3 ms·

CERNs apology is just a consequence of that presentation not an actual argument against it.

tptacek 8y ago
I'm not at all sure what your argument is here. Strumia clearly did mislead CERN and the workshop organizers, pretty clearly gave a presentation to troll the workshop, and clearly launched an attack on another scientist (present at the workshop) during his presentation. Is your argument that someone should have been able to give a contrarian presentation about gender disparities in physics at this workshop? I agree with you. But that's not what Strumia did. He tried to pwn the libs, and ended up depantsing himself.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Which illustrates the fundamental issue here. This was not something that came from within, this was forced from the outside namely the media, in this case, BBC which made it politically problematic for CERN. If a woman or man had launched an attack on the problems of being a woman in a male-dominated field nothing would have happened, in fact, he or she would have been applauded for speaking truth to power and celebrated for their courage they certainly wouldn't have ended up being called sexist or wouldn't have their ties cut. You might as well chose to read him in the same manner, he certainly did think of himself as someone who spoke truth to power. And it certainly wasn't something that was a bigger problem than someone could say. "What an idiot" and then move on. But no, this had to be a question of sexism even though he was talking about discrimination against men. This has James Damore deja vu all over it. The code of Conduct hail mary is an excuse which is why their apology is not an argument it highlights the very problem.
  - pvg 8y ago
    this was forced from the outside namely the media, in this case, BBC There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. How do you imagine the BBC found out about it?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You know, the BBC, and the 8,000 academics, including more than 450 major-university-affiliated high energy physicists, who signed an open letter condemning the presentation. But, sure, the BBC couldn't have helped.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The argument is obvious: the presentation itself is intellectually (mostly) valid and not offensive. The perception of it might be, by some, ergo, he was dismissed. His dismissal is not an objective nature of the inherent 'offensiveness' of the presentation.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    No, the presentation is not mostly valid. It purports to discuss disparities in intellect and preferences between men and women in high-energy physics, but digresses into the fact that men die in battle more often than women, that sexual harassment concerns are overblown, that it was unfair that he was passed over for a job when a (named) "less qualified" woman was accepted, that discrimination generally works out in favor of women since men are more likely to die on the job, that Matt Taylor was unfairly dragged for appearing on camera in a shirt covered in pin-up girls, that charges of homophobia at CERN are false, and that all this is due to "thoughtcrime" by the Cultural Marxist Minister of Truth (his words). He even cites that laughable Ted Hill paper.

I'm not at all sure what your argument is here. Strumia clearly did mislead CERN and the workshop organizers, pretty clearly gave a presentation to troll the workshop, and clearly launched an attack on another scientist (present at the workshop) during his presentation. Is your argument that someone should have been able to give a contrarian presentation about gender disparities in physics at this workshop? I agree with you. But that's not what Strumia did. He tried to pwn the libs, and ended up depantsing himself.

ThomPete 8y ago
Which illustrates the fundamental issue here. This was not something that came from within, this was forced from the outside namely the media, in this case, BBC which made it politically problematic for CERN. If a woman or man had launched an attack on the problems of being a woman in a male-dominated field nothing would have happened, in fact, he or she would have been applauded for speaking truth to power and celebrated for their courage they certainly wouldn't have ended up being called sexist or wouldn't have their ties cut. You might as well chose to read him in the same manner, he certainly did think of himself as someone who spoke truth to power. And it certainly wasn't something that was a bigger problem than someone could say. "What an idiot" and then move on. But no, this had to be a question of sexism even though he was talking about discrimination against men. This has James Damore deja vu all over it. The code of Conduct hail mary is an excuse which is why their apology is not an argument it highlights the very problem.
- pvg 8y ago
  this was forced from the outside namely the media, in this case, BBC There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. How do you imagine the BBC found out about it?
- tptacek 8y ago
  You know, the BBC, and the 8,000 academics, including more than 450 major-university-affiliated high energy physicists, who signed an open letter condemning the presentation. But, sure, the BBC couldn't have helped.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The argument is obvious: the presentation itself is intellectually (mostly) valid and not offensive. The perception of it might be, by some, ergo, he was dismissed. His dismissal is not an objective nature of the inherent 'offensiveness' of the presentation.
- tptacek 8y ago
  No, the presentation is not mostly valid. It purports to discuss disparities in intellect and preferences between men and women in high-energy physics, but digresses into the fact that men die in battle more often than women, that sexual harassment concerns are overblown, that it was unfair that he was passed over for a job when a (named) "less qualified" woman was accepted, that discrimination generally works out in favor of women since men are more likely to die on the job, that Matt Taylor was unfairly dragged for appearing on camera in a shirt covered in pin-up girls, that charges of homophobia at CERN are false, and that all this is due to "thoughtcrime" by the Cultural Marxist Minister of Truth (his words). He even cites that laughable Ted Hill paper.