Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
amusingduck said:
That's meant to be a dilemma? The whole world gets 10% IQ increase for only ~100 deaths? 
If it were you? Or a child of yours...? They found Sabisky's reddit account:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18242099.andrew-...
And more far right racist nonsense:
https://t.co/cQW0aJrjub?amp=1
Horrid man.
Still wonder what his PH username is!
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18242099.andrew-...
And more far right racist nonsense:
https://t.co/cQW0aJrjub?amp=1
Horrid man.
Still wonder what his PH username is!
El stovey said:
Sure but does it matter what his views on eugenics or woman’s sports etc are? He’s there to solve problems and have a different way of looking at things. Maybe you wouldn’t want him looking at problems involving empathy or EI or people but he might be great at applying his brain to other kinds of problems?
Many of these types of people will have views that might make them unelectable or look bad in front of a camera or not good team players or people managers etc but that’s not why he’s there.
History is full of famous scientists and inventors and thinkers that were amazing in their fields but their twitter feed (if it had been around) would likely have had all sorts of views that sounded a bit lacking in empathy.
I bet Bletchley park had some people you wouldn’t want to go on holiday with but they were there to be cypher breaking boffins not sex therapists.
If a person is brought into the world of politics to help formulate policy, then, yes, their views, both past and present, will be used against them if those views come across as even slightly dubious. Perception is a major issue in politics - less so in science, industry, business etc..Many of these types of people will have views that might make them unelectable or look bad in front of a camera or not good team players or people managers etc but that’s not why he’s there.
History is full of famous scientists and inventors and thinkers that were amazing in their fields but their twitter feed (if it had been around) would likely have had all sorts of views that sounded a bit lacking in empathy.
I bet Bletchley park had some people you wouldn’t want to go on holiday with but they were there to be cypher breaking boffins not sex therapists.
Bussolini said:
It reads to me like a comment on theology rather than an endorsement. He could be saying 'this is how to behave', he could be saying look how bonkers religious rules can be. We don't know without the context.Imagine how much fun someone could have quoting this out of context...….
Internet meme said:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Dr Jekyll said:
More quotes - can you defend these?
"It ought to be obvious that her wifely duty ought to consist not just of letting you masturbate into her vagina but actively playing her part in building a fantastic sex life with you. Yes, that might require pushing through some initial mental discomfort but it is simply selfish and unchristian of her not to make the effort.”
“If you want a blow job you should get one because she is your wife and lover … She’s just being selfish really (which isn’t very Christian).”
"Fantasies are strange things. Unpredictable, of uncertain origin, hard to figure how they’ll relate to real life. I have a thing for incest erotica myself despite never having had those fantasies relating to my actual family. So long as he’s not actually breaking any laws and is restricting his viewing habits to girls 18 and up I wouldn’t be too squicked."
Not sure why you lot are so keen to defend him.
Dr Jekyll said:
It reads to me like a comment on theology rather than an endorsement. He could be saying 'this is how to behave', he could be saying look how bonkers religious rules can be. We don't know without the context.
Imagine how much fun someone could have quoting this out of context...….
Of course if it isn't then he has mental issues.
But if it is...
Doesn2seem to matter these days though. Self same commentators will no doubt bemoan why everything is so bland and why nothing changes. Why politicians can't give straight answers etc. Well if this has been taken out of context, there is the reason
Murph7355 said:
It certainly *could* be this way.
Of course if it isn't then he has mental issues.
But if it is...
Doesn2seem to matter these days though. Self same commentators will no doubt bemoan why everything is so bland and why nothing changes. Why politicians can't give straight answers etc. Well if this has been taken out of context, there is the reason
It hasn't been taken out of context. It's a response to a question on r/sex. Of course if it isn't then he has mental issues.
But if it is...
Doesn2seem to matter these days though. Self same commentators will no doubt bemoan why everything is so bland and why nothing changes. Why politicians can't give straight answers etc. Well if this has been taken out of context, there is the reason
Really cannot see how the PH equivalent of "asking for a friend" gets him a free pass "cos edgy thinking" on these subject matters. Now No10 are going to have a problem after trying to protect and accept him when the next Q+A Boris gets, guess the questions, "PM, why are you a fan of eugenics?". If he comes out of hiding that is.
If Boris is OK with this (Cummings is his hire), who else has he hired. Is there a process? Or did Dom do this in full knowledge it would kick up a stink.
If Boris is OK with this (Cummings is his hire), who else has he hired. Is there a process? Or did Dom do this in full knowledge it would kick up a stink.
Perhaps a last note, and not to be literal but rather the sense of what I'm saying [engage right hemisphere].
