Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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

Comments
Apparently, JVL and Seversky have no opinion on gain-of-function viral research. Too bad. -QQuerius
May 17, 2021
May
05
May
17
17
2021
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
I didn't know you were a geneticist as well as a Mad Man.Seversky
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
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.jerry
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
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.Seversky
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
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 -QQuerius
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Conspiracy theories? Does your Q denote QAnon sympathies?Seversky
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
So, be afraid . . . https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fauci-reportedly-relaunched-nih-gain-of-function-research-without-consulting-white-house/ -QQuerius
May 15, 2021
May
05
May
15
15
2021
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
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)JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
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?JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
"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." Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
So JVL, What are you going to do to counteract your own racism? Legit question. Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
"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. Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
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?JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
"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. Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
"Sometimes you assume a label for someone before you actually find out what they think." JVL, Like "racist". Andrewasauber
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
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.JVL
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
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.Silver Asiatic
May 14, 2021
May
05
May
14
14
2021
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply