Nobel Laurette's Academic Career Ended by a Single Joke

[jmc]

Because I don't know the man and neither do you. I don't know what his intent was.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because I don't know the man and neither do you. I don't know what his intent was.

You said it was a joke. What is the joke about other then women working in his field and them being a distraction and overly emotional because the are women?

See, what you are doing now is the exact opposite of owning the situation.

 

[jmc]

Because he said it was a joke. I don't think what he said was funny but I have no reason to not believe him when he says he was attempting humour. What evidence do you have to suggest he wasn't attempting to say something humorous? Isn't it entirely possible that he simply misjudged the joke? And that's the point. People are being put on social media trial for making mistakes or through misinterpretation. Don't you get how much of a slippery slope this is? It essentially means the entire world is on notice, one error or one piece of information that gets interpreted wrong that comes to light on Twitter or Facebook can literally ruin your life.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because he said it was a joke. I don't think what he said was funny but I have no reason to not believe him when he says he was attempting humour. What evidence do you have to suggest he wasn't attempting to say something humorous? Isn't it entirely possible that he simply misjudged the joke? And that's the point. People are being put on social media trial for making mistakes or through misinterpretation. Don't you get how much of a slippery slope this is? It essentially means the entire world is on notice, one error or one piece of information that gets interpreted wrong that comes to light on Twitter or Facebook can literally ruin your life.

I have no doubt he thought what he was saying was a joke. But it is a sexist joke, in front of a bunch of people he doesn't know. The basis of the joke is clearly sexist. Even if something is a joke, that doesn't make it not sexist.

One major problem that persist with sexism, is that it is played off a lot of the time, like it no longer exist. More so then say racism. I doubt he would have walked into the same room and cracked a racist joke. He would have been more socially aware.

 

[jmc]

You're acting like you know the man. You don't.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're acting like you know the man. You don't.

Why do I need to know the man to read what he said? He said it. The words are clear. This isn't some sort of puzzle. If it is a joke, and I agree it is, what is the joke about other then women in the field of science? The words are not ambiguous. They wouldn't be saying now that it was a stupid thing to say, if it wasn't a stupid thing to say. They admitted it.

 

[jmc]

Ever say something that didn't come out how you intended it to?

 

[dude stannis]

Ever say something that didn't come out how you intended it to?

No. He's too perfect and on a pedestal above us all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ever say something that didn't come out how you intended it to?

Make up your mind, is it a joke or not?

He clearly meant to say what he did. He doubled down by saying it was taken too seriously, so he did not misspeak.

The British biochemist, who was knighted in 2006, said the remarks were "intended as a light-hearted, ironic comment" but had been "interpreted deadly seriously by my audience".

He went on to say he stood by some of the remarks.

"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."

On his remarks about women crying, he said: "It's terribly important that you can criticise people's ideas without criticising them and if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth.

"Science is about nothing but getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33077107

Those are his words, not mine.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No. He's too perfect and on a pedestal above us all.

There is a big difference between ordering the wrong coffee at Starbucks, and getting up in front of a lot of people and cracking a sexist joke. Well, at least in these new horrible times we live in.

 

[jmc]

Sounds like it could easily be a personal anecdote more than anything else.

 

[dude stannis]

There is a big difference between ordering the wrong coffee at Starbucks, and getting up in front of a lot of people and cracking a sexist joke. Well, at least in these new horrible times we live in.

Hopefully all your contributions to cell and cancer research made it easy for the Barista to forgive you.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sounds like it could easily be a personal anecdote more than anything else.

Yes, one he admits is an apparent warning. He said these things. He actually said them, and you are just going to ignore them because they ruin your point.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hopefully all your contributions to cell and cancer research made it easy for the Barista to forgive you.

Of course completely irrelevant if you actually read anything about this situation. But I see that is beyond you. You rather throw personal insults then actually talk about the subject at hand.

 

[Greens]

He should not have been fired. Screw internet warriors.

 

[ThePhantasm]

New report of presentation reveals the joke was not sexist at all, but in fact anti-sexist:

The report began by confirming that Sir Tim had joked about falling in love with women in laboratories and ‘making them cry’.

However, it said he’d prefaced those comments with an ironic introduction, joking that they would illustrate what a ‘chauvinist monster’ he was.
The report then revealed the existence of an entire second half of the controversial toast.

In it, Sir Tim was said to have told his audience that his remark about ‘making them cry’ was, indeed, an ironic joke.

He purportedly said, ‘now seriously . . .’ before going on to speak enthusiastically about the ‘important role’ women scientists play. He ended by joking that his largely female audience should pursue their trade, ‘despite monsters like me’.

The report’s author added: ‘I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media,’ going on to describe the speech as ‘warm and funny’.

All of which, for quite understandable reasons, sparked further angry debate. Supporters of Sir Tim felt he had been vindicated. Among them was Professor Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, who said the leaked memo’s contents showed Sir Tim to be ‘the reverse of a chauvinist monster’.

Will any of the scumbags who leaped to condemn this man apologize to him or admit they were wrong? I doubt it. I'm sick of people reacting to s*** without having all the facts. Insecure idiots.

 

[jmc]

DarthSkywalker?

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

From the article that ThePantasm linked it appears that the person who started all that has a more than shaddy background.

Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:
‘Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.
‘She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.’
All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed ‘facts’ appear to be untrue.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ubling-questions-testimony.html#ixzz3eS776i1Z
​

​

 

[Apollo]

I haven't heard about this until today... I read through all the posts.. then finally got to clarification posts.. just goes to show people really should wait for the facts and understand context before going on some crazed social justice crusade against someone .. but that's the internet/social media for you..

 

[ShadowBoxer]

That's the problem with people now everyone gets offended over the dumbest stuff.

 

[Erzengel]

What do you mean people?

 

[terry78]

That was facetious, but that is not that far off from how some react to it. It's a fine line, but it's subjective, that is the double edged sword. You can't be like, "you shouldn't be offended because I ain't."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

DarthSkywalker?

What is your point? Everything I said still stands. I never said he should be fired. Always said I wouldn't have fired him, but what he said was stupid. If he did preface it and follow it up, why didn't he mention this in any of his other interviews? That he didn't defend himself to his employer by saying this? Seems odd that this would be a thing that came out later.

Also, I assume there is another link to this info other then the Daily Mail.

 

[jmc]

Your point doesn't still stand if there was more to the comment than what was first posted, which it appears there now was.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Your point doesn't still stand if there was more to the comment than what was first posted, which it appears there now was.

He never said this before. He still hasn't said it. Worse yet, his attempts at giving context to the situation made it more clear that it wasn't a joke he didn't see any truth in. Are you going to ignore what he has said since, in actual interviews?