6 ms·

I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated "If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt comfo

I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated "If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt comfortable enough saying this even though there were obviously people there from outside the group and nothing like that could be kept secret.

briandear 11y ago
So much for tolerance. How about transgendered Republicans? Would they have been welcomed?
- cglace 11y ago
  Like Bruce Jenner? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/bruce-jenner-is-a-republican-heres-the-reason-that-shouldnt-surprise-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/br...
  - tangled_zans 11y ago
    (Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)
    - cglace 11y ago
      Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.
      - tangled_zans 11y ago
        What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
        garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
        cglace 11y ago
        It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
        cglace 11y ago
        Why should I have to explain why I accidentally called someone by the name they went by for 65 years. It's not a contradictory view. It's a slip up. My response was literally a 5 second google search, went with the name in the title, and posted. No malice, no motives, just a mistake. Stop reading so far into it. The way you worded your response was basically, "If it was an error why are you a bigot?"
jacquesm 11y ago
So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a non issue).
- Retra 11y ago
  >Politics are people's private business What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.
  - pcl 11y ago
    I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism (which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.) Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing personal about that.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Or maybe English isn't their first language?
BostonEnginerd 11y ago
I've seen similar situations at scientific conferences. To be fair, the Republican caucus was trying to significantly cut the budget for the field at the time.

briandear 11y ago

So much for tolerance. How about transgendered Republicans? Would they have been welcomed?

cglace 11y ago
Like Bruce Jenner? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/bruce-jenner-is-a-republican-heres-the-reason-that-shouldnt-surprise-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/br...
- tangled_zans 11y ago
  (Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)
  - cglace 11y ago
    Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.
    - tangled_zans 11y ago
      What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
      - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
        cglace 11y ago
        It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
        cglace 11y ago
        Why should I have to explain why I accidentally called someone by the name they went by for 65 years. It's not a contradictory view. It's a slip up. My response was literally a 5 second google search, went with the name in the title, and posted. No malice, no motives, just a mistake. Stop reading so far into it. The way you worded your response was basically, "If it was an error why are you a bigot?"

jacquesm 11y ago

So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a non issue).

Retra 11y ago
>Politics are people's private business What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.
- pcl 11y ago
  I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
  - Retra 11y ago
    I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism (which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.) Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing personal about that.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Or maybe English isn't their first language?

BostonEnginerd 11y ago

I've seen similar situations at scientific conferences. To be fair, the Republican caucus was trying to significantly cut the budget for the field at the time.