Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
Sway said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?
I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
Comments which most people don’t want to be associated with especially elected politicians.
DeepEnd said:
Yes, I think it was in the spectator but not sure.
Funny to think the superforecasters succumbed to “group think”.
Even funnier to think you'd succumb to a bowl of bread and milk. Funny to think the superforecasters succumbed to “group think”.
What is so wrong in someone admitting they got something wrong, I'd say it's far preferable to
someone who considers themselves to be always right?
Sway said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?
I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
They have made it very clear that they're only in favour of the good eugenics.
El stovey said:
Sure eugenics is a big topic but it’s not fair to defend his comments by saying why shouldn’t we try and get rid of some awful genetic diseases. He wasn’t talking about disease, he was talking about lower IQ of black people and enforcing contraception to stop an underclass and making pretty awful comments about women.
Comments which most people don’t want to be associated with especially elected politicians.
Bang on judgement again.Comments which most people don’t want to be associated with especially elected politicians.
I think some of it is just wanting to disagree with a “remoaner”, so it could be harmless.
amusingduck said:
I think you're being a little harsh there to be fair.
They have made it very clear that they're only in favour of the good eugenics.
Andrew Sabisky didn’t get sacked because he made comments about getting rid of some diseases.They have made it very clear that they're only in favour of the good eugenics.
He got sacked because he made comments about black people and their lower IQ and talked about legally enforced sterilisation to prevent an underclass plus other comments about women.
Saying you’d like to see some diseases eradicated isn’t being an apologist for eugenics or Andrew Sabisky.
The apologists for Andrew Sabisky are the ones desperate to suggest he was just the victim of a witch hunt and hadn’t really said anything wrong and those trying to say that eugenics is all about getting rid of disease when there’s clearly a side to it linking race and dodgy science and policies that gets people sacked, because it’s viewed as racist and immoral.
Do you think Andrew Sabisky‘s comments were acceptable and do you think he should have kept his job?
El stovey said:
Sway said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Sway said:
Why would you want to perpetuate seemingly now preventable illnesses such as breast cancer or sickle cell anemia?
I wouldn't but I tend to leave that sort of thing to doctors and medical professionals rather than special advisers who so far as I know have no medical expertise.Strange chap to go to bat for but I guess it takes all sorts.
However, it is by definition "eugenics", which you seem by your comments to think is beyond the pale in any circumstances.
Comments which most people don’t want to be associated with especially elected politicians.
He does indeed seem more than "pretty awful". I don't know whether I should be upset about his job. Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?
At the moment, anyone even positing such a question is being tarred and feathered.
El stovey said:
Andrew Sabisky didn’t get sacked because he made comments about getting rid of some diseases.
He got sacked because he made comments about black people and their lower IQ and talked about legally enforced sterilisation to prevent an underclass plus other comments about women.
Saying you’d like to see some diseases eradicated isn’t being an apologist for eugenics or Andrew Sabisky.
The apologists for Andrew Sabisky are the ones desperate to suggest he was just the victim of a witch hunt and hadn’t really said anything wrong and those trying to say that eugenics is all about getting rid of disease when there’s clearly a side to it linking race and dodgy science and policies that gets people sacked, because it’s viewed as racist and immoral.
Do you think Andrew Sabisky‘s comments were acceptable and do you think he should have kept his job?
Am I allowed to "Woosh" you, or does that breach the terms of yesterdays restraining order? He got sacked because he made comments about black people and their lower IQ and talked about legally enforced sterilisation to prevent an underclass plus other comments about women.
Saying you’d like to see some diseases eradicated isn’t being an apologist for eugenics or Andrew Sabisky.
The apologists for Andrew Sabisky are the ones desperate to suggest he was just the victim of a witch hunt and hadn’t really said anything wrong and those trying to say that eugenics is all about getting rid of disease when there’s clearly a side to it linking race and dodgy science and policies that gets people sacked, because it’s viewed as racist and immoral.
Do you think Andrew Sabisky‘s comments were acceptable and do you think he should have kept his job?
El stovey said:
Yeah but you’re not being hired by number 10 for your super forecasting abilities.
I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
From the article much earlier about Sabisky...I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
"explains that a score of 0 equals perfect foresight – “god level” whereas a “random dart-throwing chimp” would get around 0.5. The worst possible score is 2 – “maximum failure”.
His highest score is 0.22, “which is pretty good”, but he is at 0.3 after failing to predict Brexit. "
if a chimp is 0.5 and Sabisky's at 0.3, if he is supposed to be a 'super' forecaster one has to somewhat wonder what kind of range of scores other people are getting then tbh...
Sway said:
Yet plenty on here have conflated things massively, so that any form of eugenics is evil fascism - and even to the point of outright lying about Sabisky's views...
He does indeed seem more than "pretty awful". I don't know whether I should be upset about his job. Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?
At the moment, anyone even positing such a question is being tarred and feathered.
I agree, I said myself at the start that maybe it didn’t matter what his views were as he’s not making policies he’s just a forecaster but after thinking a bit more, decided that it does tarnish the government for recruiting him and they don’t want to be associated with these views.He does indeed seem more than "pretty awful". I don't know whether I should be upset about his job. Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?
At the moment, anyone even positing such a question is being tarred and feathered.
The earlier undesirables that were great scientists weren’t employed by organisations needing to be re-elected and weren’t the victim of public opinion, so while it may be more palatable to employ or benefit from nasty b
ds during a war or (Cold War) space race it’s not so acceptable this week in Westminster. TTwiggy said:
Does someone want to pull the nuance out of this?
"Theologically speaking, she is your wife and should submit to you as unto the Lord, so if you want doggy, then it is your place to command her to get onto her hands and knees and her place to obey,”
Is that the full and only text written?"Theologically speaking, she is your wife and should submit to you as unto the Lord, so if you want doggy, then it is your place to command her to get onto her hands and knees and her place to obey,”
In what context? Responding to someone else? A life rule? A critique? What was it? Has some thing been clipped - “theologically speaking..... But of course in real life you couldn't do that"...
I saw the screenshot of the text and there was zero context at all. The original poster seemed to care as much as you about that...
longblackcoat said:
.... , but what really annoys me is that he's being held up as an uber-brain. So far as I can see he's not much of an expert - a Masters is his highest level of educational attainment, making him clever enough to be dangerous but nowhere near educated enough to speak with any great authority on any of his subjects.
.... .
That's not how I see it at all. He's merely being held up as someone who thinks differently. There's no suggestion that this is "always right/positive/better", you're just projecting that because of what you perceive his views to be..... .
Even if he is a nasty piece of work, if his thought processes can be used to look at things obliquely for the greater good, why would you not do it?
You only seem to want to live in echo chambers that conform to your world view. Understandable I guess. But that is what I see the likes of Cummings trying to break. And if it makes people uncomfy, all the better.
Sway said:
Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?
Perhaps if sabisky truly was an expert in a scientific field considered to be of vital importance to national security rather than some pseudoscience that Cummings believes in, the comparison to von braun might be a little less ridiculous....Murph7355 said:
TTwiggy said:
Does someone want to pull the nuance out of this?
"Theologically speaking, she is your wife and should submit to you as unto the Lord, so if you want doggy, then it is your place to command her to get onto her hands and knees and her place to obey,”
Is that the full and only text written?"Theologically speaking, she is your wife and should submit to you as unto the Lord, so if you want doggy, then it is your place to command her to get onto her hands and knees and her place to obey,”
In what context? Responding to someone else? A life rule? A critique? What was it? Has some thing been clipped - “theologically speaking..... But of course in real life you couldn't do that"...
I saw the screenshot of the text and there was zero context at all. The original poster seemed to care as much as you about that...
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18242158.read-an...
isaldiri said:
El stovey said:
Yeah but you’re not being hired by number 10 for your super forecasting abilities.
I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
From the article much earlier about Sabisky...I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
"explains that a score of 0 equals perfect foresight – “god level” whereas a “random dart-throwing chimp” would get around 0.5. The worst possible score is 2 – “maximum failure”.
His highest score is 0.22, “which is pretty good”, but he is at 0.3 after failing to predict Brexit. "
if a chimp is 0.5 and Sabisky's at 0.3, if he is supposed to be a 'super' forecaster one has to somewhat wonder what kind of range of scores other people are getting then tbh...
Seems a pretty harsh environment.
0=omnipotent
0.5= random dart-throwing chimp
2.0=Maximum failure
isaldiri said:
Sway said:
Would it provide the opportunity to drive through pretty awful things, or is it a case like Von Braun or indeed Douglas Bader who also had rather awful opinions on things yet achieved great things in their respective fields?
Perhaps if sabisky truly was an expert in a scientific field considered to be of vital importance to national security rather than some pseudoscience that Cummings believes in, the comparison to von braun might be a little less ridiculous....Von Braun being a great example. Not only believing in, but being part of the organisation that committed genocide. Yet post war treated very well in order to design rockets and missiles.
So it's OK to be a fascist if you're really useful?
El stovey said:
isaldiri said:
El stovey said:
Yeah but you’re not being hired by number 10 for your super forecasting abilities.
I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
From the article much earlier about Sabisky...I think the comments are about someone asking for evidence of his abilities in forecasting that led him to be hired in the first place.
"explains that a score of 0 equals perfect foresight – “god level” whereas a “random dart-throwing chimp” would get around 0.5. The worst possible score is 2 – “maximum failure”.
His highest score is 0.22, “which is pretty good”, but he is at 0.3 after failing to predict Brexit. "
if a chimp is 0.5 and Sabisky's at 0.3, if he is supposed to be a 'super' forecaster one has to somewhat wonder what kind of range of scores other people are getting then tbh...
Seems a pretty harsh environment.
0=omnipotent
0.5= random dart-throwing chimp
2.0=Maximum failure
Murph7355 said:
longblackcoat said:
.... , but what really annoys me is that he's being held up as an uber-brain. So far as I can see he's not much of an expert - a Masters is his highest level of educational attainment, making him clever enough to be dangerous but nowhere near educated enough to speak with any great authority on any of his subjects.
.... .
That's not how I see it at all. He's merely being held up as someone who thinks differently. There's no suggestion that this is "always right/positive/better", you're just projecting that because of what you perceive his views to be..... .
Even if he is a nasty piece of work, if his thought processes can be used to look at things obliquely for the greater good, why would you not do it?
You only seem to want to live in echo chambers that conform to your world view. Understandable I guess. But that is what I see the likes of Cummings trying to break. And if it makes people uncomfy, all the better.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff