Rocket scientist harassed over shirt

[Atomic Playboy]

With Matt, I bet his feelings did not matter to those who scolded him.

Nobody has a right not to have their feelings hurt.

OK then.

 

[Texashiker]

OK then.

Matt wore a shirt that offended certain people.

Those people have no right not to have their feelings hurt.

Those same people have no right to retaliate against Matt.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Matt wore a shirt that offended certain people.

Those people have no right not to have their feelings hurt.

Those same people have no right to retaliate against Matt.

They have no right to retaliate against him with physical violence or threats, sure. But you're coming at this from the "nobody has a right to criticize" angle, and that's completely wrong. We all have the right to form our own opinions and we have the right to voice our opinions. If someone does something that offends us, we're allowed to voice our discontent, even if the cause of the offense seems benign to most people. That's the whole point of free speech; it's not just "whoever speaks first wins since no one is allowed to disagree." The free exchange of ideas will sometimes end with hurt feelings; it's just how freedom of expression works.

 

[Jaskalas]

I just see a bunch of people voicing their opinions (pretty much scolding him).

Which they have no right to do.

:hmm: The wording used is dubious.

Of course people have a right to have an opinion. Free speech gives them that. However, where do we draw the line on harassment and bullying?

 

[Texashiker]

They have no right to retaliate against him with physical violence or threats, sure. But you're coming at this from the "nobody has a right to criticize" angle, and that's completely wrong.

We all have the right to form our own opinions and we have the right to voice our opinions.

There is a difference in voicing your opinion and retaliating.

Scorning and embarrassing someone is not offering a dissenting opinion, that is retaliation

If someone does something that offends us, we're allowed to voice our discontent, even if the cause of the offense seems benign to most people. That's the whole point of free speech; it's not just "whoever speaks first wins since no one is allowed to disagree." The free exchange of ideas will sometimes end with hurt feelings; it's just how freedom of expression works.

See above.

Maybe my wording was off in my previous post?

One does not have the right to scorn, embarrass, retaliate because their feelings were hurt.

 

[zinfamous]

I should have been more clear.

Offendees have no right to scold the offendors.

What you end up with are special classes who feelings are more important than others.

since when?

and no, you did not "make it more clear."

You literally repeated what you just said.

 

[Texashiker]

since when?

and no, you did not "make it more clear."

What society ends up with are privileged groups who have more rights than others.

Kim kardashian can flash her ass all over the internet, and that is acceptable.

Man wears shirt with shanty clothed women, people are offended?

If women do not want to be treated as sex objects, do not act like one.

 

[alzan]

What society ends up with are privileged groups who have more rights than others.

Kim kardashian can flash her ass all over the internet, and that is acceptable.

Man wears shirt with shanty clothed women, people are offended?

If women do not want to be treated as sex objects, do not act like one.

No one is forcing you or any other person to view/treat women as sex objects, that's a choice you and others make.

Live with the consequences, i.e. hearing/reading others' opinions, of the choice made.

Don't like the consequences, change the behavior brought on by the choice.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No one is forcing you or any other person to view/treat women as sex objects, that's a choice you and others make.

Live with the consequences, i.e. hearing/reading others' opinions, of the choice made.

Don't like the consequences, change the behavior brought on by the choice.

Silly boy, you cannot defeat toothless hiker with logical arguments, his obtuseness knows no bounds. He cannot be bothered with facts or reasonable thinking for...
He is, SUPERTROLL

 

[Texashiker]

Don't like the consequences, change the behavior brought on by the choice.

Really?

What society ends up with is different groups who have certain rights other groups do not.

Why is it ok for women to post nude pictures of themselves, but not ok for men to wear a shirt of clothed women?

Because those women want more rights than men.

 

[master_shake_]

fucking moutbreathers.

this guy is a ROCKET SCIENTIST.

he is way smarter than anyone who was "offended" by his shirt.

give it the fuck up.

if it weren't for guys like him they wouldn't be able to tweet their "feelings" on their smart phones.

in short FUCK OFF!

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Fuck the feminazis.

 

[Nebor]

fucking moutbreathers.

this guy is a ROCKET SCIENTIST.

he is way smarter than anyone who was "offended" by his shirt.

give it the fuck up.

if it weren't for guys like him they wouldn't be able to tweet their "feelings" on their smart phones.

in short FUCK OFF!

Pretty much this. These people are able to spend their lives complaining about trivial nonsense that "offends" them because of men like this doing great things.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What society ends up with are privileged groups who have more rights than others.

Kim kardashian can flash her ass all over the internet, and that is acceptable.

Man wears shirt with shanty clothed women, people are offended?

If women do not want to be treated as sex objects, do not act like one.

There's just so much wrong with this logic, I don't know where to begin...

First off, time and place are important for the context of any expression. If someone was wearing this shirt in a strip club, no one would bat an eye. This is a professional scientist in a professional setting giving an interview on an international news network; wearing ANY bowling shirt comes across as unprofessional, let alone one adorned with half-naked women. Contextually, this man should have been more sensitive about the professionalism of his appearance given the setting he was appearing in.

Second, just because one person does something, it doesn't mean you can stereotype an entire group. Kim Kardashian chooses to appear naked, therefore all women can be treated like sex objects? That's patently absurd. Kim Kardashian has absolutely nothing to do with the illustrated woman on this man's shirt. And, hey, I bet you, even if this man was wearing a shirt with Kim Kardashian's giant naked ass on it, he still would have caught grief for the reason I outlined above; it's entirely unprofessional to wear sexually provocative attire. If a female scientist was giving this interview wearing PVC lingerie, no one would take her seriously, but if a man wears a picture of a woman in that outfit, he's given a pass... because Kim Kardashian posed naked? What in the actual fuck are you on about?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

There's just so much wrong with this logic, I don't know where to begin...

First off, time and place are important for the context of any expression. If someone was wearing this shirt in a strip club, no one would bat an eye. This is a professional scientist in a professional setting giving an interview on an international news network; wearing ANY bowling shirt comes across as unprofessional, let alone one adorned with half-naked women. Contextually, this man should have been more sensitive about the professionalism of his appearance given the setting he was appearing in.

Second, just because one person does something, it doesn't mean you can stereotype an entire group. Kim Kardashian chooses to appear naked, therefore all women can be treated like sex objects? That's patently absurd. Kim Kardashian has absolutely nothing to do with the illustrated woman on this man's shirt. And, hey, I bet you, even if this man was wearing a shirt with Kim Kardashian's giant naked ass on it, he still would have caught grief for the reason I outlined above; it's entirely unprofessional to wear sexually provocative attire. If a female scientist was giving this interview wearing PVC lingerie, no one would take her seriously, but if a man wears a picture of a woman in that outfit, he's given a pass... because Kim Kardashian posed naked? What in the actual fuck are you on about?

You don't know because you are an idiot.

 

[brycejones]

Fuck the feminazis.

What a brilliant post. Do you really think that shirt is appropriate for any workplace besides a strip club?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You don't know because you are an idiot.

Thanks for that insightful and well-constructed argument. You've truly shown me the error of my ways.

 

[Texashiker]

Fuck the feminazis.

Luke 6:45

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

In other words, foul mouth foul heart.

First off, time and place are important for the context of any expression. If someone was wearing this shirt in a strip club, no one would bat an eye.

Isn't there a saying, something like do not judge a culture by your own standards?

Second, just because one person does something, it doesn't mean you can stereotype an entire group. <snip>

It is a double standard.

Woman has nude pictures of herself posted on internet, that is acceptable.

Man wears shirt with clothed women, oh the outrage.

 

[piasabird]

What happened to freedom of expression?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It is a double standard.

Woman has nude pictures of herself posted on internet, that is acceptable.

Man wears shirt with clothed women, oh the outrage.

It is a double standard.

Chris Rock uses the n-word on stage, everybody laughs.

I use the n-word at the office Christmas party, I get fired.

 

[Pulsar]

Reasonable individuals disagree with me? If you are offended by a shirt with scantily glad members of either gender, especially when no genitalia is shown, you are not a reasonable person. And, claiming that due to wearing that shirt, the "offender" doesn't care about women in the STEM community is even further beyond reasonable.

Is the shirt appropriate? Not particularly. Is it some huge scandal, exposing another woman hater holding women in the STEM community, and the world, back? Hardly.



But, that isn't what happened. If you did a bunch of charity work in a t-shirt with a picture of a fucking woman on it, anyone offended is a fucking idiot.

I absolutely LOVE the term 'reasonable individuals'. Using it immediately asserts that: #1 You're reasonable, #2 Anyone who disagrees is not reasonable.

I think anandtech should install software that immediately changes the text "reasonable individuals' into either:

A. anyone who isn't beating their wife
B. anyone who isn't a Nazi

and then automatically bans the person who used it for being a dumbass.

 

[Exophase]

I think the shirt was inappropriate for a televised airing and not a very smart decision on his part, although his cultural background is going to be different from what I'm used to.

Was it also sexist? There are arguments that can be made about gender sensitivity and how this reflects on greater social issues. I don't think there's anything wrong with making these arguments, and I'd probably agree with at least some of these points on some level. But I think that some people blew this situation way out of proportion by saying that the shirt was an example of casual sexism in STEM that's setting back women's rights by decades, or is scaring off women from these careers. These statements are really presumptuous and accusatory, and are frequently delivered with a lot of anger. And it's not something that comes primarily from women, plenty of men have as well. A few people actually in STEM fields, but mostly those who are not.

What bothers me is no one really seems interested in how his coworkers actually feel about this, either in asking them or just plain bringing it up. There's an assumption that they hate the atmosphere that the scientist is creating but are too cowed and oppressed to say anything about it. But this is something I feel needs to be a bigger component of social activism: encouraging people to (calmly, politely, and with empathy) voice concerns directly to the people who are offending them. Instead of acting with passive aggression, which often boils over to the media picking it up and pushing it on the court of public opinion. A court that often seems to care more about gaining more lines on its oppression portfolio than actually asserting positive change.

 

[Zaap]

This thread delivers.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What happened to freedom of expression?

Was he prosecuted by the government for wearing it? No? What else you got?

 

[Nebor]

What bothers me is no one really seems interested in how his coworkers actually feel about this, either in asking them or just plain bringing it up. There's an assumption that they hate the atmosphere that the scientist is creating but are too cowed and oppressed to say anything about it. But this is something I feel needs to be a bigger component of social activism: encouraging people to (calmly, politely, and with empathy) voice concerns directly to the people who are offending them. Instead of acting with passive aggression, which often boils over to the media picking it up and pushing it on the court of public opinion. A court that often seems to care more about gaining more lines on its oppression portfolio than actually asserting positive change.

He's a rocket scientist. He doesn't work with any women. Which of his coworkers was offended?