Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
R Mutt said:
Well there are differences among non-white people too but I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing that the guy was making factually correct statements, rather that there are differences and while none are being used as far as I can see to indicate negative traits for the purpose of devaluing an particular group, it is problematic to discuss.
How is it not denigrating or devaluing one group (ooh, I wonder which one will get denigrated!?) to suggest that black people have lower IQs?Edited by R Mutt on Tuesday 18th February 16:38
DeepEnd said:
f
king bingo! 
Murph, it’s clear what he thinks from the questions. And predictably the one you thought was “interesting” is the one I suggested “surely not that one”.
It’s a well worn technique favoured by Farage and the like, phrase a question that superficially seems OK to cover a darker intention.
His awful views are all too evident and his spiel is designed to reel in the weak minded.
Odd thing is I actually get that the odd bad apple will slip through the cracks.king bingo! Murph, it’s clear what he thinks from the questions. And predictably the one you thought was “interesting” is the one I suggested “surely not that one”.
It’s a well worn technique favoured by Farage and the like, phrase a question that superficially seems OK to cover a darker intention.
His awful views are all too evident and his spiel is designed to reel in the weak minded.
I doubt Johnson personally hired the guy and I doubt Cummings spent the time the media do digging up this dudes views.
But this thread, to actually defend the bloke?
I've just gone through the last few pages and just when you think you've seen it all.
"Context" seems to be the new shorthand for "I'll excuse absolutely anything".
This is how threads work right, we mostly agree that he's talking nonsense (aside from a few attempting to validate his claims without evidence and others asking for the evidence who have now given up) and then cover related issues?
So now I am talking about the issues around discussing any racial traits. If you want to reply on the subject of this being racist, please reply to earlier posters defending the claims or Andrew himself.
So now I am talking about the issues around discussing any racial traits. If you want to reply on the subject of this being racist, please reply to earlier posters defending the claims or Andrew himself.
R Mutt said:
This is how threads work right, we mostly agree that he's talking nonsense (aside from a few attempting to validate his claims without evidence and others asking for the evidence who have now given up) and then cover related issues?
So now I am talking about the issues around discussing any racial traits. If you want to reply on the subject of this being racist, please reply to earlier posters defending the claims or Andrew himself.
Sorry, I really don't mean to pick on you, but in reality it's how threads work when some posters (not you, I'm only quoting you as we are talking about this) would rather not talk about the actual issue, which in this case is a bloke with highly suspect views who is being defended by some on here.So now I am talking about the issues around discussing any racial traits. If you want to reply on the subject of this being racist, please reply to earlier posters defending the claims or Andrew himself.
This thread has taught me PistonHeads has some racist posters, or at at least those who are willing to espouse racist views to defend their political party.
Just to make it clear: supporting unevidenced racial differences is racist. Gingers fare worse in the blazing sun does not allow you to claim that certain races are genetically less intelligent than others, without being racist, as there is no evidence to support that view.
Just to make it clear: supporting unevidenced racial differences is racist. Gingers fare worse in the blazing sun does not allow you to claim that certain races are genetically less intelligent than others, without being racist, as there is no evidence to support that view.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:DeepEnd said:
fking bingo!
Murph, it’s clear what he thinks from the questions. And predictably the one you thought was “interesting” is the one I suggested “surely not that one”.
It’s a well worn technique favoured by Farage and the like, phrase a question that superficially seems OK to cover a darker intention.
His awful views are all too evident and his spiel is designed to reel in the weak minded.
Odd thing is I actually get that the odd bad apple will slip through the cracks.king bingo! Murph, it’s clear what he thinks from the questions. And predictably the one you thought was “interesting” is the one I suggested “surely not that one”.
It’s a well worn technique favoured by Farage and the like, phrase a question that superficially seems OK to cover a darker intention.
His awful views are all too evident and his spiel is designed to reel in the weak minded.
I doubt Johnson personally hired the guy and I doubt Cummings spent the time the media do digging up this dudes views.
But this thread, to actually defend the bloke?
I've just gone through the last few pages and just when you think you've seen it all.
"Context" seems to be the new shorthand for "I'll excuse absolutely anything".
