Okay should the president of the United States wear a wife beater tank top and a public speaking event?

Okay should the president of the United States wear a wife beater tank top and a public speaking event?

I don’t think that is appropriate, no. But if he did I would defend his right to do so as I would anyone else.

Okay let's take it to the next level how would you defend that in the face of your children watching TV when the president of the United States wears a sexually-charged t-shirt at a public speaking event. Tell me how you would defend that.

Okay let's take it to the next level how would you defend that in the face of your children watching TV when the president of the United States wears a sexually-charged t-shirt at a public speaking event. Tell me how you would defend that.

I would simply tell them the president has every right to wear the clothing he chooses even if we don’t like it because that freedom is more important than our aversion to his t-shirt. I would tell them that whether I find the shirt offensive cannot, and should never, be used as an excuse for suppressing that freedom, because that’s exactly the mentality used by totalitarian and repressive forces to justify their denial of human rights.

Avoided my ass.

Nope, what you are doing is this reurgitation of stories 'how out-of-whack and loony the PC crowd' is. What you are talking isn't even a media hype, but a typical twitter rant of some sort that pop up every now and then in social media. It really has absolutely nothing to do with science: so someone tweets that OMG! That lewd shirt means that women aren't welcome in the scientific community and some useless journalist who has nothing else up his or her sleeve tries to puff up this to something bigger... and then the anti-PC crowd notices it and takes it as an example how out of control the politically correct woke SJWs are today and so it goes on....

This is the dumbing down of public discourse that we see everywhere. When we treat something as bullshit as Twitter tweets as equivalent to Op-eds of serious media outlets (And I'm sure you'll find a genuine Op-ed about the lousy shirtgate), we get into this level of stupidity. It simply is counterproductive.

So let's have a serious discussion..... NOT!!! ROTFLMAO! :joke: :love: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:

You evaded the question let me rephrase it. Would you tell your children that it is appropriate for any president to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/her public speaking events?

Yes or no.

If you don’t want to discuss it I get that. Perhaps it’s not high-brow enough for you. But I think that because it dumbs down public discourse is one of the reasons it should be opposed. I was only trying to give some examples.

I wouldn’t tell them that, no.

So are you conceding that the astronomer's sexually charged t-shirt was inappropriate for the venue?

So are you conceding that the astronomer's sexually charged t-shirt was inappropriate for the venue?

I am not, no.

Look, let’s discuss the topic. I’m willing to hear your argument. As far as I know you think the shirt is inappropriate for the venue. Do you believe this justifies the treatment of Matt Taylor?

I will discuss the second part of the topic no problem. But the first part I'm confused with your logic.

On the one hand you're saying you would not endorse a president wearing a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/hee public speaking events. And so you would, in our analogy, go ahead and tell your children that it would be inappropriate for the president to do so.

On the other hand you're not willing to concede to the inappropriateness of the astronomer's sexually-charged t-shirt.

Did I get that right,?

(Again we're talking about what is appropriate for the venue. )

I will discuss the second part of the topic no problem. But the first part I'm confused with your logic.

On the one hand you're saying you would not endorse a president wearing a sexually-charged t-shirt at all his/hee public speaking events. And so you would, in our analogy, go ahead and tell your children that it would be inappropriate for the president to do so.

On the other hand you're not willing to concede to the inappropriateness of the astronomer's sexually-charged t-shirt.

Did I get that right,?

(Again we're talking about what is appropriate for the venue. )

I wouldn’t tell them it was inappropriate. I wouldn’t tell them this because 1) I am not prim and wish not to promote that behavior to anyone, and 2) I think there are better ways to go about it. We can simply tell them what they should wear, what people expect them to wear, and why they should do so, for example.

wouldn’t tell them it was inappropriate. I wouldn’t tell them this because 1) I am not prim and wish not to I promote that behavior to anyone, and 2) I think there are better ways to go about it. We can simply tell them what they should wear, what people expect them to wear, and why they should do so, for example. — NOS4A2

Gosh I'm still confused. You said among other things:

1. " We can simply tell them what they should wear".
2. " ... what people expect them to wear".

3. "... And why they should do so."


Definition of Appropriate: suitable or proper in the circumstances.

So are you saying it's appropriate or inappropriate to wear the sexually-charged t-shirt?

Scientists should be aware that certain kinds of data will be weaponized by hate groups.

Yes I think it’s appropriate.

Yes I think it’s appropriate. — NOS4A2

And so you would tell your children that correct? And as a policy maker you would endorse all those under you to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt in a public venue right?

