United Kingdom

The Illiberal Persecution of Tim Hunt

An old guys tells a bad joke and academia descends into a frenzy



If you were in any doubt that a dark cloud of illiberalism has descended over the Western academy, then the case of Tim Hunt should put you straight.

Hunt is a British biochemist. A really good one. In 2001 he won the Nobel Prize for his breakthrough work on cells. He's a fellow of the Royal Society in London, founded in 1660 and thought to be the oldest scientific research institution in the world. And this week he was unceremoniously ditched by University College London for telling a joke.

Hunt's crime was to make a not-very-funny gag during an after-dinner speech at a conference on women in science in South Korea earlier this week.

"Three things happen when [girls] are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry," he said. According to one of the attendees, the joke was greeted by a "deathly, deathly silence."

In a normal world, a world which valued the freedom to make a doofus of oneself, that should have been the end of it. Seventy-two-year-old man of science makes outdated joke, tumbleweed rolls by, The End.

But we don't live in a normal world. Certainly we don't live in a world where people are allowed to make off-color comments. And so with tedious, life-zapping predicability, Hunt fell victim to the offence-policers, to the machine of outrage being constantly cranked up by self-styled guardians of what we may think, say, and even joke about.

Twitter went into meltdown. Journalists kicked up a fuss. His comments were branded "shocking and bewildering." (You find a silly joke bewildering? You really should get out more.) And then came the denouement to this latest outburst of confected fury: Hunt "resigned" from UCL, where he was honorary professor.

"Resign" is in quote marks because it's pretty clear he was elbowed out. Consider UCL's statement about his leaving. "UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome [Hunt's resignation] is compatible with our commitment to gender equality."

That's another way of saying that Hunt's penchant for making un-PC jokes was incompatible with life at UCL. So he had to be excommunicated. Professors of Britain, be warned: tell a funny that irritates the right-on, and you shall be cast out.

Even more depressing than the resignation/sacking of Hunt has been the response to it. "This is a moment to savour," said the Guardian. The Twitterati has given birth to the hashtag #distractinglysexy, featuring pics of women in laboratories, all designed to mock Hunt's 1950s worldview. One science journalist thinks Hunt deserves the roasting he's received because it is alarming that "in this day and age… someone would be prepared to be so crass, so rude."

What is truly alarming, what should really send a shiver down every liberal's spine, is not the words that came out of Hunt's mouth but the haranguing of him that followed, the shunning of him by the academy and possibly by the scientific elite itself. (As the Guardian crows, Hunt is a "fellow of the Royal Society… at the time of writing, at least." Yes! Let's cast him out of that institution too! And can we pelt him with rotten eggs as he leaves?)

The response to Hunt is way more archaic than what Hunt said. Sure, his views might be a bit pre-women's lib, pre-1960s. But the tormenting and sacking of people for what they think and say is pre-modern. It's positively Inquisitorial.

The irony is too much to handle: Hunt is railed against for expressing an old-fashioned view, yet the railers against him do something infinitely more old-fashioned: they expel from public life someone they judge to have committed heresy. Kick him out. Strip him of his titles. Mock his misfortune. "Savour the moment." How awfully ironic that the Royal Society, which played a key role in propelling Britain from medievalism to modernity, is now being asked to behave in a medieval fashion and send into the academic wilderness a heretic among its number.

The Hunt incident is quite terrifying. For what we have here is a university, under pressure from an intolerant mob, judging a professor's fitness for office by his personal thoughts, his idea of humour. Profs should be judged by one thing alone: their depth of knowledge. It shouldn't matter one iota if they are sexist, stupid, unfunny, religious, uncouth, ugly, or whatever. All that should matter is whether they have the brainpower to do the job at hand.

UCL and the mob's hounding of Hunt echoes the university of the pre-Enlightenment era, when only those who were 100 percent Good Catholics had a hope in hell of getting a job. Only now, academics must be unflinchingly in accordance with the commandments of PC rather than with Biblical thinking. A Nobel Laureate has been broken on the wheel of PC. This is bad. Really bad. For if even a Nobel winner can be treated like this, what hope is there for lesser professors? The chilling effect of the Hunt debacle on the Western academy is likely to be pretty intense.

The Hunt case confirms something important: that Western universities are complicit in the censoriousness that is consuming them. In fact, they invite it; they invented it.

In effectively dumping Hunt, UCL is sending the message that it will not tolerate deviant thinking. Oxford University did something similar last year when it cancelled a debate on abortion (which I was due to speak at) at the behest of an angry mob of feminists. The management of the London School of Economics gave the nod to the disbanding of its student rugby team for the crime of distributing a rude leaflet. In the U.S., Columbia has indulged the mattress girl, allowing her to defame both a man and campus life more broadly. UVa banned fraternities in response to what turned out to be an utterly made-up rape. Even the notorious Laura Kipnis case is not a simple case of mad, intolerant students trying to shut down an outspoken academic, but rather has been facilitated by educational structures themselves: in this case the federal Title IX rules dealing with gender issues on campus.

Too often today we're told that gangs of crazy students or irate feminists, invading armies of pinkos, are turning otherwise enlightened universities into hotbeds of PC intolerance. That's way too simple. In truth, universities themselves, having embraced relativism, non-judgmentalism, and discomfort with the idea of Truth itself, incite such behaviour. They green-light it. They facilitate it. The Hunt story confirms that the academy isn't being destroyed by morally alien beings, by cushioned, entitled youth—it is destroying itself.

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on Exposing the Crap Science Behind Federal Dietary Guidelines

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know what they say, there’s a bit of truth in every joke

    1. What about that Bavarian cream pie joke I told you? There’s no truth to that. Nobody with a terminal illness goes from the United States to Europe for a piece of Bavarian cream pie and then when they get there and they don’t have it he says, ‘Ah, I’ll just have some coffee.’ There’s no truth to that.

      1. +1 bowl of crab bisque.

      2. You’re a monster

    2. And you know what they also say: there’s a bit of the wood chipper in Politically Correct University. And the feminists grabbed hold of Prof Hunt, and proceeded to…

      1. The reaction to his inappropriately triggering banter was actually quite mild. Here in America, we have other ways of dealing with recalcitrant academics ? and especially with their family relations who engage in triggering speech that we really don’t like. See the documentation of our leading criminal satire case at:


    3. You know what they say, there’s a bit of truth in every joke

      The reaction to what was said pretty much proves that.

  2. He’s a witch!

    1. He made a not-funny joke about a newt! (Don’t worry, the joke got better…)

  3. “‘No one helped her’: NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit.”


