Richard Dawkins loses award for wrongthink

[The Sherpa Empire]

No.

Eugenics can also refer to intentionally pairing up and breeding people or poodles or whatever that have your preferred traits. For example, if you intentionally filled all the sperm banks with sperm from blue-eyed men, and only blue-eyed men, that would be a form of eugenics.

Sperm banks can be compared to eugenics because it has the same vibe of removing certain humans from the gene pool. But it's different from eugenics as a scientific idea.

It's very important to distinguish between the two. I.e. abortion and birth control was used for eugenics purposes to remove black people from the gene pool. That does not mean abortion and birth control today is eugenics.

I didn't say all sperm banks are eugenics. I said if you only stock them with sperm from blue-eyed donors, it would be eugenics. Read dude.

[Enjuku]

The basic idea of eugenics is that selective breeding can produce desired traits. There is often more added to that, but that is the basic concept, and it is entirely scientifically sound. (The problem comes when it pretty much inevitably becomes morally unsound).

The basic idea of Chinese traditional medicine is that there are certain parts in your body that affect your health. This is true.

The "more added" part is what makes Chinese traditional medicine, Chinese traditional medicine. And what makes it scientifically unsound. It cannot be separated from those more added parts.

Similarly, that certain traits can get passed on through generations is of course true. When you apply that to eugenics, you get the "more added" part which makes it scientifically unsound. Nothing to do with morals. Everything to do with the facts.

I've no real interest in watching a German movie, though I am interested in you further explaining your position. Are you willing to concede that genetics are not a 'placebo' and that, in fact, breeding tall people with other tall people and denying the short the right to reproduce will get you taller-on-average offspring than not doing so, on a purely scientific level?

In the scientific method, you need either your entire hypothesis to be necessarily true, or you adjust your hypothesis based on the evidence.

Considering removing people has no tangible effect on if you have more of a certain trait, you need to adjust your statement for it to be true on a purely scientific level.

I concede that genetics tells us you can, not "breed", but that two tall people reproducing have a chance of having a tall child.

But that was not your statement.

[Enjuku]

That isn't eugenics my guy.

God damn you're insufferable

Percentages, man.

[Nakena]

No.

Eugenics can also refer to intentionally pairing up and breeding people or poodles or whatever that have your preferred traits. For example, if you intentionally filled all the sperm banks with sperm from blue-eyed men, and only blue-eyed men, that would be a form of eugenics.

Sperm banks can be compared to eugenics because it has the same vibe of removing certain humans from the gene pool. But it's different from eugenics as a scientific idea.

It's very important to distinguish between the two. I.e. abortion and birth control was used for eugenics purposes to remove black people from the gene pool. That does not mean abortion and birth control today is eugenics.

Wrong. More often than not theres eugenic or semi-eugenic considerations in play there. They are just not called like that because the word "eugenics" and anything associated is considered evil and bad nowadays.

[Enjuku]

Sperm banks can be compared to eugenics because it has the same vibe of removing certain humans from the gene pool. But it's different from eugenics as a scientific idea.

It's very important to distinguish between the two. I.e. abortion and birth control was used for eugenics purposes to remove black people from the gene pool. That does not mean abortion and birth control today is eugenics.

I didn't say all sperm banks are eugenics. I said if you only stock them with sperm from blue-eyed donors, it would be eugenics. Read dude.

Stocking sperm banks with only blue-eyed donors isn't eugenics.

Stocking sperm banks with only blue-eyed donors to both (1) increase blue-eyed people and (2) decrease non-blue eyed people is eugenics.

And it would not work scientifically, since it would have a negligible effect on both (1) and (2).

[Ifreann]

You're transparently attempting to apply principles that are inapplicable in an effort to delegitimise trans identities. Which is to say, you're doing the attack helicopter bit, but you're trying to be clever about it. Just like Richard Dawkins, except I'm guessing you don't have a humanist of the year award to lose for this display of your entire ass.

If they are so inapplicable, by all means, explain why they are. That you're left dodging that and instead grabbing at insults does not speak well of the strength of your argument.

You're proposing to treat race and gender the same when they are obviously different things. You explain why we should do so.

[Xelsis]

The basic idea of eugenics is that selective breeding can produce desired traits. There is often more added to that, but that is the basic concept, and it is entirely scientifically sound. (The problem comes when it pretty much inevitably becomes morally unsound).

The basic idea of Chinese traditional medicine is that there are certain parts in your body that affect your health. This is true.

The "more added" part is what makes Chinese traditional medicine, Chinese traditional medicine. And what makes it scientifically unsound. It cannot be separated from those more added parts.

Similarly, that certain traits can get passed on through generations is of course true. When you apply that to eugenics, you get the "more added" part which makes it scientifically unsound. Nothing to do with morals. Everything to do with the facts.

That's vague enough to be useless 'there are certain parts in your body that affect your health'-with eugenics we are talking about a specific, well-known, and essentially universally accepted model of genetics and inheritance.

I've no real interest in watching a German movie, though I am interested in you further explaining your position. Are you willing to concede that genetics are not a 'placebo' and that, in fact, breeding tall people with other tall people and denying the short the right to reproduce will get you taller-on-average offspring than not doing so, on a purely scientific level?

In the scientific method, you need either your entire hypothesis to be necessarily true, or you adjust your hypothesis based on the evidence.

Considering removing people has no tangible effect on if you have more of a certain trait, you need to adjust your statement for it to be true on a purely scientific level.

I concede that genetics tells us you can, not "breed", but that two tall people reproducing have a chance of having a tall child.

But that was not your statement.

Removing people does have a tangible effect, I am not sure how to get that across. A society in which both short and tall people are having children is going to have a shorter average height for those offspring than a society in which only tall people are having children, this is extremely apparent and I do not know how to make it any more clear.

[Disgraces]

God damn you're insufferable

Percentages, man.

What?

[Xelsis]

If they are so inapplicable, by all means, explain why they are. That you're left dodging that and instead grabbing at insults does not speak well of the strength of your argument.

You're proposing to treat race and gender the same when they are obviously different things. You explain why we should do so.

You mean re-post what I already said, and hope you address the point this time instead of weakly lobbing insults?

The post is still there whenever you want to actually address it.

[Enjuku]

That's vague enough to be useless 'there are certain parts in your body that affect your health'-with eugenics we are talking about a specific, well-known, and essentially universally accepted model of genetics and inheritance.

And eugenics is not just that specific, well-known, and essentially universally accepted model of genetics and inheritance.

It includes the pseudoscientific aspect of culling different populations and trying to modify or breed characteristics that are both genetic and non-genetic.

Removing people does have a tangible effect, I am not sure how to get that across. A society in which both short and tall people are having children is going to have a shorter average height for those offspring than a society in which only tall people are having children, this is extremely apparent and I do not know how to make it any more clear.

Having a short parent is not conditional on having a short child.

So removing short parents isn't necessary to get to the "have less short children" end-goal.

It's very straight forward.

[Suriyanakhon]

Gender identity is a complex psychological, social, and (dare I say it) spiritual phenomenon which has been around in human history since forever, it's not comparable to fallacious 18th century taxonomy.

[Xelsis]

That's vague enough to be useless 'there are certain parts in your body that affect your health'-with eugenics we are talking about a specific, well-known, and essentially universally accepted model of genetics and inheritance.

And eugenics is not just that specific, well-known, and essentially universally accepted model of genetics and inheritance.

It includes the pseudoscientific aspect of culling different populations and trying to modify or breed characteristics that are both genetic and non-genetic.

Having a short parent is not conditional on having a short child.

So removing short parents isn't necessary to get to the "have less short children" end-goal.

It's very straight forward.

You re-quoted it so I know you read it, percentages.

Shorter-than-average parents have a higher percentage chance of having shorter-than-average children.

Taller-than-average parents have a higher percentage chance of having taller-than-average children.

Can short parents have a tall child? Yes. Can tall parents have a short child? Yes. But are the short parents equally as likely to have a tall child as the tall parents? No, and thus a society that only allows tall parents to breed is going to have offspring that are taller on average than one that does not do so.

[Ifreann]

You're proposing to treat race and gender the same when they are obviously different things. You explain why we should do so.

You mean re-post what I already said, and hope you address the point this time instead of weakly lobbing insults?

The post is still there whenever you want to actually address it.

Saying "But general principles" is no explanation.

[Heloin]

Known arsehole continues to be an arsehole. News at 11.

[Xelsis]

You mean re-post what I already said, and hope you address the point this time instead of weakly lobbing insults?

The post is still there whenever you want to actually address it.

Saying "But general principles" is no explanation.

Of course it is. If you have a general principle of saying that someone's self-identification should be respected, then you must put forward an argument for why that principle ought to be suspended in a certain case: in this example, an argument for why it ought to be suspended specifically for racial self-identification.

[Ifreann]

Saying "But general principles" is no explanation.

Of course it is. If you have a general principle of saying that someone's self-identification should be respected...

But no one said that. You're the one acting like this is something people believe so that you can make you attack-helicopter-but-not-really joke.

[Xelsis]

Of course it is. If you have a general principle of saying that someone's self-identification should be respected...

But no one said that. You're the one acting like this is something people believe so that you can make you attack-helicopter-but-not-really joke.

The entire premise of the revocation of the award is people being upset at Dawkins because they oppose his comments on self-identification.

"No one said that"-we're literally talking about the central point of the debate.

I don't know what society you are looking at where no-one is arguing that we must respect people's self-identification, but it certainly is not this one.

[Ifreann]

But no one said that. You're the one acting like this is something people believe so that you can make you attack-helicopter-but-not-really joke.

The entire premise of the revocation of the award is people being upset at Dawkins because they oppose his comments on self-identification.

"No one said that"-we're literally talking about the central point of the debate.

Dawkins farting transphobia out on to Twitter isn't a debate, it's just an irrelevant man being a transphobe in the hopes of regaining relevance.

I don't know what society you are looking at where no-one is arguing that we must respect people's self-identification, but it certainly is not this one.

I understand that when people talk about respecting someone's identity, they aren't proposing that people can identify as literally anything. We all got bored of this dumb shit several years ago.

[Yuzu China]

I also recognize Rachel Dolezal's right to identify as a black person despite her ancestry, whether she "chooses" to do so or not.

simply for daring to ask pertinent questions or for daring to assert that "there are only two genders", or for failing to phrase a certain sentence correctly.

spiteful, hateful conduct by a tiny minority of extremely outspoken trans activists as well as other influential, non-trans SJWs does ordinary trans people a huge disservice by antagonizing those who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.

"You call yourself pro-trans? You can't use the word "choose". If you say the words "choose" and "Rachel Dolezal" in the same sentence, even if you don't actually believe trans people have a choice, you are canceled. You're not pure enough for us and we will shut you down just because we can. So STFU, bigot."

Is a tiny little wording error so incredibly offensive to a tiny minority of disproportionately influential, professionally-offended snowflakes that he deserves to have his entire character assassinated and his reputation destroyed simply because he failed to word his tweet correctly?

Simply because he dared to ask a question? This is what cancel culture is. This is why these far-left wokists and cultural Marxists must never be allowed to hold any position of authority, let alone run a country.

if anyone deserves to be canceled, it's these woke vigilante groups who have taken it upon themselves to act as a kind of morality police, supplanting the medieval religious police of centuries past.

infiltrated and divided by woke feminists and far-left SJWs who believe themselves to be morally superior to everyone else and expect normies like us to "decolonize our minds" and "check our privilege" or some such nonsense.

intolerant wokists.

wokeness in all its hideous forms.



shaming men for the "crime" of awkwardly asking a woman out on a date

the hypocrisy of white, middle-class, Western feminists and juxtaposed their hyperinflated victimhood complex

He has refused to jump on the "you're a racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic POS" SJW bandwagon for years and years. He has been a staunch bulwark against woke political correctness and cancel culture for years and years

dishonest smears and defamation that have been building up against them will not succeed.

These New Atheists of the Intellectual Dark Web have been and remain my biggest idols to date

anti-intellectual, authoritarian SJWs to divide and pit different groups of atheists against one another so that they may rule over us in perpetuity.
People like Laurie Penny, Rebecca Watson, Big Red, Reza Azlan, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein, and all manner of radical Islamists

do you stand with the woke, cultural Marxist SJWs who would attempt to silence, divide, and bury us for wrongthink?

Ingredients:

- several years of Breitbart articles and Ben Shapiro podcasts
- simmering persecution complex
- as many right-wing contextual cueing terms as you can fit in a given sentence

Instructions:

- mix together, set blender to "high" for 45 minutes
- serve hot without proofreading

I will say, "Ezra Klein and Glenn Greenwald, radical Islamists" gave me a good chuckle, though, so thanks for that.

He is suspected to have comitted heresy against the Church of Progressive Wokeism and thus was preemptively excommunicated.

You two really do deserve each other lol

Good summary by Senkaku. In short: the quote「Ezra Klein, Laurie Penn and all manner of radical Islamists,」that tells you all. Somewhere between racist and religiously intolerant, ironically by mislabeling people just like Dawkins ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is the thing. 1. The Hong Kong guy tried to repeatedly report me, then complains about「free speech persecution」while throwing around ad hominem slurs/right wing dog whistles.

2. I'm also from a strong anticommunist, proGOP background, and am strongly against same sex whatever, and yet I support punishing Richard Dawkins, mostly for a. being antiscientific/sexist (he knows what he got into when he brought up Dolezal) b. as a scientist, he shouldn't be this (willfully) ignorant of his own field/fuel the fires of bigotry. 「There are only two genders」is mere feudal superstition,I quote the world’s #1 ranked science journal, Nature on how ridiculously antiscience the gender binary is:「The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female, and sees gender as a spectrum.

The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person’s sex or gender is fundamentally flawed. Just ask sports organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which have struggled with this for decades. In the 1960s, concerned that men would compete in women’s events, officials tried classifying athletes through genital exams — an intrusive and humiliating process. DNA tests that check for the presence of a Y chromosome did not prove reliable, either: people with XY chromosomes can have female characteristics owing to conditions including an inability to respond to testosterone.

Nowadays, the IOC classifies athletes by measuring their testosterone levels, but this, too, is flawed. Certain medical conditions can raise women’s testosterone levels to the typical male range, and the tests leave them unable to compete among women.」https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8 So: 「You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.」You can't definitively tell if some are male or female, just respect their personal decision.


And you have to know what's socially awkward or inappropriate. For ex: Since i study abroad at USA's top ranked college (thus, superliberal), my classmates/TAs got mad when I mixed up pronouns I/my and we/our because in Chinese, it's roughly the same (1. people love to drop pronouns 2. 文言). I was threatened with academic punishment for this one time thing, but no big deal, it's a learning experience. I didn't know mere grammar's a big deal in the Western workplace (East Asia doesn't even care about punctuation, since most of it was invented 100 years ago), but it's your country, your rules. Just like you can't be honest in calling women fat in the West, your guy's consensus is it's unsolicitated advice over a women's body a la abortion. People have decided that he/she/zerself is a big deal, yet pan speaking Ebonics/Larry the Cable Guy, curse words like fuck aren't ok but rewording it with the same intent is fine...so be it.
______________



Also: I'll reword this for you:「I've posted all kinds of poorly worded shit on social media in the past」Thus:「I've been accused in person (as in literally yelled at) of being an ignorant bigot. I could've been canceled at any time were it not for my strict privacy settings.」
Since you said something about being so antiCCP you deChinesed yourelf, I assume you haven't forgotten what your parents taught you.「禍從口出,」it's something the French haven't learned in the entirety of their history.


「shaming men for the "crime" of awkwardly asking a woman out on a date, the hypocrisy of white, middle-class, Western feminists and juxtaposed their hyperinflated victimhood complex」 : Perhaps they have serious concerns that don't involve rampant namecalling I've seen used by you know who:「the shits, thugs,」etc. And catcalling/s__xual assault is usually a one way street for obvious reasons (patriarchal instutional sexism, etc). As for your dating problems, you need to learn how to behave respectfully before imposing on others. You can elaborate on this「awkward asking,」 I don't know if it's a frank admisssion to tarring others with ad hominem slurs (medieval religious police, Marxists, etc) because that is indeed rather awkward in any society--or have you another explanation? I'll use yours: you got「canceled」 by dates/friends so far because you frequently say socially inappropriate stuff, I notice how you love tarring people as Soviet, German, Inquisitation etc. Try this instead, sound on, if you want to change: https://youtu.be/nWczM85n9h8?t=28



「I'd rather be Japanese than Chinese...to spite my oppressors, the CCP and its legion of uniformed thugs.」Then you blast the「decolonize your mind」 rhetoric, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
_____
I guess I'm a「SJW feminist」now, even though I've opposed both my whole life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
______
Further Reading:
It's like the people you support:「What was that whole “online dating” attack at the end? Lol you can’t even properly make people feel bad, Kimberly.+Getting triggered at a talk about a book called "Triggered," it's ironic performance art.」 https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout ... _trump_jr/

[Xelsis]

The entire premise of the revocation of the award is people being upset at Dawkins because they oppose his comments on self-identification.

"No one said that"-we're literally talking about the central point of the debate.

Dawkins farting transphobia out on to Twitter isn't a debate, it's just an irrelevant man being a transphobe in the hopes of regaining relevance.

I don't know what society you are looking at where no-one is arguing that we must respect people's self-identification, but it certainly is not this one.

I understand that when people talk about respecting someone's identity, they aren't proposing that people can identify as literally anything. We all got bored of this dumb shit several years ago.

You are literally commenting in a thread about what Dawkins posts on Twitter mate. If you think it is so irrelevant that it is not a debate, what are you even doing posting here?

In regards to identity: I have yet to see a significant 'progressive' pushback to identification with any one of the ever-expanding list of genders. That race is excluded is an oddity, particularly if it is a social construct, which you may or may not believe, hence the question posed by Dawkins, which you consider to be irrelevant and yet are spending your time posting about.

[Ifreann]

Dawkins farting transphobia out on to Twitter isn't a debate, it's just an irrelevant man being a transphobe in the hopes of regaining relevance.


I understand that when people talk about respecting someone's identity, they aren't proposing that people can identify as literally anything. We all got bored of this dumb shit several years ago.

You are literally commenting in a thread about what Dawkins posts on Twitter mate. If you think it is so irrelevant that it is not a debate, what are you even doing posting here?

I called Dawkins irrelevant, which he is.

In regards to identity: I have yet to see a significant 'progressive' pushback to identification with any one of the ever-expanding list of genders. That race is excluded is an oddity, particularly if it is a social construct,

Nothing odd about it. Social constructs don't all work the same way. Why would they? Do you think that gender can be exchanged for goods and services? Because money is a social construct.

which you may or may not believe, hence the question posed by Dawkins, which you consider to be irrelevant and yet are spending your time posting about.

Again, I said that Dawkins is irrelevant. His time in the limelight ended when people got bored evolution vs creationism. Now he's just another transphobe.

[Xelsis]

You are literally commenting in a thread about what Dawkins posts on Twitter mate. If you think it is so irrelevant that it is not a debate, what are you even doing posting here?

I called Dawkins irrelevant, which he is.

In regards to identity: I have yet to see a significant 'progressive' pushback to identification with any one of the ever-expanding list of genders. That race is excluded is an oddity, particularly if it is a social construct,

Nothing odd about it. Social constructs don't all work the same way. Why would they? Do you think that gender can be exchanged for goods and services? Because money is a social construct.

which you may or may not believe, hence the question posed by Dawkins, which you consider to be irrelevant and yet are spending your time posting about.

Again, I said that Dawkins is irrelevant. His time in the limelight ended when people got bored evolution vs creationism. Now he's just another transphobe.

This hasty retreat to 'money is a social construct!' is a bizarre one, especially for someone attempting to emphasize the differences between gender and race, and then citing something that bears no resemblance to either. As far as I am aware, people generally do not self-identify as currency.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

Er mah gerd LITCHERALLLY 1984 GEORGE ORWELL WAS RIGHT!

So I see someone hasn't grown out of the 'overly focused on the culture war' phase of adolescents yet?

[Uan aa Boa]

Respect is a two-way street. If the AHA will not respect Richard Dawkins' right to an opinion, he is under no obligation to respect theirs, and neither am I.

The AHA statement doesn't question Dawkins' right to an opinion. It criticises things he's said and concludes that he doesn't deserve to be honoured by the AHA, but his right to an opinion is not called into question.

What the AHA did is tantamount to a declaration of war.

More likely it's reputational management by an organisation that doesn't want to be seen as endorsing someone who is increasingly a bit of a arse hat. You're reading far too much into this.

Hence why I specifically said breed people to have "more" blue eyes, not "only" blue eyes.

How many blue eyes will these people have? If they don't have only blue eyes then how many eyes could they have in total?

[Xelsis]

Hence why I specifically said breed people to have "more" blue eyes, not "only" blue eyes.

How many blue eyes will these people have? If they don't have only blue eyes then how many eyes could they have in total?

'People' as a plural, not each individual person: a higher percentage of blue eyes among the populace.