Talk about thread-drift. I don't like the expression "quantum supremacy" because it implies no further scientific progress is likely in computing. Not because of PC, which I endured for years at the college level. How did this devolve into muscle-shirts? :brow:

And so you would tell your children that correct?

I wouldn’t, no.

Look I know you want to make me look silly, but is that argument coming any time soon?

Talk about thread-drift. I don't like the expression "quantum supremacy" because it implies no further scientific progress is likely in computing. Not because of PC, which I endured for years at the college level. How did this devolve into muscle-shirts? :brow:

What do you think about their taking issue with the term and their justifications for doing so? Are they right? Are they wrong?

I'm arguing the first part of your logic. This isn't about emotion as you're suggesting.

My argument is central to your outcome or consequences of said behavior. If now you're changing your view that it's appropriate for a public official to wear a sexually-charged t-shirt, then you should be able to accept the consequences of your arbitrary position.

How do you square that circle and make it objectively true that all public officials should wear sexually-charged t-shirts during public speaking engagements?

How do you square that circle and make it objectively true that all public officials should wear sexually-charged t-shirts during public speaking engagements?

I never said anything like that. I think that shirt is appropriate given the venue. You don’t. So why do you think it is inappropriate? Is it because it is politically incorrect to do so?

Yep. It's not politically correct to do so. It's common sense.

Would you like me to repost my justification? Otherwise you have not provided any justification for it being appropriate and suitable or proper for the circumstances.

I'm waiting....

I suppose religion is not PC, what with "Supreme Being" and all. It's a language minefield out there. :gasp:

Yep. It's not politically correct to do so. It's common sense.

Would you like me to repost my justification? Otherwise you have not provided any justification for it being appropriate and suitable or proper for the circumstances.

I'm waiting....

I think it’s totally appropriate because I’m not offended by his shirt. It’s just a collared shirt with cartoons on it. It’s common sense.

So if you're trying to argue a paradigm shift then make your case?

Provide supporting data relative to employment job descriptions, dress codes, analogous social norms and customs snd the like.

Did I miss something or have you provided that somewhere?

So if you're trying to argue a paradigm shift then make your case?

Provide supporting data relative to employment job descriptions, dress codes, analogous social norms and customs snd the like.

Did I miss something or have you provided that somewhere?

What I’m trying to argue is that we should resist the pressure on science to conform to a limited, ever-changing and infantilizing lexicon of speech, in this case the lexicon of the politically correct. I’ve already given examples and shared the concurring arguments of others to give force to the argument.

Unless I'm missing something, I think you are making it too complicated. Seems like you're arguing under the guise of a simple rant about political correctness, (which is probably why in part you voted for Trump not sure).

Anyway, seems to me there are two relevant issues:

1. Sociology viz. public policy making in the workplace, etc..

2. Unbiased/objective science.

Number one, you haven't demonstrated anything. Common sense and reasonableness requires political correctness (to some degree or another) is appropriate in society.

And number two, of course the majority of people would ideally like unbiased objective science.
Take climate change for instance.. The climate is, in fact, changing: true or false(?).

So again, the scientist wearing the out-of-place inappropriate sexually-charged t-shirt at a publicized event deserved admonishment. What's so hard to understand about that?

Talk about thread-drift. — John Gill

Exactly.

Perhaps it’s not high-brow enough for you. But I think that because it dumbs down public discourse is one of the reasons it should be opposed. I was only trying to give some examples. - What I’m trying to argue is that we should resist the pressure on science to conform to a limited, ever-changing and infantilizing lexicon of speech, in this case the lexicon of the politically correct. I’ve already given examples and shared the concurring arguments of others to give force to the argument. — NOS4A2

In my view comments about a shirt as an example of the effect of political correctness on science is itself dumbing down the issue. It's as far fetched as the tweets saying that the shirt shows how hostile STEM field is towards women.

Is this really about science? I don't think so. At least the picture meme below has partly the same narrative as NOS4A2 mentioned in


This is just a good example how stupid the debate becomes in social media. Hope PF doesn't go there.

Oh wait, we are there already.

You might not care that a scientist’s name and feats were dragged through the mud for wearing a shirt, but the idea that talking about it dumbs down the discourse is a stretch. We do know that in America today a university president or Nobel Laureate may be publicly chastised and even asked to resign for discussing hypotheses that are deemed politically incorrect. We know that a scientist and his feats will be publicly excoriated if he wears a stupid t-shirt. No, they are no Giordano Bruno, but this is important and not as dumb as you pretend.

In American society, only a small fringe of privileged progressives believe political correctness is a good thing. The vast majority fear and dislike it. So much for common sense.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/