I thought everything was OK. No one accused me of being a sexist pig.''
[Hunt's wife] clutches her head as Hunt talks. ''It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,'' she says. ''You can see why it could be taken as offensive if you didn't know Tim. But really it was just part of his upbringing. He went to a single-sex school in the 1960s. Nevertheless he is not sexist. I am a feminist, and I would not have put up with him if he were sexist.''
The next morning, as he headed for Seoul airport, Hunt...recorded a clumsily worded phone message [for "Today.''] ''It was a mistake to do that as well. It just sounded wrong.''
Tim Hunt: ''I've been hung out to dry. They haven't even bothered to ask for my side of affairs'' [theguardian.com]
The audience at the conference was expected to be about 40% Asian. "If you don't know Tim..." as well as his wife? No in Seoul could be reasonably be expected to know him that well. No one in the audience for Radio 4.
Re: (Score:3)
The catch is whether to trust Daily Mail's supposed digging. It doesn't exactly have the most stellar reputation for accuracy.
How the hell is this insightful? She claims to have published stuff that she hadn't. She claims to have worked in positions that she hasn't. There is a large body of evidence that she has fabricated her CV. She now claims a nobel prize-winner said sexist things. Many of the eminent female scientists, as well as people who were actually at the toast her gave disputes this, yet you jump to her defence? What the hell is wrong with you?
Re:DailyWail (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC interview was made over the phone while he was still at the Airport in Seoul. And he didn't double down, he admitted to making the statement, and never denied that part. The part in question is the entire context in which the statement was made, which is now being said to not have been presented initially : that the context is that it was made as a joke and that Sir Tim Hunt.
Basically, comes back to the premise of the submission : Are people reacting too quickly. Couldn't they have waited for him to get home, take in the reporting and then have him comment when people had calmed down ?
No, instead they catch him off guard while he's in a foreign country, in an uncomfortable situation.
Re:DailyWail (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he did double-down. Listen to how to says in the BBC interview [bbc.co.uk]...
"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," he said. "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field."
He said it. He wasn't joking. He confirmed what the original witnesses in Korea said he said. He double-downed and wanted everyone, via the BBC, to know it.
He changed his story afterwards. And you're buying the revised story.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am outraged over all the social media outrage about outrage.
Wait, should I be counting the number of "outrages" the way you count minus signs in an equation? I DON'T FUCKING CARE, I AM OUTRAGED.
Anyway, what else do they think social media is for, except to express outrage? And cat pics, of course, but I find those kind of outrageous.
Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Take that, Betteridge!
Re:Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are We Too Quick To Act On Social Media Outrage (Score:4, Interesting)
Outrage is almost always a sign that someone is trying to manipulate you (either for page views, or something else).
An angry outburst is temporary insanity. You are not rational while you are angry, and anything you are thinking of saying or doing is going to be irrational and stands a high degree of making your problem worse. If you will train yourself to relax as your default habit whenever something frustrates you, and adopt the rule that you won't say or do anything until you have calmed down, you will actually train the neurons in your brain to focus on rational problem solving instead of producing an angry outburst, and you will be able to come up with much better solutions to your problems.
A debt collector knows that if you are thinking rationally when they call, you will not pay them, so they seek to get you upset so you will do something irrational. Politicians exploit the exact same thing.
As a parent I know the most important thing I need to do in raising my children is to keep my head and stay calm and relaxed so that the solutions I come up with to parenting difficulties will be rational solutions, the best solutions possible so I can do a good job of raising my kids.
This works for nearly any problem in life.
Re: (Score:3)
Outrage is almost always a sign that someone is trying to manipulate you (either for page views, or something else).
This, and social media is just the latest form of doing it.
For a long time this kind of manipulation has been the domain of major news agencies. They'd print inflammatory statements and headlines with the express intent of stirring up public outrage, trial by media such as the Chamberlain case is a classic example. With social media its gotten worse as a single person can fabricate enough half truths, exaggerations and outright lies to create the same kind of outrage.
