Cummings protégé advocates enforced contraception.

[Pudney]

I just don’t agree with peoples lives being forever affected and ruined by something they did when they was younger and a long time ago.

Liberals constantly bleat on about rehabilitation for prisoners who have committed atrocious crimes like rape and murder, but someone writes a few racist words a few years ago and that’s it, condemned to the gutter for ever. It’s awful double standards.

If the prisoner can get a second chance, why can’t someone else?

"a few racist words" aren't an issue, it's what they represent. A racist mindset. Words don't always imply the mindset, but the words and the context are serious pointers.

Rehabilitation doesn't just occur over time. It's gained through deeds and actions. You don't get to go, it was 6 years ago, ergo it's fine. Why is it fine? Have you reflected and learned from past experience? Or are you still what you were then, a childish racist nutter (not implying this specific person is a racist, just the replying to your general point)?

 

[Rofflay]

"a few racist words" aren't an issue, it's what they represent. A racist mindset. Words don't always imply the mindset, but the words and the context are serious pointers.

Rehabilitation doesn't just occur over time. It's gained through deeds and actions. You don't get to go, it was 6 years ago, ergo it's fine. Why is it fine? Have you reflected and learned from past experience? Or are you still what you were then, a childish racist nutter (not implying this specific person is a racist, just the replying to your general point)?

So you are saying that people are not entitled to thier own mindset? What if we replace racism with something else? You are advocating thought control here basically?


Granted racism is not nice but since when do you get to decide and police mindsets? That is the truth it does not matter what we subsitute racism with but surely people should be able to make thier own mind sovreign? Posting about it is pretty much the same why should people ban racists on SM? What happened to beating them with an arguement?


When you want to police and ban something, You already failed and lost the arguement as to why people might think or act like that. But thats just my weird liberal views not everyone will agree judging by how they trawl SM looking for past posts to get somone sacked. You cannot choose free speech at the end of the day it is either free or it has to be policed.

 

[stockhausen]

Duplicate post

 

[Pudney]

So you are saying that people are not entitled to thier own mindset? What if we replace racism with something else? You are advocating thought control here basically?


Granted racism is not nice but since when do you get to decide and police mindsets? That is the truth it does not matter what we subsitute racism with but surely people should be able to make thier own mind sovreign? Posting about it is pretty much the same why should people ban racists on SM? What happened to beating them with an arguement?


When you want to police and ban something, You already failed and lost the arguement as to why people might think or act like that. But thats just my weird liberal views not everyone will agree judging by how they trawl SM looking for past posts to get somone sacked. You cannot choose free speech at the end of the day it is either free or it has to be policed.

This is a lot of waffle over something I haven’t said.

 

[stockhausen]

Cummings is without question very familiar with social media.
It seems far-fetched to think that he didn't research the candidates who claimed to be "misfits and weirdos".
Perhaps Cummings didn't bother to interview any of them before hiring them - maybe he was too busy running the country to spare the time?
I suspect that Cummings knew EXACTLY what he was hiring.

What is perhaps surprising is that Johnson (or rather one of his underlings) refused to comment on the misfit and weirdo that Cummings had hired.
One can only presume that both Cummings and Johnson knew exactly what they had hired and endorsed the misfit and weirdo's racist views.

The only outstanding question is what other loonies the unelected and unanswerable Cummings has managed to slip into the heart of government

 

[Chris Wilson]

I have always said it's odd that eugenics are acceptable when buying a new puppy or your daughter a new pony, yet when it might be suggested that it should be applied to your new partner it causes outrage Some of the greatest minds of fairly modern times have been proponents of eugenics but now we never really know what many geneticists think, outside of cloistered circles, as the fall out from public discussion is deemed too risky.

 

[mmj_uk]

I'm sure this is just the usual leftist scaremongering (they don't realise people can have beliefs without ever acting upon them) but I'll humour it..

This is generally what happens when you have a government that gets too big, the government is supposed to protect people not dictate who can and can't breed, the whole reason government exists is to have monopoly on force, ie. no anarchy and gangs running rough shod over peoples rights (basically imagine Mexico with no government/army/police and the cartels doing whatever they want to people). Modern states have grown to the point where they manage everything from education to health to welfare but they don't need to get involved in those things.

When you have a government that thinks it's their place to push eugenics then it's time for a revolution as you're entering Communist/totalitarian territory, and before someone mentions it "stateless" Communism is about real as unicorns, the only system whereby you can have no state is anarchy and as mentioned under anarchy gangs will form and do as they please - without a state having monopoly on force who is to stop them? all you will ever get under Communism is totalitarianism as they need to control production and redistribution and to prevent people breaking free of the system (think Berlin wall), or as Mussolini (a leftist totalitarian) put it "Everything Within the State, Nothing Against the State, Nothing Outside the State.". Anarchy and small government is on the right in the current paradigm although tbh left and right wing are artificial constructs, the only real metric that exists is size and scope of government in peoples lives and it's safe to say we are a lot further "left" today than people realise (excessive regulation, hate speech, state spying on people under the guise of fighting terror etc).

 

[stockhausen]

Whilst your off-topic ramble may be quite true, I don't see what exactly you think is "leftist scaremongering"; are you suggesting that Andrew Sabisky is "leftist" or Cummings, or both

 

[PlacidCasual]

It’s been clear for a long time now that frank discussion on some subjects is not possible. They should be teaching this in schools, the offendosphere demands it that way, and we all have to meekly comply.

A state of affairs that is much more likely to lead to the ugliest sides of populism. The price of thin skin and the politics of division.

 

[stockhausen]

It’s been clear for a long time now that frank discussion on some subjects is not possible. They should be teaching this in schools, the offendosphere demands it that way, and we all have to meekly comply.

A state of affairs that is much more likely to lead to the ugliest sides of populism. The price of thin skin and the politics of division.

Do you have a view on eugenics, elitism, racism, social media or the process of selecting employees (any of which might be covered by the thread's topic) or just a random observation on the "offendosphere" as you describe it?

 

[ttaskmaster]

That Women's Sports, like the Paralympics, is a niche event for a niche audience and neither are particular prime time, main stream, sporting entertainment for the mass market.

Isn't that the sort of thing we've been saying here, all along?

You suggest that he should be forgiven for something he put out into the public domain whist whilst an Oxbridge student - presumably whatever he was studying didn't involve either ethics or humanity beyond the ancient Greek or Latin era

You suggest that people cannot grow up, learn from their mistakes and become better people, conquering their erroneous opinions and wrong-thinks?

You are seriously suggesting that some person or people should be determining who is and is not allowed to have children?

Well, I certainly wish some **** would...
Seriously, seeing the sorts of foul people the world is churning out these days, and the foul people who are churning them out for their foul purposes, I'd welcome some kind of oversight!!

Well sometimes i wonder myself. I never had a choice in life and think others should and i meant to say assets not land. But thier having kids these says when they basically rent for life and cannot afford them.

I should be paying off a mortgage and enjoying a salary double what I'm currently on by now... except that some rich people who own the ******* investment companies asset-stripped my industry and stuffed us on our progression for 10 years, at the same time some other retards screwed the property prices that meant the £70K house I was going to buy has ended up at £230K...

This is why you should be forced to use your real identity online.
The sooner people can't hide behind a keyboard and spew hatred anonymously the better it'll be.

That door swings both ways... while also revolving... and sliding... and is probably non-binary gender, also.
But yeah, that also means many genuine victims would be more identifiable and targetable, too.... which was used against me recently when I argued the same point you made. It is true, though and would need to be borne in mind.

When you want to police and ban something, You already failed and lost the arguement as to why people might think or act like that.

Something...? Like paedophilia, for example?

 

[dowie]

It’s been clear for a long time now that frank discussion on some subjects is not possible. They should be teaching this in schools, the offendosphere demands it that way, and we all have to meekly comply.

A state of affairs that is much more likely to lead to the ugliest sides of populism. The price of thin skin and the politics of division.

The problem here wasn’t frank discussion but rather someone with a psychology background thinking he had some useful insights from the junk science he was referring to.

 

[NVP]

How was the thread title not: "Cummings protégé advocates not"

Because I speak and write in complete English sentences

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm sure this is just the usual leftist scaremongering (they don't realise people can have beliefs without ever acting upon them) but I'll humour it..

This is generally what happens when you have a government that gets too big, the government is supposed to protect people not dictate who can and can't breed, the whole reason government exists is to have monopoly on force, ie. no anarchy and gangs running rough shod over peoples rights (basically imagine Mexico with no government/army/police and the cartels doing whatever they want to people). Modern states have grown to the point where they manage everything from education to health to welfare but they don't need to get involved in those things.

When you have a government that thinks it's their place to push eugenics then it's time for a revolution as you're entering Communist/totalitarian territory, and before someone mentions it "stateless" Communism is about real as unicorns, the only system whereby you can have no state is anarchy and as mentioned under anarchy gangs will form and do as they please - without a state having monopoly on force who is to stop them? all you will ever get under Communism is totalitarianism as they need to control production and redistribution and to prevent people breaking free of the system (think Berlin wall), or as Mussolini (a leftist totalitarian) put it "Everything Within the State, Nothing Against the State, Nothing Outside the State.". Anarchy and small government is on the right in the current paradigm although tbh left and right wing are artificial constructs, the only real metric that exists is size and scope of government in peoples lives and it's safe to say we are a lot further "left" today than people realise (excessive regulation, hate speech, state spying on people under the guise of fighting terror etc).

Doesn't matter how many time guys like you keep repeating it. Mussolini and Hitler weren't "leftists" they were fascists and nationalists and just about everyone agrees extreme right wing. There seems to be this desperate attempt by some to rewrite them as left wing but they weren't. The far left produced some monsters, why the right has a problem admitting the far right produced some as well is beyond me. Next you'll be saying the Neo Nazi movement are left wing as well

 

[dowie]

Doesn't matter how many time guys like you keep repeating it. Mussolini and Hitler weren't "leftists" they were fascists and nationalists and just about everyone agrees extreme right wing. There seems to be this desperate attempt by some to rewrite them as left wing but they weren't. The far left produced some monsters, why the right has a problem admitting the far right produced some as well is beyond me. Next you'll be saying the Neo Nazi movement are left wing as well

Left/right isn't particularly helpful here - the "national" socialists, though obviously having some rather stark differences to socialists still have more in common with them than say the pro-free market, socially liberal conservatives that would be also classified as "right wing" - in fact they're pretty much the polar opposite of them... the more extreme version of them would be libertarians... again rather different in terms of ideology than the nazis who were very pro state control of industry, anti free markets, anti speculation and rather illiberal socially. Sure they allowed for "capitalism" in a controlled sense but only under state control and with the threat of the state potentially seizing the company.

Modern day fascist/neo nazis in the UK are/were heavily influenced by Strasserism - if you took some aspects (economic/anti globalism etc..) of the non-race/nationalist bits of say a BNP manifesto and presented it to a Labour/Corbynite you'd probably find it aligns closer to their views than to say a Tory or Lib Dem.

 

[stockhausen]

. . .
You suggest that people cannot grow up, learn from their mistakes and become better people, conquering their erroneous opinions and wrong-thinks?
. . .

Do you have some reason to believe that Andrew Sabisky has grown up, learnt from his mistakes and become a better person, conquering his erroneous opinions and wrong-thinks? I am not aware of his having said that the childish, insane opinions he has expressed over the past few years were mistaken and he now feels that they were wrong. If you know otherwise, do please share.

On another front and much more disturbing, I am not aware that either Johnson or Cummings has disassociated themselves from Sabisky's abhorrent, erroneous views so I can only assume that they agree with them.

 

[Skunkworks]

Suddenly Stockhausen’s fear makes sense.

 

[stockhausen]

Boris Johnson’s senior aide Dominic Cummings has been dragged further into the row over No 10’s decision to hire an adviser with eugenicist views after it emerged that he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs.

In a blogpost covering his views on the future of “designer babies”, Cummings said he believed rich would-be parents would inevitably select embryos with “the highest prediction for IQ” and floated the idea that “a national health system should fund everybody to do this” to avoid an unfair advantage for the wealthy. (LINK)

Good to know that Boris' boss believes that the right to produce misfits and weirdos should be freely available to all, regardless of financial status

 

[dowie]

Well while the science is bad/uninformed I'm not sure that the view is necessarily all that bad - he's conditioning it on a situation where the rich inevitable are able to (by some process - whether that be embryonic screening/selection, or gene editing or whatever) select babies with higher IQs and that this is unfair on the rest of the population who ought to have access to the same on the NHS.

In principle - essentially he's saying some advanced medical technique should be available to all - on the basis that he believes it is inevitable that it will be used.

But presumably you're looking for a reason to be outraged about it right?

 

[Roar87]

Well while the science is bad/uninformed I'm not sure that the view is necessarily all that bad - he's conditioning it on a situation where the rich inevitable are able to (by some process - whether that be embryonic screening/selection, or gene editing or whatever) select babies with higher IQs and that this is unfair on the rest of the population who ought to have access to the same on the NHS.

In principle - essentially he's saying some advanced medical technique should be available to all - on the basis that he believes it is inevitable that it will be used.

But presumably you're looking for a reason to be outraged about it right?

He's not genuinely outraged at all, it's just a reason to post anti-Tory propaganda, rather than attempting to better himself, people like him put their energy into hating people who they've convinced themselves are holding them back. In people like Stockhausen's view, all their deficiencies in life are the fault of other people who were born into better circumstances, and the Tories epitomise this because they're traditionally comprised of educated people from middle and upper class backgrounds with posh accents. It's so much easier to blame other people for your lack of success than it is to look closer to home. It's easier to write forum posts and share things on Facebook about whatever bad thing the Tories have done than it is to go out and achieve some success for yourself so you aren't reliant on the government. I know a few people like this in real life and the common denominator is that they're angry weak men who haven't achieved any measure of success in life, they're pretty much at the same point as they were when they were 21 except they're now in their 30's.