As for those still trying to still discuss traits that are totally known to be false - just wow, new depths. The new found confidence of those with a fundamentally vile outlook is clearly growing - the internet echo chamber is powerful indeed.
s2art said:
TTwiggy said:
Why do I get the feeling that enforced eugenics wouldn't trouble many people on here too much?
Depends on what you mean by 'enforced eugenics'. If it involved using CRISPR (or a better version of it) to improve a childs life chances if they have genetically disadvantaged parent(s) then why not?If we could determine genetic factors that would preclude cancers, or remove genetic abnormalities (such as the ones running through my other half's family, causing immense pain and in some cases very early deaths) - bring it on.
I read plenty of scifi. In a hell of a lot of them "geneering" is a theme for the humanity contained within the story. I'm not sure I've ever seen it being presented as a bad thing.
This is worth reading; https://unherd.com/2018/07/the-alarming-return-of-...
156651 said:
This thread has taught me PistonHeads has some racist posters, or at at least those who are willing to espouse racist views to defend their political party.
Just to make it clear: supporting unevidenced racial differences is racist. Gingers fare worse in the blazing sun does not allow you to claim that certain races are genetically less intelligent than others, without being racist, as there is no evidence to support that view.
There's absolutely no one even attempting to imply that, and there's no way you can extrapolate that to an endorsement of the views of Andrew Sabisky I'm afraid.Just to make it clear: supporting unevidenced racial differences is racist. Gingers fare worse in the blazing sun does not allow you to claim that certain races are genetically less intelligent than others, without being racist, as there is no evidence to support that view.
It was me I think who opened up the argument to wider racial differences because I am conscious that they cannot be spoken of, a matter I broached after I felt comfortable that people through their inability to back them up with evidence, had ceased to fight for the views of Sabisky.
El stovey said:
I wonder if it will put off other people from working with Cummings or will their different ‘ways of thinking’ . . . not make them think about it.
This bloke is famous now and maybe not for the best reasons.
It seems clear that everyone Cummings has declared war on will be our to get him but as Dom is (still) Boris’s boy, they’re going for Cummings’ new employees instead.
It is inevitably doomed to failure.This bloke is famous now and maybe not for the best reasons.
It seems clear that everyone Cummings has declared war on will be our to get him but as Dom is (still) Boris’s boy, they’re going for Cummings’ new employees instead.
Intelligence does not equate to wisdom and anyone who is wise is necessarily parroting the received dogma of the time in order to get ahead in academia, public service or in the commercial world, whatever their personal views. Hence the quest for anyone willing to have different ways of thinking leads nearly inevitably to someone foolish enough to post controversial things on a public forum under their own name.
Someone mentioned before all the mavericks who had developed new ways of doing things. Usually these are at times of great need or after old societal constraints have been swept away.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 18th February 18:17
Castrol for a knave said:
I am not convinced we do accept IQ has a strong genetic component, There is "some" evidence that it "could" be genetic, but not definitive.
It is not exactly clear how genetics would drive IQ, since the baseline is too broad. I suspect there is, in generational terms, nothing that would impact upon the genetic coding.
.
You appear to be fairly alone in that beliefIt is not exactly clear how genetics would drive IQ, since the baseline is too broad. I suspect there is, in generational terms, nothing that would impact upon the genetic coding.
.
ScientificAmerican said:
Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/Sciencemag said:
Researchers have long known that people often inherit intelligence and some personality disorders from their parents. (Environmental factors such as education and stress also profoundly shape intelligence and mental health.)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/hundreds-new-genes-may-underlie-intelligence-also-autism-and-depressionAs for there being nothing generational that could account for it if for dozens of generations those who were more intelligent had the greater chance to breed in an isolated population it stands to reason that those genetic factors would become more dominant.
Dr Jekyll said:
Sambucket said:
As I understand, it takes 10k years minimum for something super simple to change at the biological level, and much longer for the kind of complex brain differentiation being discussed?
It doesn't take that long for dogs to change if they are bred selectively.I think we should do away with this new fangled idea of getting in some alternative thinkers because, after all, everything is fine as it is. The NHS is fantastically efficient, public finances are well under control, the benefits system is amazing and not at all out of control, and everything is ticketty boo.....
JagLover said:
Castrol for a knave said:
I am not convinced we do accept IQ has a strong genetic component, There is "some" evidence that it "could" be genetic, but not definitive.
It is not exactly clear how genetics would drive IQ, since the baseline is too broad. I suspect there is, in generational terms, nothing that would impact upon the genetic coding.
.
You appear to be fairly alone in that beliefIt is not exactly clear how genetics would drive IQ, since the baseline is too broad. I suspect there is, in generational terms, nothing that would impact upon the genetic coding.
.
ScientificAmerican said:
Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/Sciencemag said:
Researchers have long known that people often inherit intelligence and some personality disorders from their parents. (Environmental factors such as education and stress also profoundly shape intelligence and mental health.)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/hundreds-new-genes-may-underlie-intelligence-also-autism-and-depressionAs for there being nothing generational that could account for it if for dozens of generations those who were more intelligent had the greater chance to breed in an isolated population it stands to reason that those genetic factors would become more dominant.
The upshot is that there is some genetic influence, but in terms of overall genetic coding, it is more influenced by societal factors, not least that IQ comes with some extensive cultural baggage. .
Edited by Castrol for a knave on Tuesday 18th February 19:45
I think this is probably the best place for this...
I rarely watch Channel 4 news but it was on in the background while I was having dinner and it provided probably the best bit of TV news for a long time. They had Rachel Sylvester from the Times and ex Spad Peter Cardwell who was sacked last week. I heard him speaking on LBC earlier in the week and was impressed that far from being upset at being sacked seemed sanguine about it and was very supportive of both Cummings and the system.
The interview went according to Channel 4s plan until Cummings comments on political commentators not having a clue what they were talking about was mentioned. Rachel then stated that Cummings said in a meeting that half the Spads would not be there next week. Peter responded by saying that he was actually at the meeting and that the comment was not made. The look on Rachels face was brilliant.
If you get a chance it is well worth a watch on catch up the interview starts 33 minutes in...
I rarely watch Channel 4 news but it was on in the background while I was having dinner and it provided probably the best bit of TV news for a long time. They had Rachel Sylvester from the Times and ex Spad Peter Cardwell who was sacked last week. I heard him speaking on LBC earlier in the week and was impressed that far from being upset at being sacked seemed sanguine about it and was very supportive of both Cummings and the system.
The interview went according to Channel 4s plan until Cummings comments on political commentators not having a clue what they were talking about was mentioned. Rachel then stated that Cummings said in a meeting that half the Spads would not be there next week. Peter responded by saying that he was actually at the meeting and that the comment was not made. The look on Rachels face was brilliant.
If you get a chance it is well worth a watch on catch up the interview starts 33 minutes in...
OddCat said:
I think we should do away with this new fangled idea of getting in some alternative thinkers because, after all, everything is fine as it is. The NHS is fantastically efficient, public finances are well under control, the benefits system is amazing and not at all out of control, and everything is ticketty boo.....
Yes …. what we need is a few racists to sort it all out.Sambucket said:
As I understand, it takes 10k years minimum for something super simple to change at the biological level, and much longer for the kind of complex brain differentiation being discussed?
Don't think so... this was cited by Dawkins in an interview I watched recently..https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/0804...
Surely dogs are a great example of some of this?
From what I can understand, relatively 'recent' development of the wide range of different breeds, and staggering variations in 'normal' (statistically) size/temperament/intelligence/etc.
Humanity can be a little odd - happy to manipulate other species via selective breeding. Have laws to protect those animals that effectively require you to euthanise them if their quality of life is diminished severely through health issues, etc. Yet those concepts seem to be considered abhorrent in a different context, even if the 'subject' is actively requesting it!
From what I can understand, relatively 'recent' development of the wide range of different breeds, and staggering variations in 'normal' (statistically) size/temperament/intelligence/etc.
Humanity can be a little odd - happy to manipulate other species via selective breeding. Have laws to protect those animals that effectively require you to euthanise them if their quality of life is diminished severely through health issues, etc. Yet those concepts seem to be considered abhorrent in a different context, even if the 'subject' is actively requesting it!
Castrol for a knave said:
ScientificAmerican said:
Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence tests are substantially the result of genetic differences.
Those papers don't say what you think they say. The upshot is that there is some genetic influence, but in terms of overall genetic coding, it is more influenced by societal factors, not least that IQ comes with some extensive cultural baggage. .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff