The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991) • Hacker News Board

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#71

Post by mdp2021 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #69

mdp2021 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Recently" ends upon uprootal.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say

No prob, I'll be clearer. Phenomena may be indicated which, in form of episodes, very defined events, may be part of a "past", but the direction, inclination, patterns behind those events may still be lurking much later. (For instance, an expression of fascism ended in the forties, yet fascism may linger, emerge etc.) So, thin latency and occasionalities aside - minor traits and occurrences that just confirm exceptionality -, for the phenomenon to be over it must be uprooted. Unexpressed but latent is "not over": it remains of concern, it may express differently, it may re-explode.

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#72

Post by itsyaboi » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

6502nerdface wrote: post #58

itsyaboi wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who did?

He/she means the Soviet astronomers called themselves cosmonomers. Like astronauts and cosmonauts, har har.

I don't think that's an actual word. Perhaps a mistranslation?

https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%22%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D...

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#73

Post by ch4s3 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 11:43 PM UTC

at_a_remove wrote: post #51

ch4s3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t recall anyone being sent to work camps for criticizing government policy in the US recently.

You're the first person in the thread to bring up work camps. How easily one can defeat a specter of one's own construction.

That’s 100% what happened to political offenders in the USSR even after GULAG officially closed. Theses scientists may have gotten article 58, but I didn’t dig that deeply. There is no US parallel.

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#74

Post by simonh » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 11:48 PM UTC

thesz wrote: post #16

simonh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He was vindicated by modern science. He denied that genetic heritability existed and that all characteristics were propagated epigenetically. That's hardly been vindicated. In practice his theories and practical policies were utterly disastrous. It is true that since then we have found some mechanisms by which some traits can propagate epigenetically, but characterising that as vindicating Lysenkoism is absurd.

I believe he denied existence of genes, not heretability of traits.

That’s why I said genetic heritability.

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#75

Post by TMWNN » Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 2:19 AM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #67

Anti-intellectualism seems an almost inevitable destination for authoritarian regimes. In a thread yesterday [1] the subject of Mao's purges and the Khmer Rouge came up. Why kill all the engineers, doctors and lawyers? Because people who build and maintain civilisation can build alternative ones. They are a threat to that kind of power. Heed this warning, all of you comfortable building systems of control and surveil…

>Once the "new order" has it's cybernetic governance machine, who do you think will be the first to get a visit?

In the Kornbluth novel Not This August (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_This_August>), the first thing the Soviets and Chinese do after conquering the United States is shoot the fifth columnists who had aided them by sabotaging the American war effort.

Re: The 1936-1937 Purge of Soviet Astronomers (1991)

#76

Post by 6502nerdface » Fri, Apr 22, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

MisterTea wrote: post #61

6502nerdface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He/she means the Soviet astronomers called themselves cosmonomers. Like astronauts and cosmonauts, har har.

> He/she Use "they" when you do not know the subjects gender/sex/whatever. Much cleaner to look at and read.

I considered "they" but worried that it could be parsed as coreferential with matrix12's "they," so I used he/she which, because it is singular, refers unambiguously to the previous speaker, matrix12 himself/herself.