6 ms·

He wasn't internationally labeled as an inappropriate dresser, he was internationally labeled a sexist. That crossed a line and the fact he had to give a tearf

by hoopd 11y ago

He wasn't internationally labeled as an inappropriate dresser, he was internationally labeled a sexist. That crossed a line and the fact he had to give a tearful apology on one of the biggest days of his career without making that distinction or defending himself in any way is disgusting.

arrrg 11y ago
What the fuck are you even talking about. You make no sense. And people are allowed to cricise people who are in very public places in obvious positions of power and who also act as role models. That comes with the job, you know. Sometimes you might have to face criticism and sometimes that criticism might be a bit unfair or harsh. Oh my god, the horror. What an unbelievable thing. (I think that’s something you have to allow groups of people who were oppressed and specifically excluded from science for centuries, you know.) He dealt with it and that’s that. I’m astonished how suddenly people want to treat someone like a raw egg while simultaneously decrying people who voice their criticism (and it’s mostly criticism, no offense!) as too delicate or always taking offense. It’s so weird (probably because it’s an argument made completely in bad faith, just to complain about bad feminists or some similar misogynist bullshit link voting websites are so good at spewing).
- hoopd 11y ago
  > I think that’s something you have to allow groups of people who were oppressed and specifically excluded from science for centuries, you know. I disagree with this on so many levels. He wasn't attacked by women, in your argument only women have "earned" the right to be abusive to him because it's somehow reasonable to punish him for things done by men who are no longer around? Either way, he was attacked by the social justice movement and last I checked there has not been a concerted effort to exclude them from science. In general, you get special concessions to fight back against people who have oppressed you directly, by the time you start attacking a group's grandchildren for what they did to your grandparents you're just being a jerk. > just to complain about bad feminists or some similar misogynist bullshit Have I oppressed you? Have I excluded you? This is not an appropriate way to talk to somebody who simply disagrees with you.
wpietri 11y ago
His act was a sexist act. It was unintentional, but one can still help sustain an unjust system without intending to. I'm sure it sucked for him; I've found it painful enough to get called out for my mistakes in small groups. But we shouldn't let our sympathy for that overwhelm our sympathy for the many, many more people hurt by sexism in our society. Deciding that one guy's feelings are more important than the women he harmed is one way patriarchy has sustained itself for thousands of years. Big public mistakes require big public apologies.
- douche 11y ago
  Did he harm any women by wearing a goddamned shirt? Thank goodness he was wearing a shirt; I know I would rather see any kind of shirt rather than pasty scientist skin.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Yes, yes he did. Which many of the articles on this topic will explain to you in detail. Not that I expect a literal anonymous douche to have done the work to understand the problem. If you would like to do some reading and still have actual questions, feel free to ask me, preferably by email. As I state in my profile, anonymous posters get a lot less leeway from me, and I'm not really interested in doing Sexism 101 for somebody who can't be bothered to spend 15 minutes with Google.
    - douche 11y ago
      Okay, clearly we do not operate on the same system of logic. I may be a douche, but at least I don't always default to being a condescending asshole.
      - wpietri 11y ago
        Let's make a deal: you turn up using your real name and ask sincere questions that demonstrate some command of the material. In turn, I'll treat you with respect, rather than as some goof who uses anonymity to avoid accountability for his ugly opinions.

by hoopd 11y ago

arrrg 11y ago

What the fuck are you even talking about. You make no sense. And people are allowed to cricise people who are in very public places in obvious positions of power and who also act as role models. That comes with the job, you know. Sometimes you might have to face criticism and sometimes that criticism might be a bit unfair or harsh. Oh my god, the horror. What an unbelievable thing. (I think that’s something you have to allow groups of people who were oppressed and specifically excluded from science for centuries, you know.) He dealt with it and that’s that. I’m astonished how suddenly people want to treat someone like a raw egg while simultaneously decrying people who voice their criticism (and it’s mostly criticism, no offense!) as too delicate or always taking offense. It’s so weird (probably because it’s an argument made completely in bad faith, just to complain about bad feminists or some similar misogynist bullshit link voting websites are so good at spewing).

hoopd 11y ago
> I think that’s something you have to allow groups of people who were oppressed and specifically excluded from science for centuries, you know. I disagree with this on so many levels. He wasn't attacked by women, in your argument only women have "earned" the right to be abusive to him because it's somehow reasonable to punish him for things done by men who are no longer around? Either way, he was attacked by the social justice movement and last I checked there has not been a concerted effort to exclude them from science. In general, you get special concessions to fight back against people who have oppressed you directly, by the time you start attacking a group's grandchildren for what they did to your grandparents you're just being a jerk. > just to complain about bad feminists or some similar misogynist bullshit Have I oppressed you? Have I excluded you? This is not an appropriate way to talk to somebody who simply disagrees with you.

wpietri 11y ago

His act was a sexist act. It was unintentional, but one can still help sustain an unjust system without intending to. I'm sure it sucked for him; I've found it painful enough to get called out for my mistakes in small groups. But we shouldn't let our sympathy for that overwhelm our sympathy for the many, many more people hurt by sexism in our society. Deciding that one guy's feelings are more important than the women he harmed is one way patriarchy has sustained itself for thousands of years. Big public mistakes require big public apologies.

douche 11y ago
Did he harm any women by wearing a goddamned shirt? Thank goodness he was wearing a shirt; I know I would rather see any kind of shirt rather than pasty scientist skin.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Yes, yes he did. Which many of the articles on this topic will explain to you in detail. Not that I expect a literal anonymous douche to have done the work to understand the problem. If you would like to do some reading and still have actual questions, feel free to ask me, preferably by email. As I state in my profile, anonymous posters get a lot less leeway from me, and I'm not really interested in doing Sexism 101 for somebody who can't be bothered to spend 15 minutes with Google.
  - douche 11y ago
    Okay, clearly we do not operate on the same system of logic. I may be a douche, but at least I don't always default to being a condescending asshole.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Let's make a deal: you turn up using your real name and ask sincere questions that demonstrate some command of the material. In turn, I'll treat you with respect, rather than as some goof who uses anonymity to avoid accountability for his ugly opinions.