On one hand, people should be more
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Amusing Ourselves to Death [wikipedia.org]
Eat Me Last (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eat Me Last (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that most movements like this are effectively that.
Religious inquisitions? Basically people falling all over themselves to sell out their neighbors to show their own virtue publicly (while at the same time often hiding their own sins)
Secret police informants? Same.
It's just people trying to fit into what they think society's current target is. It gives them something to be offended at, and sometimes lets them overlook their own sins, and even distract attention away from their own (worse) misdeeds.
Without being able to hear what was actually said, I can't be sure what actually happened at that dinner. It could have been out of context, or wildly offensive. Or actually both based on your perspective and your sensitivity to certain phrases strung together that one person thinks should be funny, but the joke goes horribly wrong for someone else.
I do think, however, that if Hunt was removed for this, there needed to be a much higher bar to removing him and ending his career. And not just because he was a Nobel scientist, but because any person should have the ability to at least have a fair investigation and the benefit of the doubt before action like that is taken. With the knee jerk reactions we are seeing these days to things that are labelled "hate", it is starting to feel like we're losing our understanding of why due process and presumption of innocence is extremely important.
And while I have no intention of telling his critics to stop talking, I do wish they would not take a scorched earth approach. This feels like they're trying to make their point by creating a fear of losing your job to compel compliance, not by educating people.
"It's all about perception" (Score:5, Interesting)
We see this kind of outcome all over the place nowadays. It's mostly because those in positions of power are far too worried about public perception. (Of course, their almost complete lack of any firmly held moral principles leaves them adrift, and very much at the mercy of popular sentiment). Obviously Sir Tim Hunt is of infinitely more value to society than Connie St Louis - a glance at the Daily Mail story referred to in the summary makes that clear. So why was he forced to resign as a kneejerk reaction to a wave of ephemeral indignation, which will be forgotten by next week (and it's Saturday as I write)?
Recently I have been glued to a box set of the complete "Hill Street Blues" - yes, I know that telegraphs my age and unadventurous taste in TV. It was only the other night that I got quite angry at the spectacle of the police chief twisting Captain Furillo's arm to get him to abandon his defence of an apparently "bad cop". This guy, a narcotics agent, had shot and killed a young black man while interrupting some suspicious activity in the small hours. The cop claimed that he had given due warning, and fired only after being fired on - all of which was true. Also, the group he tried to apprehend were in fact committing crimes. Nevertheless, the police chief tells Furillo that it's vital for the department to be seen to throw this "bad cop" to the wolves. It's all about perception, he explains. The facts don't matter at all; all that counts is that this is a good time to throw someone to the wolves.
University College London (UCL) has indeed stained its reputation. Its refusal even to consider reinstating Professor Hunt makes matters worse. And Britain, which seems to prefer Ms St Louis to Professor Hunt, will get what it has chosen. Not to its advantage.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Recently I have been glued to a box set of the complete "Hill Street Blues" - yes, I know that telegraphs my age and unadventurous taste in TV. It was only the other night that I got quite angry at the spectacle of the police chief twisting Captain Furillo's arm to get him to abandon his defence of an apparently "bad cop". This guy, a narcotics agent, had shot and killed a young black man while interrupting some suspicious activity in the small hours. The cop claimed that he had given due warning, and fired only after being fired on - all of which was true. Also, the group he tried to apprehend were in fact committing crimes. Nevertheless, the police chief tells Furillo that it's vital for the department to be seen to throw this "bad cop" to the wolves. It's all about perception, he explains. The facts don't matter at all; all that counts is that this is a good time to throw someone to the wolves.
You know that "Hill Street Blues" is fiction, don't you?
You realize that's the kind of bullshit story that South Carolina cop Michael Slager gave after he shot Walter Scott, a black man, in the back? (Except that a video turned up.)
And you know that there are lots of other documented cases where the cops killed people (usually black) and claimed that they saw a gun -- where it turned out that they didn't have a gun?
