[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the jokes at this conference were being told by people sitting in the row directly behind the woman who was offended by it.

This sort of implies that they shouldn't have been talking among themselves at all. That's a situation that eliminates the "non-participant" aspect of the defense. Not engaging in their conversation was the correct thing to be doing under the circumstances and couldn't be taken to mean not listening.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont like what you said, therefore I will get you fired

How many people sharing that mentality will it take for free speech to wither on the vine?

I'm surprised to see people who support taking a knee endorse firing people for their speech

 

[brennan]

People only want to police thought and speech based on what they find offensive, not what other people object to.

 

[Lexicus]

This sort of implies that they shouldn't have been talking among themselves at all. That's a situation that eliminates the "non-participant" aspect of the defense. Not engaging in their conversation was the correct thing to be doing under the circumstances and couldn't be taken to mean not listening.

Well, in a setting like that conference I think it's generally best to not make jokes like that because you never know who might hear you. And by "generally best" I mean "clearly demanded by basic standards of professionalism."

 

[MaryKB]

You'll often find someone trying to hide behind his idea of "free speech!" to cover his attempts at oppression, and I feel it's very similar to someone saying "I'm just joking!" when really he's not. Words really can hurt, and your words can convey attitudes to create culture, and cultures you help create can really cause true harm to people. And if you're a company you totally have to react to something your person says, because you need to protect marginalized people under you.

Like if you consider that fellow at Google who was fired because he sent out his sexist memo to all the company about how women don't belong in technology. Well if Google didn't fire him, they're endorsing his thoughts and saying it's okay to express that view there, and how do you feel that'd make all the women working at Google feel? Casual sexism really creates a hostile environment, and when you're treated like you don't really have a right to be there, it really weighs on you and affects you negatively. And whether they know it or not, men are trying to push women out of these types of industries, you can see it all the time and I've also felt it myself.

I'm surprised how often I still see a man trying to deny there's a power imbalance between men and women, you'd think with so many resources available today he'd be able to get a clue, right?

You totally do have to moderate to have free speech, or else you're only going to have "freedom" for your loudest and strongest. How do you feel about someone getting banned because he or she says offensive things, or disrupts conversation? And if you don't have regulation in your company, you're going to have your meanest, loudest bullies forcing out other people, because whether you accept it or not some people are more vulnerable than others, and historically men have oppressed women, and if you think we're anywhere close to real equality you're not paying attention. No, as an employer you're going to protect your talent from hostility, because that's really in your best interest, and you're starting to see people realize this now and not cave in to bullying any more.

And she never asked for that man to be fired, she wanted her event to say something to him, because his behavior really needed to stop, again you don't know what this feels like, and it's so very easy for someone in power to just be dismissive of other peoples' feelings. And it's not about "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to get you fired", it's "What you're saying is hurting me and causing a culture that harms me, please stop."

 

[Lexicus]

You'll often find someone trying to hide behind his idea of "free speech!" to cover his attempts at oppression, and I feel it's very similar to someone saying "I'm just joking!" when really he's not. Words really can hurt, and your words can convey attitudes to create culture, and cultures you help create can really cause true harm to people. And if you're a company you totally have to react to something your person says, because you need to protect marginalized people under you.

Simple summary: can't defend your ideas on the merits, so just defend your "right" to make your arguments, which no one was actually contesting in the first place.

you'd think with so many resources available today he'd be able to get a clue, right?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[brennan]

Like if you consider that fellow at Google who was fired because he sent out his sexist memo to all the company about how women don't belong in technology.

Since you mis-represent it so much I take it you never read any of it? I mean he actually suggested ways to increase the representation of women in the industry.

 

[Lexicus]

Since you mis-represent it so much I take it you never read any of it? I mean he actually suggested ways to increase the representation of women in the industry.

Jesus man, are you really this credulous? His "suggestions" were just idiotic concern trolling. It's like suggesting you increase representation of black people in corporate boardrooms by "dumbing everything down." Not a real suggestion, just racism.

 

[Mouthwash]

Like if you consider that fellow at Google who was fired because he sent out his sexist memo to all the company about how women don't belong in technology.

Is this serious?

 

[brennan]

@ Lexicus: You haven't read it either then?

 

[Lexicus]

@ Lexicus: You haven't read it either then?

In fact, I did read it.

 

[Mouthwash]

In fact, I did read it.

'It exists!' he cried.

'No,' said O'Brien.

He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.

'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'

'But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.'

'I do not remember it,' said O'Brien.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@ Lexicus: You haven't read it either then?

They, and I just haven't read it with your appreciative and forgiving eye. I think Lexicus hit it right on the head with his comparison to "we should dumb everything down and make it possible for black people to work here too, because I'm not racist and I love black people." You're the guy saying "See, he loves black people, he says so right there."

 

[brennan]

So all the feminists who call for business cultures to change so they are more accommodating to women are just concern trolling bigots?

 

[Lexicus]

So all the feminists who call for business cultures to change so they are more accommodating to women are just concern trolling bigots?

In keeping with our black people metaphor, do you really believe there is no difference between "dumb everything down" and "lift the ban on Afros"?

 

[brennan]

Well y'see I don't believe any convincing body of evidence shows that black people are stupid, so...

 

[Lexicus]

Well y'see I don't believe any convincing body of evidence shows that black people are stupid, so...

But you do believe that a convincing body of evidence shows that women are less likely to be competent software engineers?

 

[Mouthwash]

That's kind of a mainstream view in biology.

 

[Traitorfish]

But you do believe that a convincing body of evidence shows that women are less likely to be competent software engineers?

In fairness, it's probably harder for them to concentrate when their male colleagues keep circulating weird conspiracy treatises.

 

[brennan]

Do you have any idea how much research there is on the subject of differences between male and female neurology?

Addressing sex as a biological variable
Eric M Prager PhD
First published: 07 November 2016

https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23979

Cited by: 7


PDF
TOOLS

SHARE
Neuroscience today relies on the overwhelming belief that biological sex does not matter and can be safely ignored in preclinical research. Common practice within neuroscientific research is that findings in one sex (usually males) can be generalized to the other sex (usually females). Authors will even take the extreme approach of developing questionable methods to “prove” that sex differences are not present in the brain.

Sex matters not only at the macroscopic level, where male and female brains have been found to differ in size and connectivity, but at the microscopic level too. This themed issue of the Journal of Neuroscience Research highlights sex differences of the brain at all scales, from the genetic and epigenetic, to the synaptic, cellular, and systems differences—differences known to be present throughout the life span. The work published in this issue powerfully illustrates that sex matters and that researchers can no longer rely on extrapolation from research on male animals and cells, which obscures key differences that might influence clinical studies.

Neuroscience today is at a crossroads. Do we continue the status quo and ignore sex as a biological variable, or do we acknowledge that sex influences the brain at all levels and address the major gaps in knowledge? The National Institutes of Health now mandates the inclusion of sex as a biological variable. Without this mandate, scientific discoveries that could benefit the health of both men and women would be hampered. At the Journal of Neuroscience Research, we recognize that sex fundamentally influences the brain and have now established policy requiring all authors to ensure proper consideration of sex as a biological variable. These are as follows:

1. Any paper utilizing subjects (cells, animals, humans) of only one sex must state the sex of the samples in the title and abstract of the paper, with the obvious exception of sex‐specific issues (e.g., prostate or ovarian function). Authors must also state the rationale for using samples from one sex rather than from both.
2. All papers must clearly state in the methods section the number of samples/subjects of each sex used in the research. For cellular work, the sex of origin of cells used should be reported in most cases. If cells or tissue from both sexes were used without regard to sex, this fact should be indicated.
3. JNR is particularly interested in experiments involving both male and female subjects studied at the same time, and with sufficient sample size to ensure meaningful statistical comparisons. The inability for any reason to study sex differences where they may exist should be discussed as a study limitation.
4. Manuscripts reporting exploratory analyses of potential sex differences in studies not explicitly designed to address them are encouraged. JNR understands the real risk of false‐positive errors associated with subgroup analysis, but that risk is balanced by the equal or greater risk of false‐negative errors resulting from a failure to consider possible sex influences. JNR also understands that false‐negative results may result from underpowered analyses, but given the dearth of such analyses in neuroscience to date, and the now clear imperative to change the status quo on this issue, explicitly exploratory analyses are called for in many circumstances.
5. Clinical work should be be designed with stratified randomization by sex. Post hoc analyses may also be useful, again perhaps explicitly designated as exploratory.

Consistent with NIH policy towards grant applications as of February 2016 (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-102.html), the lack of an existing literature concerning the likelihood of a sex influence in a given domain does not constitute an adequate rationale for failing to examine a dataset for potential sex differences. Rather, testing for sex as a biological variable will give us the power to both transform our understanding of female and male biology and pathophysiology and, most importantly, inform clinical research. It is an issue whose time has come.

Eric M Prager, PhD

Editor‐in‐Chief, Journal of Neuroscience Research

This publication alone contains about 80 papers on the subject.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10974547/95/1-2