bleeding heart

Nothing to do with redeeming them. But I doubt that the one and only single instance in the history of the entire organization just suddenly fell into my lap during a discussion on MLW. That is, if people are going to make contentions about the CBC's "Liberal bias," then the onus is on them to undertake a serious institutional analysis...rather than selective picking of transgressions.

Yes, and I think I should have clarified a little: I was still on the mental track of a conversation I was having with g_bambino, on the difference between the South Park and The Office jokes, and the jokes' reiteration by these men. I contend that people who don't harbor some misogynistic views are probably unlikely to tweet these jokes (or else they'd tweet "OMG, on #South Park, very funny, check it out..." you get the idea. But, thanks to an argument over semantics, I conceded that, yes, of course, it's not impossible that nothing sexist was meant. But I still maintain that they were being monumental jackasses, at best. If this all sounds contradictory, it sorta is....my fault for allowing myself to get sucked into a semantic argument in the first place, I suppose.

You're right. Well, that's just it, and a good point. I have no doubt that peer review can have potential problems. But why make the perfect the enemy of the good? .....Especially in defense of the demonstrably LESS good?

Well, I don't know. Did their co-workers say they were sexist a-holes? Did some stand up for them, others not, and were "office politics,' as it were, taken into account? I'm not making an assertion either way; I just find the "know what's on someone's mind" notion a little dubious. But I could obviously be wrong about this case.

Like what? Yes...and intelligent and reasonable people are aware of this, and make an effort to adapt accordingly. "Smack her on the head, haw-haw" buffoons (part of the "gentle" ribbing you were alluding to, presumably) tend to be unintelligent and self-absorbed, and so tend to fail at such things.

Unless the men made a full admission of what was truly on their minds, I don't quite see how it would be the case. Sodium Pentothal?

I'm not sure if you're mocking the very idea, but that is self-evidently the case. It's not even debatable. Now, we cannot know for sure which was on the firefighter's minds; which is why firing them seems to me "oot ay order." But really, I think most of us genuinely believe they were behaving as sexist little dickheads...a silly, even cowardly way to behave, assuming they have wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers...or daughters. (That's the one that really makes me wonder about these amusing little loudmouths, frankly.) I don't think they should be fired. I think they should be called out as morons. For some reason (unstated, totally unarticulated) you and a few others seem to disagree. And that some people summon the "working class hero" theme is beyond silly. Like I said, that's been most of my adult working life....and these guys don't behave any worse than your average banker, lawyer, or professor. And when they do behave badly...it's exactly the same as when people from the professional classes do it.

As I said earlier, in my experience that's not so perfectly clear. The working class joes tend to be as sensitive to people's potentially hurt feelings as everyone else. I believe I've heard as much bigotry and ugliness in the university as I ever did in the woods or on the construction site. More F-bombs...no question. But that's about as far as it goes.

And that weapons inspectors were pointing out that there were no crucial issues on that front doesn't matter...because Cheney and Wolfowitz knew better. That the British dossier exposed that there was a push to "sex up" the threat isn't relevant....because Saddam could strike the mainland UK in (wait for it!) "45 minutes." Man, even after ten years, the monumental losers of the WMD "debates" remain as stubborn as ever..... In other news, 9/11 was an inside job, and the earth is a few thousand years old.

Thank you, well said.

Not exactly. Black...not at all. Jewish...only for a religious Jew (and there are a large number of Jewish secularists and atheists.) That said, in the interest of having civil discussions and debates, "nutjob" should be used sparingly, and only for those who hold demonstrably wrong and foolish views. That is, someone who believes in God is not holding a demonstrably wrong and crazy view. I'm not seeing what he or she is...but it's not a FACT that he or she is incorrect. New-Earth Creationists, on the other hand, ARE holding to demonstrably wrong and crazy views: hence, "nutjob." Many atheists, maybe most (including myself) were once members of the Faithful, so it's not clear that you're right.

I agree, a waste of time, and not about much more than self-image. So ok...if a serious and clear proposal is floated to turn us into a US-styled system...then the comparisons are valid and crucial. But for the moment, they serve no good purpose. The US will continue to struggle its way through, potentially to a better system than their current one. And that's what Canadians should be doing, as well.

And the answer to this (explicitly made, by at least one poster) is that because of some potential issues with peer review....NON-peer-reviewed "papers" are actually intrinsically superior, and more trustworthy. A pretty astonishing stance.

Well, it raises some interesting questions, though, doesn't it? Just because a couple of the sources (South Park, The Office) were plainly satire doesn't obviously carry over to those who use the same jokes in other contexts. That is, some people find the jokes funny precisely because they aren't true; that is, some people are by implication laughing at the sexist views that some people hold. Whereas other people find them funny because they think they are true. (For example, as an analogy, while perusing the Stormfront website, I happened across a discussion of the film "American History X." Most of these guys seemed to actually like the movie--which features an intelligent and articulate racist. And yet the movie is so anti-racist that it's practically sermonizing.) And if the firefighters had quoted racist jokes, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. Why not, do you suppose?

I agree. Further, some folks would rather be willfully mistaken than concede anything...an approach which is worse than useless in a civil debate.

Well, that sort of undermines the "CBC in the tank for the Liberals" theme, doesn't it?

Yeah, he's great...but I think Nucky remains as awesome as ever, personally.

That situation was a very small part of the overall mess. Those who still use this argument (and their numbers have, tellingly, shrunk considerably over the past year or two) are unaware that their pet theory has been soundly discredited, over and over.

I'm a big Boardwalk fan, too. Buscemi alone is so good he could almost hold the big, baggy thing together, but all the characters are good, so he doesn't have to. Al Capone is to come into his own this season, I suspect.

This "blue-collar guy" theme is silly...and assumes that they are somehow less civilized, and so less should be expected of them. Virtually my entire adult life (until quite recently) has been in the "working class" or "blue-collar" realm. And these people are as intellectually and emotionally sophisticated as anyone else. It's certainly true that you'll likely hear more profanity--because it's essentially used as punctuation, adjectives, and adverbs. But sexism? Not really more than you'll hear anywhere else, at least not a truly demonstrable difference.

This is fundamentally the argument, yes.

Also....anyone who claims to speak for a "silent majority" is by definition peddling disinformation. Since they're "silent" we cannot claim what they think or don't think on the subject, not in the form of a declaration.

Exactly so (I made more or less the same post, till I saw you had beaten me to it.) That type of response is basically an adjunct to the usual self-mythologizing we see in any profession, legitimate or otherwise. We see it in journalists, too, many of whom will "lament" that they are TOO eager to hold powerful men accountable, that their zeal for Truth is SO unrestrained that it's practically a gosh-durn fault. I ain't buying it.

I think you're right. When I stopped believing in God, I found it rather liberating, personally. But it's not that I prescribe it; people should do what makes them happy. But the idea that non-belief must equal some sort of monumental existential angst is simply untrue, at least in most cases.

And it seems to me there's a common denominator to this phenomenon.