Author Topic: Top University Investigates After Academic Hosts "Secret Eugenics Conferences"  (Read 526 times)

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Silly Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 13851
  • Gender: Female
  • "Fire together, wire together"
I was going to post this in one of AngelOfDeath's threads in which he defends the eugenics movement, but since he has edited basically all his posts I don't really care to look.

It seems a top British university has been hosting racist pro-eugenics conferences without their knowledge. It looks like the movement is slowly creeping up from under the ground again and perhaps soon enough they will be held in plain sight, causing damage where they go. 

Source: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/top-university-investigates-after-academic-hosts-secret-eugenics-conferences-attended-by-white-supremacists/all/

I do wonder what kind of person buys into this dangerous nonsense, most likely someone with an inflated sense of self-worth, for starters. People who support eugenics never seem to count themselves amongst those who shouldn't be allowed to breed or seek the same opportunities as the 'privileged ones/race', which is very ironic in many cases.   
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6212
  • Gender: Male
Ah, this hits on one of the current, erm, "discussions" going on in the halls of academia.

It all revolves around "Freedom of Speech" of course. Some claim that fundamentalusts ans dupremists should be allowed a public platform - providing they do not cross any legal lines.

I have seen people going ape to try to ban such, then expressing similar behaviour at any mention of Internet regulation or, horror!, censorship. If it were not such an important matter it would be a joke.

FoS means every legal faction gets to say their legal piece, or every legal faction is regulated and has to submit material before publishing. The matter of protecting the young makes it even more complex and and is virtually unregulatable within acceptable measures.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Silly Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 13851
  • Gender: Female
  • "Fire together, wire together"
Ah, this hits on one of the current, erm, "discussions" going on in the halls of academia.

It all revolves around "Freedom of Speech" of course. Some claim that fundamentalusts ans dupremists should be allowed a public platform - providing they do not cross any legal lines.

I have seen people going ape to try to ban such, then expressing similar behaviour at any mention of Internet regulation or, horror!, censorship. If it were not such an important matter it would be a joke.

FoS means every legal faction gets to say their legal piece, or every legal faction is regulated and has to submit material before publishing. The matter of protecting the young makes it even more complex and and is virtually unregulatable within acceptable measures.

Yes but how are these eugenics discussions different from hate speech? Inciting racism? Isn't that illegal in most places? When you're going out of your way to tell people that certain races are not as intelligent for instance (youtube is full of such talks) basing it on pseudoscience, then why should you be given a platform in the first place?   
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6212
  • Gender: Male
Ah, this hits on one of the current, erm, "discussions" going on in the halls of academia.

It all revolves around "Freedom of Speech" of course. Some claim that fundamentalusts ans dupremists should be allowed a public platform - providing they do not cross any legal lines.

I have seen people going ape to try to ban such, then expressing similar behaviour at any mention of Internet regulation or, horror!, censorship. If it were not such an important matter it would be a joke.

FoS means every legal faction gets to say their legal piece, or every legal faction is regulated and has to submit material before publishing. The matter of protecting the young makes it even more complex and and is virtually unregulatable within acceptable measures.

Yes but how are these eugenics discussions different from hate speech? Inciting racism? Isn't that illegal in most places? When you're going out of your way to tell people that certain races are not as intelligent for instance (youtube is full of such talks) basing it on pseudoscience, then why should you be given a platform in the first place?   

Yeah, I fully understand and feel frustrated about it as well.

OK, ban thisvpiece of pseudoscience, ban all pseudoscience! I would be happy to see creationism, homoeopathy et al banned from the Internet. False clains that might directly endanger health, physical and financial etc, are currently illegal in the UK. Psyvhological endangerment is another matter, more difficult, expecting a degree of rational choice on the part of the "target". Those considered incapable of rational, informed decision are also legally protected - mostly but not perfectly if covert, criminal action takes place.

Going back to sci-fi... there is probably a story somewhere were all citizens have a chip implanted at birth. This controls their access to all infornation. . . Just far too far, even if only used for Internet access - but the best you can get for a system that is hard to short circuit - cards etc can be swapped around. But how else do you stop kids watching porn, gambling etc, etc?

I wonder when education in this starts to be seen in elementary schools? Some secondary schools have started such I believe. But is 12 too late?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 29802
  • Gender: Male
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6212
  • Gender: Male
And the final update to the LSN article seems to indicste the depth of thought that goes into choosing ministers in this, do-called - UK government:

Quote
UPDATE 14:15, 9 January 2018.  Since writing the above, Jo Johnson has been moved from his post as university minister.  He's now minister for transport.  The Times suggests the demotion was punishment for 'his botched appointment of Toby Young' at the OfS.  Johnson has been replaced by Sam Gyimah.  Gyimah was criticised by the UK Statistics Authority when he was previously  a schools minister  for misleading the 2014 Tory conference.  He had told delegates that a third of school leavers left school unable to read and write - this was not true.

Looks a tad shallow.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Silly Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 13851
  • Gender: Female
  • "Fire together, wire together"
I wonder when education in this starts to be seen in elementary schools? Some secondary schools have started such I believe. But is 12 too late?

In my case, it wasn't. But then again there wasn't such widespread use of the internet back then. Still, critical thinking was just not a subject that was even mentioned as far as I remember.

I don't know if 12 is too late, as one would have to have some baggage in order to think critically? For starters, I think people would have to be acutely aware of how easy it is to not think critically for them to begin making an effort in the opposite direction. Most children younger than 12 seem to accept without question explanations that are given to them by adults they see as authorities, a behaviour that continues when many reach adulthood. 
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


xSilverPhinx

  • Non Dvcor
  • Administrator
  • Silly Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 13851
  • Gender: Female
  • "Fire together, wire together"
I'm just a student of the game that they taught me.


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6212
  • Gender: Male
I wonder when education in this starts to be seen in elementary schools? Some secondary schools have started such I believe. But is 12 too late?

In my case, it wasn't. But then again there wasn't such widespread use of the internet back then. Still, critical thinking was just not a subject that was even mentioned as far as I remember.

I don't know if 12 is too late, as one would have to have some baggage in order to think critically? For starters, I think people would have to be acutely aware of how easy it is to not think critically for them to begin making an effort in the opposite direction. Most children younger than 12 seem to accept without question explanations that are given to them by adults they see as authorities, a behaviour that continues when many reach adulthood.

Yes, most younger kids do seem to just accept the authority of adults but my experience is that those kids who have parental decisions explained, or, better, those who have been encouraged to reason out the validity of those decisions for themselves, do better in later life. But there are too few parents who can combine discipline and justification in a way young kids can understand..

But the good parent helps their children decide who to trust, not that all those teachers, preachers, scout masters, coaches etc are 100% trustworthy. But hopefully it is a very small percentage who are not. Then teach the kids to approach a proven safe person if they are unhappy or unsure.

But, then there is the temporary insanity some suffer in their puberty and adolescence... A time that can possibly affect parents as well. I wondered way a friend, single mother aged 40 something, got a little more rejective to wwrds her son as he went through puberty. I did wonder if it was the same evilutionary effect that causes some wild female mammals to throw out their maturing sons - a pheromone thing to prevent incest.

But pushing the limits, attempting to exert personal authority,, wanting to experiment socially etc all add to the possible conflicts.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.