And you know that according to sworn police testimony before the Knapp Commission, cops ofte
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you both missed the point - the story called for him to be a 'bad cop' but who was actually innocent of the thing he was accused off. This is a false dilemena as his captain should have taken action when it was known he was a bad copy and then the situation would nevre have arisen.
Cops who do nothing are still bad cops.
Re: (Score:3)
My, what a long comment! And all based on a misunderstanding. Of course I do know that "Hill Street Blues" is fiction. But one of the reasons I enjoy it is that it appears to be accurate, realistic fiction. Regardless of the many details, the basic plot idea I mentioned - a political boss who is willing and eager to throw a subordinate to the wolves "for the look of it", regardless of the facts - is something that is common in real life.
Nothing wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "social media".
It is the Progressive thought that prevails the Western Culture.
Political Correctness places style over substance. Or, speech over actions.
Pulling words out of context and the twisting of meaning to suit one's purpose is a long and effective tactic.
People are "convicted" for "crimes" they did not commit while people who have actually committed the same "crimes" are never bothered because they are Progressives and Politically Correct actors.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to preface all this by saying that I personally identify with the much-maligned "progressive thought". I do believe in social justice in general, and I do believe that specific issues, such as discrimination against females, non-whites, non-heterosexuals and other minorities is very real and a problem that we have to deal with. At the same time - and precisely because of that! - I have to speak out; because it is my side and my cause, and I am responsible for the evil that people who share (or claim
Do not react AT ALL (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether the reaction is "too quick" or not is the wrong question to ask. It is wrong to prosecute thoughtcrimes at all. Whether or not he is "sexist", he is still a brilliant scientist and a credit to whatever stations he was fired from.
Such prosecutions are not only unfair — and offensive to everyone, who values the First Amendment — they are also ineffective and counter-productive: people will not change their minds this way, they'll just learn to keep their mouths shut.
And, of course, it also exposes the preachers of tolerance and crusaders against bigotry as intolerant bigots. Some silver lining, I suppose...
Re:Do not react AT ALL (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than the low road reponse taken in previous shootings, their's was exemplary in that they clearly identified themselves as better people.
Tolerance, and yes, even the defense of that which you find most disgusting, is the hallmark of personal freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly. Judge people based on their actions and accomplishment, nor their opinions (even if apparently, in this case, Tim Hunt is not a chauvinist and his off-color comment was simply taken out of context).
However, seeing how people will judge others for their opinions, I think a suitable alternative is to try to convince these people to not react too quickly, and to learn to see both sides of a story. Too many people simply read one side, agree with it, and then join the collective mob.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, Sir Tim is British, and second of all the First Amendment refers to government regulation of speech. It does not compel a private organization to employ or associate with an individual whose speech it feels reflects poorly on them.
This is not a legal issue, it's a moral issue. It's morally wrong to empower a social media lynch mob without performing a reasonable inquiry into the facts.
Salem, Mass. (Score:2)
Sigh, sadly, we never seem to outgrow the worst of our predilections.
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet veterans know to laugh at most of the outrage. You can't take it seriously. I think a lot of the problems come from old media trying to be hip and cool so they get on social media but they don't know how crazy people can be on the internet so they take people too seriously. And then crazy people get treated as anything but crazy people.
All this hyperventilating about various moron outrages. Just do what the internet does with these people. Give them a an "oh really nick cage"... or a "sarcastic wonka"... and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
and move on.
That's hard to do once persecuted by the court of public opinion.
The point I got from the summary was that the internet outrage we all laugh at is actually affecting people negatively in the real world.
Statements taken out of context and manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim Hunt was attacked and dismissed from UCL, the Royal Society and other bodies, based on nothing more than lies. Anybody can, with enough manipulation, be ostracized for comments taken out of context. Anybody.
If Tim Hunt is not reinstated, and the liar(s) that caused his reputation to be tarnished, will not bear the consequences of their dishonest behavior, our society is going towards a very scary future. We have not learned anything from the lessons of the past, and any Goebbels wannabe is going to fuck us up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tim Hunt was attacked and dismissed from UCL, the Royal Society and other bodies
No he wasn't. He resigned from a couple (largely honorary) posts. He kept his paying job.
Re:Statements taken out of context and manipulated (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Statements taken out of context and manipulated (Score:4, Insightful)
He was forced to resign! (Score:2)
Specifically with UCL, it was tantamount to constructive dismissal, and I hope he sues their pants off for that alone.
Re:Statements taken out of context and manipulated (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, this whole debacle has made me question the Royal Society and UCL, It speaks poorly upon those organizations that they would go off half cocked without collecting evidence and performing a full investigation, which is the hallmark of good science.
And it makes me wonder how well they could handle a real controversy in the scientific community, when they can't weather a twitter storm of questionable origin. If you can't bear the slightest political intrigue, what makes you qualified to answer questions about the world? Just post the questions to twitter and let the masses decide the properties of time.
And especially now, when we have had similar occurrences in recent memory, with Donglegate and whatnot, I expect institutions of the pedigree of the Royal Society to show a little more discernment in handling situations like these. I mean christ, Sir Newton wasn't exactly an uncontroversial figure in his day, and that whole row was dealt with with more class and sobriety than this.
The scary future is here.
Ohh, she's female AND black (Score:5, Insightful)
So entitled to being an insufferable twat twice for the price of one?
So please listen, lady. You're not entitled to anything. And neither is anyone else due to the color of their face, their sexual orientation, their gender, their upbringing, their place of birth or ANYTHING else. The only thing you are entitled to is the SAME treatment that anyone else gets who isn't part of $minority_group (albeit I fail to see how "female" is a minority in any kind of context except maybe when it comes to who pisses standing up).
You can complain if you suffer from having other/fewer/inferior rights and treatment due to your $minority_group. You will see me in the first row center in a march for equality, be it equal pay for women and men or equal marriage rights for gays and heterosexuals. But THAT IS IT!
You are NOT entitled to be except from being made fun of because of your $minority_group. You are NOT entitled to not being the butt of jokes because you are $minority_group. You are NOT entitled of better or preferred treatment because of belonging to your fucking minority group!
Equality, yes. And I will gladly fight for it, even if I don't belong to your minority group because I do think people have the right, the absolute and unalienable right, to be treated the SAME way as everyone else independent of anything you could think of.
Entitlement, no. Not now, not ever.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not entitled to anything. And neither is anyone else due to the color of their face, their sexual orientation, their gender, [..] You are NOT entitled of better or preferred treatment because of belonging to your fucking minority group!
They also don't deserve unequal treatment. Which is precisely what they get from people like you.
Do you know why disadvantaged groups receive "special treatment"? Because they deserve the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as everyone else. Equality is something that we, as a society, have to work to achieve. We have to work particularly hard, because people like you would deny others the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that you enjoy.
Equality, yes. And I will gladly fight for it, even if I don't belong to your minority group because I do think people have the right, the absolute and unalienable right, to be treated the SAME way as everyone else independent of anything you could think of.
Would you? Because everything in your post up to this
Re:Ohh, she's female AND black (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is precisely what they get from people like you
Ad hominem. While the OP was rather vulgar, it does not diminish his point that "Special treatment" is not equality and minority groups asking for and receiving preferrential treatment, is the exact opposite of equality.
People that support the idea of Special and preferrential treatment of minorities are the very problem. They are the ones creating inequalities in the world and pushing conflict at every turn, instead of supporting resolutions and equality for all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem
You don't know what that means. [laurencetennant.com]
People that support the idea of Special and preferrential treatment of minorities are the very problem. They are the ones creating inequalities
That would only be true if we already had equality. We clearly do not have equality.
How, then, would you propose that inequality be addressed without making special accommodations for disadvantaged groups?
Re: (Score:3)
If you expect unequal treatment for different parties you implicitly expect them to not being able to compete on equal grounds. Different handicaps in golf very bluntly mean that the players are at a different level of ability.
