[civilian]

And here's a reference for hoopd's comment: https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-...

edit// okay, here's another article that dives into the nuance and doesn't just try to plaster Tim Hunt. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt...

[danharaj]

reason.com follows the same naming convention as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[Karunamon]

Attacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.

[danharaj]

A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.

[Karunamon]

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.

[aidenn0]

It's actually completely compatible with logic:

Source X claims Y.

I know very little about Y.

I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source.

Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.

[pkinsky]

Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.