In a letter to the Times, Richard Dawkins protests.
Along with many others, I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke, but ‘disproportionate’ would be a huge underestimate of the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.
Fortunately, I’ve also already written my reply. It’s a simple question.
If you’re one of those people who called this a “witch hunt”, an “Inquisition”, a “lynching” — what would you have people do differently when an esteemed senior scientist gets up to a lectern and says something sexist, or racist, or simply idiotic?
I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution? If a government official were to spout creationist nonsense, for instance, would a full-throated roar of disapproval from the electorate be appropriate, or would that fall into the category of “feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”? Would you propose that after one thought-leader says “tut, tut”, the rest of us should withdraw to a decorous silence?
Sometimes, these lines are hard to draw, and where we draw them says a lot about the biases of the delineator.
Richard Dawkins being tone deaf and defending the sexist status quo? Shock of all shocks. I’m glad I didn’t put my monocle in the morning, because it would now be popped.
I was waiting for this ever since I first heard about Hunt.
I don’t mean to sound like a total fan boy, but PZ you really nailed this–what is the appropriate response to bad ideas, policies, etc? If we rail against creationist ideas in politics and science, then we should do the same for other destructive and archaic ideas and policies. Bigotry towards gender, ethnicity, sexual identities, etc are as destructive and harmful to society, if not more so, than bad religious ideas. Despite his good intentions, Dawkins can’t seem to escape his privilege and upbringing and it continues to undermine any good he actually does.
Has Dawkins weighed in anywhere about why Tim Hunt deserves kid gloves and mild censure, but Muslims who want gender-segregated audiences or workplaces deserve the full weight of his opprobrium? I’m sure someone would have at least brought this up to him on Twitter, and I’m genuinely curious as to his reply, but I have neither the patience nor the intestinal fortitude to trawl through his Twitter feed and find out.
Well, Richard Dawkins only thinks that gender segregation is really bad when done by muslims because religion.
Nailed it, Giliell. He is utterly inconsistent in his positions.
Well I for one support Richard Dawkins in his thoroughly reasonable and proportionate response to the scandalous witch-hunt Sir Tim Hunt has been subjected to – indeed, if anything, he understates the case. After all, those accused of witchcraft were only tortured until they confessed and implicated others, then executed. Tim Hunt has lost an honarary academic post!!!
So, he can write a book that for all intents an purposes started a veritable ‘anti-god’ and ‘anti-religion’ publishing frenzy. He can speak loudly and continuously about the evils of religion and the inanity of god-belief. He can castigate churches and politicians and other public personalities for their wrongful beliefs regarding evolution and never let up in this pursuit.
When another man says something, something that man himself has said he meant seriously, that is clearly anti-feminist if not downright misogynist, and a chorus of others (women! mostly) comment on that, even with appropriate outrage, when he didn’t even ‘like’ what that man said, it’s more than disproportionate, it’s a ‘baying witch-hunt’ and the people so engaged are ‘feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.’?
I wonder if Richard Dawkins could explain to me how it feels to inhabit a mind that works so much like a creationists?
I suspect Dawkins is actually complaining because Hunt experienced institutional consequences as a result of public outcry. I would disagree with that, in that I think the consequences are entirely right and necessary, in fact, the main point of the exercise. Now they’re taken care of, I would have Hunt personally harried as little as possible if I had any power at all over the situation. To me, it’s like taking an old guy’s driving license: I don’t take any pleasure in doing it, but if he’s a danger on the roads, end of story.
With elected officials we’re in a different situation. We can roar our disapproval all we want, but the fact remains that they were put there by other members of our electoral group, who very often knew just what they were doing. The institution of democracy requires that they do something pretty extreme to be ousted before the next election. In the meantime the reasons we have to put up with their presence while saying what we think are built into the system. Our only real recourse is to change the electorate’s view for next time.
baying witch-hunt
Since I know Dawkins is a big thinky communicator, he chose those particular words carefully. Which says something about how he thinks.
I suspect Dawkins is actually complaining because Hunt experienced institutional consequences as a result of public outcry.
Since he appears to be a more or less selfish navel-gazing sort, I suspect Dawkins is thinking “… the same kind of baying pack that’s hounding me for ‘Dear Muslima’…. If they don’t appreciate his cleverness and they don’t appreciate mine, what is the world coming to!?”
I seem to recall a book written by Dawkins called “The God Delusion” comparing creationists to Holocaust deniers and I also seem to recall him finding these people to be ridiculous. (Granted, it has been a long time since I read it, so I would certainly doubt my memory.) So I would like to ask Dawkins questions about how we go about determining what makes one idea open to ridicule and what makes another victim of “academic thought police”? (I will also note that I had this question back a few months ago when he was promoting some hashtag on Twitter about NotReadyForUniversity or whatnot.)
Say nothing, of course. He wouldn’t want to be called “shrill” or “strident”.
Oh, wait.
Maybe he really meant that the Witches™ are doing the hunting.
Remembering several of the “witch-hunts” of the last year or two, I am compelled to conclude that a “witch-hunt” is when a bunch of women don’t show acquiescence to a man in a position of power.
Dawkins is a clown. Anyone capable of using the phrase “baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness” a mere 7 words after calling just about anything “disproportionate” needs to just shut the fuck up.
I found the best and most effective response to Hunt’s misstep was mockery, like the twitter activity by female scientists showing themselves doing their work, or the door signs in labs with snarky legends like “caution, gender mixed lab”. Exactly the same we do with creationist nonsense.
Sometimes, these lines are hard to draw…
…and other times they aren’t hard to draw at all.
Leo Buzalsky
I would by now dare to think that it might be whether you actually agree with the idea or not.
Andrés Diplotti @14
You win an internet
Seven of Mine
IOKIYRD
It’s OK if you are Richard Dawkins
You know, I understand the use of hyperbole, really. Still, when I read things such as this from Dr. Dawkins I want to ask him, “You’re honestly comparing the dragging off of a person in chains, their torture and eventual execution by particularly painful means with someone or even a vast number of someones saying, “You said stupid shit. Stop saying stupid shit.”? Honestly?”. For a guy who likes to complain about others “blowing things out of proportion”, Dawkins sure spends a lot of time, er, blowing things out of proportion.
So, the usual amount of crap, and buried within, the half sentence about Hunt: I didn’t like Sir Tim Hunt’s joke. Nifty how he managed to get that elite classism in there, reminding all the peons that they shouldn’t
be baying for bloodhave a say about it all.Men who claim to be hunted as witches and white people who claim to be chased by lynch mobs are a painful spectacle to see.
You know what bays right? When criticizing feminists one would do well to avoid referencing dogs since we are so often called b*tches.
I don’t think he chose the term on purpose. I do think he accidentally let slip exactly what he meant.
Honestly? I saw Sir Tim Hunt’s incident in the same light that I have seen Dawkins’ various droppings: the product of an incredibly privileged person from another era who is entirely ossified in their privilege-blindness. Really, there isn’t that much of a difference there.
Besides being alarmist hyperbole, the phrase “witch hunt” implies that the target did nothing wrong. I have a bit of an issue with that as well.
Even before Dear Muslima Dawkins has shown his disregard for women and their concerns. Dawkins has determined how a group that he doesn’t belong to should react to insults.
@15 Seven of mine.
Your words. My thoughts.
These words from RD were absolutely predictable. Even the actual choice of words, not just the sentiment.
Also, i think he is baiting for some “witch-hunting”, “feeding frenzy” by the “thought police” of his own…and a part of me suspects he is doing it consciously…because in his mind, someone saying something, would prove his point. And we know how low the bar is, it would literally take the mildest of reactions for him to cry victimhood. In fact this probably already constitutes lynching.
Jackie @ 22:
Given his age and traditional hunting in the UK, I’m inclined to be slightly charitable on that front, but agree that it reveals a good amount of bias.
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia @ 26
I’m pretty certain he does do it on purpose. We’ve gone through this cycle far too many times for it not to be. He says something inflammatory then retreats back to his blog to tut-tut at people for reacting exactly how he knew they would. He’s a clown and a bully.
…what would you have people do differently when an esteemed senior scientist gets up to a lectern and says something sexist, or racist, or simply idiotic?
Applaud!
</Dawkins>
Oops – apologies for html coding fail @ my #29!
And *this* asshole is a great example of why I don’t consider myself part of “Atheism”, “A+” or whatevers the term is this year.
People have said rude things about Sir Tim Hunt PhD FRS FMedSci so Richard Dawkins DSc FRS FRSL has come to poor Sir Tim’s rescue, holding off the baying, witch-hunting thought police so Sir Tim can recover from the loss of an honorary position.
Anna Elizabeth @31
Dawkins is almost the antithesis of A+.
Brian Cox has defended Hunt as well. Pity, I have a bit of a man crush on him.
So according to Dawkins, pedophilia can be “mild,” but verbal criticism is a “baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness.” Ohhh…kay…
…oh, and being hit on by a stranger in an elevator in the wee hours of the morning is “zero bad,” but saying “guys, don’t do that” is a hysterical emasculating overreaction.
Raging Bee @35, verbal criticism is bad only when it’s directed at Important Men. When the Important Men do it, we should be quiet and listen to them respectfully.
Dawkins is not only making himself into a clown, he’s working on being a Donald Trump.
It is incredible that Dawkins considers the loss of prestige and influence afforded to an individual at the end of his career to be more important than the prestige and influence of institutions supporting people (particularly women) at the beginning of and during their active careers.
It is also notable that the quality of Dawkins’ prose seems to be declining as he tends towards even more ridiculous levels of hyperbole in lieu of real arguments about symbolism, effect, and systematic discrimination (which are apparently beyond him, when religion is not concerned).
@4, Giliell
Indeed
https://twitter.com/search?q=segregation%20from%3ARichardDawkins&src=typd&lang=en
This “witchhunt” reminds me of the “lynching” that ended with the “victim” becoming a Supreme Court justice.
(I suspect “Supreme Court justice” should be in quotes as well.)
Gather ’round, gather ’round! Won’t you join me? Come along, boys and girls, for another episode of Fun Times on Richard Dawkins’ Twitter Page!
Chapter One: A Tweeter Treatise on Witch Huntery, Tone For Thee but Not for Me, and Nobel Prize Granted Immunities, with guest star Gibbertarian Website Citation!
King Lord Dawkins, Noble Holy and Pure Knight Emperor of Logic-hood, doth proclaim:
And one his loyal subjects did say:
And it was nonsense.
Chapter Two: Crocodile Tears: His Cup Overfloweth
And lo, poor Richard did bewail the horrible plight of his fellow elite aristocratic gentle-lecturer, and did tear the shirt off his chest, languishing as the cold rain fell down upon him and his fallen friend, and did cry out:
And who came along, to rest a hand upon Sir Richard’s regal weeping shoulders, but the Magician of Metas, Sir Russell of Blackford, who did say, in hushed, sympathetic tone:
And they sat still, in silence, wondering how anyone could so sadistic as it to think it proper that a man lose an honorary position for a mere simple humorous quip. The vulgar, bloodthirsty heathens that rested beyond these ivory walls….
Chapter Three: The Prequel.
Just prior to this whole affair, before a single tear trickled down the collective white male face of Academia, Brave Sir Dawkins, the most majestic of the kings of all logic, the most consistent and unerring of men, a man akin to a stone forged of pure reason, did think aloud and say:
For it is cruel and unusual for simple minds to believe that one is militant, that one is strident, that one is shrill, for the mere act of disbelief, for the merest mention of opposition. Indeed, Dawkins so believed in this righteous principle, that he did look upon his subjects, and heard a voice call out, and did lift this small person upon his shoulders, letting them shout out as if their voice as his own, as they said:
Opposing bigotry viewed as militancy and oppression? Such a foolish tendency, those lesser, illogical humans have! We in the tower of white would never make such a mistake! To do so would be to become nothing but the emotionally swayed, irrational fools that we so mock, and to be blind hypocrites on top of it all! Such an event would be truly preposterous!
anteprepro,
Most excellent, sir.
The irony of Dawkin’s demise into incoherence is for me that he was the first one whose explanation of feminist “consciousness rising” made sense to me and was at the beginning of the way where I am now – in a place where I am mostly left with scratching my head trying to understand how someone obviously in possesion of high intelect can spout such stupidities.
Anteprepro, please accept this internet.
Apparently Dr. Dawkins has, perhaps without consciously realizing it, abandoned all hope of ever being known as “Sir Richard”.
@34 fergl100
Very disappointing to hear that…was it at least accompanied of any condemnation of Hunt’s fuck up?
anteprepro,
Very nice
I have to say I can’t really find anything wrong with what Dawkins said. He didn’t like the joke, but he also didn’t think the man should be bullied into resigning for it. Isn’t there a more reasonable punishment for a bad joke?
PZ: “I’m also curious, and have an additional question. How should we reply when someone says something stupid in public about evolution?”
Make fun of them? Prove them wrong, using facts and data? Demanding their resignation and trying to get them fired is senseless. What does it prove? I mean for “gods” sake you are literally proposing the kind of censorship Kirk Cameron pretended existed back in 2005.
“Dear Muslima,
“Sorry about the FGM thing, but right now I have to focus all my energies on defending a privileged white dude from legitimate criticism. As we both know, it is completely impossible for anyone to be concerned about more than a single issue at a time. I’m sure I’ll get round to you eventually. Thank you for your patience.
“Richard
*steal*
gallussapien,
Even if we completely disregard the topic and Dawkins’ opinion, someone who uses all these in the same statement, let alone in the same sentence is doing it wrong. IT being writing, thinking, discussing, debating… no matter.
For example?
Also, publicly criticizing people is not censorship. If we are talking about self-censorship, yes – I would love if people would think twice before opening their mouth and spilling whatever idiocy crosses their mind.
Please read the previous posts on this topic.
@gallussapien 49
I’m a little confused, would you mind explaining you are using these?
“bullied”
“punishment”
“demanding their resignation”
“trying to get them fired”
“censorship”
Because I see a person in a position of power getting criticism for making extremely insulting statements that maintain a culture of sexual prejudice and discrimination in academia and the wider society. No one is censoring him. He is retired and even if he was not there are things people should be fired for. He resigned from a non-paid position of social, prestige which makes sense when you are an authority figure that does something like he did.
Dawkins is a person getting criticism for similar things. Questioning him in this context is quite sensible. If he does not like how people reacted he needs to give us functional social tools that actually work to prevent these things from happening again.
That was instituted by London University itself. They know how to handle cases of sexual harassment, which this was, joke or not, and they consider themselves a good example of how to treat women faculty and students, and take pride in that. Hunt betrayed their trust.
Nobody did that.
gallusapien,
It was a sexist joke. It wasn’t a shitty rabbit walks into a bar joke that fell flat. It was sexist and the author himself confirmed that it was the kind of joke that follows the phrase “In every joke there’s a half-truth” (I don’t know if English has an equivalent, but we really have that saying – U svakoj šali pola istine)
Anyway, I wanted to clarify that because your use of “bad joke” minimizes what it was.
It’s not the same if I say a sexist joke at home, if I say it in front of my colleagues or if I say it in front of our clients. The second situation is a greater faux pas on my part, the third even worse. The second can get me in some trouble, the third can get me in a shitload of trouble.
It’s not the same if I say a sexist joke and if my boss says a sexist joke. We don’t hold the same authority, which also puts us in a different position in relation to the number of people who can hold as accountable.
Can you see where I am going with this?
This man has a big audience and holds great authority. It’s cheesy, but I think it fits: with great power comes great responsibility and I would add accountability.
gallusapien
This is what actually happened.
This is not.
Leaving aside your factual inaccuracy, removing someone who spouts sexist drivel at a conference to honor women in science is a thing you ought to lose your job over if your job involves promoting science.
bloqckuote fail. I’m sure everyone can figure it out.
So a bunch of women posting pictures of themselves on twitter is “bullying?”
that’s…y’all are weak.
gallussapien @49:
This comes across as you speaking from a position of ignorance. No one forced Hunt to do anything. He wasn’t bullied. He wasn’t punished. He chose to resign from an honorary position.
He got a lot of criticism over sexist shit he said about women in the workplace. Why are people (you, Dawkins, Cox, and other Hunt defenders) getting into hyperbolic fits of rage over people criticizing him?
Have you read what his critics had to say? Do you know the context in which Hunt made his comments? Are you aware of the difficulties women have faced in STEM fields, precisely because of the type of sexist views Hunt expressed?
How informed are you on this subject?
Also, given the definition of ‘censorship’:
can you explain to me how PZ is calling for or supporting censorship? People have criticized what Hunt said (and I suspect this is the real problem people like Dawkins have with Hunt’s critics-they dared to open their mouth). No one told him he should be forbidden from saying sexist shit. No government entity tried to censor him. No one told him he could never, ever say sexist shit again. How is he being suppressed? In what ways have Hunts critics tried to suppress his speech?
gallussapien@49
What joke? Hunt has said since his speech that he “meant it”.
Calling criticism of a rich, highly-regarded, privileged person who makes insulting comments about women scientists “bullying” is simply dishonest. Besides which, Dawkins did not use the term “bullying”, but “the baying witch-hunt that it unleashed among our academic thought police: nothing less than a feeding frenzy of mob-rule self-righteousness”. You’re really unable to see how plain stupid that sort of absurd hyperbole is?
Do look up what “literally” and “censorship” mean before making a further fool of yourself. And as far as I know, no-one did try to get Hunt fired; as I’ve heard it, he resigned his honarary position rather than meet with representatives of UCL to discuss the matter.
This should read: Leaving aside your factual inaccuracy, spouting sexist drivel at a conference to honor women in science is a thing you ought to lose your job over if your job involves promoting science.
Would you propose that after one thought-leader says “tut, tut”,
Only if that thought leader is also a member of the Global secular policy council institute association.
A. R.
I agree with everything you say here. Privilege almost always blinds us. I take exception to the “from another era” part. These guys aren’t from another era. Both of them are very much a product of our era. The reason you see so much bigotry around us all the time, and the self-rationalization that goes along with it, is because it is very much in our collective world views right now, everywhere you go.
anteprepro@42 That was funny and I really needed funny. Thanks
gallussapien @49,
As others have pointed out, this was a “sexist” joke, not a “bad” one. Now imagine that Dr. Hunt had made a racist joke, one with the same level of stupid stereotype, and then called for racially segregated labs. Even though your list of consequences is not quite accurate—if it had been a racist joke, wouldn’t those consequences have been justified?
@ 66 robro
I agree with you. We’re not discussing long-dead historical figures. They’re alive and well in the Kingdom of England. If they’re not of “this” era, then who is?
Just because they’re “alive and old” does not excuse them for their incredible sexism and privilege-blindness. Hell, I’m old and I don’t think and talk like that. And still learning.
I kept running into him last weekend, and turning away. I half wish he’d sent this letter then instead of now, so that I could have politely told him what a crock of shit it is.
Not a joke…as self-declared by the author of the commentaries.
Also, not a bad joke…but a deeply and shockingly sexist commentary, made worse after the fact.
No censoring, at all…not even remotely….
No bullying…just people going “holy fucking shit” at the shockingly sexist commentary.
No demands of resignation.
And finally, what has this all proved? That hideously and outrageously sexist remarks have no place in academia, let alone at a conference celebrating the achievements of women, no matter who you are or how many prizes you have…And in case you are wondering, this is a 100% good thing, whereas ignoring (which translates as supporting) such things, like apparently you, RD and others would have liked, is a baaaaaad thing…
I think his characterization of this as a witch hunt is quite telling. A witch hunt is when a community perceives a threat to the good order of things and turns on an innocent “other” in order to assuage the community’s anxieties and symbolically restore order by exorcizing the supposedly antisocial element at the expense of the dignity and life of the chosen “other”.
So this means in the analogy, Dawkins, our leading thought-thinker, believes that:
Hunt is essentially innocent of any wrongdoing that might justify public outcry
Hunt has been arbitrarily “othered” by a community, not that a community has reacted to something he actually said
The community’s anxieties (in the case, concern that the gatekeepers of STEM fields and the educational opportunities that lead to employment in them are too often actively hostile to women’s advancement) are delusional, like fear of witchcraft, not actually founded in material reality.
Tells you all you need to know.
I’ve heard several people now, here and elsewhere, implying or outright stating that this is a ‘free speech’ issue.
It isn’t.
Tim Hunt is perfectly free to repeat his comments (there is no legal barrier to him doing so, and there is actual or threatened physical force being applied to prevent him from doing so, as far as I am aware). He is also perfectly free to affirm those comments. He is also free to withdraw the apology for those comments already offered. He is even free to make other comments that are even more idiotic and explicitly sexist. What he is NOT free to do is be excused from the consequences of making those comments. This means that, should his comments cause an absolute shitstorm of fury directed at him, then he has to deal with that, and doesn’t get some magical immunity from it because ‘free speech’. If they cause a university that has granted him an honorary position to reconsider whether he should have that position and ask for his resignation, then, again, he has to deal with that, and not through invoking the magical ‘free speech’ shield.
@ Beatrice57. “In every joke there’s a half-truth” (I don’t know if English has an equivalent).
The English phrase would be “Many a true word spoken in jest.”
A witch hunt is when a community perceives a threat to the good order of things and turns on an innocent “other” in order to assuage the community’s anxieties and symbolically restore order by exorcizing the supposedly antisocial element at the expense of the dignity and life of the chosen “other”.
You forgot to add: “…without threatening or inconveniencing the people or institutions in power, who may be the cause of the original perceived threat.”
All of which kinda describes Dawkins’ freakout over Hunt’s treatment more than it describes Hunt’s treatment itself. So who’s the real “witch-hunter” here?
Raging Bee:
Indeed, an actual witch hunt may be a trumped-up distraction away from the malfeasance of the very instigators of the witch hunt. I guess it’s the community outrage angle that makes Dawkins’s “lone vulcan on a windswept peak, standing against SJW excesses” act not the same sort of thing, but of course now that you mention it, that’s an act, and the real intent is to incite his thought-followers to just the sort of “othering” and symbolic exorcism of those hysterical feminists that a witch hunt entails. Good point!
Regarding the censorship issue, I am reminded of the words of the late, great Pterry “..no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.”
Well, Hunt used his freedom of speech to make his asinine remark, and now he is taking the consequences. UCL have not censored him, they have simply declined to keep giving him a position associated with the university to speak from.
Well, I think Richard Dawkins and Tim Hunt have proven to us all why men make such lousy scientists: you criticize them, and they start crying about bullying and witchhunts.
gallussapien
Prove them wrong, using facts and data?
First, You mean like the TwitterStorm(TM) that is #DistractinglySexy which seems to have Brave Sir Dawkins in a twitter? Seems like a lot of people were making fun of Sir Tim and the Brave Sir Dawkins did not like the mockery.
Second, Sir Tim resigned from his honoury position while the TwitterStorm(TM) was mocking Sir Tim
Third, PZ is now mocking Brave Sir Dawkins and asking “How you would respond?”. I recommend that you, personally, create a video about being a guest and making sexist jokes about your hosts, and end your video by saying, “And (my/ the) White Male, Scientists, don’t do that”. Let’s see how the reaction is to you.
Richard Dawkins will never change for the better. He has o reason to. Everyone kisses his ass no matter what idiotic bullshit he spews. He could join A Voice For Men and atheist organizations would still treat him like a god. So why should he change? Until there’s pushback from people in positions of power, he has no reason to give a single shit.
Dear Mr. Dawkins:
Speech rights don’t magically end when the men are done talking.
Christ, what an asshole!
Also, Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy @15:
Nailed it. Nothing more to say. You just nailed it.
UnknownEric @80,
I think it’s even worse than that. I think Dawkins is actively enjoying this phase of his career. When taking on creationists got stale, he moved on to religion in general. And just as that’s ceasing to draw as much attention, he’s found this new niche where he can parade about as the Brave Truth-Teller who stands up for freeze peach against the feminist hordes. (Along with his related schtick of saying crappy things about Muslims and then claiming that everyone knows it’s true but The Liberals don’t dare admit it.)
I don’t know the man personally, but I get the sense that he relishes the verbal combat. He would get incredibly bored just being a relatively uncontroversial “science communicator” like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He needs that feeling that he’s speaking the tough truths that others fear to tell.
PZ asks
This doesn’t seem relevant to the current discussion to me. The government official in question is presumably deeply committed to his ignorant views. Presumably if he said he was speaking ironically (i.e. he didn’t actually mean it), apologised, and said that actually he believed in the fact of evolution there would be no need for ongoing censure.
This reflects to me the crux of the issue. If Sir Tim Hunt has a track record of sexism in the workplace, then he deserves a full measure of criticism. If he simply “misspoke” then he doesn’t. Unfortunately it’s not really clear which it is, I’ve seen plenty of heat but not much light. Sir Tim didn’t help himself much as his subsequent apologies and clarifications have been at least partially muddled.
billforsternz:
Tim Hunt:
That’s what I get for not previewing. Second attempt
billforsternz:
Tim Hunt:
How the hell do you accidentally say the above? If he misspoke, what did he mean to say?
That you run into problems when you bring your toddler with you to the lab? (Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t know that many girls who are scientists)
Or that he’s got such a short attention span and has trouble keeping it in his pants and can’t help but think about romance when working? In that case, he’s the one with the problem, not the “girls”.
There is nothing wrong with all of us “girl” scientists reacting to what he said and responding with ‘That’s not okay’. Whether Sir Tim Hunt was joking or not, we have enough sexism to deal with on an every day basis that his comments were inappropriate and wrong and I’m glad that women aren’t afraid of mocking and ridiculing him.
Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to being #distractinglysexy and work on some code
billforsternz @84:
I think you may have missed the point PZ was getting at. He’s posing the hypothetical to Dawkins to see how he (RD) would respond. Dawkins is a vocal critic of creationism, so if this hypothetical government person said something like this:
would Dawkins’ reaction be similar to the reaction many people had to Hunts’ sexist comments? Or would Dawkins’ reaction be different? If so, in what ways would it be different? This is what I think PZ is getting at.
Personally, I don’t think Dawkins would react all that differently. I think he was excoriate the government official who made those statements. He might call for others to criticize that official. He doesn’t appear to accept the fact that he’s not the only one who can publicly criticize the words of others. The man is arrogant as all get out.
screechymonkey at 83:
I think you might really be on to something there. It matches with the way he keeps reacting, and makes a lot of sense.
The problem with leaving academics like that to do as they please is that it creates a very difficult and hostile environment for the women in the classes. I still see the occasional academic like that around the world and I have no sympathy for them; such behavior has been eradicated from many small university departments and they thrive because of it. Wave bye-bye to the nasty little dinosaurs but don’t mourn their loss. I’ve seen far too many excellent female scientists held back by idiots like Hunt and yes that includes *other* Nobel laureates; Hunt doesn’t have a monopoly on the sexist Nobel laureate thing.
billofsternz @84:
So in your opinion one has to have a track record of bigotry before one can be criticized.
Ok, so when someone calls a co-worker a F*ggott, but there’s no track record, they shouldn’t be criticized?
If an employee refers to a Latina as a W*tback while at work, but it’s the first time that person has used such a slur, then they shouldn’t be criticized?
If an individual at work refers to someone as a T*anny for the first time, that person ought to not be criticized?
Why is a track record necessary? Why do you think people shouldn’t be criticized for saying bigoted things? Or does this just apply to sexist comments? Or are you saying that each of the people in my examples deserves a small degree of criticism? Who are you to set such rules up for others? Moreover, you’re basically telling people to ignore the problem of sexism, bc you don’t think it’s that big a deal.
littlebear @86
Sometimes people deliberately say things ironically. In which case they actually mean the opposite of their literal words. Other times people say stupid things they immediately regret and which don’t accurately reflect their character, their past behaviour or their normal views. In which case it’s fine to criticize, but it’s charitable to accept a sincere apology. Just to be clear, it’s not clear to me how much any of this applies to Tim Hunt. My real point was, none of this applies to a person who identifies as a creationist.
Tony! The Queer Shoop @87
Actually I did understand PZ’s point, and I agree entirely that Dawkins would likely excoriate Scalia. I think you missed my point; Scalia said something creationist, and is an unapologetic creationist, so deserves to be excoriated. Hunt said something sexist but may not be an unapologetic sexist.
Richard Dawkins, Status Quo Warrior: forever fighting the good fight against those damn pesky SJWs
The lack of a true apology says otherwise. That is a form of evidence.
billforsternz @91:
This comes across as you expecting others to adhere to your arbitrary standards of what is or is not permissible to criticize. Why does it matter if it’s “unapologetically sexist”? And what does that even mean for that matter? Why can it not be “Hunt said something sexist and people criticized him for it”?
In my book, if someone says something sexist, people have the right to criticize that person. Just as if someone says something homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist, or racist. There’s no level of bigotry that is unacceptable to criticize. I wouldn’t tell someone they can’t criticize the words of others because I think they aren’t “that bad”. That’s dismissive of the concerns of others, and that’s how I’m interpreting your comments right now.
Billforsternz @91
A true apology would be like this:
Until I see that apology, Hunt doesn’t believe women belong in the laboratory.
Just imagine if Dawkins was a gamer.
Jafafa Hots
hhmmm
I wonder…
I apologize to the ashes of Tim Hunt. Sorry for the witch hunt Tim Hunt.
Tony! The Queer Shoop @90
I don’t think that.
It may not always be necessary but it can help clarify someone’s intent if it’s not clear. For example (in our discussion above) Scalia’s track record makes it clear that he really meant what he said about humans only being around for 5000 years. He wasn’t being obtuse, ironic, somehow trying to be humorous, or otherwise saying something he didn’t really believe.
No, but do I think someone who says such a thing once, immediately regrets it and then apologises deserves less criticism that someone who habitually says such things and is unapologetic. Don’t you agree? That is the only reason I introduced the idea of a track record. And please please please note that I am not saying that this maps neatly onto the Tim Hunt case. I am admitting lack of clarity on that.
I’m just sharing my opinion, I don’t pretend to be setting up rules for others.
I am not saying that and I don’t believe that.
billforsternz:
You might want to actually read up on what Hunt has said. This includes clarification shortly after that yes, he really meant that. Then even later it was a ‘joke’. Then there was a not-pology. Then a slightly better apology that still included the phrase “as interpreted” which pretty much tells me that he’s not at all sorry for what he said, only the criticism that he’s faced because he said it.
If you would educate yourself on what the situation actually is, you will realise why what you are writing comes across as saying that bigots who spout one-time bigotry should not be called out on it.
That is not the case here. Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. There has been no true apology.
How much less? None? If they get none, then how will they learn not to do it again? How will they be better at being the ally they want to be, if they’re not corrected? And this wasn’t a side comment in a reception; it was the text of a talk at a lunch honoring women in science, when he knew there were journalists present. When the comment is broadcast to a lot of people, you’ll get a lot of response.
No one in this little dustup took a deep breath and thought about much before reacting creating “difficulties” all around. One mistake leads to another.
1. Unthinking remark or stupid/hurtful/whatever remark, humor is tricky and amateurs attempting it can hurt themselves. leave humor to the pros. Comedians know how to take a punch.
2. Stupid reaction by a howling mob the “metaphorical lynchers” if you will.
3. Hypocritical reaction of “quit or be fired” by University College London, which takes money from Qatar [and I am assuming without doing the necessary research so this may just be a one off, other similar “oil democracies”]
4. Stupid reaction by Hunt to stupid hypocritical reaction by UCL by resigning rather than standing one’s ground, admitting stupid remarks, apologizing, and saying “Now fire me after I have apologized”
I don’t have a dog in this fight so my comments are not worth much and I’ll conclude by opining that this teapot tempest has given many the opportunity to behave badly and it looks like they all made unforced errors. Where have all the “measured response” adults gone? A question I ask myself more and more recently. cheers.
No lynchers, just women and other feminists using their free speech.
No, correct given the sexist statement at forum honoring women in science. The statement was sexual harassment, as it belittled women.
Except there is no true apology, as I demonstrated in #95 what that would look like.
Now, what is your real case? I don’t see one.
stevelaudig:
Please detail, exactly, what was the ‘stupid reaction(s)by a howling mob” and why they were stupid?
Rowan vet-tech @100
I have read these things you assume I haven’t read. You interpret them and pretend you know the mind of the man who made them. I interpret them and am left with doubts.
I do know that I am happy to call out Scalia (see my back and forth with Tony) for being an idiot because he has a track record of being an idiot and he’s actually proud of it. I don’t think it’s equally well established that Hunt is a bigot and he definitely denies it. Hence my original (and really only) point; PZ’s challenge is comparing apples and oranges.
“howling mob” = people, many of them women*faint* who said that a Hunt’s sexist statement was in fact sexist.
There is no evidence that is the case.
So, bill, that means you don’t think he was telling the truth when he initially said he was telling the truth? And you don’t think this means he’s rather unapologetically sexist? Especially as he has not, to date, *actually* apologised? Few people are going to come right out and say “Yup. I’m racist/sexist/whatever and am quite proud of the fact that I’m a bigot!” Instead, these people hide it, dance around it, deny it when it shines through. And that is exactly what Hunt has done.
He has not apologised. He thinks women are too emotional and don’t belong in labs with men. Those are his true thoughts. He’s sexist as hell even if he’s normally good at hiding it.
Oh, hi. I’m a scientist-comedian, and I’m totally going to make jokes that aren’t funny in the first place, and claim they are ha-ha only serious.
Then, I’ll totally say I meant them, but they were jokes. Because really. Lab chicks dig me. Right? Like a broad in a lab coat can resist a Nobel prize hanging on a gold chain in the dark furry briar-patch of my chest-hairs.
I’m kidding! I’m totally kidding! It’s just too bad they’re so emotional they cry every time I break up with them. Totally ruins any kind of camaraderie, and it’s why I can’t list them as co-authors on my nobel-winning papers.
Aaanyway, thanks very much for inviting me to your group-hug and let’s-get-together-to-cry meeting thing. Featured speaker, right? So let me speak the truth: I really like it when you lean over and your lab coats open up a little bit and I can see the tops of Mt. Biological Attraction. Am I right?
I really look forward to many years of speaking and trying to get FEEEmales into STEM.
Rowan I don’t know the man, to me it’s completely unclear what he really thinks. You have drawn conclusions, you could be absolutely correct.
Yes, I have drawn conclusions based on his *actions*. And that action is to have not actually apologised for what he said, after initially clarifying that he really truly believes that women are problematic in the lab because we bloody *cry* when ‘criticized’.
His statements, plus his actions, show long standing sexism. This is an eminently reasonable conclusion to reach because his words and actions are *evidence* of his ongoing sexism.
I wonder how Richard Dawkins would respond if a young female researcher, speaking at an event celebrating Mr Hunt, or even Mr Dawkins, said she hated sharing a lab with old men, ’cause they always fall in love with her, and always pout when she won’t go out with them.
stevelaudig #103
Thank you.
This thread really needed a troll.
Bless your heart and have a nice day.
weatherwax #113
That is a very good ThoughtExperiment.
(I expect you meant SIR Hunt and PROFESSOR Dawkins)
billforsternz
Considering the fact that Tim Hunt made multiple sexist statements, tried to pass it off as a joke, and has not apologized; I think it is accurate to characterize Tim Hunt as unapologetically sexist. Sexism is deeply ingrained in culture it’s true. Everyone has unconscious sexist biases and beliefs, such as treating women as if they are slightly less capable or have less worth as human beings. There is simply no excuse for nobel laureate Tim Hunt to pretend that in the year 2015, he is somehow unaware that calling grown women girls, and making comments about how distractingly sexy they are is sexism. His comments clearly demonstrate that he has a deeply sexist view of being comfortable with women as sex objects and wives, but can’t imagine women as equals and colleagues.
Dear Muslima II – The Return
weatherwax:
I imagine he would respond with:
Or maybe not. Maybe he’s totally more grown up than that.
Jafafa Hots:
Damn you, Jafafa Hots! I spent years composing #118, and you stole my joke.
Oh. I’m coming for you. You don’t know when. You don’t know where. But I’m coming for you.
Although, it does seem kinda obvious, doesn’t it? It’s Dawkins, after all.
Avo #118
Oh bravo.
Avo
You and Jafafa Hots can have co-authorship.
Who gets to be Senior to be decided by … single combat tiddlywinks.
Rowan @ 112
I totally agree with you that his actions are more important than his words. To me his actions, behaviour and character over the course of a decades long career are of telling significance. I am not aware of much information coming out one way or another. Maybe time will tell.
chigau (違う):
Challenge accepted.
Although Jafafa Hots has already lost. Everyone knows it’s Muslima II: Electric Boogaloo.
I think Ed Brayton has my back on this.
What he “really thinks” is irrelevant. It’s his actions that showed him to be unfit for a particular honorary, unpaid position or two. What he really thinks could be complex and contradictory. Maybe he really did intend his remarks as just jokes.
Doesn’t matter.
Understand: those women scientists listening to Hunt? The women who read about his remarks on Twitter and in the press? Each one of them has had a lifetime of listening to “jokes” like Hunt’s. They’ve responded with forced smiles or patient remonstrances or silence or angry comebacks. Years and years worth of forced smiles and explanation and tongue-biting and honest anger. And still the jokes get told.
Feminism has been around for decades (if you ignore the “wave” delineations, well over a century,)* and still the jokes get told. The jokes that say, you’re an anomaly here. You’re here on suffrance.
How long are we supposed to go on biting our tongues? How long is long enough?
* I am not at all impressed by the “but he’s too old to know better!” defense.
Lady Mondegreen:
Or as we in the business like to call it, the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer defense.
Lady Mondegreen @ 124
An interesting and thoughtful post, thank you.
Though I doubt you intended this, what this reads as is “Because he was good at hiding the level of his sexism and/or because he kept it to socially acceptable levels in the past we should let him get away with saying that women are over emotional and unable to take criticism without bursting into tears, and that we women have this pesky tendency of falling in love in the lab and we’re distracting (to the men).
Because apparently to you, him saying that, and him saying that he truly meant that…. doesn’t mean he actually thinks that way?
I’m sorry, but you make no sense!
Rowan vet-tech @ 127
My position is that his comments and apologies have been muddled and unclear and that I don’t know for sure what he thinks. Your position seems to be to take the least charitable possible view of his comments – for example you ignore his claim to have been speaking ironically yet cling to his early qualification that he did actually mean part of what he said. You dismiss his subsequent apologies completely – presumably taking the line that the apologies have to be perfect or they are not apologies.