    “Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper [i.e., a restraining order]. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.

    “Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for [well over 30 days].

    1. The Brady Bunch says she died a noble death for the cause.

    2. Let this be a lesson to ALL people. Acquire, learn the operation and care of multiple firearms BEFORE you need them, duh! Don’t wait until your deranged boyfriend makes you pay for choosing him. Maybe this is just ‘thinning of the herd.’ The stupid people will die first.

      1. I think you make a great point about acquiring and learning how to use firearms before you need them.

        This woman’s death, however, is not due to her stupidity or some act of thinning the herd. She was murdered by a deranged ex-boyfriend because some shitty state law kept firearms out of her hands for well over a month. If she had just lived in another state, she would most likely be alive today.

        The blame here is squarely on the evil ex-boyfriend, the evil state law in question, and maybe even the sheriff, who dragged his feet in approving the sale of the firearm to this poor young woman.

        1. Sorry Wood Chipper but you are wrong. The young woman CHOSE the man who killed her and any one who goes out in a boat without a life preserver and ends up drowning when the boat sinks deserves the title of STUPID.

          1. End, you are a moron.

            The woman may have chosen the man previously, but ended that relationship. Yes, she got into the boat. But she also got out of the boat. And got on land. And tried to set up a “no boats or boat captains” perimiter. And yet, the boat hit her anyway. She didn’t drown in the boat, the captain of the boat put it into harbor, got a knife, and stabbed her repeatedly after she got OUT.

            Also — you brainless turd, people change. Who knows what happened between when she “chose him” (and that could have a been a blind date or two, for all we know) and when he killed her? Do you know? Because the article doesn’t say.

            Finally, just because she began a relationship with an individual, that does not, EVER, put her into a situation where she “deserves” to die. He murdered her, and she is not to blame for his murder.

            Post script, sjw something something victim blaming something something. I am told this is what I am “supposed” to say by my socialist sister. /shrug.

      2. The stupid always die first. The true opportunity to learn something new arises when one understands that a judgmental lack of critical thinking skills is also known as “stupidity”.

      3. That, and don’t stick in crazy. Or let crazy stick it in you.

        1. No, you always stick it in crazy or let it be stuck into you. LIVE PEOPLE, LIVE!

      4. Acquire, learn the operation and care of multiple firearms BEFORE you need them, duh!

        Except she lived in New Jersey, where you have to have a “good reason” to include on the government application to get the permit which will allow you to purchase a handgun.

        And “someone in our high-crime state might want to murder me in the future” doesn’t cut it. You have to have someone standing in your driveway with his knife out before you can begin the 120-day process of qualifying for the gun you need right-the-hell-now-or-you’re-dead.

    3. Lesson: If you are in fear for your life, obtain a gun now and carrying it, illegally if you must. Fuck the government.

    4. Well then, it’s obvious that we need stricter knife control laws.

      1. Not to mention baseball bat control laws.

        1. Mandatory registration, waiting periods, and barrell length restrictions.

  4. How dare you call the comment off color, they prefer to be called other colored.

    1. At this moment., I demand to be called pink-with-little-brown spots colored.

      You’re all on notice.

      1. I mean, do I even have to ask?

      2. At this moment., I demand to be called pink-with-little-brown spots colored.

        I think that’s what my nuts look like ATM after the woman gets murdered by ex while waiting for gun permit story above…

          1. …or it didn’t happen.

      3. I have always pictured you as a giant hamster with a gasmask on. I am sad to hear that this may not be 100% accurate.

  5. If the ‘consensus’ on global warming tells us anything it’s that science is increasingly more about money and ideology than science and knowledge. I’m at the point where I trust a scientist about as far as I can throw a politician.

    1. When I was a kid, I believed in God and in Science. Suffice it to say, these days I take both with a huge grain of salt.

      1. Could we say you’ve lost your faith in science, and progress?

        Could we say you’ve lost your faith in the holy church?

        1. You could say I’d lost my belief in our politicians…

    2. Well, with your bad knee Ed, you shouldn’t throw anybody

    3. Money is not the problem, the source for the money is: with the State funding a big chunk of all the research that is done, scientists no longer need to be concerned about the quality of their work, but about the politics involved.

    4. Good call. I gave up on science back when they called Altar a carcinogenic.

  6. Doesn’t the twitter meltdown validate what he said?

    criticize them they cry

  7. Totally OT: I’ve been replaying Skyrim, and I think I found Agile Cyborg:

    Imagine living beneath the waves with a strong-sighted blessing of most excellent fabric. Holding the fabric over your gills, you would begin to breathe-drink its warp and weft. Though the plantmatter fibers imbue your soul, the wretched plankton would pollute the cloth until it stank to heavens of prophecy. This is one manner in which the Scrolls first came to pass, but are we the sea, or the breather, or the fabric? Or are we the breath itself?
    Can we flow through the Scrolls as knowledge flows through, being the water, or are we the stuck morass of sea-filth that gathers on the edge?
    Imagine, again, this time but different. A bird cresting the wind is lifted by a gust and downed by a stone. But the stone can come from above, if the bird is upside down. Where, then, did the gust come from? And which direction? Did the gods send either, or has the bird decreed their presence by her own mindmaking?
    The all-sight of the Scrolls makes a turning of the mind such that relative positions are absolute in their primacy.

    1. I ask you again to imagine for me. This time you are beneath the ground, a tiny acorn planted by some well-meaning elf-maiden of the woodlands for her pleasure. You wish to grow but fear what you may become, so you push off the water, the dirt, the sun, to stay in your hole. But it is in the very pushing that you become a tree, in spite of yourself. How did that happen?
      The acorn is a kind of tree-egg in this instance, and the knowledge is water and sun. We are the chicken inside the egg, but also the dirt. The knowledge from the Scrolls is what we push against to become full-sighted ourselves.
      One final imagining before your mind closes from the shock of ever-knowing. You are now a flame burning bright blue within a vast emptiness. In time you see your brothers and sisters, burnings of their own in the distance and along your side. A sea of pinpoints, a constellation of memories. Each burns bright, then flickers. Then two more take its place but not forever lest the void fills with rancid light that sucks the thought.
      Each of our minds is actually the emptiness, and the learnings of the Scrolls are the pinpoints. Without their stabbing light, my consciousness would be as a vast nothingness, unknowing its emptiness as a void is unknowing of itself. But the burnings are dangerous, and must be carefully tended and minded and brought to themselves and spread to their siblings.

