Goddamned Malcolm Gladwell again! Why do business types fall for his schtick? There is no real evidence supporting any of his pet theories and eh traffics in glibness.

Actually, no it’s not. It’s usually nowhere near enough to destroy someone’s career, and if Annalee had actually read Ronson’s book, she’d notice the space he dedicates to this question. Comparing numerous people who have dealt with public shaming, his takeaway on the topic of emerging from shame is that it’s fairly…

But it isn’t just “shaming” it is destroying a person’s livelihood by demanding they be ousted form jobs and positions, to prevent them from ever having gainful employment for the rest of their lives. That isn’t shaming, that is taking away their life to the fullest extent possible short of committing a crime.

Annalee is tempting fate here. Annalee’s numerous public statements and articles leads to a much higher probability than the general public of just one little slip up that is found offensive enough for the internet lynch mobs to jump on until unceasingly until her career is completely destroyed, so that she may learn…

Right, she was saying, “It’s not tone policing when I do it.”

That’s why the firing decision should hinge on his actual behavior at work. Does he not hire women? Does he treat women badly? That would tell me more about his actual misogyny level than a clumsy comment at a luncheon. The comment alone is worth a reprimand, and some HR attention, a suspension, and an investigation…

If Hunt said he was joking and Newitz said she didn’t believe him, isn’t THAT Tone Policing? Fuck this newspeak.

Nah, that’s exactly what she’s saying. It was fine for the shame cycle to end his career, what wasn’t fine was when people started saying “Hey, hold on, that’s an overreaction” which is certainly an arguable position - it’s not like the man is ineducable. He’s a guy who made a stupid joke, he’s not a dog that mauled a…

How do you figure? The entire first half of this tone-deaf article was congratulating the social response to shaming Tim Hunt. The latter half was when the shaming had “gone too far”.

“We need to get out of the shame-spiral… well, we can spiral a little… only until it gets to the exact resolution I believe in.”

“Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.” That’s from the EPA. I used to have the same misconception. :)

Thanks! This is exactly what inspired me to write this: I started asking my students (in environmental studies and nutrition classes) what they thought of GMOs. They were almost universally against them, for really good reasons...which have nothing to do with GMOs. I wish people would get off this damn bandwagon and…

This is a great post. I previously had a really good discussion in the comments of another article with someone and realized that they were just using GMOs as a proxy for a bunch of (sometimes) correlated agriculture practices that had nothing to do with whether the seeds were genetically modified with the modern…

Maybe read the entire article and/or click on some of the provided links before commenting? Because that was addressed.

So instead, we should bombard them with radiation until we get a mutant that does what we want? The fact of the matter is that GMOs are a more accurate and safer way of introducing DNA you want into plants. In fact, as the article points out, a GMO food is more likely to have only the DNA you want.

New claims, same concerns. A scientist showing up on a forum post declaring, “Nah, we got this.” with no data I can review doesn’t do anything at all to reassure me this is real and not sloppy benchwork.

Here is a simple diagram explaining the concept:

Automation 101:

Paradoxically, the same company also sells a laser codpiece that _removes_ hair.

Looks like they had a spot of trouble in 2012, though,
http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcem…

For a description of FDA approval look here
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf1…