8 ms·

> As has been shown by recent scandals involving Nobel biologists ... we are all of us now in the same boat as the politicians, one failed joke away from pariah

by dalke 11y ago

> As has been shown by recent scandals involving Nobel biologists ... we are all of us now in the same boat as the politicians, one failed joke away from pariahdom and unemployment. Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke." > apparently in the Nobel biologist's case only one person in the audience chose to interpret his remarks literally What does a literal interpretation have to do with anything? If I say that someone is "a son of a bitch", no one thinks I am literally saying that a human was sired by a female dog. Yet it will still cause many to be mad with me - using the terms of this essay - because I 'said something offensive.' > The internet has enhanced our free speech in an imbalanced way There is nothing new about the internet for that. The telephone, newspaper, radio, tape recorder, phonograph, and television have all been imbalanced in exactly the same way. Look to all the gossip columns of a century ago for examples of people spreading accounts that may originally have been meant to be limited to a select few. Hunt's comments were made in a room that included international journalists. Ever since the 1880s (I use Krakatoa as my date), journalists have been able to publish stories that made it around the world within a day. There's nothing special which required the internet to make the Hunt story happen. The essay uses "shame mob" many times, without describing what that means. If someone does make horribly racist comments, what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob"? Avoid making comments on the internet?

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke." Do you have a source for that? I have felt rather conflicted about that incident, and I'd like to know if there really is more to it.
- dalke 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comme... > On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really." He went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." There are many similar essays describing his sexist and racist views.
  - jensen123 11y ago
    Well-meaning idealists can be incredibly intolerant and nasty. They obviously see themselves as good, and then anyone who have very different opinions become "bad".
  - jsf666 11y ago
    Why humans that lived for millions of years in different enviroments would evolve the same way? I don't really get the things about "racism", it would be more absurd if people thought that there are no differences between races. Some are clearly visible (skin color for example).
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > humans > millions of years Earliest homo sapiens fossils are about 175,000 to 200,000 years old.
      - jsf666 11y ago
        Sorry it was to be more like "a shitload" figure of speech (plethora?)
    - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
      You will not get many meaningful answers here to questions regarding race.
    - andyjohnson0 11y ago
      Modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years [1]. We originated in Africa and didn't migrate outside the continent until about 75,000 years ago [2], which is a relatively short timespan in evolutionary terms. In a sense, then, we are all Africans. And the concept of "race" as a way of categorising humans is now regarded by most scientists as a social construct [3]. That is, it doesn't tell you anything fundamental about people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_from_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
kitd 11y ago
> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke." I assumed he was talking about Hunt (although strictly speaking he's a biochemist). You're right that journos have always had quick access to the public ear, but the internet makes this available to pretty much everybody else at zero cost. "Everybody else" outnumbers "journos" thousands to 1, with no editorial oversight or regulatory control. The Hunt story blew up because of Twitter. Imagine what Twitter would have looked like during Krakatoa, or the contemporary Jack-the-Ripper murders.
- dalke 11y ago
  The article uses the plural in 'recent scandals involving Nobel biologists'. There are only two such cases I know of. If the essay is only referring to Hunt, then it should 1) be clear about the distinction, and 2) describe why the reaction to Watson's well-known racist and sexist remarks, including those printed in The Times, which caused him to lose his chancellorship of the Cold Springs Harbor Lab, were not due to a 'shame mob'. By "editorial oversight", do you include the yellow journalism of the 120 years ago as example of how editorial oversight in the newspapers helped keep things from being blown up? Or the many publications of the xenophobic nativist presses? Page 3 girls? The influence of people from Hearst to Rupert Murdoch on politics? Because I don't see why the newspapers as a category deserve special praise for good 'editorial oversight or regulatory control'.
zamalek 11y ago
> of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It doesn't matter if you say things like that once or a million times. "Quantity" forms no part of the wording that defines free speech or limited speech. > what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob"? Technically or practically? Technically nothing should be done (up until the point of fighting words): that person should be left to spout their vitriol as much as they please. People will dismiss him as a crazy racist (a natural consequence) but that does not mean he should be punished/disciplined for being what he is (an additional synthetic consequence). Practically a friendly hand goes a lot further in changing people's opinions. The only thing these "shame mobs" are doing is inciting more anger: their behavior is as bad, often worse, than the people that they are criticizing.
- dalke 11y ago
  What is a "shame mob"? Does it include the people who started #DistractinglySexy ? Does it include people who post "I thing Hunt's comment was sexist"? Does it include people who say "I do not think we should invite Hunt for our next 'Women in Science' conference"? Does it include the UCL ruling council? Or is it a much more limited set of people who, say, send death threats? As a reminder, and quoting from http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/tim-hunt-sexism-controversy-ucl-attempts-to-draw-a-line-under-saga http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/tim-hunt-sexi... : > One female scientist who commented in the media after the story broke told the Guardian she had received “such a torrent of abuse” on social media and blogs that she could no longer face speaking publicly on the matter. Other female scientists who spoke out had apparently also received death threats. “We’ve all been silenced. It’s quite shocking really,” she said. “It’s just not worth the aggro of waking up to calls for me to be sacked on Twitter and hundreds of messages. It was so frustrating to see the perpetrator becoming the victim.”
  - jsf666 11y ago
    Some kind of proof? I've heard many such stories about feminists receiving death/rape/etc. threats and it turned out as a scam to gain attention.
MarkPNeyer 11y ago
> what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob" here's an algorithmic solution: https://github.com/neyer/respect https://github.com/neyer/respect we could give louder volume to people who we are more likely to respect. rather than some the person, just give them a negative edge, and lessen their volume towards people that respect you. i have an implementation running on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/respectmatrix?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/respectmatrix?fref=ts
- clentaminator 11y ago
  Very interesting. A few questions: - How similar is this to PageRank? - Is it possible to implement this system anonymously? - What happens if I don't want to state publicly that I respect X, for fear of backlash or more simply that, while I respect X's opinion, I don't want to be seen to be associated with X?
  - MarkPNeyer 11y ago
    i think it's very similar to pagerank, except the 'soundness' concept is new. you could do it anonymously if you trusted the party storign the data. i 'm going to add that to the FB version, so you can message the page privately. this would also work on reddit, hacker news, twitter or other sites.

by dalke 11y ago

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke." Do you have a source for that? I have felt rather conflicted about that incident, and I'd like to know if there really is more to it.

dalke 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comme... > On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really." He went on to say that despite the desire that all human beings should be equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." There are many similar essays describing his sexist and racist views.
- jensen123 11y ago
  Well-meaning idealists can be incredibly intolerant and nasty. They obviously see themselves as good, and then anyone who have very different opinions become "bad".
- jsf666 11y ago
  Why humans that lived for millions of years in different enviroments would evolve the same way? I don't really get the things about "racism", it would be more absurd if people thought that there are no differences between races. Some are clearly visible (skin color for example).
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > humans > millions of years Earliest homo sapiens fossils are about 175,000 to 200,000 years old.
    - jsf666 11y ago
      Sorry it was to be more like "a shitload" figure of speech (plethora?)
  - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
    You will not get many meaningful answers here to questions regarding race.
  - andyjohnson0 11y ago
    Modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years [1]. We originated in Africa and didn't migrate outside the continent until about 75,000 years ago [2], which is a relatively short timespan in evolutionary terms. In a sense, then, we are all Africans. And the concept of "race" as a way of categorising humans is now regarded by most scientists as a social construct [3]. That is, it doesn't tell you anything fundamental about people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_from_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Exodus_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

kitd 11y ago

> Watson had been increasingly 'a pariah' over the last few decades because of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It was not due to "one failed joke." I assumed he was talking about Hunt (although strictly speaking he's a biochemist). You're right that journos have always had quick access to the public ear, but the internet makes this available to pretty much everybody else at zero cost. "Everybody else" outnumbers "journos" thousands to 1, with no editorial oversight or regulatory control. The Hunt story blew up because of Twitter. Imagine what Twitter would have looked like during Krakatoa, or the contemporary Jack-the-Ripper murders.

dalke 11y ago
The article uses the plural in 'recent scandals involving Nobel biologists'. There are only two such cases I know of. If the essay is only referring to Hunt, then it should 1) be clear about the distinction, and 2) describe why the reaction to Watson's well-known racist and sexist remarks, including those printed in The Times, which caused him to lose his chancellorship of the Cold Springs Harbor Lab, were not due to a 'shame mob'. By "editorial oversight", do you include the yellow journalism of the 120 years ago as example of how editorial oversight in the newspapers helped keep things from being blown up? Or the many publications of the xenophobic nativist presses? Page 3 girls? The influence of people from Hearst to Rupert Murdoch on politics? Because I don't see why the newspapers as a category deserve special praise for good 'editorial oversight or regulatory control'.

zamalek 11y ago

> of a long series of racist and sexist comments. It doesn't matter if you say things like that once or a million times. "Quantity" forms no part of the wording that defines free speech or limited speech. > what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob"? Technically or practically? Technically nothing should be done (up until the point of fighting words): that person should be left to spout their vitriol as much as they please. People will dismiss him as a crazy racist (a natural consequence) but that does not mean he should be punished/disciplined for being what he is (an additional synthetic consequence). Practically a friendly hand goes a lot further in changing people's opinions. The only thing these "shame mobs" are doing is inciting more anger: their behavior is as bad, often worse, than the people that they are criticizing.

dalke 11y ago
What is a "shame mob"? Does it include the people who started #DistractinglySexy ? Does it include people who post "I thing Hunt's comment was sexist"? Does it include people who say "I do not think we should invite Hunt for our next 'Women in Science' conference"? Does it include the UCL ruling council? Or is it a much more limited set of people who, say, send death threats? As a reminder, and quoting from http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/tim-hunt-sexism-controversy-ucl-attempts-to-draw-a-line-under-saga http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/tim-hunt-sexi... : > One female scientist who commented in the media after the story broke told the Guardian she had received “such a torrent of abuse” on social media and blogs that she could no longer face speaking publicly on the matter. Other female scientists who spoke out had apparently also received death threats. “We’ve all been silenced. It’s quite shocking really,” she said. “It’s just not worth the aggro of waking up to calls for me to be sacked on Twitter and hundreds of messages. It was so frustrating to see the perpetrator becoming the victim.”
- jsf666 11y ago
  Some kind of proof? I've heard many such stories about feminists receiving death/rape/etc. threats and it turned out as a scam to gain attention.

MarkPNeyer 11y ago

> what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob" here's an algorithmic solution: https://github.com/neyer/respect https://github.com/neyer/respect we could give louder volume to people who we are more likely to respect. rather than some the person, just give them a negative edge, and lessen their volume towards people that respect you. i have an implementation running on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/respectmatrix?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/respectmatrix?fref=ts

clentaminator 11y ago
Very interesting. A few questions: - How similar is this to PageRank? - Is it possible to implement this system anonymously? - What happens if I don't want to state publicly that I respect X, for fear of backlash or more simply that, while I respect X's opinion, I don't want to be seen to be associated with X?
- MarkPNeyer 11y ago
  i think it's very similar to pagerank, except the 'soundness' concept is new. you could do it anonymously if you trusted the party storign the data. i 'm going to add that to the FB version, so you can message the page privately. this would also work on reddit, hacker news, twitter or other sites.