      1. Interesting! I still think The Cyborg is Hedley Lamarr.

        1. HEDDY Lamarr, fuckbrain. She was a fucking brilliant engineer, and you will get her fucking name right!

          1. IRONY ALERT: Hedy Lamarr…

            1. What are you worried about? She won’t be born for another 50 years. He can sue HER !

    2. I used to tell sexist jokes like Tim Hunt, until I took an arrow to the knee.

  8. OT: Dallas Police HQ attacked:

    DALLAS ? Dallas police were in a standoff Saturday morning after suspects in an armored van opened fire on the department’s headquarters before leading officers on a chase to Hutchins, about 10 miles southeast.

    Crazy shit. There’s some Twitter videos from bystanders.

    1. An armored van with gun ports! That’s what the North Hollywood bank robbers neglected to think off.

      1. It’s an old SWAT van. Kinda ironic.

    2. How long before gun controllers try to latch onto this in some way?

      1. We must demand the registration of all vans, for the children! Oh wait….we do require registration of vans….we need MORE registration of vans! Yeah, that’s it.

        1. And all SUVs. Because of AGW.

    3. No surprise that it is a white man.

  9. So, he made a joke about women being oversensitive. And a bunch of feminist women just utterly flip their sit over it, demonstrating that at least as far as they are concerned, his joke wasn’t far off the mark.

    Didn’t an academic at Boston U recently call white males a ‘problem population’? Remind me again what her punishment was? Oh right, nothing. And what twitter protest erupted as a result? None, right.

    In short, feminist response to this guys joke has helped vindicate the joke itself. Talk about having a chip on your shoulder.

    1. Actually, FWIW, that Boston prof got some criticism, her school and the President officially condemned her comments and she publicly confessed her regret.

      1. I didn’t see the outrage in the media channels that ran with the original comments. White males don’t care about victim culture or cries of wolf. Outrage is a feminist specialty and it’ll get them what they want in the short run, but a 40 YO feminist is an ugly person to be around. I’ve had a couple good friends go down this path and if youre not making money spreading the mantra and your besties get married and have kids you’re a miserable person. It shows up in this woman’s hate tweets.

    2. Feminists are twits, best ignored.

      1. Hard to ignore loud mouth’d shnooks.

        1. Granted it takes a lot of practice, but it’s like riding a bike once you’ve gotten the knack for it.

  10. “UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome [Hunt’s resignation] is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.”

    So if any of the ladies on staff joked about men’s lack of emotive skill or penchant for one night standery they would be shown the door? The gals would do themselves a favor by not playing the victim in this.

    1. Yeah, if making unfair generalizations about one sex or the other warrants loss of one’s job, doesn’t that mean the entire gender studies dept should resign? Because making unfair generalizations about men is essentially what they do for a living.

      Boston College never made feminist Mary Daly resign, despite her basically openly being a sociopathic lunatic. Marilyn French still has a job somewhere, despite the horrid things she’s said. If women wan gender equality, then they ought to respond to this Hunt guy the same way men respond to comparable incidents: roll your eyes and forget about it.

  11. The stupid people of the world now has more influence than the people of intellect. They also outnumber intelligent people 10 to 1.

    IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And the socialists/stupid people have won. Time to move on. Panama is nice. Find a little place in up in the hills. Turn off the tube, forget about politics and enjoy the remainder of my life. FUCK the USA

    1. One Tim Hunt is worth 100 of the trained seals universities are producing in the liberal arts and soft sciences, if not more. This guy made an actual contribution to humanity. The others sit around and cry witch.

    2. Boquete!

      Take lots of dollars, Panama is not cheap.

      1. Bulgaria’s cheap. And they have rakia.

        1. They also have Bulgarians. I ask you, is it really worth it?

          1. But do they have Bavarian Cream Pie?

    3. My friend and I sometimes make jokes about how it would be better to pool a bunch of money together from various libertarian minded people and go buy a country in Central America than to try to save the USA.

      Time to start fresh with a 21st century mindset for government. Smaller and more efficient.

      1. Something like this is probably the only answer. The idea has been floated and half heartedly attempted but I think it is going to be important that someone give it a credible go. I am dying to renounce my citizenship for something saner but living here is like a woman living in a trailer with a husband who burns her with cigarettes and her only choice is to move to a different one where her new husband will burn her with cigars.

        1. It’s really too bad we cant get the Ecuadorian Government to sell a few of the uninhabited Galapagos Islands where we could just start a new country.

          But maybe there is some land in a Central American country that is uninhabited and can be used as a new model for a new society. More efficient road systems, cleaner energy infrastructure, flat tax or VAT only, heavily invested in science and technology for 21st century markets…

          Oh well, I can dream.

          1. Republic of Minerva.

            No country is going to sell off part of it’s territory. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. And even if it did, they would repossess in the blink of an eye.

            1. Then we must invade and take passion by force. .

              1. The problem is maintaining an economy. Starting a new country like that is impossible. The inherent instability of any area recently taken whether by force or through purchase would negate any benefit of an intelligent government with truly market friendly policies. The only chance would be to turn a fully formed and functioning nation state independent. All bias aside I do think Texas has the most potential.

                1. Not just the economy but the essence of the whole reason why you did it in the first place. No sooner than you establish your libertarian paradise you know there’s gonna be some asshole who will try and go all socialist-commie on you.

                  Very hard to keep going a life of liberty.

      2. Checkout Hondura’s ZEDE project. Not quite your own country, but a semi-independent jurisdiction a la Hong Kong.

      3. There is the Free State Project.

    4. Boquette is expensive because it is filled with European ExPats who are trying to turn it into Lausaunne. Picture a Yankee with a U-Haul arriving in the deep south.

      Other than tourist towns with ex-pat regressives and Panama City, Panama is half the price of Costa Rica with at least triple the police/govt/coercion presence. CR is expensive, but you only have to deal with overt government every three months to renew your tourist visa. And even then, the CR agents are friendly every time.

      1. Never been, but isn’t everybody in Costa Rico friendly? I’ve noticed that when you go south and west and to places with more sunlight, people are happier and thus more friendly. In that vein, I would think tropical paradises should be filled with happy, friendly people.

    5. This is an odd reaction to a story about another country.

  12. So let me get this straight: women can create women-only spaces because men are evil, but men can’t create men only spaces, because… men are evil.

    1. Check your testy privilege, dude.

      1. *unzips pants, perks at crotch*

        Yep, privilege still there. Phew.

        1. *peeks. Apparently an edit button world be too much privilege for the likes of us…

          1. This is funny on at least two levels, or maybe it’s too levels.

  13. universities themselves, having embraced […] non-judgmentalism

    University College London was quite judgemental in this instance.

  14. ” In fact, they invite it; they invented it.”

    Is that really the case? The right makes sure to play up any case like this from academe because they’re their perceived political opponents, but you have to watch what you say in any big business these days too. There are groups out there left AND right that will kick up a fuss for thought crimes (just this week Franklin Graham made a fuss about Wells Fargo having a lesbian couple in an ad), it’s just they classify different things as such.

    1. Franklin Graham calls for a boycott of Wells Fargo. Nothing happens. SJW’s on Twitter get out their pitchforks and force out CEO of Mozilla because he took the same position on gay marriage as the politicians they vote for routinely. Colleges destroy careers of people guilty of wrong think.

      Yea, Bo…it’s the EXACT same!

      1. Forcing out a Nobel prize winning biochemist is the same as mumbling some smack about lesbians.

        1. Graham withdrew about a hundred million dollars, these anti-Hunt people raised a fuss and got a guy to leave an honorary position. If anything I think Graham wields far more power, it’s just Wells Fargo is in a much better position to resist (and has guessed in the long term the good will they generate will outweigh Graham’s admittedly weighty hissy fit).

      2. Graham was offended by the speech of Wells Fargo and tried to hurt them economically (I’m sure he probably did, though not much). His pressure doesn’t seem, as far as we know, to have gotten Fargo to apologize or disassociate with anyone, yes, so I guess you could say Graham didn’t seem to achieve his goal as well as those persecuting Hunt. You can have that as your difference I guess.

        1. Anyone comparing the frequency and impact of the crusades of right wing evangelical preachers to those of the PC brigade is a liar. Those are the two big differences.

          There are plenty of right wing assholes who would silence people they oppose. We saw that with the FCC crack down during the Bush years. But they aren’t the ones ascendant right now, so spare me your false equivalencies. You could elect Mike Huckabee next and have the right wing god fearing sect out in full force and they still wouldn’t have the icy impact on free thought that the left is currently having.

          1. Yeah, no right wing group has forced major chains to correct what they see as Wrongthink and speech. Happy Holidays, er, I mean Merry Christmas!!!

            1. I’m unaware of all of these examples of corporations who stopped using the phrase happy holidays. I’m pretty sure I’ll set dozens of such messages this Christmas.

              Tell me when the Wells Fargo CEO is forced to resign over this, Bo. Then we’ll talk. Hell, show it event stopped one person from doing business with Wells Fargo who normally would have.

              I even gave you a real example of right wingers suppressing free speech of a sorts, or engaging in censorship. You chose to ignore it to keep beating your retarded drum.

            2. Additionally, there are many stories where professors at conservative (usually Christian) colleges are forced out for Wrongthink and speech (on gay issues and evolution, for example).

              1. Then source them.

                  1. This one tracks really well: profs write article slightly deviating from church doctrine, readers get outraged by Wrongthink, prof eventually leaves church college.


                    You really should read outside conservative media, there’s a world of things you might be missing.

                    1. So you have three stories ranging from the last decade. What a crisis. Not to downplay what’s wrong, but I could link to three stories from the last month of leftwingers doing the same.

                      And I doubt those Christian schools lay claim to the same ethos as the liberal bastions of higher education. You know, because they are religious foundations with specific doctrines and beliefs.

                      The argument was that what you claimed didn’t exist – it was that you were drawing a false equivalency.

                    2. So, you counter assertions that the left are basically enforcing religious dogma by comparing them to dogmatic religious institutions?

              2. Explain to me how a professor getting kicked out of the small, completely privately funded, widely disdained Bumpkin University for not being sufficiently conservative is comparable to, I don’t know, Larry Summers getting forced out as president of the most prestigious university in the world for mildly postulating things which are absolute, undeniable scientifically proven facts about the innate difference between men and women in a speech.

                Boston College, a Catholic University, never even had the gall to fire Mary Daly, a woman who was more bigoted than David Duke, but the lefty kind of bigoted. I’m sorry Bo, but there’s no equivalence here. Especially when you consider that the publicly funded universities are among the worst when it comes to the double standards regarding implicit speech codes.

      3. Well, look on the bright side, we’re down from two evil, oppressive, social-engineering ideologies (Christianity and progressivism) to just one (progressivism).

  15. You know what the 4th thing to happen in the lab is?

    1. The offended wiminz folk call the chapter IX coordinator from their speed dial?

    2. The gal scientists invent a portable safe room like they learned in college ?

    3. The women sweep the floor and clean the beakers?

      1. I LOL ed on the train and people are giving me strange looks.

      2. And make the men scientists sammiches.

    4. Beakers are swept aside and crash to the floor so that sweet love can be made on the laboratory countertops. Fun fact: Most chemists look like Fabio, and bodices are mandatory for female laboratory staff.

  16. Well I was hoping for some shots of women at least examining breasts. Or palpitating vjays. You know. Against the patriarchy or something.

  17. This is just another reason why I believe that the current university model will be partially replaced by online programs like Udacity. A lot of the best and brightest will choose to skip the University campus because of the dark ages like atmosphere and witch hunts. Why should any man risk their future by putting themselves into such a dangerous situation.

    University campuses will be bastions of emotionally disturbed malcontents while the best and brightest will build labs in their garages and do their own research or just pursue their tech education online.

    1. ” I believe that the current university model will be partially replaced by online programs like Udacity.”

      Universities have never in history been as well attended as they are today.

      1. Universities have never in history been as well attended as they are today.

        He didn’t say that they wouldn’t be well attended, he said that they will become “bastions of emotionally disturbed malcontents”. Since there are a lot of those, they will continue to be very well attended.

        The substantial drop in quality of universities probably is linked to their steadily increasing enrollment numbers.

      2. And at least 50% of them shouldn’t be there. The idea that everyone should go to college is idiotic.

        1. 50% is generous.

  18. And the British are the funniest people on earth,.

    The Canadians and Australians are funny because they inherited from the English.

    We inherited that too.

    They won’t stop until there’s no funny left.

    Good bye, hyperbole. So long, satire. It was funny while it lasted.

    1. Just to add. Quebecois humor has zero influence from Britain – and it’s hilarious as it is unique because it has no source.

      1. Flacon de mais!

    1. You’ll have to do better than that, Nutrasweet. Nobody is stupid enough to waste their time reading something published at Vox, much less take it seriously enough to respond.

      1. Vox who?

        I was supposed to know about that?

        Aw shucks.

        Can somebody point me to the bathroom?

      2. Oh, they don’t bother to prove the headline whatsoever. I figured that anyone could realize that by it being a Vox link.

        Anyway, would you rather have Jamelle Bouie making the exact same arguments against Rachel Dolezal that pro-trans supporters reject out of hand when they are made by the sneeringly-named TERFs?

    2. I can’t believe I actually read that claptrap.

    3. I actually saw several progressives trying to push that line last week. It was embarrassing.

  19. Yes, yes, I get it, you feel a need to defend basic principles of free speech because…why, exactly? Forget about the definitions of free speech and focus instead on this question. What is it about women that flips out conservatives? So much so that it becomes the sort of white whale that they’re going to rope into other conversations that have nothing to do with the topic.

    I’m not being coy here and trying to imply that conservative types are secret misogynists trying to keep women down. I really don’t understand the rush to describe women as sensitive or emotionally volatile because they don’t conform to masculine gender norms. Just a few years ago, obviously, conservatives mostly felt the same way about nerds and geeks.

    Contrary to Brendan O’Neill in Reason Magazine, nobody is insisting everybody must “destroy” or even censor deviant thinking. But if you claim that women are too emotional to belong in labs with men, well, don’t expect everybody to agree with you.

    And to bring it back to cosmo populism, certainly don’t expect people in a country who are simply less hung up about gender to want to link arms with you. Knock yourselves out in making fun of women. Just don’t expect to swell in numbers based on your bold, courageous stances with individuals who might agree with you about the size and scope of government and the centrality of individual freedom and autonomy to human flourishing.

    1. “What is it about women that flips out conservatives?


      They use women to sell beer and sports cars to people of all political persuasions. Women are awesome and attention grabbing.

      There are about 150 million guys in this country who get up and go to work every morning and work hard or study hard in school in the hope that women will find them attractive. And you don’t understand why conservatives are interested in women?

      Once you get men to stop spending so much time thinking about women, what are you going to do next–try to stop the birds from flying south for the winter?

      What, are you a creationist? Have you never heard of the biological imperative?

      Why are conservative men so interested in women? I’ll tell you why: it’s because I think it’s great that gay people participate in the discussions on this site. That’s why.

      1. It was a parody of Nick’s trans article.

        1. I understand that now.

          But thank you.

    2. Don’t worry, Stompy. At least I got the joke.

      1. Poe’s law!

        I invoke Poe’s law.

        1. It was a very sly one. Stompy nailed the haughty tone.

    3. “I really don’t understand the rush to describe women as sensitive or emotionally volatile because they don’t conform to masculine gender norms.”

      Yeah, and you’re not concern trolling at all.

    4. only a stupid blowhard asshat would parody Nick’s …. nannyish poo-pooing?….

      You must be one of their leaders. (sends report to DoJ)

      1. What the fuck are you talking about? I’m just an honest woodchipper salesman.

        1. GASP! its the kingpin *weapons dealer*!?!

        2. Speaking of that (original piece)…. i don’t think a single person really bothered to ask, ‘since when is the Argumentum ad Populum‘ the principled libertarian position?

          I think his nitpicking about the false-equivalence of Jenner/Oreo-woman was …meh, fine, a distinction others were ignoring….

          …but i thought the admonishment that “SoCons like these should be more concerned about the popularity of their brand in a changing world” was ridiculous.

          Firstly, because libertarians are actually the smaller and less-popular brand, specifically due to *more frequent adherence to principle* (or so i’ve been told)…

          …and secondly, I’m not even sure he’s right = that the ‘mandatory applause’ attitude is in fact simply just a loud minority in the media, and that there’s actually a majority of people (bigots, all?) whose range of views have been silenced by this One-Size-Fits-All celebration of ‘diversity’.

          I think the “jenner-bashers” are actually appealing to an unpopular-popularity that Nick thinks is unspeakable (or insists no decent people should recognize)

    5. Women make parallel jokes about men all the time. The themes include how supposedly neanderthal they are, incapable of the warmer emotions, congenitally untidy, sex-obsessed, and so on. These are understood as what they are: jokes. And nobody makes a big deal of them. *That’s* the point.

      Another point: *everybody* thinks or says things periodically that are less than well-conceived. They are tiny blips in the constant churning-out of thoughts within consciousness. There is breathtakingly ignorant hypocrisy in these meltdowns. Anyone who can honestly say that their own stream-of-consciousness, hour after hour, never ever contains any thoughts but the most pristine, fair-minded, unprejudicial, compassionate, and that they never ever voice anything but those that are kind and helpful … needs more self-examination.

      It’s an ugly, ugly phenomenon going on today.

      1. “It’s an ugly, ugly phenomenon going on today.”

        Are you able to adapt or are you an old dinosaur waiting to be pushed aside. This is the question you should be asking yourself.

        1. So, in other words, if a form of bigotry is fashionable, you are fine with that kind of bigotry?

          I’m not sure whether to call you an idiot or a sociopath. I suppose if it were the late 19th century you’d be lauding Houston Chamberlain and encouraging people to just ‘adapt’ to the new scientific racism that was rapidly becoming all the rage?

          1. MarkLastname|6.13.15 @ 4:52PM|#
            “I’m not sure whether to call you an idiot or a sociopath.”

            Trueman is an admitted liar and will change lies from one post to the next. You might just as well engage a 4 year old.

            1. You don’t engage a 4 year old in argument, you grab his arm and spank him. Hold it, can we still do that? No. I don’t think we can do that anymore.

          2. “So, in other words, if a form of bigotry is fashionable, you are fine with that kind of bigotry?”

            I’m only here today because my ancestors were savvy enough to know when to change from Catholic to Protestant and back again. Following fashionable bigotries is a survival skill you’ve probably not been called upon to put to use. Don’t underestimate it though.

            “encouraging people to just ‘adapt”

            Adapt or die, mother nature at her cruelest. That moron nobel laureate should consider himself lucky he got off so lightly.

            “I’m not sure whether to call you an idiot or a sociopath”

            So many insults so little space. Please get back to us when you’ve made up your mind.

            1. Should the nobel laureate have been honor killed instead?

              1. Firing the moron was enough to get headlines at Reason.

                1. And didn’t answer my question…

            2. So both then?

              I suppose there’s no use crying over massacred Jews or Tutsis either; I mean, they failed to adapt.

              Btw, who wants to bet this idiot suddenly drops his Darwinian nihilism and finds his righteous indignation when it’s some lefty getting canned for something trivial?

              1. “So both then?”

                It’s not for me to decide. Best leave it to a committee of some of the college’s meaner lesbians.

                1. No, I meant you’re both an idiot and a sociopath. I suppose I should be grateful that it least you’re straightforward about it though.

                  1. ” I suppose I should be grateful ”

                    I appreciate your gratitude. And don’t forget to keep reading me here.

      2. But they’re punching UP, not DOWN, so it’s ok! Or some bullshit like that.

    6. Well done. Would read again!

  20. “His comments were branded “shocking and bewildering.” (You find a silly joke bewildering? You really should get out more.) “

    I’m just glad libertarian magazines never feel compelled to join in that sort of knee-jerk populist denunciation like….those….other….people….oh well

    1. You me’d that first link.

      1. oh, just search Reason for “Shockingly Racist“… its the first 2 hits.

        I have yet to see the ‘less-than-shocking’ kind that is suggested by these descriptions

  21. You know who else faced an illiberal persecution?

    1. No, no I don’t

      1. No wait, I do! Mike Hunt.

  22. Equal work. Equal pay. Males that cry after having their mistakes criticized should be paid the same as the females that do this.

    1. “Males that cry after having their mistakes criticized …..”

      ….”should also be able to get their bosses fired?”

  23. “when you criticise them they cry”

    Is that not what happened?

  24. “But the tormenting and sacking of people for what they think and say is pre-modern. It’s positively Inquisitorial.”

    Let me first say that it’s a silly thing to be fired over and that the reaction on the twitters is not the most gracious. It’s like kicking a man while he’s down. That said, people get fired over things they say all the time and people act like trolls on the internet all the time. While I don’t like the PC environment in colleges, I don’t think the same level of outrage is warranted over an employee being sacked for not fitting the culture (when that is simply a risk of the employer-employee relationship) as it is for a student being raked over the coals, when they’re paying for an education.

    Personally, I have been fired from a couple of different jobs for less than making a crass joke. I was bitter at the time, but eventually I realized I was so much better off. It’s not the easiest way to learn how much you don’t belong there, but I’m sure Tim Hunt will also find something much better.

    1. Engaging in speech while involved in a business is regulated through hostile work environment law and public accommodation law so it’s not as simple as an employer-employee relationship. As long as title II and title VII of the civil rights act exist; the first amendment is a farce. You would think Reason would constantly hammer this fundamental abridgment of individual rights, wouldn’t you?

      I hope those cocktail parties are worth it.

  25. “Hunt’s crime was to make a not-very-funny gag during an after-dinner speech at a conference on women in science in South Korea earlier this week. …According to one of the attendees, the joke was greeted by a “deathly, deathly silence.”

    Koreans never laugh. That’s why they can’t appreciate the superiority of the white western man’s culture.

    1. I call BS on this. North Korea’s state dictated hairstyles is far superior to anything the West has ever done. The mullet included.
      /sarc to the nth power

      1. Bullshit, the mullet was the best hairstyle ever invented. In the 80s I rocked the coolest mullet ever. Ah to have hair again.

    2. If my joke bombed in such a manner I would have just said, ‘suck my dick you humorless cunts.’

      And then I would have flipped the table and walked out.

      1. I giggled. I am still giggling.

        Well done!

        1. Just to expand on this. I have a brother with a fiery temperament. I can totally see him doing exactly that.

  26. Outrageous as this is, it is essentially good. The academy must die (metaphorically, I had better add). Into the (metaphorical) woodchipper it must go.

    The degrees they give out are mostly useless. Even the scientifical ones are barely science anymore, and really….does the world need more mediocre scientists? For what? To work for big pharma creating death-drugs? They are islands of repression in a sea of freedom. They create little activists who can’t get a job, because of their world-view, and are ‘active’ against nothing and everything.

    They are doing to themselves what the MSM has done to itself by the same process. They might as well hasten the process.

    1. I’m not sure if this is a parody of the imagined “anti-academy”-Yokeltarianism, or the real McCoy

      There’s only one way to be sure = what kind of pickup do you drive?

    2. If he worked for Burger King and made these comments in public, while identifying himself as a Burger King employee, and Burger King fired him for it, would you be similarly up in arms?

      1. Nice name, do you walk around all day with shit running down your leg.

      2. So, you just don’t know how to read, do you? It wasn’t a comment, it was a joke. I repeat, the guy was trying to make an ironic joke about women at a conference on women in science; it fell flat. He was fucking joking, for Christ’s sake, not stating an opinion.

        And I have burger king employees make worse jokes than that. Who gives a shit really?

        1. Even if it was intended as a joke, it aligns with stereotypes that women in science have been laboring to overcome for decades. You can’t see why the uni would not want to be associated with what he said?

          I don’t support the “joke” defense anyway, as then any utterance, no matter how offensive and disgusting, can be retroactively claimed as a joke to escape the consequences.

          1. Ban humor! For the children.

          2. Jesus you’re dumb. The guy was at a conference on women in science; he clearly supports “women in science” and all that. He was trying to make an ironic joke by employing those stereotypes.

            And it was pretty clearly a joke, no retroactive reinterpretation required.

            Btw, life for women in science is not so terrible as many of them like to pretend it is to get victim cred. Almost ever academic science position in this country gives female applicants preference in fact. The male majority science isn’t the result of misogyny, hard as it may be for the self-pitying professional victims to accept.

      3. What about Wendy’s?

        Eh, hm?

    3. Some years ago, I met a woman that was a college senior whose major was Nuclear Physics. I asked her about her employment plans in the industry and her response was ” Oh I would never work in the nuclear industry. I just want to earn enough so I can make strong nuclear protest arguments”.

      I’m not sure who was more ignorant. Her or her parents for paying for her “education”.

  27. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..3-08-50-12

    See what happens when you fire all the elephants?

  28. The incident reminds me of a funny-ish science joke: Newton’s 3rd Law of Emotion – For every male action there is a female overreaction.

    To clarify though, I think the lab women’s #distractinglysexy pics of them in unsexy PPE and lab wear was funny and appropriate. Nobel laureate or not, he deserved some mocking and turnabout is fair play. Getting him fired and rejected from polite company is going too far. One old guy with old-fashioned ideas saying silly things is not justification for a witch hunt. To sum up: action-silly comment ; reaction-#distractinglysexy ; overreaction-the academic purging and ostracism of a brilliant scientist.

  29. Dick the Butcher was wrong. Today, the first thing we should do is kill the professors and college bureaucrats.

    1. Well, at least you saved the DOJ some money by having your name as your username so they can find you and put a bag on your head without going through the who ugly court process, so for that, you have the thanks of the taxpayers!

      1. That’s not his name, it’s his address.

        1. It is his name. And his wife’s first name is Penny.

  30. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  31. would you rather have Jamelle Bouie making the exact same arguments against Rachel Dolezal that pro-trans supporters reject out of hand when they are made by the sneeringly-named TERFs?

    Your translator is on the fritz.
    That’s just a bunch of words strung together in no particular order.

  32. So UCL does not have freedom of association? They have to keep employing a person who very publicly said things that they do not want to be associated with? It’s not like they’re putting him in a jail cell or fining him.

    The professor’s comment was not merely outdated, it was utterly inappropriate especially considering the forum where it occurred. Being against feminist extremists reading sexism into everything, does not mean that one must accept blatantly sexist comments such as this one.

    1. Can’t take a joke, can you?

      1. Such is the curse of progressives.

    2. So how do you really feel about this? Moron.

    3. When universities fire feminists who make bigoted remarks about me (a la, Mary Daly, Ti-Grace Atkinson, Marilyn French, the list goes on), then you may have a point. But when do high profilee feminists ever get fired for this sort of thing? They can say all men should be eradicated off the face of the earth and keep their jobs. Daly even forbade men from joining one of her courses, and “conservative” Boston College didn’t fire her.

      So all I see here is a clear double standard; men can’t even make the occasional light bulb joke about women without getting sacked, but women can make genocidal rhetoric about men and keep their jobs.

      1. Wasn’t their some quack who wanted to kill all the men? I forget her name.

        Oh. But that was just a ‘joke’.

        1. Exactly! Come on, Rufus! Get a sense of humor.

      2. So focus your outrage on those radical feminists who keep their jobs, and the people who employ them.

      3. See, when they make a statement about eradicating all men off the face of the earth, they’re not joking. That’s the difference.

  33. “It shouldn’t matter one iota if they are sexist, stupid, unfunny, *religious,* uncouth, ugly, or whatever.” [emphasis added]

    Yeah, I see what you did there.

    “UCL and the mob’s hounding of Hunt echoes the university of the pre-Enlightenment era, when only those who were 100 percent Good Catholics had a hope in hell of getting a job.”

    Ever hear of Tycho Brache? A Lutheran astronomer who worked for the Holy Roman Emperor – a Catholic. Tycho died in 1601, so that would be *before* the Enlightenment.

    And if a scientist wanted to be an Oxford or Cambridge professor during the Reformation, the *last* thing he’d want to say would be “hello, folks, I’m a 100% Good Catholic!” It would be like, “don’t calleth us, we’ll calleth you.”

    1. Brahe

      1. ” “don’t calleth us, we’ll calleth you.””

        If you haven’t read Simplicius Simplicissimus, you really should.

        Its Free! and it competes with Don Quixote for “funniest, oldest novel”

        Its all about people murdering the shit out of each other during the Thirty Years war. Because “God”, or something. The main character is the stupidest person on earth “The simplest of the simple”. And he’s the only one who seems to have any sense.

        The translations vary wildly in the quality of readability. I have no idea how good this one is, but it was the first to pop up. I’ve seen other editions floating around for free as well. Highly recommended.

        1. Thank you! That looks interesting – I’ve downloaded it to read at my leisure.

          I should reassure you, though, that I’m not really the biggest fan of the 30 years’ war – and I’d also note that Catholic France and Catholic Austria were on opposite sides.

          1. “I’m not really the biggest fan of the 30 years’ war – and I’d also note that Catholic France and Catholic Austria were on opposite sides.”

            The author participated in the 30 years war. He was also “not the biggest fan” as you may discover.

            As for “opposite sides”, he frequently noted that they were not much different, as he ended up fighting for both.

    2. It wasn’t even until the mid-19th century that Catholics were allowed to *graduate* from Cambridge.


    3. Something tells me Mr. O’Neill, bless his anti-freedom of association heart, isn’t too clear on the distinction between the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation.


      Yes, I’ve heard of Brahe. He along with Copernicus and Galileo were major figures in the advancement of astronomy.


        Deep-dish pizza? Pot? help me out here.

    5. “don’t calleth us, we’ll calleth you.”

      Synchronicity… I was thinking about Sugarloaf yesterday.

      We were talking about songs you never hear on the radio any more- and we went on a “green” stretch…

      Green Grass and High Tides (The Outlaws)
      Green Onions (Booker T and the MG’s)
      Green Manalishi (Fleetwood Mac/ Judas Priest)
      And, Green Eyed Lady.

  34. So what do people think of Bo’s new handle?

  35. Trust in science? Does that mean Pluto is a planet again?

    1. Uranus is a planet.

      1. “Another exciting product from Uranus…”

    2. Doesn’t pluto mean money?

      1. No, Pluto is a dog that works for Disney.

  36. Proof that academia is full of humorless buffoons. Give the guy a break.

  37. The same thing happened to James D Watson, co-discoveror of DNA. A biography called attention to his lack of superstition in (ghasp!) OPPOSING the spending of school funds to build some sort of chapel on the grounds of an institution of higher learning. Instantly a lynch mob assembled and mystics branded him a “racist” for commenting that the African continent hadn’t yet blossomed into an icon of civilization. (This was a few years ago. By now it is doubtless the envy of Europe, erecting walls against wetbacks and hiring Homeland Security thugs). The point is that the collectivist ability to feign mortal injury at the slightest belch is the call to arms for lynch mobs of every mystical denomination to descend on anyone capable of original non-groupthink (e.g. thoughtcrime).
    –We were commenting on the professor and the madwomen, remember?

  38. Tim Hunt (your name rhymes with a certain word popular around here) if you made that joke around here we’d give you The Woodchipper Award.

    1. Women (1) love the act of chipping wood, (2) are lived by the wood that is being chipped by them, or (3) cry for the loss of the wood being chipped.

  39. There are witches to identify and burn; dissenters, and non-conformers to re-educate and the float test now uses the unblinking stare and eternal memory of the internet to snare its victims into self-immolation.

  40. Central committee celebrate diversity only if you agree with central committee.

  41. It’s the new McCarthyism, multi-culti political correctness. Alert the thought police. You will be persecuted and fired. No trial and no recourse. At least McCarthy was right about Commies infesting the U.S. Government.

  42. My commie prof ran films of McCarthy in history class and I was unable to pick the bloke out–they all seemed alike. There is an audio speech of McCarthy’s sold on CD with other pols that does not sound like the ravings of a madman. The problem with “conservatives” is they hate communists (the people) for being “atheists” and the movement as a rival faith out of which the Republican party evolved before turning to slay its forbears. By frothing gibberish, satanizing drugs unrepresented by lobbyists and trying to enslave women into sows for squeezing out Hitlerjugend, they come off as off-putting and inconsistent whack jobs one doesn’t want associated with any sensible aims. What the looterati are doing to individualist professors is really no different from the Red Scares of the early twenties or fifties.

  43. Let’s be fair, here. Tim Hunt was an employee of the university, representing their image to the world. As an employee whose ENTIRE JOB is to bring fame to the university while helping young people advance in their careers, off-color jokes like this are off-limits.

    What does it say to the university’s female students if one of their professors expresses that sort of disrespect towards them? What does it say to the entire scientific community, and the world as a whole if the university continues to employ someone who expresses backwards, antiquated, and offensive views like that?

    It’s the university’s decision of who to consider amongst their “honorary” faculty. They don’t have to keep someone who is not acting in an honorable or professional manner, no matter how brilliant he is.

    1. OK, I’m glad I’m not his attorney. But I would still wager that a search would turn up something he said or did earlier that irritated organized mysticism–whether of the looter collectivist or pious prohibitionist wing. Imagine the current president or any member of the bipartisan senate saying the exact same thing. Do you see it blowing over into the dustbin of history in 2-3 days?

    2. If, as a female student, what he said truely offended you then it probably applies to your future in the lab. Grow a thicker skin or seek a different vocation.

    3. As I’ve said elsewhere, if they fired and discredited every female professor who publicly made an insulting remark (even a joke) about men in general, they’d all have to fire their entire gender studies departments, and probably most of the sociology department as well.

  44. Excellent analysis. This movement, and its ability to cow people has been a long time in the making. I was a professor in the 1980s and 1990s, as the PC movement found its legs. Before that, college and university administrators cravenly caved to students, and student organizations, who practiced not just civil disobedience but violence during the Vietnam war. So academia has had at least two generations to reach this point.

    What one hopes for is a university administration that says, in a letter addressed to the pack: “No, we decline to accept your resignation, and here’s why:” Then the administrators say in their own words what O’Neill says in this column. You will never see that. You can’t even tell whether the administrators are merely weak, or if they actually agree with the people who hound them.

    Another interesting development is why Twitter and the other instantaneous means of communication seem to have so much power. You want to think that deliberation, reflection, judiciousness, and wisdom have preference over the fulminations of a cyber-mob. And we’ve always hoped that those qualities of reason would reside in the academy, if not in other parts of life. As it is, other parts of life demonstrate these qualities far more than the academy. Life at the university starts to seem like life in Lord of the Flies.

  45. Part II:

    Sanctimony has entered every part of life in the academy. To be sanctimonious is to make a show of being morally superior to other people. The mob has power now, but its power is based on nothing outside of itself. If only one university president with a reputation for integrity would publicly repudiate this movement, it would collapse. The movement has become well entrenched, so its power might ebb rapidly rather than collapse, but if only one academic leader spoke the truth, as O’Neill’s article does, others would recognize the terrible damage already inflicted on academic integrity and freedom.

    See http://www.twitlonger.com/show….._post=true for a comparison to the Army-McCarthy hearings.

  46. “In truth, universities themselves, having embraced relativism, non-judgmentalism, and discomfort with the idea of Truth itself, incite such behaviour.”

    Given that libertarians are often accused of relativism by left and right alike for daring to value the freedom to choose destructive values more than any value itself, this seems precisely backwards.

    Universities have not embraced relativism and liberal tolerance; they’ve embraced monoculture, politically and socially. They have zero discomfort with the idea of Truth and moral righteousness, which is why they behave like insane Randians every time someone violates one of their strictures. Like cracking wise about the presence of female scientists in a traditionally male-dominated lab. Presumably those who don’t freak out over trivial comments are given the PRNK treatment for failing to demonstrate sufficient piety.

    The problem is that universities propound diversity and, upon discovering that actual diversity entails engaging people who have perspectives wildly different from theirs, attempt to annihilate the dissenter. They have the liberal speak down–libertarianism is all about diversity through allodial property, voluntary association, and debate–but they’re medieval heresy hunters at heart. They just have a slightly different religious faith.

  47. Their behavior sort of proves his point doesn’t it.

    1. That his extremely mild criticism concerning girls crying whenever criticized triggered a mass bawling-festival proves his point?

  48. Holy pop belly pigs batman thats crazy.


  49. It doesn’t matter how good of a man, or how great of a scientist, this TIM person is. He’s crossed the free speech line so must PAY.’
    –Sincerely Yours, Progfascist

  50. Don’t feel bad, Tim. I have problems with applying a strict P.C. filter to everything I say, too. We can do great things for the betterment of mankind that no one else at the time could, but what we’ll be remembered for is that one time we said that hurtful thing.

  51. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.Wage-Report.com

  52. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    try this site ????? http://www.workweb40.com

  53. Please read and sign the petition below to help reinstate Tim Hunt! 🙂


  54. Juxtapose the Mustafa incedent, where a woman said such horrid things as killa?lwhitemen and whites and men aren’t welcome, as well as I can’t be sexist or racist cause I’m a special snowflake neener neener (paraphrased ). This gives you an even greater idea of what exactly the PC agenda is.

  55. One would have hoped to hear from Mark Steyn, but he’s been busy bad mouthing science at a free-speech free Heartland Climate Conference


    1. “One would have hoped to hear from Mark Steyn”

      Indeed we live in hope. A theatre critic bad mouthing science should be good for a laugh or two.

  56. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  57. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  58. The irony here is that now, all those women that he taught and worked with in the laboratory no longer have the opportunity to learn from a Nobel laureate. All because he expressed an idea that he might have even truly believe, but did not actually practice, therefore it harmed or held back NO ONE!

  59. Have you forgotten that he was speaking at a conference on women in science? Have you neglected to notice that he didn’t actually apologize, but rather doubled down on his idiotic insistence that women scientists can’t handle criticism? Substitute the word “Jews” for “girls” and see how it sounds. Then ask yourself why you’re so anxious to cut this casual bigot so much slack. And would you do the same if his comments and non-apology were racist instead of sexist?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.