internet abusers attack female scientist (so what else is new?)

[fast]

I don’t see a good reason to ridicule someone for her accomplishments just because she’s female (or a woman). Well, I might make exceptions in a close knit and small social setting amongst just a few friends; then, they’re open game! Haha

Publicly, never, whether for accomplishments or not should we denigrate women for being just that, women. Well, maybe a couple around here, but only if I’m prepared to sleep in the forums doghouse. Not a place to be, so I try and refrain, lol.

I don’t know the details regarding the full extent of her contribution. From the sounds of it, it was a decent but not substantial contribution. To me, that’s a situation where credit should be given. What I suspect is that the trolls didn’t see it that way. What they did was grossly underestimate her participation and contribution. If I’m right, shame on them for acting so ugly out of ignorance. It’s sometimes best not to convey such negativity when steeped in the grandeaur of unknowing.

On the other hand, if we are going to cut down ten acreas of trees by ax and I do 99.9% of the work and you swoop in and cut 2 lonely small trees and race off for the limelight screaming “look at me. Look at me —and what I have done”, I’m going to think a bit negatively if you sincerely brag about such a whopsided joint operation and expect commensurate recognition. I don’t think this example captures the reality of her input, but if it happens to be the case the trolls believed it was commensurate in capturing her input, I can understand, grasp, or otherwise comprehend why they would be ugly.

But, I don’t understand why the ugliness would extend to include sexism, or that long m word, which is far beyond the perceived disconnect between her work ethic and aspiration for recognition for so very little.

So, I have to ask, is the ugliness real? Was it observed or concluded; meaning, did people witness it, or was it a product of deduction? I’m talking about the sexist part.

If someone trespasses on my property and I shoot him because he tresspassed and he happens to be black, people can speak all day about how I shot not just a man but a BLACK man. Same thing if it happened to be a woman. Didn’t shoot a man, they can say. Shot a WOman.

Here’s the thing. Some are up in arms that the trolls speak negatively of her, but what I don’t get is why we even think it’s her sex that’s what the trolls are groveling about. Is her sex pertinent or incidental to the underlying melee?

 

[repoman]

I have no idea how much work she did in comparison to other or if it was grunt work or highly insightful and groundbreaking, nor probably does the generic media or the "trolls". Specialty science media would have a good chance of understanding her contributions.

But she did a Ted Talk about 2 years ago after the data was collected and before it was processed, so not only was she part of the team, but she also had the courage to put herself on stage. I have not seen the talk, but will soon.

Even if a person thought she might have been given token credit, it is irresponsible say she did unless you have lawsuit proof levels of evidence. Fucking bullshit. Not to mention that even if the"sleuth" is partially (5%) right Bouman could still probably run circles around him in coding. To be a grad student in scientific coding is extremely impressive.

But this is the internet and whoever sleuths something juicy and wrong will have it spread.

Anyway, I just want to get back to reading what all the scientists managed to find.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am going to play out a hypothetical here that I do not think is real. But imagine being an internet guy who is white knighting for the guy who he thinks "wrote most of the code". What evidence is there of this except one coder web page with may be very wrong?

What does the white knight expect the male scientist to say? "Yeah, I did more work and I also had to clean up a lot of her code." Boom goes the career. This is just so dumb.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like immature adults. Like a kid who figures out yelling 'fuck you' causes a exaction without knowing why.

 

[Toni]

I don’t see a good reason to ridicule someone for her accomplishments just because she’s female (or a woman). Well, I might make exceptions in a close knit and small social setting amongst just a few friends; then, they’re open game! Haha

Publicly, never, whether for accomplishments or not should we denigrate women for being just that, women. Well, maybe a couple around here, but only if I’m prepared to sleep in the forums doghouse. Not a place to be, so I try and refrain, lol.

I don’t know the details regarding the full extent of her contribution. From the sounds of it, it was a decent but not substantial contribution. To me, that’s a situation where credit should be given. What I suspect is that the trolls didn’t see it that way. What they did was grossly underestimate her participation and contribution. If I’m right, shame on them for acting so ugly out of ignorance. It’s sometimes best not to convey such negativity when steeped in the grandeaur of unknowing.

On the other hand, if we are going to cut down ten acreas of trees by ax and I do 99.9% of the work and you swoop in and cut 2 lonely small trees and race off for the limelight screaming “look at me. Look at me —and what I have done”, I’m going to think a bit negatively if you sincerely brag about such a whopsided joint operation and expect commensurate recognition. I don’t think this example captures the reality of her input, but if it happens to be the case the trolls believed it was commensurate in capturing her input, I can understand, grasp, or otherwise comprehend why they would be ugly.

But, I don’t understand why the ugliness would extend to include sexism, or that long m word, which is far beyond the perceived disconnect between her work ethic and aspiration for recognition for so very little.

So, I have to ask, is the ugliness real? Was it observed or concluded; meaning, did people witness it, or was it a product of deduction? I’m talking about the sexist part.

If someone trespasses on my property and I shoot him because he tresspassed and he happens to be black, people can speak all day about how I shot not just a man but a BLACK man. Same thing if it happened to be a woman. Didn’t shoot a man, they can say. Shot a WOman.

Here’s the thing. Some are up in arms that the trolls speak negatively of her, but what I don’t get is why we even think it’s her sex that’s what the trolls are groveling about. Is her sex pertinent or incidental to the underlying melee?

Her team member disagrees and states vehemently that her contribution was substantial.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea how much work she did in comparison to other or if it was grunt work or highly insightful and groundbreaking, nor probably does the generic media or the "trolls". Specialty science media would have a good chance of understanding her contributions.

But she did a Ted Talk about 2 years ago after the data was collected and before it was processed, so not only was she part of the team, but she also had the courage to put herself on stage. I have not seen the talk, but will soon.

Even if a person thought she might have been given token credit, it is irresponsible say she did unless you have lawsuit proof levels of evidence. Fucking bullshit. Not to mention that even if the"sleuth" is partially (5%) right Bouman could still probably run circles around him in coding. To be a grad student in scientific coding is extremely impressive.

But this is the internet and whoever sleuths something juicy and wrong will have it spread.

Anyway, I just want to get back to reading what all the scientists managed to find.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am going to play out a hypothetical here that I do not think is real. But imagine being an internet guy who is white knighting for the guy who he thinks "wrote most of the code". What evidence is there of this except one coder web page with may be very wrong?

What does the white knight expect the male scientist to say? "Yeah, I did more work and I also had to clean up a lot of her code." Boom goes the career. This is just so dumb.

Again, according to her team member who is a white male and so can be trusted to speak to such things: she contributed a substantial amount of work that was essential to the project. It was a team project. She was an important part of the team, according to her team member.

I would think that if people thought someone on the team was being overlooked, there certainly are simple ways to acknowledge and congratulate that person—or the entire team for that matter.
I don't understand why some are having trouble accepting this.

 

[repoman]

What I am saying is that I do agree that it is highly (99%) likely that she did contribute a lot. I am just gameplaying why even someone who is skeptical about it can't expect the guy to say she was a minor contributor even if she was.

Do you think that if she was lame and a glory seeker instead of doing good work (again this is a hypothetical I don't think is the case) that he would be advised to tell the truth about it? Or do you think that it would be career suicide?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Personally, I have trouble understanding a person so insecure, so full of hate, so petty that they have to do what was done to this scientist. Of course, there was a lot more than one. It's terrible. One thing I learned some time ago, Twitter (thankfully) is not representative of humanity at large, but a seemingly a highly concentrated location full of assholes.

 

[bigfield]

Was she not not referring to me as a stalker, abuser and harrasser, as well as implying I'm a misogynist just for telling my joke (notice the at the end). Seems to me those are all pretty flaming insults, wouldn't you say? Goading maybe not so much.

I see how it works.

You're a chickenshit who lacks the courage to stand by his views.

 

[fast]

Her team member disagrees and states vehemently that her contribution was substantial.

Correct, and if someone has no factual basis to support the vocalization of strong suspicions that he’s full of shit, it’s still a wrong which in this case happens to be against a female—not because she is female.

Just out of curiosity, what race is it to which she belongs? A murderer isn’t a rapist just because he’s a murderer.

 

[Toni]

What I am saying is that I do agree that it is highly (99%) likely that she did contribute a lot. I am just gameplaying why even someone who is skeptical about it can't expect the guy to say she was a minor contributor even if she was.

Do you think that if she was lame and a glory seeker instead of doing good work (again this is a hypothetical I don't think is the case) that he would be advised to tell the truth about it? Or do you think that it would be career suicide?

I think that most scientific work is done in a team setting. Even science that is done by one individual is building on ideas and techniques and information and data previously discovered and described. Even brand new ideas. No one is reinventing calculus but someone might develop a different mathematical principal that is parallel or is useful in a way that calculus is not. But still: calculus. Principal investigators have team(s) of other scientists working to help support or disprove theories and ideas, to create software and hardware, to analyze data, etc. It certainly used to be the fact that PIs got all of the credit and their names were the ones on papers, etc. Now, PIs are often listed first as authors and sometimes, there is genuine debate over whose name should go first. But for most of modern history, contributions of those other than the PI have often been ignored, overlooked. Ideas and work have been outright stolen. (See Watson and Cricks' treatment of Rosalind Franklin for the first example that leapt to my mind).

But times have changed and now women and persons of color and otherwise marginalized persons are being recognized and are sometimes recognized prominently in the media to make a point: Science isn't just a man's game or a white man's game or a white or asian man's game.

Her accomplishments and contributions are significant and should be acknowledged. If Chael had ignored those contributions or the contributions of anyone else on that team, it would likely have reflected very badly on him. Career ending? I dunno. But it's a jerk thing to do and a dumb jerk thing at that. Who wants someone on a project if they can't play nice with others when needed? How many people want to work with someone who is a real asshole? Hey, I've done that and it's not only not fun but the work suffers.

- - - Updated - - -

Her team member disagrees and states vehemently that her contribution was substantial.

Correct, and if someone has no factual basis to support the vocalization of strong suspicions that he’s full of shit, it’s still a wrong which in this case happens to be against a female—not because she is female.

Just out of curiosity, what race is it to which she belongs? A murderer isn’t a rapist just because he’s a murderer.

You are correct that it is wrong no matter who it is whose accomplishments are being downplayed. In this case, it seems as though some people specifically targeted her because she is female.

 

[Gun Nut]

From the forum TOU:

Not to goad, harass, insult, flame, spam, or invade the privacy of any the owners or any other registered member of this board

Moderator heal thyself?

From the forum TOU:

Not to discuss moderation or the rules in the general forum and to direct any complaints about moderation or the TOU to the Private Feedback Forum.

didn't you just violate that rule by siting it?

 

[fast]

From the forum TOU:

Not to goad, harass, insult, flame, spam, or invade the privacy of any the owners or any other registered member of this board

Moderator heal thyself?

From the forum TOU:

Not to discuss moderation or the rules in the general forum and to direct any complaints about moderation or the TOU to the Private Feedback Forum.

didn't you just violate that rule by siting it?

It’s citing it, and no. Citing something is not discussing something. For example, reciting the pledge of allegiance is not a discussion on the pledge of allegiance. Citing a law is not a discussion. If a teacher explains to a child that a classroom rule has been broken, an elaboration on the rule may become apart of a discussion regarding the rule, but the mere citing of a rule is just apart of whatever discussion that is ongoing, not a separate discussion unto itself.

This reminds me of the use/mention discussion. Under that construct, “I fed my dog” uses the word, “dog,” whereas “the word “‘dog’ has three letters” mentions not the dog but rather the word dog. The subject matter in the former is about an animal whereas in the latter is about a word. People have tried to argue that it cannot be mentioned without being used, but the distinction is intended to exclude usage from mere mentioning.

I suppose you could argue that merely bringing something up constitutes a discussion of it, but I think it takes a bit more.

 

[lpetrich]

Misogynist Trolls vs. Black-Hole Imager

Scientist who helped image black hole has her credibility questioned by sexist internet mob | Salon.com

Few could have anticipated that the historic release of the first image of a black hole would devolve into a public spectacle of sexist outrage — though such are the times we live in, in which literally every news item is picked apart by reactionaries.

... Shortly after the EHT presentation, MIT tweeted an image of Katie Bouman, a 29-year-old computer scientist whose work was crucial to the project, during the moment the first black hole was processed.

But misogynist trolls took aim at her, claiming that she did not deserve any credit for the project's results.

A familiar story arc followed. Fake Twitter accounts were set up in her name. Men on Twitter dismissed her scientific contributions as mere feminist posturing. And there was a debate over whether or not she was worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Why her?

... Placing Bouman at the center of the discovery may have been a conscious optics choice for the MIT research lab, given how STEM fields are often criticized for a lack of gender equality, but the public backlash was almost certainly unanticipated.

Amid the chaos, Bouman wrote in a Facebook post: “No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all.”

Her response was gracious, and emphasized how big scientific projects happen through collective collaboration.

Instead of all being the work of lone geniuses, a common stereotype.

The battle to save Katie Bouman’s Wikipedia page from deletion.

It was the subject of a major edit war, with 100 changes per day by 160 contributors. Wikipedia's admins eventually decided to keep the page.

By this point, though, the internet trolls had descended. The Verge’s Mary Beth Griggs recounts the online harassment in grim detail. Trolls set up fake Twitter accounts and fake Instagram accounts in Bouman’s name and had the fake Bouman claim that her colleague Andrew Chael wrote 850,000 of the 900,000 lines of code that were written into the algorithm that found the black hole. That’s when Chael himself chimed in, tweeting, “While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributions.” Chael added that he hoped the “awful and sexist attacks” on Bouman would stop.

Back on Wikipedia, a few in the pro-delete tweet camp were nasty and sexist. One editor pointed out that “as a young good looking woman she was much more attractive to the media” than the low-resolution photo of the black hole, and that the MIT scientist should only be covered as a “media phenomenon” since “sex sells.” On Twitter, another user falsely claimed that the only thing Bouman contributed was “changing fonts” in the code, suggesting that this was secretarial work that a high school student could handle.

Though some of the supporters of deletion had a more cogent argument: that she had not contributed enough to merit her own page.

 

[steve_bank]

From a morality view it represents the erosion of basic values. Civility among them. The net is anonymous. Except for a few situations like immediate credible threats of violence there are no consequences for bad behavior.

It used t be peer pressure was a check on behavior.

 

[Mediancat]

Two threads in different forums merged into one. What mod hath joined, let no one set asunder.

Rob