Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

I understand completely.  This is the kind of event that can be very polarizing, on one hand Tim Hunt made an insensitive comment, on the other the whole thing got blown massively out of proportion and cost him his job and possibly his career.  It is a flawless example of why journalistic integrity used to be a good thing, and an equally good example of why you should be careful what you say in public.

If society is going to become some squeaky clean "watch what you say or we will ruin your life" shitshow, I, at least, want out.

http://www.wikihow.com/Travel-to-Antarctica

[NullForceOmega]

That was an interesting set of data palsch, and clarifies a number of points.  That acknowledged, breaking a story on twitter is about the single most non-professional thing I can think of for a journalist to do, and the attitude displayed by Connie St. Louis seems to be one of puffed-up self righteousness.

[Frumple]

Let's outline the actual case here.[snip]

Just want to say cheers, palsch, for the most genuinely informative post yet made in this thread. You're too good to us

[Reelya]

Yeah I'm not really buying some of those articles:

"In other words, he's been turning the issue from the main point - the status of women in science - to a focus on sympathy for himself."

- When people attack you directly, you do have the right to address those attacks. It's insidious to claim defending yourself is derailing the conversation, when others have turned the topic of conversation to what you did or didn't do.

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument. Fair treatment should be within the context of the single situation.

[Playergamer]

I understand completely.  This is the kind of event that can be very polarizing, on one hand Tim Hunt made an insensitive comment, on the other the whole thing got blown massively out of proportion and cost him his job and possibly his career.  It is a flawless example of why journalistic integrity used to be a good thing, and an equally good example of why you should be careful what you say in public.

If society is going to become some squeaky clean "watch what you say or we will ruin your life" shitshow, I, at least, want out.

http://www.wikihow.com/Travel-to-Antarctica

Thanks, Graknorke, I'll start packing my bags.

Anyway, topic! I have no clue why you people feel everything Rex Invictus says is the devil, because he's pretty much entirely made rational, supported points, whereas you're citing Wikipedia, RationalWiki, and old studies.

[palsch]

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument.

In no way was it slander. The remarks he made to the BBC (and St Louis) after the speech were the most condemning, and directly lead to his resignations.

[scriver]

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument. Fair treatment should be within the context of the single situation.

That's also not what palsch was arguing in any case. It was only brought up in the first place to refute the "the journalist ruined a person's life over nothing" rethoric that was being used in this thread.

[Rex Invictus]

Secondly, this wasn't a single unsupported source resulting in an internet witch hunt. There were at least three initial scientists/journalists who broke the story.

Connie St Louis was the central source, but she was supported by Ivan Orlovsky (founder of Retraction Watch and Deborah Blum. All three are extremely experienced science journalists (as in, journalists with an actual background and understanding in science, not just journalists shoved onto the science beat repeating press releases), and Orlovsky holds an MD.

Blum had done a follow up informal questioning with Hunt at lunch the next day where he said he stood by the core of what he said.

Thirdly, and linked to that last bit, the resignations came after an initial interview he gave with the BBC where he said much the same thing. He part-apologised but stood by the comments. This is, to my understanding, the statement that lead to the resignations, and it does seem to admit fault.

Some media organizations have stepped in to defend Hunt’s comments, which he now claims were an attempt to be entertaining. As a co-panelist sitting next to him at the luncheon, I heard a different story. His speech, he told me, was rooted in "honesty," not humor.

Again, it's important to restate that it's about his life and his marriage to his (ALSO A PROFESSOR) wife. This is more journalists taking shit out of context to stir stuff up, because that's how they make money.

As for this being a problem;

The more senior the head of a research lab, the less likely it is to employ women. This is a current problem, not historical. Women are still being quietly frozen out of the top levels of research, and it's hard not to see institutional views among the elite (like Hunt) as a contributory factor. The 'leaky pipeline' problem is widely recognised and a lot of effort is going into patching it. Casually sexist remarks going unchallenged (or being expected as the norm) is one of the common targeted issues.

Hilariously out of context attempt to deflect it and "make it an issue". When there's a significant amount of actual female scientists calling for the end to this horsecrap, you know it's just journalists trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

Thanks, Graknorke, I'll start packing my bags.

Anyway, topic! I have no clue why you people feel everything Rex Invictus says is the devil, because he's pretty much entirely made rational, supported points, whereas you're citing Wikipedia, RationalWiki, and old studies.

Because I'm apparently GamerGate, MRA and the Confederate flag all mixed up into one ball. :p Didn't you know that?

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument.

In no way was it slander. The remarks he made to the BBC (and St Louis) after the speech were the most condemning, and directly lead to his resignations.

So you're saying accusing someone of being sexist (and thereby ruining their lives) isn't slandering their name?

[chaoticag]

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument. Fair treatment should be within the context of the single situation.

That's also not what palsch was arguing in any case. It was only brought up in the first place to refute the "the journalist ruined a person's life over nothing" rethoric that was being used in this thread.

Yeah, hunt's not really out of a job, so far he's lost positions that were honorary and he hasn't really lost anything so far as I can tell. And those honorary positions so far as I could tell were dependent on him being a good promoter of science. Which you really are not if you make a dumb "joke" at an inopportune time.

[Reelya]

I'm also kind of skeptical that it's all fair game to slander someone as long as you don't ruin their entire life. He's still got money in the bank and a house, so it's all fair Palsch? That seems like a dubious avenue of argument.

In no way was it slander. The remarks he made to the BBC (and St Louis) after the speech were the most condemning, and directly lead to his resignations.

he made comments that, in his experience, women were more emotional.

But maybe that's his true personal experience. After all, we only know about other people's emotions by what they express, and it's pretty well-established that men have been traditional conditioned not to show emotions, so yes, you do see women expressing emotions more than men. That's just a true statement and makes no assumptions about whether one style of behaviour is more valuable than the other. Can we slam men for not expressing as much emotion as women (a common complaint) yet say it's completely untrue to say women act more emotional? Clearly women must actually be expressing more emotions than men in a relative sense. And since Tim Hunt is older, his main experience is from an earlier era, when socialized gender differences were actually greater.

I don't really think we should automatically censor peoples direct observations because they don't appeal to some ideal society idea. Perhaps they've actually noticed something that is a real issue that still needs to be addresssed. After all not every personality type is guaranteed to be just as effective in every career. Maybe some careers being more emotional is good, and other careers being less emotional is good. I'd think it's pretty likely that different careers reward conditioned traits differently just be the nature of the work.

[Sheb]

Palsch: Making the Posts I Wish I Had Made Since 2015.

Some media organizations have stepped in to defend Hunt’s comments, which he now claims were an attempt to be entertaining. As a co-panelist sitting next to him at the luncheon, I heard a different story. His speech, he told me, was rooted in "honesty," not humor.

Again, it's important to restate that it's about his life and his marriage to his (ALSO A PROFESSOR) wife. This is more journalists taking shit out of context to stir stuff up, because that's how they make money.

Well, you're ignoring all the parts where he himself said he though what he meant. Even if it was entirely a joke, that doesn't magically make what he says criticism-proof. It's totally possible to be offensive with a joke.

As for this being a problem;

Hilariously out of context attempt to deflect it and "make it an issue". When there's a significant amount of actual female scientists calling for the end to this horsecrap, you know it's just journalists trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

Did you read that article? They didn't say "Hey, there is no problem in science", they said "Hey, maybe arguing about what exactly one honorary professor did or didn't do isn't the best way to address those problem."

I also like how apparently male suicide rate and school achievement was on topic, but discrimination against women in science is "hilariously out of topic".

In no way was it slander. The remarks he made to the BBC (and St Louis) after the speech were the most condemning, and directly lead to his resignations.

So you're saying accusing someone of being sexist (and thereby ruining their lives) isn't slandering their name?

As far as I know, the journalists faithfully reported what he said. It's only slander if it's false.

So yeah, the reaction against Tim Hunt was harsh, like all the internet mobs. On the other hand, what he said was at best inappropriate and dumb. One's live shouldn't be ruined because one said something insensitive and dumb, but then his life wasn't ruined, so that's fine.

I think Connie St Louis did what she though was right, and I don't see any gross breach of journalism ethics.

For the record, I also find that you DO smell of MRA Rex.

[wierd]

A lie by omission is still a lie.

It is just not a Bold Faced Lie.

I agree about proving malicious intent, but not about what constitutes a lie.

[wierd]

I was referring to a single sentence in your previous post.
"putting a spin on it is not lying, btw."

Yes, it is lying.

It just isnt slander. (because you need to prove malign intent for it to be slander). 

Instead, you just end up with run of the mill libel. (Rhetoric that is untrue, that happens to cause harm, even if said harm is unintentional.)

[Bohandas]

I think he's from England though. IIRC England has bizarrely low standards for what constitutes slander and libel.

[Sheb]

Standards which are not relevant here since no one sued anyone. I'm fairly certain Rex didn't want to use it in the legal sense either.