Darwinism Intelligent Design Racism

Sheffield University: Darwin ruled “problematic” figure due to racism

Spread the love

Had to happen:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum.

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’.

William Cole, “Sheffield University tells staff Charles Darwin was ‘racist’ and used natural selection theory to justify white male superiority in ‘decolonising curriculum’ lecturing handbook” at Daily Mail

Author William Cole emphasizes Darwin’s opposition to slavery but one of his quoted experts puts that in perspective: “Professor James Moore, a biographer of Darwin, told The Telegraph: ‘Almost everyone in Darwin’s day was “racist” in 21st century terms, not only scientists and naturalists but even anti-slavery campaigners and abolitionists.”

Of course. There’s no reason why a racist couldn’t also be a passionate abolitionist. Whatever a person may believe about human equality, slavery is a corrupting influence on any society.

A wiser approach to fighting back would be to pry Woke administrators and faculty loose from employment, wherever possible. Choosing between them and civilization should not be difficult.

The article provides a whole list of non-woke historically significant scientists about to be subjected to whatever the Woke have in store for them, mostly post-mortem. That should be an incentive.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

91 Replies to “Sheffield University: Darwin ruled “problematic” figure due to racism

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Perhaps the first step to eradicating racism is to accept that it exists – at least the seeds of it – in all of us and that “canceling” historical figures for what we now regard as racist views is more like virtue-signalling. The more sinister comparison is to authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union that sought to erase ideologically “impure” figures from their history.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Academia is always ruled by fashion and orthodoxy. If you let a censorship fad run, it sooner or later erases people who count. Darwin is people who count. When the fashionistas realize that they can no longer start every sentence with “evolved”, the hunters will slow down.

    This is why job-style training is infinitely better than education by lecture. Nature itself can’t be erased or censored. Nature doesn’t care what we believe. Crossbreeding plants, or running a gene-splicing machine, works the same whether you believe Darwin or Behe.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    It was only a matter of time

  4. 4
    Belfast says:

    @Seversky @1.
    Decoded your message. It reads; “leave Darwin alone – shiny thing over there”

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    Perhaps the first step to eradicating racism is to accept that it exists – at least the seeds of it

    Prove me wrong!!!

    The United States is currently the least racists country in the history of the world.

    Prove me wrong!!!

    The most racist persons in the 21st century are those who say racism is an issue.

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Jerry: The United States is currently the least racists country in the history of the world. Prove me wrong!!!

    What evidence or data has led to you having that conclusion?

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    The only one crying racism are liberals especially white liberals. By nature they lie continually.

    They have to lie since most of their positions are based on fallacies.

    QED

  8. 8
    Sandy says:

    Some people don’t realize that worshipping is in the “DNA” of every human. Those who reject God …worship guess what? Dumb human ideologies. Garbages. Theists, atheists ,all humanity worship something.

    JVL

    Jerry: The United States is currently the least racists country in the history of the world. Prove me wrong!!!

    What evidence or data has led to you having that conclusion?

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    Jerry emphatically requested that you prove him wrong. You seem to have misread his comment. 😉

    Andrew

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Sandy says:

    Paige
    Interesting statistics.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6%3famp

    “interesting” is synonimous for “fake”?

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    Interesting statistics.

    I rest my case. Nothing in these charts indicates racism. They have been well known for years.

    I have never said that Black Americans do not have an extremely tough time in life. These adverse effects experienced in life lead to performance differences. But is that due to racism? There is no evidence that it is the cause for the differences.

    These charts specifically don’t present any indication of racism, just stark differences in performance.

  13. 13
    davidl1 says:

    I think that article is making an unwarraned leap by attributing all of the negative outcomes to racism. Using a single characteristic without any context to make a correlation is problematic. By that standard, sexism would be implicated in the 90% male vs 10% female prison population, 70% male vs 30% female homeless rate, 70% male vs 30% female suicide rate, 76% male vs 24% female murder victim rate. Sexism doesn’t account for those things. There are other factors, and presenting those statistics as evidence of sexism is misleading.

    This doesn’t (and isn’t an attempt to) answer JVLs question, but it is related. The lengths people go to to ascribe bad outscomes to racism in this country give the appearance that racism is significantly less than claimed. Derek Chauvin was the poster boy for systemic police racism, but he wasn’t charged with a hate crime because there was no evidence that race was a factor. https://www.insider.com/no-evidence-to-charge-derek-chauvin-with-hate-crime-prosecutor-2021-4 Anybody that could have found evidence of racism would have been a hero to millions, so it was certainly looked for. Of course that doesn’t stop people from claiming that his actions were racist and that the police are racist. It’s circular reasoning, and it undermines attempts to address real racism.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Is “worship” in our genes? Incomprehensible as it might be to some, there are others who feel no urge to “worship” anything at all.

  15. 15
    EDTA says:

    Sev,
    >Perhaps the first step to eradicating racism is to accept that it exists – at least the seeds of it – in all of us…

    But because the seeds of it exist in all of us, it will never be permenantly eradicated. In fact, it will take continuous conscious effort just to keep it in check. Same with sexism and a lot of other -isms. They are rooted in our instincts (or for the Christian, our instincts plus our sin nature). For that reason, they will always rear their ugly heads unless continuous effort is expended to keep them in check. That’ll cheer ya up!

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    undermines attempts to address real racism.

    I’m arguing that racism is not a major issue but something else is. If you address the wrong issue you will never solve the problem. The left argues racism because they are responsible for the real problem and will never admit it. They will never risk the votes they would lose if the truth was addressed.

    In the Chauvin/ Floyd incident two of the four police officers were minorities. One was black and one was Southeast Asian.

  17. 17
    Belfast says:

    Seversky’s shiny thing worked – so – back to Darwin.
    Darwin conceived that there is a hierarchy among humans and it is in the nature of hierarchies that there are degrees of merit. He held that white Europeans were further from apes than other ‘races,’ and other ‘races’ were therefore closer to apes. He explicitly stated that in some future period …”civilised races…will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races;” he named the negro, with the Australian aboriginal as the first of the ‘savage races’ to disappear.
    Indeed, Darwin’s sub-title for his Origin of Species is ‘Preservation of Favoured Races.’

  18. 18
    Querius says:

    Finally. As I’ve said for years, Darwinism is a failed 19th century conjecture used to justify colonialism and racial manifest destiny. Darwinists have consistently failed to find the evidence showing a gradual transformation across many species and every new discovery seems to send them into a frenzy of rationalization.

    For example, embryonic development was once claimed to follow evolutionary pathways (they didn’t), there was supposedly a plethora of “vestigial” organs that proved evolution (they weren’t), there were fossils to be found that would supposedly bridge the gaps in the smooth flow of evolution (they’re still missing), similarity of proteins between species was once touted as the solution to classification controversies (until it was discovered that it doesn’t work), then there was “junk” DNA that was supposedly the trail of evolutionary progress (it’s now called “non-coding” DNA), and others–all of which were falsified. Yet Darwin fundamentalists cling to them for dear life even in the face of science and in the face of the blatant racism of Darwin and his followers that even resulted in the poor African Mbuti, Ota Benga, being exhibited in monkey house at the Bronx Zoo for about two years. Now that was never mentioned in our textbooks! Instead, kids are still taught the “fact” of evolution.

    Good riddance!

    -Q

  19. 19
    Sandy says:

    Seversky
    Is “worship” in our genes? Incomprehensible as it might be to some, there are others who feel no urge to “worship” anything at all.

    So your “mind ” is synonimous for “nothing at all”? 🙂 You said it.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Jerry: I have never said that Black Americans do not have an extremely tough time in life. These adverse effects experienced in life lead to performance differences. But is that due to racism? There is no evidence that it is the cause for the differences. These charts specifically don’t present any indication of racism, just stark differences in performance.

    What are the ‘adverse effects experienced in life’ that you’re considering? What accounts for them?

  21. 21
    Sandy says:

    A “racist” country elected a black president twice , unfortunatelly not for his performances but for his skin.His best “performances” :legalized of same sex marriage , started wars with 5 , 6 countries , gifted pallets of cash to terorist regimes.

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    What accounts for them?

    White liberals/leftists.

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    Probably one of the greatest researchers and writers today is Marian L. Tupy. He writes for the Cato Institute and Human Progress. He tweeted this today

    When we trade with other nations, we often resent them and suspect them of thriving at our expense.

    Of course, trade is mutually beneficial. But humans evolved to be suspicious of exchange with people beyond their immediate group.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HumanProgress/status/1391943662322556929

    This shows suspicion of others different from ourselves is built in.

    Hayek said

    Part of our present difficulty is that we must constantly adjust our lives, our thoughts and our emotions, in order to live simultaneously within different kinds of orders according to different rules. If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or of, say, our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilization), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply the rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. So we must learn to live in two sorts of world at once.

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Jerry: White liberals/leftists.

    Could you be more specific about the kind of adverse effects you’re thinking of?

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Atheistic-leftism attacks black church communities, promotes abortion in black neighborhoods (Margaret Sanger), substituted propaganda for education in schools and destroys family life – attacking all the cornerstones of healthy life for the black people. Much of this was opposed by the pastors and community leaders (MLK was a Christian leader) but leftism has been relentless and destructive.

    I’ll add that attacks against “patriarchy” have been destructive for black men – leading to many social problems.

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sev

    Incomprehensible as it might be to some, there are others who feel no urge to “worship” anything at all.

    That which we hold in great honor or esteem and give our greatest love to, is that which we worship.

    Merriam Webster: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

  27. 27
    paige says:

    I see that we are still using labels to demonize those with different opinions rather than constructively discuss the issues.

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    I see that we are still using labels to demonize those with different opinions rather than constructively discuss the issues.

    Would you be happy if I said white Democrat politicians. It’s their policies.

    Could you be more specific about the kind of adverse effects you’re thinking of?

    Fatherless children, victim ideology both generated by while liberals which led to gangster rap culture. All have been disastrous.

    Want a name, Michael Harrington. His ideas became the policy of the Democratic Party and created one of the most dysfunctional societies in the history of the world. Very little to do with what people call racism. But very much a racist policy based on low expectations for a group of people by another group (white liberal politicians) who take advantage of them.

  29. 29
    Sandy says:

    Paige
    I see that we are still using labels to demonize those with different opinions rather than constructively discuss the issues.

    Haha, cancel culture is on the left go preach to leftists about “constructively discuss the issues”.

  30. 30
    paige says:

    Sandy and Jerry, I guess it never occurred to you that most people hold a diversity of views than span the spectrum from left to right. As an example, I am a fiscal conservative but support universal health care. I oppose abortion but support same sex marriage.

    Throwing labels at people is divisive and gets us nowhere. You are free to continue to do so but it says more about you than it does about the views you oppose.

  31. 31
    William J Murray says:

    SA said:

    That which we hold in great honor or esteem and give our greatest love to, is that which we worship.

    I agree. I worship my wife.

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Atheistic-leftism attacks black church communities, promotes abortion in black neighborhoods (Margaret Sanger), substituted propaganda for education in schools and destroys family life – attacking all the cornerstones of healthy life for the black people. Much of this was opposed by the pastors and community leaders (MLK was a Christian leader) but leftism has been relentless and destructive.

    Hmm . . . wasn’t it leftist who supported desegregating schools? And were in favour of mixed ‘race’ marriages? And I don’t think it was the ‘leftists’ who opposed letting black athletes play in the National and American baseball leagues.

    I’ll add that attacks against “patriarchy” have been destructive for black men – leading to many social problems.

    IF that was destructive wouldn’t it be destructive for all racial groups?

    Jerry: Fatherless children, victim ideology both generated by while liberals which led to gangster rap culture. All have been disastrous.

    How are liberals/leftists responsible for fatherless black children?

    Want a name, Michael Harrington. His ideas became the policy of the Democratic Party and created one of the most dysfunctional societies in the history of the world. Very little to do with what people call racism. But very much a racist policy based on low expectations for a group of people by another group (white liberal politicians) who take advantage of them.

    I am unfamiliar with Michael Harrington and his Wikipedia article is pretty sparse. Can you supply or link to a summary of his views that are/were damaging to black people in America?

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    “I see that we are still using labels to demonize those with different opinions”

    How about this label: Racist

    This is why its impossible to have a serious conversation with a liberal/prog/leftist/statist. They can’t think past the stoopid narratives they regurgitate, even when they contradict themselves.

    Andrew

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    Throwing labels at people is divisive and gets us nowhere. You are free to continue to do so but it says more about you than it does about the views you oppose.

    Does it? Then thank you very much. I am happy to accept what it means about me to be against extremely bad policies by people who don’t care very much and who are essentially racists.

    I oppose policies that harm people especially egregiously dysfunctional ones. They mostly all originate from one side of the political spectrum. So are we not allowed to call out groups who support these dysfunctional policies in mass?

    What’s it say about people who support the political party that caused and implemented these dysfunctional policies? What’s it say about the people who are silent on these policies and thus silent on the people who are responsible for them?

    The irony is that the people shouting “racist” are the real racists.

    So I am against the racists and proud of it.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    In old marriage ceremonies the term “worship” would be used along with what we now would say “love, honor and respect” for our spouse – so it makes sense.
    If a person says that they don’t have a great love or esteem for anyone at all, I would wonder if it’s just narcissism. Because they will usually love and defend and respect themself.
    Having honor and love for someone other than ourselves is one of those necessary things we all should do.
    Seversky is suggesting that he does not have any thing like this — but can a person have no admiration and great respect for anything? If so, that’s nihilism and atheism – no respect or love for anything at all.

  36. 36
    JVL says:

    Asauber: This is why its impossible to have a serious conversation with a liberal/prog/leftist/statist. They can’t think past the stoopid narratives they regurgitate.

    Do you think it’s possible that you too regurgitate narratives?

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Hmm . . . wasn’t it leftist who supported desegregating schools?

    I referred to atheistic-leftists. You omitted part of that term.

    Atheistic-leftists (like Saul Alinsky) assumed that mixing races would be the answer to low performance – so, it was a racist policy. As if all-black schools could not ever perform at a high level (because they believed black people were not capable). Saul Alinsky was a racist and attempted to humiliate black people in order to embarrass white culture. I just learned about Michael Harrington via Jerry’s post. Need more information – but he was an atheist-lefitst.

    And were in favour of mixed ‘race’ marriages?

    Do you think Jews are racist because they insist only on marriage with other Jews?

    And I don’t think it was the ‘leftists’ who opposed letting black athletes play in the National and American baseball leagues.

    People who took the Christian faith seriously were the first abolitionists. The Catholic Church condemned slavery with the punishment of excommunication in the 1500’s – but many ignored that prohibition (opposition to slavery goes back to the 600s in the Christian world).
    The atheist-left was responsible for socialist restructure of the family and society.

    IF that was destructive wouldn’t it be destructive for all racial groups?

    Yes. The demeaning of fatherhood and the nuclear family is indeed destructive for all racial groups. The correlations of divorce and poverty and afflictions that children face when traditional family is broken are well documented in sociological studies.

  38. 38
    JVL says:

    Jerry: I oppose policies that harm people especially egregiously dysfunctional ones. They mostly all originate from one side of the political spectrum. So are we not allowed to call out groups who support these dysfunctional policies in mass?

    What policies in particular?

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: As if all-black schools could not ever perform at a high level (because they believed black people were not capable).

    Umm . . . I think the point at the time (in the 60s) was that all-black schools were not given the resources and money that all-white schools had. On average. The argument was that separate but equal was false; black schools were not ‘equal’ for the most part.

    Anyway, why would anyone want all-black schools? Or all-white schools? What would be the point?

    Do you think Jews are racist because they insist only on marriage with other Jews?

    They do no all insist on that. And, yes, I think some Jews are ‘racist’ in the way you mean. But a belief system is not linked to a ‘race’ so I don’t think racist is the right term.

    People who took the Christian faith seriously were the first abolitionists. The Catholic Church condemned slavery with the punishment of excommunication in the 1500’s – but many ignored that prohibition (opposition to slavery goes back to the 600s in the Christian world).
    The atheist-left was responsible for socialist restructure of the family and society.

    But, there were Christians who were slave owners and in favour of slavery. Also, please note, the abolitionist movement was gaining some real steam at about the same time as biologists (including Darwin) were starting to question the Biblical narrative.

    Yes. The demeaning of fatherhood and the nuclear family is indeed destructive for all racial groups. The correlations of divorce and poverty and afflictions that children face when traditional family is broken are well documented in sociological studies.

    So, why do you single that out as being particularly destructive to the black culture?

  40. 40
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I think the point at the time (in the 60s) was that all-black schools were not given the resources and money that all-white schools had. On average. The argument was that separate but equal was false; black schools were not ‘equal’ for the most part.

    Ok, then they should have given the black schools more money. Why not built up the neighborhood and enhance pride and excellence in who you are and where you live? But the idea taught that their own people were not adequate and they had to go to some other place. For me it’s not black and white but ethnicity – and also religion.

    Anyway, why would anyone want all-black schools?

    I can be a consistent experience for the students – they share the same ethnicity. We permit people from Hispanic speaking backgrounds to speak Spanish and keep their culture. The old policy was that everybody should mix and become “white” – that was an idea of secularist social-engineering and worked against religion and family in many ways. People reduced from family and ethnic culture to kind-of anonymous “individuals”. That’s the communist view – also going back to atheistic revolutions (French revolution) where family and religion were enemies of the state – people should just be “citizens” and really “belong to the state”. The state itself replaces God and the family.

    So, why do you single that out as being particularly destructive to the black culture?

    The black neighborhoods were singled out in a special way. Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” put a special emphasis on destroying black family life. She was an atheist-leftist.

    And, yes, I think some Jews are ‘racist’ in the way you mean. But a belief system is not linked to a ‘race’ so I don’t think racist is the right term.

    I guess it’s a matter of the hierarchy of values or of sins. Here, you’re claiming that Orthodox Jews, who by their religion are required to marry only other Jews, are by that fact “racist”. So, that condemns those Jews as an immoral bunch of people. A lot of people would call that anti-Semitic. That’s another term for “racist”, since Orthodox Jews are (as they claim) of a race. Yes, religion and race are linked – that’s Judiasm.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    Interesting . . .

    The Synod of Gangra in the 4th century was a local assembly of a number of bishops that condemned what they claimed were heresies within their community. Among those heresies were Christians who were reported to have been encouraging slaves to escape the slavery imputed onto them by their masters, this being condemned in their Third Canon.[23] One of the individuals targeted by this council was a bishop named Eustathius of Sebaste, who is recorded by the historian Socrates Scholasticus in the Second Book and 43rd Chapter of his Church History to have “snatched slaves from their masters under the pretext of piety”. He is reported to have submitted to the council, but then again, under an Antiochan synod, was accused of having perjured, or lied about his submission and continued the practice. Over a century after the Council of Gangra, the same issue was still significant enough that the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD had to issue a similar condemnation over monasteries helping slaves escape from the slavery of their masters.[24] Even by the sixth century, the emperor Justinian had to declare that masters have the legal authority to reclaim fugitive slaves from monasteries for up to three years.[25]

  42. 42
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok, then they should have given the black schools more money. Why not built up the neighborhood and enhance pride and excellence in who you are and where you live? But the idea taught that their own people were not adequate and they had to go to some other place. For me it’s not black and white but ethnicity – and also religion.

    I agree, the schools in black neighbourhoods should have been better funded and supported. But I also think desegregating the schools was important; it asked the question: why should their be black-only schools and white-only schools. A very good question.

    I can be a consistent experience for the students – they share the same ethnicity. We permit people from Hispanic speaking backgrounds to speak Spanish and keep their culture. The old policy was that everybody should mix and become “white” – that was an idea of secularist social-engineering and worked against religion and family in many ways.

    What does a general, good, liberal arts education have to do with ethnicity? Most blacks in America were Christian at the time of the civil rights movement. Most of their families had been in the US longer that many more recent European immigrants. Is it not a good idea to have an American educational goal and system? The same for everyone? Isn’t that what equality is about?

    The black neighborhoods were singled out in a special way. Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” put a special emphasis on destroying black family life. She was an atheist-leftist.

    How did it emphasise that?

    I guess it’s a matter of the hierarchy of values or of sins. Here, you’re claiming that Orthodox Jews, who by their religion are required to marry only other Jews, are by that fact “racist”. So, that condemns those Jews as an immoral bunch of people. A lot of people would call that anti-Semitic. That’s another term for “racist”, since Orthodox Jews are (as they claim) of a race. Yes, religion and race are linked – that’s Judiasm.

    Again, I don’t think ‘racist’ is the right term for a faith community to have a high preference for their offspring to marry in the faith, as illustrated in the musical Fiddler on the Roof. That’s their call; I think it’s damaging to some of their children so, yes, I find fault with it. One of my cousins married a Jew and she ended up dealing with some nasty blowback. I, personally, just don’t see the problem with mixed faith marriages as long as the couple are consenting adults.

    But I am not anti-Semitic; I just disagree with some of the attempts to control behaviour by some of that community.

    And It’s pretty clear that Orthodox Jews are not a race no matter what they want to think.

  43. 43
    Sandy says:

    JVL

    Do you think it’s possible that you too regurgitate narratives?

    Do you think it’s possible that you too regurgitate narratives?

    Do you think it’s possible that you too regurgitate narratives?

    Do you think it’s possible that you too regurgitate narratives?

  44. 44
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    But I am not anti-Semitic; I just disagree with some of the attempts to control behaviour by some of that community.

    I think behavior control is one of those things that is a concern, however, within a religion there are norms to follow and the norms are for a reason.

    How did it emphasise that?

    The Negro Project was directed at black neighborhoods with the hope of curtailing birth of what she considered “human waste” – it was a eugenics project, very much along Darwinist lines.

    In Sanger’s view, humanitarianism threatened to swamp America with a tidal wave of the “feeble-minded.” As I explain in my book Darwin Day in America, feeblemindedness was an expansive category that included many people who today wouldn’t be considered mentally handicapped, including members of races (like blacks) considered by Darwinian biologists of the time to be “lower” on the evolutionary scale. “Feebleminded” persons could read. They could hold jobs. They could appear perfectly normal to everyone else. That’s why they were so dangerous according to eugenists. The feeble-minded could appear so ordinary that non-feebleminded persons might marry them and then spread their defective “germplasm” to the next generation.

    Sanger branded the feeble-minded a “menace … to the race” and compared them to “weeds.” In her bestselling book The Pivot of Civilization, she wrote that “our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste.”

    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/margaret-sanger-statues-honor-a-racist-and-eugenicist-but-as-with-darwin-let-her-stay/

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Sandy:

    Just in case you’re wondering . . . unless you indicate a genuine interest in having a civilised and collegial dialogue I’m going to ignore you.

    And that does mean not just blatantly asserting you’re right and others are wrong. If you want to preach then be my guest but do not expect everyone to play along.

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: I think behavior control is one of those things that is a concern, however, within a religion there are norms to follow and the norms are for a reason.

    It doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. Nor does disagreeing with such things mean I condemn the whole community.

    The Negro Project was directed at black neighborhoods with the hope of curtailing birth of what she considered “human waste” – it was a eugenics project, very much along Darwinist lines.

    I know very little of Margaret Sanger and I’ve not heard of the Negro Project. Based sheerly on what you’ve posted above it sounds pretty odious and I think you’d find it difficult to find anyone who would support such views now.

    Anyway, finding AN advocate of pretty repulsive ideas who happened to come from one belief group is a far cry from showing the whole group was ‘racist’. I’m glad such views are now rightly condemned and rejected. I assume you do as well.

  47. 47
    jerry says:

    On the table and unchallenged

    Prove me wrong!!!

    The United States is currently the least racists country in the history of the world.

    Prove me wrong!!!

    The most racist persons in the 21st century are those who say racism is an issue.

  48. 48
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    Hmm . . . wasn’t it leftist who supported desegregating schools? And were in favour of mixed ‘race’ marriages? And I don’t think it was the ‘leftists’ who opposed letting black athletes play in the National and American baseball leagues.

    You might want to read up more on U.S. history. If you’re referring to the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954, it was President Eisenhower who sent in the 101st Airborne Division to make sure that black children could attend school in Little Rock, Arkansas. Are you saying that Eisenhower was a leftist?

    You should also read up on Margaret Sanger.

    -Q

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    Jerry: The United States is currently the least racists country in the history of the world.

    What’s your yardstick/criteria? How are you measuring racism?

  50. 50
    JVL says:

    Querius:You might want to read up more on U.S. history. If you’re referring to the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954, it was President Eisenhower who sent in the 101st Airborne Division to make sure that black children could attend school in Little Rock, Arkansas. Are you saying that Eisenhower was a leftist?

    What do you think “leftist” means? I don’t use the term myself so I have no definition.

  51. 51
    Sandy says:

    JVL
    . . . unless you

    What is worse than an atheist?
    Answer: An atheist without humor.

  52. 52
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    What do you think “leftist” means? I don’t use the term myself so I have no definition.

    Actually, you used the term, “leftist” in your post #32. So, you do indeed use the term.

    And what did you mean by using it . . . or do use terms that you have no definition for?

    -Q

  53. 53
    JVL says:

    Querius: Actually, you used the term, “leftist” in your post #32. So, you do indeed use the term.

    I used it in a reply to someone who used it and I thought I knew what was meant or implied. And then later I considered that I might be misinterpreting the term and asked for clarification. I would not have used that term if I had initiated the topic nor do I use in in daily conversation or writing.

  54. 54
    Querius says:

    JVL,
    You presented the following rhetorical questions in your post #32:

    Hmm . . . wasn’t it leftist who supported desegregating schools? And were in favour of mixed ‘race’ marriages? And I don’t think it was the ‘leftists’ who opposed letting black athletes play in the National and American baseball leagues.

    But you now say you don’t know what “leftist” means?

    -Q

  55. 55
    JVL says:

    Querius: But you now say you don’t know what “leftist” means?

    As I’ve already said: at some point it occurred to me that it would be respectful and sincere to make sure that I hadn’t misinterpreted someone’s use of the term.

    You’re just arguing to argue. Why not get back to the point of the discussion?

  56. 56
    Querius says:

    JVL,
    That’s because you’re the one who who’s been making these assertions.

