61–70 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One person losing a job or appointment isn't the same as people being forced out of careers entirely Try speculating publicly about 1. Heritability of intelligence/behavior 2. Genetic differences among ethnicities Of course neither points go against scientific "consensus" individually, it's only discussing them simultaneously that risks your scientific career. Now try publishing something critical of covid vaccines.…
> Try speculating publicly about [...] You just did! Let me know when you're canceled. This argument is circular. You're saying the purported suppression can't be detected because its effect is already so widespread. And it's widespread because of the threat of cancellation. Which didn't happen. See the problem? The only way to get to your conclusion is to assume as a prior that this research doesn't exist because it…
On an anonymous account. Meanwhile our org's job postings are "gendered" because they contain words like "strong", "independent", "analysis", and if I dare to pushback on the insanity I'm liable to lose my job. If I wrote publicly about it and gained any notoriety I'd risk being publicly shamed by the woke mob and effectively blacklisted a la James Damore.
>You're saying the purported suppression can't be detected because its effect is already so widespread. And it's widespread because of the threat of cancellation. Which didn't happen. See the problem
Your argument is dishonest. It does happen and these is evidence, I'm saying it's harder to detect. Look at the unwarranted treatment of James Watson for daring to suggest the relationship between genes, race, and intelligence.
>that this research doesn't exist because it's being suppressed, and not merely because it's wrong
See above. It doesn't take more than a few public examples to deter people from asking certain questions or even participating in a system when asking the wrong questions regarding certain topics becomes career and social suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Work camps are just the extreme of the policies that we have yet to implement. We seem to be lubing the slippery slope towards it though, with political correctness and cancel culture.
When do you think cancel culture started?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all that eugenics was or is concerned with was the removal of some harmful alleles by consensual methods, and it was not a pile of often racist bullshit falsely claiming to be based on what is actually solid science, it would not have a bad name.
There is a lot of stuff in between. For example, Down syndrome can be practically eradicated by selectively aborting aneuploid embryos. Of course, the embryo cannot consent, and while the parents can, institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Countries like Iceland and Denmark abort almost all Down syndrome embryos. This article in The Atlantic does not seem to be completely OK with t…
I mean, technically the person born with Down Syndrome would be incapable of consenting on their own life decisions after they were born, right?
Note that in the USSR, political questions and false accusations were often used to torpedo career competitors or to have vengeance at those who were more successful. Almost nobody in this story or in other cases were political dissidents. They didn't go out to protest or speak up on the political freedoms or other matters.
Glad we live in a era were accusations and rumors are not used as political weapons against individuals.
Era? Read some history books
Note that in the USSR, political questions and false accusations were often used to torpedo career competitors or to have vengeance at those who were more successful. Almost nobody in this story or in other cases were political dissidents. They didn't go out to protest or speak up on the political freedoms or other matters.
Glad we live in a era were accusations and rumors are not used as political weapons against individuals.
Heed this warning, all of you comfortable building systems of control and surveillance while thinking that you are "on the inside" and will be treated well because you are "needed".
Once the "new order" has it's cybernetic governance machine, who do you think will be the first to get a visit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of stuff in between. For example, Down syndrome can be practically eradicated by selectively aborting aneuploid embryos. Of course, the embryo cannot consent, and while the parents can, institutional pressures can be put on them to make them change their mind. Countries like Iceland and Denmark abort almost all Down syndrome embryos. This article in The Atlantic does not seem to be completely OK with t…
> Of course, the embryo cannot consent, I mean, technically the person born with Down Syndrome would be incapable of consenting on their own life decisions after they were born, right?
Then there are mosaic cases, which are in the middle between a full Down Syndrome and normalcy. In mosaic cases, only a certain percentage of cells is afflicted. People with mosaic aneuploidies can often lead fairly normal lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t recall anyone being sent to work camps for criticizing government policy in the US recently.
most people reading this have never missed a meal in their lives; a good number of people reading this have never been in a grown-up out-of-money situation where you face deadlines and have no source of money; probably a few people reading this have had to work doing low-skill work, but personal computers have changed access stories. The new version of "labor camp" is a phone that costs you little to nothing but is r…