Basically I think more weight should be given to a lifetime of professional social interaction than to muddled, contradictory comments that (mostly) came when he was clearly rattled as he found himself unexpectedly the centre of a global incident. I find it hard to see how that “makes no sense”, but clearly YMMV.
So you give more weight to his attempts to downplay the sexism of his remarks, because he’s been rightly called out on it, as being truer to his actual intent? Oh! It’s not sexist, it’s ironic! It merely looks like the exact same thing.
His subsequent apologies were nothing of the sort. The last one came the closest, but there was that weasel-y phrase “as interpreted”, which basically says that he’s sorry we’ve all misunderstood him and that he’s not sorry for what he said, but rather that he got called out because of his words.
Apologies involve taking actual responsibility for what was said, and acknowledgement of what was wrong.
Apology: “I’m sorry that I insulted you.”
Notpology: “I’m sorry that you think I insulted you.”
Hunt has issued the second, not the first.
via B&W
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11688134/Nobel-prizewinners-defend-Sir-Tim-Hunt-amid-sexism-row.html
@#130, Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought:
If Hunt’s comments are an example of what we would lose, then that’s probably a good thing. He accepted a position as speaker at a conference about a particular topic, and used the opportunity not only to insult the entire audience to their faces but to suggest that the purpose of the conference was a bad idea — and then he was apparently surprised when people were angry about it. He should be ashamed, and the fact that there are at least eight other nitwits with Nobel Prizes who back him up on this shows that winning the Nobel Prize has nothing whatsoever to do with logic or intelligence.
The Vicar,
Agreed.
So a chilling effect on academics’ freedom to speak their minds is like totally very very bad, but ridiculing half of the population and creating a “chilling effect” in labs for women and minorities, eh, it’s just freedom of speech? I don’t think so. I think the days where “freedom of speech before everything” was the battle cry is drawing to a close as we realize that speech also have consequences.
I’m sure there are times when Hunt and Dawkins were at scientific conferences where poorly considered ideas were presented and the presenters were criticized for their presentations. Criticism of ideas is a strong part of the scientific method. If Hunt or Dawkins said something that was utter bollocks at a scientific conference they would accept criticism from their peers.
Hunt insulted women scientists but, since his insults were given in a supposedly social meeting rather than a scientific one, then criticizing the insults is unacceptable. Certainly Dawkins and certain other male scientists seem to think so.
I wonder what Dawkins’ definition is of the word “mob”.
Eally, I’m getting sick and tired of his bullshit. Every time I try to read something written by Dawkins, my brain just shuts down. I have to force myself to reading his whines.
I must agree vehemently that the use of “witch hunt” for the storms of public outrage that break out on electronic media. It’s perfectly obvious that they are analagous to the pillory instead, except that by and large the public is allowed to only threaten physical abuse. The target is not physically restrained to a post but merely fixed in public attention by others in the media.
And, for what it’s worth, any comparisons to Orwell’s Hate Minute obviously fail. Orwell’s Hate Minutes were directly aimed at Leon Trotsky (aka “Emmanuel Goldstein.”) 1984 was an anticommunist polemic with no relevance to the free world it has done so much to create.
Dawkins is an intelligent, educated man who thinks he’s smarter and more knowledgeable than he actually is. I trust Dawkins when he writes about biology. I know he’s unqualified and incompetent when he’s writing about social problems with the possible exception of atheism.
stevenjohnson2 @137
I’m assuming you meant to use “in” rather than “that” as the fifth word of this statement. If not, please correct me.
Hunt is not the subject of a witch hunt. He said something insulting to both his audience and to half of the world’s population. When asked to clarify his remarks he offered further insults and later tried to pass his remarks off as “jokes.” Hunt resigned an honorary position rather than discuss the insults with the people who had honored him. He is not taking criticism well yet somehow it’s everyone else’s fault that he’s being criticized. Somehow Hunt sees himself as the injured party in the dispute. and the rest of us are bullies hounding him mercilessly.
If Hunt had offered a genuine apology for his remarks or, better yet, if he had never made the remarks in the first place, then this would be a minor occurrence. Hunt is one of the main drivers of this controversy due to his refusal to acknowledge that there are legitimate criticism of his remarks and his follow-on comments.
In short, criticism is not a witch hunt.
stevenjohnson2 @137
What witch hunt? Witch hunt implies an effort of looking around for a scapegoat. There was no looking around. Hunt made a sexual harassing statement, as anybody who has had sexual harassment training knows. He dismissed half the population due to their sex. He made himself a target through his recent actions.
People responding to such blatant sexism is not a witch hunt. Hunt’s refusal to offer a true apology (which if done quickly would have silenced the ruckus quickly) shows he wasn’t kidding, and is an unrepentant sexist.
There is no rational defense of such behavior, unless one is simply trying to maintain the old-boy system of institutional sexism. Is that what you are trying to do stevenjohnson2? Please clarify.
I’m willing to accept that Hunt’s original speech was supposed to be a self-mockery, to voice out-loud all the bad attitudes he is representative of. When it didn’t “go over” as intended, and the reaction was reprimanding him for those attitudes, he could have apologized for not being a better “standup” and making the self mockery more clear. Instead he apologized for the audience not understanding his self-mocking. Essentially doubling down on insulting women as being “girls who can’t understand stuff”.
What’s even worse, is Dawkins (not unexpectedly) trying to defend Hunt by adopting the very same attitude Hunt was originally trying to mock.
What’s actually worse is hearing that Brian Cox (of whom I have a mancrush) is defending Hunt. I haven’t seen it myself, so I continue to hope his apology is much more mild than Dawkin’s pitchfork at his imagined witchhunters.
So Dawkins responded to hyperbole with more hyperbole. I think it’s kind of funny – but then I also think the response to Hunt’s remarks were disproportionate. Firstly because no one other than the people present know what he actually said as there is apparently no transcript. The few reported remarks that have caused all the response came after other remarks that were reported to be supportive of women in science. Secondly because I think the charitable interpretation of the remarks that were quoted is that he was talking about himself, possibly in reference to his wife whom he met while he was mentoring her. Having witnessed several examples of romantic entanglements between lab heads and people working in their labs, it is disruptive of the science. The part I think he was joking about was the call for gender segregated labs.
A stupid statement in public about evolution distorts science itself! Dr. Hunt’s stupid statement about women in science needs to be censored, but to be alienated from science itself by any group displaying moral righteousness and outrage is in itself stupid!
You can’t censor an already made public statements. Pick your words with greater care to reflect reality. What is stupid about moral indignation toward a statement that amounts to sexual harassment by dismissing half the population? A proper apology by Hunt would solve the problem. Take it up with him as to why he can’t do so.
censoredcensured??
Perhaps is what the commentor was trying to say and just spelled it phonetically, like how so many mix up “their”, “there”, “they’re”.
maybe just a single letter typo
Re censured.
The word is usually used for an official body to give a mild reprimand to member of that organization. I see no censure from an organized scientific body against Hunt.
Unorganized criticism from the world at large is stretching the original meaning, but appears to be consistent with some definitions.
The intended first sentence of my post #137 is a sentence fragment, because of a typographical error, compounded by an amazing incompetence at proof reading. The sentence intended was “I must agree vehemently that the use of “witch hunt” for the storms of public outrage that break out on electronic media is wrong.” And “inquisition” and “lynch mob” are also wrong, for what my opinion is worth.
To all of you people twisting yourselves in knots to find charitable interpretations of Hunt’s and Dawkins’ remarks, and deploring the “witch hunt”: ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.
What would you propose that people do differently? You’re all whining about the fact that people expressed their opinions freely about those remarks. I suspect you’re all a bunch of smug free-speech fetishists on other occasions, but you’re fine telling everyone else to shut up when they raise objections to the endemic sexism in our culture.
Stevenjohnson2, thanks for the clarification.
@P Z Myers in #148 – Thank you, sincerely.
My biggest issue with “Atheism” as a “movement” is the endless circle-jerk, all the “Freethinkers” so self-impressed, continuing their congratulatory circle-jerk about the awful stupidity of religious people and racists but lacking any insight or courage to face their own bias, their own privilege.
That is why I don’t call myself “Atheist” or “Skeptic” in public, because I don’t wish to be a part of the group that listens to Dawkins, that mansplains how I’m doing it wrong, and that wont even face questions about their own attitudes and actions.
I say now, the worst slut-shaming Homophobic, foul insult throwing Xtian is still better than the kind of “Skeptical Atheist” that hides in the circle-jerk. At least the bigot Xtian has the courage to swill abuse openly.
Anna Elizabeth @150
The biggest objection to Dawkins’ social media pronouncements is that he refuses to consider if criticisms are valid or not. His tweets about abortions of Downs Syndrome babies, pedophilia and severity levels of rape were met with strong critiques which he brushed off with sneers about emotionality and being misunderstood. There could be no other explanations for anyone not accepting his logic. There is no way for him to accept that someone might reasonably disagree with him on social issues, never mind the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.
So do the Dudebro Skeptics, though. Only difference is instead of “justifying” it with “Because God said so,” they claim to be right because “our ooooobbbbbbbviously supeeeeeeerior intellect said so.”
esmith4102 @ 143
Oh for Bob’s sake. Now he’s not only been forced to resign, he’s been alienated FROM SCIENCE ITSELF!!! Arglbargl, etc.
Seriously, if you can’t make the case that Hunt was mistreated without ludicrously overstating what actually happened, maybe you need to rethink your position.
Anna Elizabeth @ 150,
At least religious people have the excuse of adhering to attitudes and rules they believe save them from eternal damnation. At least they have the fear of shunning from their entire family and community to make their behavior somewhat understandable. Atheists and “skeptics” are bigots entirely by choice.
I notice that the Dawkins and Hunt defenders do not think it is fair to judge a man by his words and actions, but should rather invent reasons to absolve him of any wrong doing while calling the oppressed class of people he’s contributing to the oppression of mobs, Baying dogs, Witch hunters and oppressors of privileged white men based on actions those people did not take and words they did not say.
I could also spit nails at the appropriation of “chilly climate” to silence women who dare speak up to the rich white dudes.
I’d like to know what we may judge people by if not their words and actions? Are we to read their minds? Do we believe in psychics now or just in the inherent sainthood of white men?
@Jackie the, #155 &156
(Hey, now that the new MLP is watched, I’m back)
That’s exactly what I mean, Jackie – the religious types are reinforcing their religious views, but the Skeptical Atheists are doing the same with the ancient sexist dogmas *while* they are congratulating themselves for “freethinking”.
And yes, we can’t judge anyone by anything but what they say and do. Intent is not magic, and actions and speech have consequences.
Seven of Mine:
It’s a strange charge, that. “Alienated from science itself”, if said repetitively, makes less sense the longer it’s repeated. Instead of just becoming nonsensical as other repeated words or phrases become, it behaves as a singularity of nonsense, and will, upon constant chanting in mantra fashion, suck your very soul into it’s all-consuming masslessness. And your world is never the same.
Dorky Dick:
We Agree That God Is A Delusion But Nevermind We still Agree That An Old White Guy Should Always Be In Charge And Be Allowed To Say Whatever He Wants Whenever He Wants Without Criticism Of Any Sort By Rebecca Watson Or Any Other Stupid SJW.
Sad. Ten years ago I had a great deal of respect for RD. I had only read some of his books. Then he discovered Twitter. If that’s the way he actually writes, then I now have a massive amount of respect for his editor.
fergl100@34
slithey tove @141
Yeah, this worried me too. My image of Brian Cox is of someone a little more enlightened than Tim Hunt and Richard Dawkins.
The BBC quotes Brian Cox as saying:
I can see where that’s coming from, but of course it’s not what happened.
However, on Twitter, he has corrected himself, pointing people to the LCU statement as evidence that Tim Hunt was not ousted from the position:
He also said his view is in line with this nature article: Sexism has no place in science
re @161:
Thank you for the followup re Brian Cox. I’m relieved to hear that his backlash at all the Hunt-kerfuffle was as mild as I expected and totally agrees with “Sexism has no place in science”.
My mancrush has not been crushed ;-)
Poor Sir Tim Hunt FRS, cast from riches and fame to scrounging from supermarket dumpsters and begging in the street. “Will do science for food.”
</According to Richard Dawkins>
The thing I most despise about the “Twitter mobs” comment is it seems to indicate that some people want the amplification power of the internet to work for them but never to have it used against them. There’s a heavy implication of hierarchical thinking, that their wisdom flows down but no voice should ever come back up, even in Cox’s use of “Twitter mobs” when he himself actively uses it. The fact that there mass outcry on Twitter – a “mob” if you will – who actively decry every instance they perceive of such mobbing doesn’t ever seem to trigger a moment of self-reflection in themselves.
That the MSM is currently collectively decrying internet shaming seems like the absolute height of hypocrisy, as if they’re wanting to reclaim that domain back for themselves.