    Have you since you looked into the history of desegregation in the U.S.? You might also want to educate yourself on the “Great Society” and how it destroyed many African-American families because federal housing projects required that husbands could not be present for their wives and children to receive this housing–and the Feds made sure that husbands weren’t sneaking home at night. You can read about it Great Society: A New History by NY Times best-selling author Amity Shlaes.

    You might also familiarize yourself with the definition of “leftist” now that you’ve started brandishing this term.

    A huge factor in the propagation and scientific promotion of racism was Charles Darwin. Eugenics and Nazi racial ideology could point to “following the science” as a result. Someone familiar with U.S. history would also see the connection with the publication of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which sold out immediately in 1859, and the start of the U.S. Civil War in 1861 to end this “peculiar institution” in America.

    -Q

  57. 57
    JVL says:

    Querius: That’s because you’re the one who who’s been making these assertions.

    I don’t think I made many assertions except about clear racist behaviour in the 20th century. Perhaps you’d like to address those:

    Who objected to black athletes being allowed to participate in Major League Baseball?

    Who objected to mixed-race marriages?

    Who objected to the integration of schools and universities?

    Who insisted that there should be bus seats for whites and different ones for blacks?

    Who put burning crosses on the lawns of black families?

    Who lynched blacks?

    You might also familiarize yourself with the definition of “leftist” now that you’ve started brandishing this term.

    Leftist — a person with left-wing political views? How’s that?

    Someone familiar with U.S. history would also see the connection with the publication of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which sold out immediately in 1859, and the start of the U.S. Civil War in 1861 to end this “peculiar institution” in America.

    Do you think many Americans had read Darwin’s book in the first couple of years after its publication? You do realise that slavery had already been eliminated in Great Britain where Darwin lived and published? The issues that led to the US war between the states had been percolating for decades before Darwin published.

  58. 58
    Querius says:

    JVL,
    If you think your rhetorical assertions are relevant, why don’t you answer your own questions–maybe do a little research on U.S. history first. I already asked you if you thought Eisenhower was a leftist, and now that you’ve provided a definition that apparently satisfies you, take a shot at why you think he was.

    I’ve already provided you with an excellent resource in Amity Shlaes’ book, which is very balanced in my opinion. As to the source of prejudice in the U.S., you might want to look up the supporters and participants in the underground railroad versus the opponents.

    Perhaps you could also consider comparing “true” socialism with plantation slavery. Both provide free housing, free healthcare, free food, free clothing, guaranteed lifetime employment, retirement benefits, and “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” . . . along with labor quotas and forced labor in gulags, of course.

    -Q

  59. 59
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Following Querius’ recommendation to JVL that he should read up on Margaret Sanger – yes, definitely.

    JVL said:

    Anyway, finding AN advocate of pretty repulsive ideas who happened to come from one belief group is a far cry from showing the whole group was ‘racist’.

    Margaret Sanger was not just a random individual I cited nor even the leader of something from the past. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood – one of the most well-funded and influential organizations in the world today. There are some prominent black leaders today who know quite clearly that Planned Parenthood attempted to destroy black families and that effort persists.

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    Querius: If you think your rhetorical assertions are relevant, why don’t you answer your own questions–maybe do a little research on U.S. history first. I already asked you if you thought Eisenhower was a leftist, and now that you’ve provided a definition that apparently satisfies you, take a shot at why you think he was.

    I think it’s clear that a lot of support for racist policies and behaviours in the US in the 20th century came from those who were more ‘right’ leaning than left.

    I think Eisenhower is an interesting case, not clearly left or right leaning. His reaction to the Suez Crisis is a pertinent example as is his comment about being careful of the military industrial complex.

    I’ve already provided you with an excellent resource in Amity Shlaes’ book, which is very balanced in my opinion. As to the source of prejudice in the U.S., you might want to look up the supporters and participants in the underground railroad versus the opponents.

    I’ll keep that in mind.

    Perhaps you could also consider comparing “true” socialism with plantation slavery. Both provide free housing, free healthcare, free food, free clothing, guaranteed lifetime employment, retirement benefits, and “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” . . . along with labor quotas and forced labor in gulags, of course.

    I have no idea why you are making this comparison; I guess you’re assuming that I have a particular social stance.

  61. 61
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Margaret Sanger was not just a random individual I cited nor even the leader of something from the past. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood – one of the most well-funded and influential organizations in the world today. There are some prominent black leaders today who know quite clearly that Planned Parenthood attempted to destroy black families and that effort persists.

    Your comment is inherently contradictory: you assume that many, many people are unaware of a particular stance or effect of Planned Parenthood (your assertion) but then you also assume that that agenda of Planned Parenthood is widespread and supported.

    Perhaps instead of picking particular people and organisations you find destructive and then ascribing support for them by others on roughly the same side of the political landscape you might find it more honest and insightful to actually get to know individuals and see what they actually support and believe. Just like you would like to be treated yourself.

  62. 62
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I’m sorry I didn’t understand what you’re saying here.
    You didn’t know who Margaret Sanger is and suggested that she’s just an individual and not representative of a leftist movement.

    you might find it more honest and insightful to actually get to know individuals and see what they actually support and believe. Just like you would like to be treated yourself.

    In some cases, yes – if there was ambiguity about what the organization and their supporters believe. Certainly, it’s good to ask individuals. In other cases, where the policy and strategy of the organization is public and the supporters go on public demonstrations – and their leaders enact laws that affect the nation, then there’s little need to ask the individuals. They want to be identified with the public policy. There may be a random person who supports the organization but disagrees with the policy – or perhaps has some nuanced reason for supporting them. But we’re talking about 90+% of the people in that group.
    There were some Nazis who were nice people and didn’t like working for Hitler that much. There are some communists who don’t like the party. But I can still oppose Nazism and Communism in spite of that.
    On this site we try to understand materialists, evolutionists and atheists – among many others.
    We give people a chance to express their views.
    If I noticed that 99% of atheists, for example, said the same thing about certain matters – then I’m free to conclude that “atheists say …” whatever it is. There are always outliers, but I would expect myself if I carried a certain label, to be treated the way that label indicates. Facing whatever enemies I may have, but also making friends because I have the label.

  63. 63
    Querius says:

    JVL,

    I think it’s clear that a lot of support for racist policies and behaviours in the US in the 20th century came from those who were more ‘right’ leaning than left.

    Would you let us in on your little secret then? I think it’s clear that your statement is baloney.

    I think Eisenhower is an interesting case, not clearly left or right leaning. His reaction to the Suez Crisis is a pertinent example as is his comment about being careful of the military industrial complex.

    The only thing that’s clear is that Eisenhower became an “interesting case” because you couldn’t find anything supporting your assertions.

    I have no idea why you are making this comparison; I guess you’re assuming that I have a particular social stance.

    I guess you must not understand what “left” means in the U.S. after all.

    -Q

  64. 64
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    I’m sorry I didn’t understand what you’re saying here.

    I wouldn’t worry about it. Some people, when they get into rhetorical trouble, deliberately obfuscate, misinterpret, object, deflect, raise irrelevant issues to your points. This charming behavior is similar to that of a desperate squid releasing an ink cloud to try to avoid being eaten alive.

    The Eugenics movement is an interesting study of when good intentions based on deep prejudices result in de facto genocide. The proportion of non-white people in U.S. would be much higher if millions of African American babies were allowed to live and people of African decent would have a much larger voice in politics as a result. That Planned Parenthood clearly targets the African-American community is supported by where they advertise and in the racial background of abortions.

    Similarly, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program destroyed many low-income African-American families even though the original intentions were relatively noble (in my opinion) as Amity Shlaes points out.

    -Q

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: I’m sorry I didn’t understand what you’re saying here.

    I thought that might happen.

    You didn’t know who Margaret Sanger is and suggested that she’s just an individual and not representative of a leftist movement.

    I am vaguely aware of Margaret Sanger and I have been familiar with Planned Parenthood for decades. But I was completely unaware of her views until I read about them here a couple of years ago. Therefore, I was not (nor have I ever been) in support of some of what you’re saying she stood for. So I don’t think she was that influential because I suspect I’m pretty typical.

    If I noticed that 99% of atheists, for example, said the same thing about certain matters – then I’m free to conclude that “atheists say …” whatever it is. There are always outliers, but I would expect myself if I carried a certain label, to be treated the way that label indicates. Facing whatever enemies I may have, but also making friends because I have the label.

    Sometimes you assume a label for someone before you actually find out what they think. Also, sometimes you assume some one with a label (you’ve decided is true) agrees with everything you think that label stands for.

  66. 66
    asauber says:

    “Sometimes you assume a label for someone before you actually find out what they think.”

    JVL,

    Like “racist”.

    Andrew

  67. 67
    JVL says:

    Querius: Would you let us in on your little secret then? I think it’s clear that your statement is baloney.

    I tried asking you questions about who do you think supported certain racist beliefs and actions and you just blew that off.

    The only thing that’s clear is that Eisenhower became an “interesting case” because you couldn’t find anything supporting your assertions.

    That’s not what I meant at all. I meant even though he was an ex-general and a Republican he seemed to exhibit a less bellicose approach to issues than one might assume based on his past and his political affiliation.

    I guess you must not understand what “left” means in the U.S. after all.

    I believe I asked for definitions and, as I recall, you just blew that off as well.

    I wouldn’t worry about it. Some people, when they get into rhetorical trouble, deliberately obfuscate, misinterpret, object, deflect, raise irrelevant issues to your points. This charming behavior is similar to that of a desperate squid releasing an ink cloud to try to avoid being eaten alive.

    It’s so nice and refreshing to be treated as an individual who can think and reason and is trying to be polite in the interest of having a civilised conversation. I’m sorry I’ve been asking you a lot of question so that I can better understand your views and I’m sorry I’m starting off at a different place from you.

    IF I see a copy of Amity Shlaes’ book for a low price I will buy it and try and read it. The cheapest copy on Amazon.uk is over £20. Ebay has some for around £12.

    In the meantime I shall quote from the New York Times review of Great Society: a New History:

    Shlaes relies on her talents as a narrator to make the case that, as she puts it, “the government lost the war on poverty.” The book is well written; it goes down easy. But Shlaes’s evidence is highly selective: Medicare and Medicaid, the largest antipoverty programs created by the Johnson administration, are barely mentioned. Other major Great Society initiatives, including the Head Start preschool program, food stamps for hungry families and increased federal funding for public schools in low-income communities, also largely escape Shlaes’s notice.
    Instead she chooses to treat the first of the major Great Society bills, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as representative of the broader legislative program. This choice serves her purposes as a polemicist, because the government failed for the most part in its efforts to promote job creation. But it is indefensible as a matter of scholarship to completely omit the success of other Great Society programs.

    Shlaes also devotes a chapter to public housing projects, which expanded under Johnson. She tells a compelling if familiar story of the infuriating arrogance of government planners, who repeatedly destroyed poor communities in the belief that they could build better places. Shlaes, who has a good eye for quotes, picks a beauty from a court decision allowing the destruction of a neighborhood in Washington, D.C. “If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the nation’s capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way,” the court wrote. Public housing in the United States, sadly, has rarely been beautiful or sanitary. Shlaes catalogs some of the low points: the efforts of government social workers to ensure that fathers did not visit their children; the decision to increase rents with income, eliminating any incentive to work; the insistence that even the owners of modest homes would be better off in government apartments. “To be housed, it turned out, was not what people wanted,” she writes. “They wanted to house themselves.”

    Curiously, Shlaes also narrates at some length the story of a welfare program that never happened: a Nixon administration proposal, designed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to guarantee a basic income to working adults. Congress rejected the idea, underscoring the limited success of proponents of a stronger safety net.

    Shlaes’s conclusion that the expansion of welfare programs failed to improve public welfare is a staple of conservative rhetoric. In 2014, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin marked the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s speech declaring war on poverty by declaring the war had “failed.” The usual evidence for this claim is that the share of Americans living in poverty, as measured by the official federal standard, has remained relatively constant in recent decades.

    The reality is more complicated. The Great Society programs have not eliminated poverty, and the problem is not merely a failure of implementation or funding. Most Western democracies maintain welfare states far more generous than anything proposed by Johnson, and there are still poor people in Europe. But the Great Society programs have produced broad and lasting benefits. The official measure of poverty is widely regarded as deeply flawed because, like Shlaes, it ignores some of the successes of the War on Poverty. For example, the government does not count food stamps as income. A 2014 analysis concluded the remaining Great Society programs “have played an important and growing role in reducing poverty.” Other experts on poverty have reached similar conclusions.

    One of the strengths of Shlaes’s book is her narration of the broader context in which the Great Society programs were created. She captures the nuanced relationship between the war on poverty and the war on Vietnam, which sometimes constrained social spending and sometimes created an imperative for bread and circuses. She also offers an account, through the lens of classical economics, of the broader forces that made it possible to expand social spending during the 1960s, and then began to constrain that spending during the 1970s.

    But the narrative is warped by Shlaes’s determination to establish that the expansion of federal spending amounted to an embrace of socialism, which leads to long digressions about peripheral figures like Tom Hayden, a student activist whose interest in socialism left no apparent fingerprints on public policy. Shlaes also elides the useful distinction between the belief that government should control the means of production — the classic definition of socialism — and the belief that government should redistribute output, which is more accurately described as support for a welfare state. For Shlaes, as for many conservatives, socialism has come to describe the redistribution of wealth by any means whatsoever. This is what the industrialist Sherman Fairchild had in mind when he decried employees’ demands for stock options as “creeping socialism.”

    The purpose of this capacious definition of socialism, of course, is to tar the welfare state with the deservedly compromised reputation of central planning regimes. To call the Great Society a socialist enterprise is to foreshadow its inevitable failure.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/books/review/great-society-amity-shlaes.html

    It seems, perhaps, that Shlaes had a point to push instead of trying to present a balanced overview.

  68. 68
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Like “racist”.

    This is why I’ve been trying to ask questions and make sure I’m clear on what people are saying instead of just assuming and labelling them.

  69. 69
    asauber says:

    “This is why I’ve been trying to ask questions and make sure I’m clear on what people are saying instead of just assuming and labelling them.”

    JVL,

    Fair enough. But then, you would logically have a problem with a politically motivated smear campaign labeling large amorphous groups of people “racist” without really knowing what the individuals think and say about related matters.

    Andrew

  70. 70
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Fair enough. But then, you would logically have a problem with a politically motivated smear campaign labeling large amorphous groups of people “racist” without really knowing what the individuals think and say about related matters.

    I prefer making sure that any given individual actually believes this or that. It’s certainly fair to criticise organisations or groups that publish or support certain statements or policies but that doesn’t mean that every individual in those organisations or groups completely agrees with the supported statements or, even, completely understands what they’ve signed up for.

    There are individuals, like those who actually lynched blacks, like those who personally, physically attacked blacks attempting to attend universities, put burning crosses on the lawns of black families . . . Those people should be shunned and shamed. I think it’s fair to criticise laws and practices which, for example, forced black people to drink from a separate drinking fountain, forced them to sit at the back of the bus, meant that primarily black schools got less funding and support, stopped black people from marrying white people, made it common for black . . . wait, I’ll think on that one. I think everyone at this site will agree with everything I’ve said in this paragraph. I assume that we actually have a lot more in common than what we disagree on. At least in terms of what is good and right and what should be changed and avoided.

    Shall we progress assuming we generally agree and only need to come to a consensus about what to do to make things better? Knowing we will disagree on that but at least agreeing we all want to head in the same direction?

  71. 71
    asauber says:

    So lemme ask all of you about about a related matter:

    I’m one of those practicing Crazy Catholics, and stuffed into the weekly church bulletin last Sunday was a letter about the Sin of Racism from our bishop to everyone who goes to church(plus).

    Some important items to consider-

    1. The bishop doesn’t know I exist as an individual, let alone care to know what I think.
    2. The bishop probably doesn’t know anyone who was in any of the pews when I was, that morning at 8am mass.
    3. I wondered, did he just pick the “Sin of Racism” (out of all the Sins we Catholics have to wrestle with) out of the blue to preach to Mr. Anonymous about that morning, when every other time I’ve noticed he’s ever sent out form letters, it’s asking for money?

    Any thoughts on what you would think about this would be appreciated.

    Andrew

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I’m one of those practicing Crazy Catholics, and stuffed into the weekly church bulletin last Sunday was a letter about the Sin of Racism from our bishop to everyone who goes to church

    Was it, perhaps, a belated reaction to all the concerns about racism during the last year? Belated so as not to seem too trendy and also to give some time for consideration and reflection?

    Could it have been a suggestion from Rome that local Bishops make a statement?

    Could it have been that particular individual finally just deciding it was time to say something?

    Without speaking to the Bishop directly it’s impossible to say.

    Did you consider the letter or the topic inappropriate? Misguided?

    Is racism a sin? Theologically speaking that is.

  73. 73
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    I like your first thought the best. So I’m going to comment on that, initially. It contains the word “trendy”. I thought it was “trendy” too, but maybe not “too” trendy. lol I’m thinking it arrived in my hands because the topic is/was “trendy.” What I’m a little concerned about is that I can get “trendy” in countless other places, too, and better quality “trendy” at that.

    I’m thinking more long the the lines of hearing the Word of God that existed from eternity from my bishop, but maybe that’s just me.

    Andrew

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I like your first thought the best. So I’m going to comment on that, initially. It contains the word “trendy”. I thought it was “trendy” too, but maybe not “too” trendy. lol I’m thinking it arrived in my hands because the topic is/was “trendy.” What I’m a little concerned about is that I can get “trendy” in countless other places, too, and better quality “trendy” at that. I’m thinking more long the the lines of hearing the Word of God that existed from eternity from my bishop, but maybe that’s just me.

    Maybe. You have to make the decision that you know is right in your heart and soul. If it doesn’t completely and deeply resonate with you then keep it at a distance; perhaps a respectable and courteous distance but at least be careful.

  75. 75
    asauber says:

    “If it doesn’t completely and deeply resonate with you”

    An implied accusation of racism by someone who doesn’t know I exist doesn’t resonate too deeply, no.

    Andrew

  76. 76
    JVL says:

    Asauber: An implied accusation of racism by someone who doesn’t know I exist doesn’t resonate too deeply, no.

    From the movie Ronin (staring Robert De Niro and Jean Reno): Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.

  77. 77
    asauber says:

    So JVL,

    What are you going to do to counteract your own racism? Legit question.

    Andrew

  78. 78
    JVL says:

    Asauber: What are you going to do to counteract your own racism? Legit question.

    When I catch myself saying something or supporting something that another part of my brain says: whoa! Are you being prejudiced? Then I have to pause and have a think. It’s hard sometimes. Because we all think we detect patterns and want to make generalisations. It’s not just things about other races, it’s about other groups of any kind.

    So, vigilance. Being aware. Trying to do better. Thinking of people as individuals.

    It’s a lifelong effort. I think.

  79. 79
    asauber says:

    “Thinking of people as individuals.”

    JVL,

    I’m in total agreement with this. And if I may, from the Christian perspective, It goes with Galatians 3:28.

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Andrew

  80. 80
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: I’m in total agreement with this. And if I may, from the Christian perspective, It goes with Galatians 3:28. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    We agree on a lot. And I think, together, despite our differences, we can cooperate and work towards solving the problems we both see.

    From the musical Les Miserables (the song was just being performed on the BBC as I was watching):

    There was a time when men were kind
    When their voices were soft
    And their words inviting
    There was a time when love was blind
    And the world was a song
    And the song was exciting
    There was a time

    The world is hard, it’s complicated, sometimes it doesn’t make any sense at all. It feels like there’s a lot of people against us at every turn. It’s like we’re defending the fortress against the final attack. Like we’re on the brink of disaster and failure.

    Maybe that’s not true. Maybe we’re all a lot closer than we think. Maybe, in the end, we all really want some of the same things.

    That’s good, isn’t it?

  81. 81
    JVL says:

    I can’t say it any better than this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY

    (That’s Jacob Bronowski from The Ascent of Man)

  82. 82
    Querius says:

    JVL,
    The disingenuousness of your assertions is apparent to anyone reviewing your previous posts. No, I didn’t blow you off, I’m simply refusing to run research errands for you.

    If you’re going to post something, at least do your own homework first. Instead, we read unsupported assertions using definitions you later claim ignorance on, make more accusations and assertions without any concrete facts and then as a sort of rhetorical equivalent of Jabba the Hutt, pronounce challenges to your assertions as unconvincing, post a lengthy critique by some reviewer no one has heard of against an insightful and award-winning author, all the while claiming neutrality?

    I’ve said this before . . . I’m strongly tempted to create a chatbot and turn it loose on some unsuspecting political forum to see how long it can keep the posts going.
    “What exactly do you mean by (blatantly obvious term)?”
    “Absolutely no one believes that old definition anymore. You’ll have to do better than that.”
    “I can’t believe that no one here can produce a simple, intelligent statement regarding (technical term).”
    “When I answered your question, you didn’t even have the decency to admit that you were wrong. Why can’t you be civil here.”
    “But you still haven’t answered how (irrelevant topic) completely destroys your position.”
    And so on, ad infinitum.

    I suppose you’re right that you’re incapable of saying anything better like Dr. Bronowski. Except that I think he’s wrong on this point. The German leadership was indeed arrogant, believing in a scientifically justified racial manifest destiny: Since they had the power of controlling the Darwinian evolution of humanity, they had a moral obligation to do so. And they made what they considered somewhat regrettable but necessary “progress” on their “final solution” against Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others.

    The cult of mainstream absolutist scientific “fact” may have changed its narrative, but has learned nothing about tolerance of dissent or their own ignorance as Dr. Bronowski hoped.

    In the future, who’s to say that elite Darwinian scientists won’t feel compelling moral justification in researching and employing gain-of-function viruses to save both the human genome and the planet by eliminating not six million Jews, but six billion scientifically identified people groups judged (by them) as redundant?

    So yes indeed, Darwin, Sanger, Hitler, and others were indeed racist as are a good proportion of people today who say they’re against racism. They would be advised to read Dr. Martin Luther King’s brilliant “I have a dream” speech to start with.

    -Q

  83. 83
    JVL says:

    Querius:

    I’m sorry you think my requests for clarification and elucidation of your personal views are asking you to do research for me. The point of asking for your personal views is to make sure I’m reading you correctly as opposed to assuming some view garnered by reading someone else’s opinion is the same as yours.

    I thought a review published by The New York Times would indicate that some serious and knowledgeable reviewers had differing views. You disagree with them, so be it.

    I am very well aware of Dr King’s “I have a dream” speech, i.e. I have heard the whole thing many times. There’s a very good episode of Tim Harford’s Cautionary Tales podcast (I think) that discusses Dr King’s usual practice when writing sermons and speeches and how he departed from that when giving that particular speech.

    Who’s to say ‘elite Darwinian scientists’ WILL create some kind of humanity culling virus? Why would you be afraid of that happening? I’d be more afraid of some government funding such an endeavour. I would suggest that to prevent such an event it’s good to have solid and meaningful foreign relations with other countries and support for international organisations like the UN, the WHO, NATO, etc.

    Anyway, since we seem to be unable to find some meaningful realm of conversation it’s probably time to stop trying.

  84. 84
  85. 85
    Seversky says:

    Conspiracy theories? Does your Q denote QAnon sympathies?

  86. 86
    Querius says:

    Q stands for Querius and has as much to do with QAnon as Seversky has to do with beheadings.

    Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal also published an opinion piece on the subject of “gain-of-function” viral research that sheds more light on the concern expressed by biologists. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-demand-answers-on-covid-origins-11621011732

    -Q

  87. 87
    Seversky says:

    There are probably more opinion pieces by journalists than there are conspiracy theories, I’ll give you that.

    But, if you want a conspiracy theory, ask yourself which country or countries stand to gain the most from the US being weakened internally by the dissension, distrust and division sown by QAnon and related conspiracy theories?

    Gain-of-function (GOF) research is apparently being conducted in a number of labs around the world. The stated purpose is to try and get a head-start on pandemics by creating mutations that could make viruses more dangerous but in the lab under controlled conditions.

    Is there a risk of viruses escaping from these labs? Yes, always.

    Is it possible to distinguish natural mutations in these viruses from those engineered in a lab? No one seems to know for certain at this time. But if we can’t it makes for the ideal conspiracy theory since there is no way to disprove it.

  88. 88
    jerry says:

    No one seems to know for certain at this time. But if we can’t it makes for the ideal conspiracy theory since there is no way to disprove it.

    The pattern of C19 is unlike any other coronavirus ever seen and contains a highly unusual amino acid combination at exactly the right spot to do the most harm. Something that could easily be done in a lab that had the right equipment.

  89. 89
    Seversky says:

    I didn’t know you were a geneticist as well as a Mad Man.

  90. 90
    Querius says:

    Jerry,
    Yes, I’ve also read quotes from virologists in which they claim that it’s obvious (to them) that the virus was man-made. When an agency claims that gain-of-function research has always just been to make sure there are cures for man-made death-monsters, one also wonders how something like this could be misused. Or, what could possibly go wrong? After all, there are about 6 billion too many humans on this planet, right? We have to save life on the earth and we’re at the tipping point, right?

    If gain-of-function viral research is so altruistic, then why did the Obama administration outlaw it? When was this decision reversed and why didn’t the public hear about it?

    I’m reminded of Alfred Nobel and his invention that was so terrible that it would make war unthinkable, namely dynamite. I guess that didn’t turn out well.

    Similarly, the history of nuclear research includes something called “tickling the dragon,” which was a leading cause of death for many nuclear researchers early on. Then there are documented instances of many near catastrophes involving lost nuclear weapons, a nuclear warhead in a silo in Arkansas (IIRC) that fell off the body of the missile (it was sheer luck that it didn’t detonate), nuclear weapons that fell out of B-52s onto American soil, and so on. You can read about it yourself in a well-researched book. And yes, the U.S. government vigorously and repeatedly lied and covered up the accidents due to national security during the Cold War.
    https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1621141030&sr=8-1

    Why is it unreasonable that we will once again be buried in lies? Of course there are stupid conspiracy theories. One should always be skeptical and careful, but such bogus ones act as a useful cover for real ones. Something to think about.

    -Q

  91. 91
    Querius says:

    Apparently, JVL and Seversky have no opinion on gain-of-function viral research. Too bad.

    -Q

Leave a Reply