Alan Turing was one of our most brilliant minds, yet killed himself after conviction for homosexuality [the zeitgeist at the time].
Von Braun was a Nazi, yet helped substantially put us on the moon.
Nicola Tesla, a prodigious polymath and the Musk of his day, eugenicist.
Bobby Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player ever, raging anti-Semite.
Albert Einstein, what do I need to say, patriarchal wife abuser [sort of].
Isaac Newton and his bitter denigration of Hooke.
Richard Oppenheimer and his close call with Communism [anathema in the Hoover years]
And so on.
[To help the Cathy Newmans out there, no, I'm not saying that I agree with him on every issue or that everything he says is bang-on or that he is of similar stature to these giants...]
Rationalists can easily be shunned, some truths are uncomfortable, and rationalists can also have thoughts that are or seem anti-humanitarian or un-politically correct, like anyone. But generally, all the above would have been sunk without trace if they had had the privilege of existing within the technological social media world that they helped create.
<><><>
Thought points:
The psychological effect of setting your mind on a thing and then doggedly searching through the internet to support that feeling while not taking time to actually seek to understand deeper benefit and broader context is wonderfully demonstrated.
'The phenomenon of explanatory depth': If asked 'do you know how a toilet works and how confident are you of that?' would usually score a 5, 6 or even 7 [out of 7]. When presented with 4 sheets of A4 and a pencil and then asked to describe in detail in writing the same thing, the self-assessed score usually falls to 2, 3 and 4.
David Stirling wrote two sides of paper to describe what he wanted to do in his foundation of the SAS. [Again, something the 'established view point' would have no truck with]. Within it is a description of the type of person he was looking for, one of the first characteristics was humility. Think about that.
J.F.C. Fuller, a senior British Officer in WWI was a brilliant strategist and immediately saw how tanks could be used to devastating effect. He was ostracized by the traditional command as the cavalry were set in their ways. He was a fascist and ended up in Germany at the start of WWII and, using his new strategy, the Germans occupied 3 countries in 40 days.
'Sony invented the digital Walkman, Xerox the personal computer, and Kodak the digital camera. In each case they failed to capitalise on the idea'. Why?
Alan Turing was one of our most brilliant minds, yet killed himself after conviction for homosexuality [the zeitgeist at the time].
Von Braun was a Nazi, yet helped substantially put us on the moon.
Nicola Tesla, a prodigious polymath and the Musk of his day, eugenicist.
Bobby Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player ever, raging anti-Semite.
Albert Einstein, what do I need to say, patriarchal wife abuser [sort of].
Isaac Newton and his bitter denigration of Hooke.
Richard Oppenheimer and his close call with Communism [anathema in the Hoover years]
And so on.
[To help the Cathy Newmans out there, no, I'm not saying that I agree with him on every issue or that everything he says is bang-on or that he is of similar stature to these giants...]
Rationalists can easily be shunned, some truths are uncomfortable, and rationalists can also have thoughts that are or seem anti-humanitarian or un-politically correct, like anyone. But generally, all the above would have been sunk without trace if they had had the privilege of existing within the technological social media world that they helped create.
<><><>
Thought points:
The psychological effect of setting your mind on a thing and then doggedly searching through the internet to support that feeling while not taking time to actually seek to understand deeper benefit and broader context is wonderfully demonstrated.
'The phenomenon of explanatory depth': If asked 'do you know how a toilet works and how confident are you of that?' would usually score a 5, 6 or even 7 [out of 7]. When presented with 4 sheets of A4 and a pencil and then asked to describe in detail in writing the same thing, the self-assessed score usually falls to 2, 3 and 4.
David Stirling wrote two sides of paper to describe what he wanted to do in his foundation of the SAS. [Again, something the 'established view point' would have no truck with]. Within it is a description of the type of person he was looking for, one of the first characteristics was humility. Think about that.
J.F.C. Fuller, a senior British Officer in WWI was a brilliant strategist and immediately saw how tanks could be used to devastating effect. He was ostracized by the traditional command as the cavalry were set in their ways. He was a fascist and ended up in Germany at the start of WWII and, using his new strategy, the Germans occupied 3 countries in 40 days.
'Sony invented the digital Walkman, Xerox the personal computer, and Kodak the digital camera. In each case they failed to capitalise on the idea'. Why?
Andy I listen to that podcast too.
What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
Eric Mc said:
Being "edgy" is fine for a stand up comedian. It doesn't work so well in the world of politics.
Dead right,The David Baddiel program on Holocaust Denial last night showed a very good example of how Social Media can be used to undermine accepted facts and twist the minds of feeble thinkers.
El stovey said:
Andy I listen to that podcast too.