So if you can't find a better parallel to draw, one has to assume your expectation is that $minority has a lower level of ability if he needs a leg up. And that's just fucking wrong. That's basically what I had to fight throughout all my life!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's amazing how well you know me. Or, well, rather how well you know your prejudices towards people who aren't willing to bend over and hand out trinkets and freebies to anyone crying for them because they're part of $minority_group.
It may amaze you that yes, indeed, I not only support equality but am actually part of a minority. And frankly, it sucks. Not because of the prejudice against my "type" of people. That sucks too. But what's worse is the "look at me, I'm $minority, gimme handouts! Gimme jobs! An
Accuracy not speed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Asking "should they be acting slower?" is missing the point.
The problem isn't how quickly they acted, it's how stupidly they acted.
Re:Accuracy not speed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When a house is burning down, the fire department shouldn't step back and let the dust settle.
When someone reports a house is burning down, the firetrucks should roll right away.
But when they get to the house and there is no fire, they shouldn't hack down the door and start spraying water everywhere.
The lesson here is "news sources are unreliable", not "delay is a good idea".
It's the newest political weapon (Score:5, Interesting)
Last week in my country, a new political party overrun the previous party in charge of the municipality for about 30 years (yes, those thing happen in Europe sometimes).
The day the new government took charge, the displaced party dug out some four-year-old tweets containing a silly joke about nazis (the kind that would gather a +5 funny and some grammar nazi "corrected for you" replies around here) when the man had not even a politician. The same day, all the traditional media were reporting on their front pages as if it was the man's true opinion instead of a joke, reaching international press and forcing the councillor to resign (you may have heard about it as the "communist politician supporting the holocaust").
As long as the public falls for such obvious tactics, and until politicians learn to trim their twitter and facebook timelines when they run for office, this is bound to happen again and again.
Fuck SJWs (Score:2, Insightful)
That is all.
Are we too quick to act on social media outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllll Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss!!!
People need to grow the fuck up and grow some slightly thicker skin.
People still have a lot of rights. Thankfully.
But the "right to never be offended" has NEVER been among them.
Re: (Score:2)
You've missed the point. This has nothing to do with "the right to never be offended" at all. This is simply about social consequences for offensive speech.
Had Hunt said something like "I hate seeing filthy n**** in the lab." or "gays are ruining science" and people and related organizations denounced him and disassociated themselves from him, would you still think this is about "the right to never be offended"? Of course not. You'd realize that people and organizations generally don't want to be associa
Re: (Score:3)
But it's OK to fantasize about killing men? (Score:4, Interesting)
Jo Brand and Roseanne Barr got applause when they "joked" about wanting to stab men through the heart. Isn't that far worse than calling someone thin-skinned?
More here [kevinsvanhorn.com].
He turned me into a newt! (Score:2)
But I got better.
What concerns me on social media is this (Score:4, Insightful)
who throws the first stone (Score:2)
Get your facts right. (Score:2)
Connie St-Louis, on June 8th, reported on apparently sexist remarks made by Sir Tim Hunt, a nobel prize winning scientist, during an event organised for women in sciences
The event was the World Conference of Science Jormalists [wcsj2015.or.kr]
Hosted by the Korea Science Journalists Association [koreasja.org] and the World Federation of Science Journalists [wfsj.org]. The first to be held in East Asia.
The morning session of the opening day kicked off with Tim Hunt speaking on "Creative Science - Only A Game?"
and Deborah Blum on "Listening to the Past - Why history makes journalists smarter." WCSJ 2015 Program Schedule [wcsj2015.or.kr]
Blum is a Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The Poisoner's Handbook [wikipedia.org], a page-turning introducti
Re: (Score:3)
All Tim Hunt was asked to do was to stay on message and not step out on the stage wearing one of Matt Taylor's lingerie print tee shirts.
It wasn't a single reporter who did him in but hundreds broadcasting to a global audience.
Sorry I didn't pollute the submission with a overly verbose description of the event. As for this quote, this is not a fact, this is in fact false. The very CORE issue here is that we do not have a broadcast of the speech. There is no video or recording of it, and thus we have to take both Ms. St-Louis and the anonymous EU Representative at face value.
If you're going to tell me to get my facts straight, at least get yours straight. Thank for providing further information about what the Lunch was about,
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment offends me. Tell me you real name and where you work so I can start a campaign to get you fired.
Honestly, I would never do that to anyone, but you don't seem to have that problem. If what he said had been a direct quote taken in proper context, he should have been reprimanded at worst, and that should have been the end of it. Unfortunately, there are apparently a lot of people out there like you with an axe to grind. You said it yourself. This was someone associated with a group who made d
who got damaged? (Score:2)
Sir Tim Hurt ultimately doesn't care; he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone anymore, and I'm sure he's financially secure enough not to worry about it.
The whole thing mostly hurts University College London, who are losing a skilled and accomplished scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo... Hunt...
Yes, but.. (Score:3)
Are We Too Quick to Act on Social Media Outrage?
Sure. Probably. But, it should have no bearing upon how institutions, (employers, law enforcement, schools, government, news media, etc...), behave. We can't have the Twitterverse making decisions for us, especially in this era where people seem to derive identity from victimhood, and derive victimhood from the mildest transgressions. And, the last thing one can expect from the internet, on any topic, is a proportionate response.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is the rules that get you to jail if broken, you can as well break them.
You are already in a jail.
Re: (Score:2)
..and he got terminated from all of his positions.
If it stopped at him being mocked, that would be fine. Still an overreaction, because his comments were taken out of context and completely not understood (perhaps *willfully* misunderstood, as was the case with may who piled on Justine Sacco). But, whatever.
But he also got fired. And that's why this is a serious problem.
Re: (Score:2)
..and he got terminated from all of his positions.
He resigned from an honorary position at University College London [bbc.com]. His day job is Principal Scientist at Cancer Research UK. As far as I can find out, he still has that job [europa.eu].
made fun of? (Score:4, Insightful)
People didn't make fun of him, they got him fired. I am in favor of shaming people for incorrect behavior that is still legal behavior. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to socially unacceptable views on women and ethical or sexual minorities. We need to shame politicians and business people that give the appearance of impropriety in their dealings too. And we should be proportional in our response. If someone makes a bad joke, and then softens it when they realize it was a bad joke, we shouldn't get them fired, we should humiliate them for "acting like an ass in public" and watch them more closely to see if they are acting like an ass consistently towards people they work with. The latter is grounds for firing someone, but not a different sense of humor. Even if he was a misogynist, racist, homophobe, it wouldn't really matter as long as he treated all his coworkers with respect and based all decisions on merit. People are allowed to be stupid, and we are allowed (and encouraged) to laugh at them, but not fire them.
Re:Social Media Outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he did was endearing. The talk about women in the lab was a reference to his wife whom he met while she worked in a lab.
Re: (Score:3)
As for the idea that he was taken out of context, the linked article which is supposed to support that idea quotes him as saying:
False, you did not read the Independent article. You simply reposted the original quote. Read it thoroughly, here is the relevant context submitted by the EU official :
"He allegedly continued: âoeNow seriously, Iâ(TM)m impressed by the economic development of Korea.
âoeAnd women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me."
I'll give you a pass, the Independent's articl
Re: (Score:2)
Sir Tim’s claims that his remarks were an “idiotic joke” and not meant to be taken seriously.
Ah, I see. Hilarious! How did I miss that?
Here's a good one for you: "Blacks are such an inconvenience in the summer. Maybe we should have separate water fountains? What we really need to do is start hanging more of them."
That's a real side-splitter right there! Oh, boy! I can't take many more of these "jokes", I'll bust a gut!
Re: (Score:2)
"Now seriously..." doesn't stop a sexist joke from being sexist.
Re: (Score:3)
Sexist jokes aren't inherently wrong. There's a difference in advocating sexist policies (lab seggregation, that women don't belong in STEM) and a sexist joke.
It's a good way to introduce a serious talk where he congratulates women in science in fact. "Women don't belong in science, pfwaaahh, look at all this neat stuff they have done!" is a sexist joke followed by a very serious praise. Haven't you ever used sarcasm or irony to then show how the opposite is the desired outcome ?
Re: (Score:2)
And the hypersensitivity of people these days is just ridiculous - especially when they aren't even in the group being "insulted". I find myself just not making jokes and making the most banal conversation now because of fear of pissing off an idiot and getting screamed at or shot. For example, back when that whole bullshit of those pizza place people not wanting to serve gay people, I didn't think it was a big deal - I DIDN'T say it was right, btw. But fucking A, I got screamed at by a straight person for being a bigot, and god forbid when I posted something like that on Reddit, I got voted down into oblivion. That couldn't have possibly have been from gay people because they are a very very very small minority. It was all sanctimonious bullies.
And I think that is where a lot of this PC backlash is originating from: sanctimonious bullies.
Self-aware much?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Act like a Democrat... (Score:4, Interesting)
In this time and age, with terrorism and an economy in the dump...
I really don't think that, in the US at least, there's a terrorism problem. We've had 2 problems in ~14 years, even less if you go farther back in history. I think to be a relevant charge terrorism would have to be more frequent. Car accidents kill around 32k people a year, so . For the couple trillion piddled away in Iraq / Afghanistan you could have given away self driving cars and saved ~450k people in addition to not having lots of vets with PTSD. So with the facts in mind, please don't list terrorism as a top 5 concern. On the economy you are correct. A real recovery, one for more than just the 1%, would be greatly appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a terrorism problem. It's not the terrorists that make the problem, though. It's the response to the perceived threat.
Divorce? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Divorce? (Score:5, Interesting)
So just take the above and apply it to child rearing, and I've successfully made my case that it's at least an issue worth considering/discussing. Diversity minus women equals "???". I suggest that the trolls in this conversation are those who say there's nothing to talk about, and everybody who disagrees with them is an idiot. I believe that would be you?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Who even said anything about raising kids? Marriage is not about kids. It used to be, granted, but these days, marriage is about taxes, inheritance, renting, who gets to visit whom in hospitals and a load of other things that are very different whether you're married or not.
Not to mention the whole "love" thing...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This behavior is inherent in being human. You think conservatives don't partake of hysteria?
Re: (Score:3)
Tim Hunt backed Connie St. Louis' report. He did so in a BBC interview [bbc.co.uk] recorded soon after the shit hit the fan on Twitter. That's the evidence, in full audible glory. He's not under duress. He's not being misquoted. It's 100% calm and collected Tim Hunt repeating his sexist comments. He's not joking as anyone with any first grade grasp on the English language can tell.
Only after it dawned on him that it was 2015 and that sort of stuff doesn't fly anymore that he changed his story.
Re: (Score:3)
He was given that chance. On the BBC, right after the conference. Listen for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tc22c [bbc.co.uk].
He meant the sexist comments. And he used the BBC to assert this.
Re:The People Have Spoken (Score:4, Insightful)
And calling for segregation in the labs based on gender is also sexist.
This story is not people fighting sexism. It's people reaching for the low-hanging fruit of using twitter and facebook to swarm a semi-famous person for a mildly insensitive joke he made.
Where are you, twitter vigilantes, when women are sold as sex slaves in the ISIS kingdom? When Latino girls are shipped by containers to a life of abuse in the Middle East? When Indian women are raped because they are walking on the street without a husband after sundown? When a large number of native prostitutes in America disappear?
You know where you are. You are in line at Starbucks, giving 20 seconds of attention to the latest scandal on your twitter feed while someone is preparing the skinny vanilla latte. So of course you can't find a solution to real problems, but you find it rewarding to join your "voice" to a crow of other misinformed idiots attacking someone who can possibly be shamed.
Why don't you all install a Sudoku or latest Angry bird game instead and give the world a break with your twitter garbage. Keep your shallow opinions to your close circle of friends instead of broadcasting your ignorance and everyone will win.