What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
They were cracking examples, how could I resist? What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
I get the 'public face' thing, I really do, but there's so much misapprehension out there on so much of this stuff and so much hypocrisy on so many levels. People start a petition about the harassment and unkind media one second and then sheepishly follow it the next. It baffles me to be honest.
The other day I saw a Deputy Leadership contender for the Labour Party say on national television that 'at birth a babies sex is unknown'. No one batted an eyelid.
In the context of today, how we do things, how we are going to turn the lemon of Brexit into the lemonade of tomorrow, how we are going to 're-boot the UK' and 'unleash the potential' is an important question, we won't do it by staggering along buffeted by the winds of dubious right-think. I feel that opportunity slipping away...
Edited by andy_s on Tuesday 18th February 10:08
andy_s said:
El stovey said:
Andy I listen to that podcast too.
What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
They were cracking examples, how could I resist? What works for organisations in war or racing to the moon or in laboratories maybe doesn’t work in governments or parts of government where perception is important because the main protagonists have to get re elected.
Especially now that Cummings has started war with parliament, Conservative government ministers, the judiciary, the media etc etc. He’s not going to have the luxury of being able to hide in his thought dungeon and employ people who’ve publicly stated views that many find unpalatable.
I get the 'public face' thing, I really do, but there's so much misapprehension out there on so much of this stuff and so much hypocrisy on so many levels. People start a petition about the harassment and unkind media one second and then sheepishly follow it the next. It baffles me to be honest.
In the context of today, how we do things, how we are going to turn the lemon of Brexit into the lemonade of tomorrow, how we are going to 're-boot the UK' and 'unleash the potential' is an important question, we won't do it by staggering along buffeted by the winds of dubious right-think. I feel that opportunity slipping away...
Cummings is publicly trying to tear down the institutions designed to keep government in check. If he or those in charge want to make big change he has to do it by keeping more people in those institutions onside.
The abrasive and destructive way Cummings operates has been great for getting Brexit done and Boris into number 10 but maybe it isn’t so great once you’re in (and want to stay in) power.
El stovey said:
But your “rebooting the U.K.” and “unleashing the potential” might be an unattractive course to someone else? Especially if those apparently behind it have displayed opinions and attitudes you dislike.
Cummings is publicly trying to tear down the institutions designed to keep government in check. If he or those in charge want to make big change he has to do it by keeping more people in those institutions onside.
The abrasive and destructive way Cummings operates has been great for getting Brexit done and Boris into number 10 but maybe it isn’t so great once you’re in (and want to stay in) power.
We've embarked on twelve major national infrastructure projects in the past twenty years or so. All of them cost billions. None of them came to fruition. No one was responsible. Everyone got their pension. Should we have to 'keep them onside' just, well, because?Cummings is publicly trying to tear down the institutions designed to keep government in check. If he or those in charge want to make big change he has to do it by keeping more people in those institutions onside.
The abrasive and destructive way Cummings operates has been great for getting Brexit done and Boris into number 10 but maybe it isn’t so great once you’re in (and want to stay in) power.
I know, I know, but the frustration is palpable. Bloody people eh?
andy_s said:
They were cracking examples, how could I resist?
I get the 'public face' thing, I really do, but there's so much misapprehension out there on so much of this stuff and so much hypocrisy on so many levels. People start a petition about the harassment and unkind media one second and then sheepishly follow it the next. It baffles me to be honest.
The other day I saw a Deputy Leadership contender for the Labour Party say on national television that 'at birth a babies sex is unknown'. No one batted an eyelid.
In the context of today, how we do things, how we are going to turn the lemon of Brexit into the lemonade of tomorrow, how we are going to 're-boot the UK' and 'unleash the potential' is an important question, we won't do it by staggering along buffeted by the winds of dubious right-think. I feel that opportunity slipping away...
You’d employ a sociopath in the hopes of “turning the lemon of Brexit into the lemonade of tomorrow?”I get the 'public face' thing, I really do, but there's so much misapprehension out there on so much of this stuff and so much hypocrisy on so many levels. People start a petition about the harassment and unkind media one second and then sheepishly follow it the next. It baffles me to be honest.
The other day I saw a Deputy Leadership contender for the Labour Party say on national television that 'at birth a babies sex is unknown'. No one batted an eyelid.
In the context of today, how we do things, how we are going to turn the lemon of Brexit into the lemonade of tomorrow, how we are going to 're-boot the UK' and 'unleash the potential' is an important question, we won't do it by staggering along buffeted by the winds of dubious right-think. I feel that opportunity slipping away...
Edited by andy_s on Tuesday 18th February 10:08
I think you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff