I think that's the worst part of all of this. All the places where dissenting ideas from the norm could be discussed have been taken over by extremists. Now it's either get with the program or get on the downvote/ban train.
Someone in cringeanarchy recently told me that leftist deals cannot exist with censorship and right-wing subs are better because they don't censor. I just got banned from t_d for having a different opinion (of their ability to think critically). Even without bans, dumping on dissenters with accusations of being a leftist faggot (another thing I've been called there. I'm not a leftist) is pretty effective.
Natchili ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 08:16:33 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a very noticeable difference between the response to disagreement from the left and right diehards. I get much more name calling and vitriol from people on the right.
Natchili ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:47:06 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, so the side you dislike is also worse. This is 100% objective.
My favourite part is watching actual full-on Trump supporters get banned for things like "But why didn't his muslim ban extend to Saudi Arabia? Thats where the 9/11 terrorists came from"
No but seriously, can someone explain to me why American Trump supporters made my country's subreddit their home? Half the comments there are people calling transgendered folks "degenerates" and talking about how refugees are going to rape and murder your children and how abortion is literally murder. And then you click their usernames and they don't even live in Canada. Mods have made it a bannable offense to point out that someone regulars T_D. Didn't used to be that way before Trump came along.
What's it like thinking that everything that happens on this site that doesn't exactly fit your narrative is a Russian bot attempt to overthrow America? I feel like it would be exhausting.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 00:33:40 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've been a Redditor for 11 years on a few accounts. When I first signed up, Reddit was brand new, it didn't even have subreddits.
I have watched this site get infiltrated over the past year or two and it hasn't even been subtle. This isn't about dissenting opinions or disagreements, it's about a very, very obvious angle that has taken over a number of subreddits.
It's kind of been proven though. Also, I have been a redditor for...I don't know...since the days of the demise of Digg, so about 10 years. It's a strange place now. The discourse is not as enlightening as it used to be. I'm jot saying it's all because of the Russian infiltration,but I'd bet that's part of the root cause.
It's been infiltrated by most entities, it's something known as astroturfing, but you should know that with 10 years of karma experience.
For some reason you seem to know that this sub specifically is done by your orange muppet and those darn red russian commies however, now about that kind of proof?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:34:29 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OG Redditors unite. I almost wish I'd kept my original account. It was really funny watching people check my "Redditor since" date.
I think Reddit admins need to take a huge share of the blame. I'm a keen TD poster. But I've been here for many years (and two accounts before this time). Not a Russian bot!
Subreddits like news, worldnews and politics used to be fairly balanced and you could engage in discussion. They were liberal leaning of course due to demographics of Reddit, but still fairly balanced and fair. But since the 2016 election started, those places went CRAZY. It was pro-Bernie 24/7, and attacking Hillary and Trump. They had no problem discussing her many scandals. And the second Bernie dropped out, it was shoving Hillary down our throats about how amazing she is. The change was just way too sudden and pervasive to be genuine.
I don't know if you were here on 9/11 last year when Hillary collapsed. The politics subreddit was... weird. It was almost as if the clock had taken us back to 2014. People were civil and nice in the comments. Anti-Hillary and anti-Trump articles were upvoted. There was a brief window - an oasis, where the activism stopped. I later read an interview with David Brock where he described how Correct The Record went dark. They were were waiting for their talking points. I can't prove that CTR was manipulating Reddit, but it's extremely coincidental.
And that's not including all of the other non-political subs such as TwoX, or Offmychest, which have gone off the deep end in liberal activism.
Or that those sub moderators now work very hard to control the narrative - for example deleting threads about Pulse as soon as the guy turned out to be ISIS. They won't take right wing news sources but happily take HuffPo and Salon.
And what about the 60+ anti-Trump subreddits which regularly brigade their way to the front page? 12,000 upvotes and 3 comments in a brand new sub with 500 subscribers? Hmm. We have one subreddit.
Or the suppression of the subscriber and upvote numbers in TD itself? Our removal from the front page and appearing in /all.
It isn't Russians who fucked up this site. It was Reddit admins and their activism.
You haven't been to this sub before, have you? Do have a look around, see some top posts of all time. "any sub with uncensored in the title is an alt right sub" is a naive and rather lazy way of judging it and is not a sign of intelligent behaviour.
That was my first thought as well, "uncensored" on Reddit is very commonly an alt right dog whistle for something radical and usually widely unaccepted on reddit like "proof the moon landing is fake."
More like pushing stereotypes about some minority group or religion.
r0bb6 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:28:47 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think this sub predates when that really became a thing, but I'm not really sure. This is the first I've heard of anything to do with Russian ties. That being said I hardly ever browse this sub.
I believe he's referring to the "uncensored" part. A lot of the "uncensored" subs lean alt right.
e_marou ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 17:49:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's because most on the left can't handle uncensored. In such a place people will be openly racist and jerks in some instances and there will be triggered people fainting onto couches all over the place.
I can handle uncensored. I had to unsub from /r/UncensoredNews because it became a huge pile of shit, filled to the brim with propaganda. I wish there was a real uncensored news subreddit with unbiased content, but unfortunately, they're all politicized.
/r/neutralnews isn't too terrible, though tends to be behind on content due to trying to find less biased sources or at least point out and negate spin.
e_marou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I feel this is an artifact of my original statement. Every uncensored place becomes right wing, because only right wing opinions are censored in regular spaces. I've seen this pattern repeat a thousand times over my last 20+ years on the internet.
I feel this is an artifact of my original statement. Every uncensored place becomes right wing, because only right wing opinions are censored in regular spaces.
Actually, UncensoredNews became right wing because the mods are literal Nazis, proud white supremacists, and they'll ban anyone who talks about that.
e_marou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:37:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Totally true that, specifically talking about there I'd agree.
Thats because the right -wing opinions you're talking about are bullshit like "Nazi's are good people" and "Shillary and ((($oros))) are using russia as a distraction from them eating babies and blowing up the sun!"
I guess you're right If you mean right wing places and up being a cesspit of lies and stupidity due to having no standards or integrity
It's because alt-right subs make due with massive downvoting and shitting on dissenters with accusations of being a "lefty faggot."
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:27:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is quite unfortunate, considering the long legacy of the radical left being victimized by censorship dating back to the gilded age, and the work of modern leftists such as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins & the BASED ACLU to ensure a space for the exchange of ideas.
The word uncensored isn't inherently left or right leaning. The sub was named so to contrast it from the default todayilearned which notoriously censors contents.
I have been saying repeatedly, this sub was not created to appease left wingers or right wingers or any particular class for that matter. All content is welcome here and mod logs are public.
I'm not trying to imply that it is, I hope you didn't get that from my message; moreso that the verbiage you guys used has been co-oped by the alt right subreddits, so this makes it appear you're part of their "club" so to speak.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:59 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know people are being harsh, but let me explain why this is fishy.
What about this TIL makes it "uncensored"? It's been on TIL before, it's completely innocuous. There's nothing salacious or controversial about it, so why is it here? What about this post is such that it needed to be "uncensored"?
Remember, uncensorednews didn't start off as a T_D offshoot either. It got overrun as time went. If you honestly, genuinely are not trying to make this an alt-right haven then you're gonna need to keep your eyes on the ball because that "uncensored" is pretty much a lightning rod for those types to prey upon.
While we're at it, let's just create a new platform called uncensoredreddit. Save ya the trouble of creating an "uncensored" sub for every category.
jpgray ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bruh you're running a sub that's populated almost entirely by racist alt-right trolls. Read the comments in this thread for fucks sake lmao. Take your holier-than-thou bullshit somewhere else ๐
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:31:18 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I admit I immediately looked at the "uncensored" in the sub name and went "wow what a coincidence this is about Russia."
Hey, that last sentence isn't grammatically correct, you must be a hired bot from a foreign government. Boy am I smart, haha gotta go watch late night to see what drumpf is up to xddddd
Pushing a particular narrative is certainly happening. Both political sides are guilty of this.
Listening to Sam Harris, something I recommend to everyone, really helps you emphasize with both sides. That being said, and I quote, "trump is the wrong answer to the right question." The Russian collusion is blatant and it's bleeding into social media whether you see it, experience it, or deny it.
That's a lame attack, try harder.
I'm not sure what you find abrasive about my comments but rather than making an attempt to belittle me, you should try to have logical discourse.
Logical discourse is impossible with someone who so strongly believes "collusion is blatant" (which is false) and Sam Harris is a smart guy. If you see Russian agents everywhere, you might be paranoid.
They discovered the structure, but not the thing itself. Even still, back then most scientists thought that DNA was too simple to carry genetic information, most thought that it was proteins, not DNA, that carried genetic information.
Also, not quite as perturbing, Watson did not discover DNA, he nearly discovered the double helical structure with his partner Crick (by analyzing an X_ray crystallography photo taken by Rosalind Franklin). DNA was first isolated in the 18th century by Frederick Meischer
Slathbog ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:58:56 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Franklin had already suggested the structure before Watson and Crick, who pretty unashamedly stole her work.
tryplot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:39 on November 23, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
even more, Crick said he regretted it, and said he was sorry for doing it before he died. Watson is still alive and the closest to being sorry about it was him essentially saying "she got what she deserved."
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:33:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ was the inventor of DNA.
May I ask why this needs to be in Uncensored? I haven't read all the rules yet but this sounds like it would fit well in the regular sub
Pithong ยท 330 points ยท Posted at 15:32:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pro Russian news to the front. Alt right talking points.
Jfmsuboi ยท 141 points ยท Posted at 16:56:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A single Russians act of kindness isn't really pro Russian propaganda.
[deleted] ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 17:02:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't hurt.
Crilde ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 18:29:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. If it isn't anti Russian, it's propaganda. /s
[deleted] ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 19:08:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In a sub that's absolutely stuffed with pro-Russian stories, it holds its own. Also the money was donated because he's racist, so that fits with the ongoing agenda.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:39:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also, uncensored need definitely is and it makes you wonder if they think, "uncensored" is a go to buzzword.
Seriously, those savages really think that giving an eminent scientist millions of dollars and rescuing them from poverty is civilized behavior? They had every opportunity to dedicate a golf trophy to him instead, but they blew it.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:41:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. We should stop all posts of Russian people doing good things. Can't possibly spread the propaganda that Russians are people and that some of them are good, just like all other people.
Maybe not but it'll get the idiots deep down in the comments in a shouting match. It's the same when there's a black person in a gif or something.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:27 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not, but the fact that there's nothing about this that needs to be "uncensored" is the issue. Like, this is a great story, it should be on regular TIL (and I believe it has been). The fact that it's not only on this sub, but it's the first time I've ever seen this sub on the front page? Now it's peculiar.
TIL anything even related to Russian is from the alt right.
This isn't even pro-Russia, but it would still wouldn't make it to the front page of the original TIL because we need to keep the "bad Russia" narrative alive.
Alt right talking points.
It's almost as if the propaganda that /r/politics feeds you have triggered you to think alt right the moment Russia's in the title. This post has nothing to do with the alt right, and isn't even a good talking point for the alt right.
Pithong ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:32:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OK we agree politics and this post are propaganda. Or are you arguing politics is propaganda but there's no pro Russian or alt right propaganda?
i_706_i ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:14:03 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They said none of that, they said this post isn't propaganda.
You're quite good at sounding like you're responding to what someone is saying but actually just arguing your own position without responding at all, you should be a politician
Pithong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:03 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They said none of that
Yes they did, they said r/politics was propaganda. It's a style of arguing where you take what you've been accused of and simply reflect it back and accuse your accuser of the same thing. Instead of attacking the projection itself, just take it as fact. The fact they had to find proof of me being subject to propaganda instead of just stating their plausible point shows they wanted to retaliate, to not only state their point but to turn it around, redirect the accusations back. Sure, I'm being propagandized by r/politics, defuse their projection as it's irrelevant anyway.
You can't say an ant is part of a colony until you see it in the midst of the colony. Those trying to force me to "prove" this is propaganda know it's not possible. Plausible deniability reigns supreme in our manipulative world, you will never find truth if you only look at the small, the individual contributions.
There is Russian/alt right propaganda that exists and I'm sure you could find it on Reddit.
As I said before in reply that you didn't respond to, quoted below.
Yes, uncensored_(insert popular sub here) are usually filled with right leaning posts and are often racist propaganda subreddits, which is why I don't contribute to those subreddits because they push false narratives and silence dissenters.
I've established from the beginning that there is in fact alt right propaganda so you attempted to strawman here so it's pretty funny to see you take a jab at the rhetoric below.
It's a style of arguing where you take what you've been accused of and simply reflect it back and accuse your accuser of the same thing. Instead of attacking the projection itself, just take it as fact. The fact they had to find proof of me being subject to propaganda instead of just stating their plausible point shows they wanted to retaliate
Good attempt of trying to analyze rhetoric and logical fallacies, but considering you tried to put words in my mouth with a strawman with what I quoted above, try using your own advice.
First of all, I'm not even sure at this point what you accused me off. This post is not "alt right propaganda" so there is no reflecting at and I've already explained why this post is not propaganda. I'll quote it again for you.
What I said previously to support the argument that this post isn't propaganda:
"This is some piss poor propaganda if you want to classify it as that. This isn't praising Russia, this isn't praising the Russian government, this isn't praising Putin. It's a private Russian citizen."
What would constitute as propaganda is more or less something that contains misleading attributes and can be classified, but not limited to, the catergories above. An example would be something like Putin's approval rating administered by a RT and a link to RT's website. Yeah, that's propaganda. If you can't see how something like that, and this post are different (which you clearly can't), you can't recognize propaganda too well.
I supported my argument, I didn't do any deflection so I'll go ahead and ask you to directly quote me where my deflection was. I also supported this argument by contrasting it to your safe space over in /r/politics where there is actual propaganda.
Sure, I'm being propagandized by r/politics, defuse their projection as it's irrelevant anyway.
Quote me where I'm projecting because you can't even refute why /r/politics isn't propaganda, just claim that I'm deflecting.
Those trying to force me to "prove" this is propaganda know it's not possible.
Because it's completely moronic to think this is a propaganda post and you know it because you admit it's not possible. Again, I made it very clear what a propaganda post would look like. Tell me what criteria this posts fit. Don't like my criteria, make your own and tell me how they fit in.
It would look something like "has Russia in the title, isn't attacking Russia or Trump"
PROPAGANDA.
I do hope you reply to me this time instead of replying to someone who didn't even start the conversation with you. I'm betting you won't.
How is this propaganda? Again, you literally saw the word Russia and immediately associated it with an alt right talking point.
Or are you arguing politics is propaganda but there's no pro Russian or alt right propaganda?
That's exactly what I'm saying. This is some piss poor propaganda if you want to classify it as that. This isn't praising Russia, this isn't praising the Russian government, this isn't praising Putin. It's a private Russian citizen.
It's in this sub because anything that has Russia in the title and isn't related to Trump will get downvoted.
OK we agree politics and this post are propaganda.
On that note, no clue why you would acknowledge /r/politics is a propaganda subreddit but actually contribute to that mess.
Pithong ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:41:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought both sides were the same, but only the left has propaganda and the right has none? Interesting. Also, have you browsed this sub or any of the other "uncensored" subs? What do you see?
Do you want to actually refute the points I made or are you just going to repeat yourself?
Also, have you browsed this sub or any of the other "uncensored" subs?
Some good ol' whataboutism there. Excuse me for using your favorite liberal buzzword.
Yes, uncensored_(insert popular sub here) are usually filled with right leaning posts and are often racist propaganda subreddits, which is why I don't contribute to those subreddits because they push false narratives and silence dissenters. Unfortunately you can't say the same for /r/politics.
The reason he had to sell off his medal is he had some... unpopular scientific opinions about race. Something along the lines of "realistically the idea that all races are equally intelligent doesnt hold up to scrutiny and is a by product of our attempt at making everyone feel good."
That "old dude" was one of the scientests who discovered dna and is probably more qualified than either of us to say whether his statement is true or not lol.
You've got to be kidding. Seriously, you absolutely have to be a troll. First of all, he didn't "discover DNA" ... he (along with Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and others) elucidated its double helical structure. Second, just because he was a gifted structural biologist doesn't mean he knows anything at all about the biological, cultural, or social underpinnings of race.
His finding was in structural biology. That doesn't make him an expert in sociology or population genetics or whatever. They're different fields. Source: I'm a biologist. I know a lot about what I work on, and little about shit I don't work on, like everyone else.
e_marou ยท 131 points ยท Posted at 12:33:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson said something to the effect of believing evolution stops at the neck being crazy. eg. Not all human races are the same genetically or functionally.
He was excommunicated for this, because the secular creationists say not-god made evolution stop at the neck, and all brains are equal, full stop. Anything other than that, and it's "shut it down" time.
[deleted] ยท 213 points ยท Posted at 13:01:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
โHe says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours โ whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level". He writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"
No source on โwhereas testing [black peopleโs intelligence] shows they are not [as smart as white people.โ
Look I'm not going to try and say that everyone is exactly the same and we can all sing around the campfire, but the nuances of human society and personality are complex as shit. The human genome is enormous and filled with deep inter-dependencies which functionally encrypts most of the knowledge we can derive from it. Basically, unless a geneticist knows exactly which gene sequence they're looking for, their guess is as good as yours for genes coding for intelligence, or emotional stability, or any number of things which "race realists" claim are inferior in people of color.
Now on top of all those genetics which we may or may not understand, slap on a heaping helping of environmental factors ranging from the culture and history of the region down to the nutritional value of each individual's meal. As a subset of those, you also have to consider the past several centuries of racial science (and especially pseudoscience) which influence how you view people of color, how they view themselves, and in turn how those views change the behavior of society.
Part of making a successful scientific theory is showing how your theory makes better predictions and gives stronger explanations than all others, and I just don't think racial determinism can claim that. For virtually every claim that race realism makes, an adequate or even better explanation can be found in environmental factors. Even the tests and parameters we use to measure racial differences can be flawed.
Until someone can actually isolate the genetic core of "whiteness" or "blackness" and make consistent, accurate predictions using it, I just can't take racial determinism too seriously.
It's kind of dumb today as well considering geneticists say race is a social construct (but ethnicity IS evident in DNA). As in, the idea that all white people are the same and all black people are the same is literally a surface level way to label people and isn't backed up by actually evidence. Hence why africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world, but a lot of people just call people from there "black" as one big homogenous thing (ignoring the few white people there of course). Race obviously does exist, as a social concept, and laws and policies and opinions and bigotry and all sorts are based on these incorrect labels. We just need better education standards in the hard sciences to hopefully sort this mess out.
[deleted] ยท 95 points ยท Posted at 14:11:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those โwho have to deal with black employees find this not trueโ.
Are people only stuck to their disciplines as to what they are able to talk about?
No. But when someone with authority in a field makes an ignorant comment about something unrelated to their field it's only fair fucks that they be scrutinized.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:45:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't realize what you did there do you? Are you talking about black culture in general, or only black culture in a specific country? Because it does make a difference.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:51:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Culture everywhere is similar to the culture in the US. They take the parts they like about the US, and integrate with their native culture.
Still not the same, more differences than similarities. Also, American culture is more similar to every other culture in the world, so you got that reversed.
It's not the same culture, but it's heavily influenced by the US.
The next part of your comment contradicts this part.
I've traveled overseas a bit. I saw it. People hold onto their cultures, but they want to be more "Americanized" as they say. They change they way they dress, just slightly. They change the way they act, just slightly.
How can something be heavily influenced by something but only be slightly changed by it? Stay consistant please.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:17:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're saying a lot without saying anything, and I feel thats mostly because we got off topic. I asked you a question, when you say black culture do you mean in general around the world, or do you mean specifically in the US? If you mean around the world, would you care to specify what defines that culture? If you mean the US, would you like to explain why you're only using this one specific country?
Ignorance is independent of culture, and Iโd argue itโs much more universal than intelligence. Case in point: youโre presumably Asian, and canโt see the fault with Watson singling out black individuals as more ignorant or incompetent than the average employee of different ethnicity. Most every rando employee is garbage. People generally suck.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think if he had approached his comment the way you just did yours, it couldโve been interpreted much more flatteringly than it had been. He insinuated a kind of superiority that makes most people very uncomfortable, as you can see.
Murgie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:46:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a moot point, folks. He wasn't talking about culture to begin with, he was explicitly referring to genetics.
But, to answer your question, there's a clear difference between simply talking about something, and stating something authoritatively.
He chose to do the latter, in spite of the fact that the field still knows exceptionally little about determining intelligence from a purely genetic standpoint, not to mention his own apparent shortcomings in regards to sociology.
I mean, really. Let's not pretend he doesn't realize he's relying anecdotes when he makes these claims. If he actually knew the claims he's made as matters of scientific fact, then he would simply demonstrate their factuality in a paper on the matter.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 16:03:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Umm did you click the link?
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
Seems pretty racist.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're trying to stay on topic but you're also trying to defend a molecular biologist saying black people aren't as smart as other races by saying he meant black culture isn't as smart as other races/cultures?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:19:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your original comment claiming he made a statement of genetic fact;
He was speaking very "scientifically" as you put it. He didn't say anything racist. He just said that people are genetically different, and our brains are wired differently than one another. This went against the dogmatic idea in religion, at the time (and somewhat still today), that all people are created exactly equal, no matter what - we're equal in IQ, we're equal in decision making, we're equal in our "capacity to love God", etc.
He wasn't being racist, he was stating a genetic fact.
Are you going to defend this? Or are you going to focus on the part that you can get away with by saying you never said it was cultural fact?
I'll give it to you that you never said it, but why are you arguing for Watson by saying he meant something other than what he said? He's still alive, and has had plenty of chances to defend himself, so why does he need you to do it for him? Especially since you don't even agree with him.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, cool. No one was disputing that people are hard wired differently. All that was being said was that Watson's remark on race and intelligence was based on his opinion. You then came in and said he was speaking scientifically (meaning biologically since that's his field of study) and that he was actually probably speaking on culture rather than biology (which contradicts him speaking scientifically).
I mean good on you for saying you were wrong, but geez, it took you too long to see you were contradicting yourself.
Seems like you're being willfully ignorant of the many Kardashian fans that are smart, thoughtful people. Seems like you're jumping through hoops to say "I don't like these people all their supporters are less intelligent than I, a mildly racist Reddit user."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:56:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because earlier you seemed to imply that Watson was onto something with the "blacks are dumber." Also you're writing style screams r/iamverysmart , which lends itself to racism, sexism, etc
No, I'm not saying that all cultures necessarily have ignorance. I am saying that it is true that all cultures have ignorance and ignorance-loving people too. There is no special sense in black culture that ognorance is good. I am saying that if you place ignorance as some necessary condition for black culture, then tou may as well do it for all cultures.
Yes, a culture against ignorance is ignorant. You can't know everything. The desire to do so doesn't make it so.
Ok sure whatever, but you can't say that and then immediately say "oh I'm not saying that. I'm just talking about their culture" because you had literally just said their brains are not equal.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:34:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he definitely said racist shit and it wasn't at all "scientific." He asserted that the evidence states that Africans aren't as smart as the western nations making policy on their behalf. It's nuts! Africa is made up of so many different genetic populations that it just doesn't make sense from a geneticists point of view to be talking about Africa as if it's one isolated population that evolved divergently from the rest of humanity. It's ludicrous on its face, and there's a reason his repeated comments on the topic despite ample time to look at the science got him black balled. There are PLENTY of people doing research on racial topics (despite what /r/whiterights would have you believe) and they DO NOT get black balled just for looking at the topic. Watson is NOT an expert in the nature vs nurture debate, he took a picture of an important molecule.
You know what else Watson said? That he doesn't hire fat people. Is he also making a scientific argument that fat people are genetically inferior for the work place?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Secondly, I agree that Watson's scientific approach to understanding intelligence in Africa is flawed. I've mentioned that in some other comments.
Ok, well, you said in the comment I replied to that:
He didn't say anything racist.
How do you reconcile these two statements?
I don't think I need to even comment on your defense of Watson's fat people hate. Re-read what you wrote, and if you still would like a critique, let me know.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:29:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm ok with making a distinction between racism out of ignorance and malicious racism. Fair enough. But, look at the rest of this thread and recognize that when a Nobel Prize winning scientist stands up and gives a speech, people assume that the person has done the necessary work to back their claims up. You fell victim to this assumption yourself when you claimed he was stating a "genetic fact."
When it turns out that a published scientist who should know better was misstating the data, I think it's quite fair to wonder what drove someone to say obviously stereotypically controversial crap (black people and fat people have more sex drive, black people aren't as smart as white people, etc, etc) without checking their damn work first. In short, if this was "accidental racism" then it was NEGLIGENTLY accidental racism. Using his own line of thinking... why would you hire and promote a person that has demonstrated laziness through their actions? He's the intellectual version of how he sees fat people, and he deserved every bit of ostracization he got.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is as close as we're going to get to a happy medium, but I just want to poke at the irony statement a bit to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. I can see how someone might argue that it's ironic that I'd say Watson deserved ostracization while simultaneously arguing that fat people didn't deserve the ostracization Watson was subjecting them to. I think that someone would be wrong, and I'll happily argue the point, but I don't want to waste either of our time unless that's what you were driving at with your irony comment ;).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know why I let myself continually be surprised by people on the internet. I guess I'm just a hopeful person.
I'm arguing that when a scientist makes bold assertions without any evidence to back up their claims, that they deserve to lose credibility. You'd agree with me that Kary Mullis isn't credible on climate change, right? You're going to be extra skeptical of claims Mullis makes from here on out, even if they have to do with PCR, right?
If Watson had just argued that POMC is really interesting particularly to the question of the relationship between melanin and leptin, then no one would have had a problem. He didn't do that though, he went out and made conclusions based on barely any research and research that didn't actually back up his goofy claims. Find me some research that backs these claims up:
fat people are less ambitious because of extra leptin
fat people have more sex drive because of extra leptin
more melanin means more sex drive
genetic differences in POMC drive the differences in melanin expression between populations
genetic differences in POMC drive leptin levels associated with common obesity (all/many fat people are fat because of this gene)
... and on and on and on. Watson asserted that all of that crap is true in the talk he gave. He did so with no evidence, and he received the proper response from the scientific community. Make big claims, bring big evidence ... failure to do so will lead to loss of credibility.
My claim is that Watson didn't make his case. There's nothing ironic about my thinking he should pay the consequences for that. If you can show me the data backing up fat people lacking ambition based on this specific genetic reasoning (POMC related), then I'll admit that I was wrong, but I'll always maintain that the proper position in the face of lack of evidence is lack of belief and a disdain for those claiming they already know the answer.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:20:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely was confused. Sorry about that, I took the rare step of taking away my own upvote ;D.
bcrabill ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 16:23:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a fact that we're all different genetically. It's not a fact that intelligence depends upon race. What evidence did he provide to prove that?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People are always harder on any theory that talks of differences. It wasn't bad science anymore than theorizing it could be cultural.
Since intelligence is high heritable and intelligence has a profound impact on prosperity it would be impossible to be separated over any given period and not have differences. That along with IQ studies, biological differences measured, & prosperity differences that range across countries and tend to correlate with racial makeup, gives plenty of evidence for him to take his stance.
Exactly. How convenient is it to make a statement where you dress it up with mentions of "facts" and "all the research we've done has found" only for it be deemed an opinion when it blows up in your face.
There's a reason he himself has said alllllll that shit he said was wrong and the "the worst decision of my life".
A person is going to have their life affected by what they think... it'll affect how you treat others, how you work with others, what your work is, how you approach work, etc. etc.
There's a reason a smart man like this goes broke--- for being an idiot.
If I'm the Administrator of a scientific role and I'm on record saying African's aren't smarter than White men, please....... inform me on the proper road ahead. The University should just keep paying this person money to keep spewing stupidity, correct?
He also mentions "researching" it as if some University or company sanctioned and funded his Blacks Are Dumber bullshit.
That's what I mean when I say you lose when you're an idiot.
[deleted] ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 14:53:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 15:47:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean on one hand you are right about public perception and science. However Watson does not get a pass here at least with his comments on black people. It was blatantly racist and bad science. He more or less said that those in the working world can tell that black people are noticeably less intelligent than others. With a later amended statement that there could be some capable black people here and there.
That implies that everything else made equal, black people are still noticeably less mentally capable than others and that the capable ones are genetic outliers, which is not true.
The thing about how the public receives information, isn't just that people will be offended, but when you don't fully explain your position like Watson, you have people taking your words out of context and using it as credence just as well as vilification, I mean just look at all the blatant racist in this thread.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:36:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
doubt it, because the context of the quote is the future prospect of Africa, and he uses that anecdote to support his claim that African intelligence is lower and therefore their social policies need to fit their intelligence.
Honestly it seems like Watson likes saying controversial shit for the sake of it and stretches what he initially means to say but thats just a guess.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:00:14 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you take the same gnostic stance when approaching the Lord God? 'If we knew what the Lord God is, then we wouldn't be using faith to meditate discernment.'
General intelligence is a synthesis of pattern recognition and temporal reasoning.
Those who are genetically incapable of waiting for greater expected outcomes and are unable to discern non-linear topologies have low intelligence.
Low IQ tribes persist and thrive in complex environments through communicating telepathically with their 'ancestors'. If you recognize this non-locality as intelligence while being atheistic you are a hypocrite.
Is not knowing that you are a hypocrite a form of intelligence/strength? Is Peace, War? Is freedom, slavery? How could these be measured? This so pedantic. Go meditate, just sit!
IQ is correlated with expected life outcomes. Height is correlated with expected life outcomes. No one argues, yeah but how do we really measure height? Of course this is a great question, but getting lost on scale is not a burden to low IQ individuals. Everyone agrees, that tall people 'know' better.
The army has figured that those with an 85 IQ and below may not be net productive institutionally. And presidents are taller than generals are taller than admirals are taller colonels are taller than sergeants are taller... But how do we measure leadership? If we knew, we wouldn't need 'meritocracy' to measure it.
How can we possibly know Gaussian distributions?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:39 on October 6, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Defining Truth as subjective means there cannot be such a thing as Truth, this is the trap of ideological moral relativism.
AI is a misnomer as code cannot be conscious.
Knowing, awareness, understanding, having knowledge carnally is what science is and I think you worship at the alter of orientalist dualism/idolatry, ironically.
Don't east asians outscore even Ashkenazim on intelligence tests? If the assertion that GI is merely a hammer barring expository materialism as this is what would make it an useful tool to copy when you are begging for difference of regional heuristics to be unquantifiable appears contradictory, but such dissonance is the property of moral relativism, service to self material hierarchicalism and social darwinism.
huyuh ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:00:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because legitimately meritocratic (that is, job-related) job selection practices will routinely trigger prima facie violations of the disparate impact rule, employers who adopt such practices run the risk of being required to justify themโa costly and difficult task that encourages undesirable, self-protective behaviors and may result in unwarranted liability. [...] Moreover, blacks lag behind whites in actual on-the-job performance, which indicates that employers are not unfairly excluding minorities from the workforce but rather bending over backwards to include them.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:08:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
we're not talking about affirmative action and we're not talking about hiring people who aren't qualified. We're talking about genetics and intelligence level.
huyuh ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:20:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If businesses were able to hire based on merit, Black people in the workplace would seem equally intelligent to White people in the workplace, because they would be.
Watson wasn't wrong.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:40:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no you don't get to just slap what ever context you want to people quotes. Watson's quote was in the context was talking about the prospects of the future of Africa and how the difference in intelligence level means social policies need to much different to fit their intelligence level.
This is an absurd assertion, because everything else equal, intelligence isn't noticeably different
huyuh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:44:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was right about that, too. He also mentioned Black people at work being noticeably less intelligent. That is a result of racial discrimination in favour of black people.
"One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. Various East Asian populations measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Whites in North America typically average IQs between 100 and 105 African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90 (see Lynn, 1997, for a recent review).
Parallel differences are found on relatively culture-free tests such as speed of decision making. Probably the simplest culture free mental tests are reaction time tests. In the "odd-man-out" test, Nine to twelve year-old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light. The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who in turn are faster than Black children (Jensen, 1998)."
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:57:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah figured you would pull that up.
Here is the short version of the issues with those studies.
The first one is obviously flawed by failing to consider cultural and societal differences from one region to another which can significantly impact how well someone does in an IQ test. Nor is an IQ test of inherent genetic ability.
The second one isn't even culture free, you're taking children from the ages of 9-12, their intelligence would still be affected by up-bringing. Even ignoring that, the test arguably doesn't even test intelligence. If the test is "so easy all children can do it in less than 1 second" then it may as well be a reaction time test, especially if all the scores are under a second.
I don't care if the result of racial discrimination is in or not favor of black people, its not relevant to the discussion.
huyuh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it may as well be a reaction time test
That's exactly what it is. And reaction time is correlated to intelligence. Reaction time tests aren't culturally biased.
The reaction time benchmark shows racial gaps in raw brain power.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Related to intelligence does not equal intelligence. Reaction time isnโt what determines your ability to understand concepts, it doesnโt determine your ability to progress society, and it doesnโt determine your ability to function within society.
No one doubts that there are differences in physiology between populations of people that have been separated over long periods of time. No one doubts that genetics can affect difference in our brains.
That being said, Intelligence isnโt measured by raw brain power as our knowledge and our society has progressed beyond that of simple brain functions, and the complex ideas we do deal with and that are required to adapt in modern society requires more than just raw brain power to the point where using raw brain power to measure how โsmartโ someone is in this day and age is practically irrelevant.
What Watson was suggesting through his quote and by extension what you are suggesting is that the differences in raw brain power and in raw brain power alone is so significant to the point that we require segregation of one group of people from the rest. That the differences in brain power make it so this group of people will noticeably be unable to function within society that we have built because they physiologically cannot understand how to adapt within it. And do remember this quote of Watson is the topic of discussion.
I will say again what I said before, itโs truly a fucking absurd position to take and also a position that Watson has redacted later in life.
And fuck it, while Iโm at it, you guys who keep pushing this view donโt even understand how to interpret the studies youโre posting. Assuming that all of these studies were perfectly done, you canโt just fucking extrapolate the conclusions to whatever you want. The first study researched something specific, difference in IQ from different regions. Now what are they trying to conclude? Exactly that, that there are IQ differences from region to region. The reasons why are not part of the study and itโs not up to you to draw those conclusions. That is not how science works.
huyuh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:30:51 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You swear a lot to emphasize your egalitarian propaganda. But you don't provide any evidence at all.
Blacks are dysfunctional in every Western nation. They have lower job performance and higher crime rates.
Trillions of dollars spent trying to uplift Blacks to White averages has been wasted.
You decry the use of IQ tests to measure intelligence. You decry the use of culturally unbiased reaction time tests. Blacks also lag behind in education, which is highly correlated to intelligence. Any metric which measures intelligence shows Blacks have less of it. Pick whichever one you want.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:50 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no you're not grasping the concept here.
Also i swore 3 times throughout that entire post, that's a bit strange of a complaint to have is it not?
You have reading comprehension issues, especially apparent if you think this discussion was on anything other than logic. I already provided the evidence for why your logic fails and its on no fault of the studies you can trust me on that.
In fact type me back what you think my main point was and try to equate that with "egalitarian propaganda". I don't need to see you agree with it, just that you understand it, because I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
That sounds true to me. Black people have lower IQs than the average even when they live in rich countries
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:09:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
adjusted for socioeconomic conditions? which of course includes those of the parents as well? as it affects up bringing? News to me.
Also rich/poor isn't the indicator, its social policies in place that promote academics (regardless of whether its "good"), hence why east asian countries score better.
Do native Africans have lower IQ's than a typical westerner? Yea, probably.
That's where I stopped reading, man.... In a discussion of certainties, you throw the whole book out the window with that.
Good day.
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 15:01:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This, if you set standards of a test on the foundation of western europeans of course they are going to be the average and other groups would do different as a whole.
Don't start an argument if you are not ready to read what the other say. That just shows your arrogance, your lack of self-criticism and your narrowness of mind.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:12:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you that fucking stupid that you can't see I am trolling you because I literally could not give less of a fuck about you, your ancestry, or anything that you think? Post something of value, I'll wait.
huyuh ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 14:51:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. Various East Asian populations measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Whites in North America typically average IQs between 100 and 105 African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90 (see Lynn, 1997, for a recent review).
Parallel differences are found on relatively culture-free tests such as speed of decision making. Probably the simplest culture free mental tests are reaction time tests. In the "odd-man-out" test, Nine to twelve year-old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light. The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who in turn are faster than Black children (Jensen, 1998).
Bro.... 50% of this country has some kind of inner racist in them..... of course I expect half of all reddit posts to agree with a baseless racist claim.
It's a free world, think what you want. Don't cry when the free world forces your punk ass to sell your Nobel Peace Prize cuz they aren't funding anymore of your book tours and research.
Also don't agree to an Administrative Research role in a University and expect everyone there to think exactly like you.
How STUPID it must be when smart people can't realize not everyone thinks exactly like they do.....
Can you please post a picture of your nobel prize? Oh that's right, you don't have one. But please, continue telling us how much smarter you are than a nobel prize winner...
It does if you're not old enough to develop critical thinking and logic skills.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:00:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently it's now Feelings > Science, or always have been.
stml ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:41:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A CEO can also go right ahead and say that all of his minimum wage workers are easily replaceable. Sure it's true, but do you really expect a CEO to keep his job after that?
Those who act like saying the truth all the time is socially acceptable are just socially inept.
Dekar173 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:21:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Being an idiot for trying to tell the truth?
Regarding his statements and why he was punished, his word is being used by the same people who tout these tired old arguments as some sort of catch all argument for segregation and oppression. Basically, because of his mistake in the past and the appeal to authority that he's a genius (and he is) race supremacy and its advocates got 'stronger' as a result.
The statistics many racists tend to rely upon to justify their views are quite loaded. To someone more knowledgeable than that, though, they're laughable.
While I agree absolutely, races could and likely are potentially 'different' on a cognitive level due to genetics, I also doubt said difference is on a level that's of any import nowadays. Levels of socioeconomic difference have very obviously played a much larger role.
'African Americans fill up prisons at unprecedented rates!'
The most oppressed are more likely to commit crimes, AS WELL AS most likely to be indicted for them.
'African countries have lower IQs!'
Less developed countries populations, who have access to far less and require different life skills than more developed populations have lower IQs based on the tests which are specifically designed around, and in order to test, the developed populations. How strange!
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:32:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Dekar173 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:37:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yet your stupid comment goes unchanged/deleted! Further perpetuating flawed thinking.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:41:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Murgie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, being an idiot for trying -and failing- to tell the truth.
If he actually knew his claims to be matters of scientific fact, then he would simply demonstrate that factuality by published a scientific paper on the matter.
But that's obviously never going to happen, because actual science requires the disclosure of the employed methodology, and he knows just as well as you do that "It's true because I think so, here's an anecdote that supports me." isn't going to cut it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:37:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's a reason he himself has said alllllll that shit he said was wrong and the "the worst decision of my life".
He hasn't said that, for the simple reason that it's true that races differ in important ways (specifically that blacks are less intelligent than whites). Still a poor decision, but that's because its heritical to point out racial differences that disfavor non-whites.
There's a reason a smart man like this goes broke--- for being an idiot.
In the same way that it would have been idiotic to question church dogma in the fifteenth century.
This goes against the continued "special snowflake" teachings in Western society that vilify any attempt to demonstrate evolution, the differences between races, and the chemical or structural deformities that cause sexual and behavioural oddities.
I've always said that if women were unknown until present day that somehow PC extreme-left would find a way to insist there are no differences between the sexes despite clear visible evidence of such.
Black People being on average isn't a genetic fact, its a statistically true statement that racists would immediately take and say "and its because they're black".
We know for a fact that poverty diminishes mental ability, add in shit schooling, crime and drugs and disease taking away parent figures, you get children raised in the shittiest environment and not being given the early nurturing human children need to properly mentally develop.
IQ capacity is very much dependent on IQ. Its why some species are smarter than others. But its stupid to ignore how influential nurture is on a mental level. If you were to meet the version of you who was raised in a shithole with no schooling and malnorished to fuck, you properly wouldn't be capable of learning to speak any language. You'd be mentally stunted for life.
I'd like to point out that the hypothesis that black people have lower IQs is just that. I have struggled, and continue to struggle, with this question. It is such an ugly thought. I've come to the opinion that there is a measurable difference, which can't be explained by upbtinging- except for the population's value of intelligence and test taking.
It seems veru plausible to me that certain cultures value test results much more than others. If somebody is motivated to score highly, because they think it will intrinsically increase their value as a person, they will be utilizing all their willpower and mental fortitude. If somebody doesn't have this same cultural attachment, they may see the test as a curiosity; the results may mean less than nothing to them- if intellect or education is seen as effeminate, or as trying to be better than their community and family and trying to leave them. This hypothesis conforms to our stereotypical perception of different ethnicities' cultures.
I choose to believe this, at least in matters other than policy making. The alternative is a very ugly thought.
The only thing that gives me pause is brain volume measurements of different ethnicities- though I am not aware at all how accurate these are, or if the discrepancy can be ameliorated by accounting for nutrition, educatiom, etc.
blinky64 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:23:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What he said is not racist.
Dhrakyn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:34:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He said something scientific and got shot down by the insane mass majority who didn't feel comfortable having their thought process questioned.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:40:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Facts are racist? nobody is saying anybody is better than anybody, but people are different that's all, nobody should be offended for recognizing that people are different.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 14:49:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one gives a shit about who latches on to and uses science for what ends. That's beyond the purview of a factual discussion which you're clearly emotionally incapable of having regarding this subject in particular.
quisp65 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But when society keeps it taboo it greatly diminishes guidance and ethical input. We've created more of a monster by keeping it taboo. Plus understanding human prosperity is one of mankinds most important issues to come to grips with.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:30:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are demonizing the issue too much and there is no reason to fear a society being open about differences and understanding human prosperity. People are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses and ethical science & decisions will always win if we are open about it and free to discuss.
Remember in a "biologically aware" society the people that are preaching the "Blank Slate" would instead be putting a positive spin on these uncomfortable truths. Which they aren't doing now. They are currently preaching what few believe and that is such a waste.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:19:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That a person is an individual with their own strength and weaknesses and there are blacks that geniuses as well. Understanding this will also make one less likely to always blame oppression for the cause of differences in prosperity and thus society gets along better and that benefits both groups.
Also it's not just race being the issue, but these uncomfortable truths keep society from discussing and understanding how differences in anyone's biology can affect their prosperity. It keeps us from looking at almost any aspect of it because any discussion leads to the most uncomfortable issues.
I believe if we hadn't stuck our head in the sand after WW2 on human differences and instead concentrated on ethics, we would be on the verge now of eliminating human poverty as we know it.
Different, to these people equals inferior and HOLY FUCK SHUT THAT DISCUSSION DOWN WE ARE/WERE KINGS/HEBREW ISREALITES/COULD FLY BEFORE THE WHITE MAN AND BUILT THE PYRAMIDS USING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY THAT WHYPEEPO STOLE -(this is actually believed by some, take a trip down Google lane)
So he said something racist factual but non-PC and got shit-canned, his income diminished and he had to sell his Nobel prize. He wasn't even speaking scientifically he just gave his opinion.
Sorry your fee fees get hurt by hard truth.
Edit; PC brigade hitting this thread hard. I'll trust the man who literally discovered DNA over fucking Tumblr, thanks.
[deleted] ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 13:56:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please directly affirm that you wholly and entirely believe that evolution "stops at the neck" because that will confirm that you are woefully misinformed and willingly eat up whatever society tells you is politically correct to believe, because fuck science if everyone isn't equal and special amirit3 m8?
Edit; Aaaaand as expected, this confirmed concern troll refuses to confirm their implied belief and is only here to try to rile up shit and has less than zero personal knowledge or conviction. A waste of air, food/water, and electricity.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:36:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I cited? Maybe you are concern trolling too many people in this thread on your alts? I didn't cite the study. Go ahead and cite something - anything - that meaningfully refuses the study beyond your unassailable statement that the researcher was "clearly just a racist". I mean with your esteemed credentials I am sure you have some evidence to the contrary.
He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours โ whereas all the testing says not really".
So what have the indigenous people of Africa accomplished in the last five hundred years to place them on the same level as other civilized societies and invalidate his claims? I'll wait.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:42:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will resort to attacking your character and your personal achievements in life, therefore I am the victor." - u/geosensation
Little boy... I'm not having a grown man discussion with you as you've already showed your hand--- you have a flag to wave and I'm happy you got that much spunk for a side that ignores you when it comes time to do big boy things.... both left and right do that, so I'll exit right 'chere. Woops, my melanin brain just slang'd dat werd cuz I'm frun duh hood!
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will resort to attacking your character and imply that you are younger than myself, therefore I am the victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will simply declare myself victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
"I don't care but I will continue to post to make sure you are aware of how much I don't care. Did I mention I don't care?" - u/MalWareInUrTripe ca 2017 in which one of the inferiors of which Mr Watson spoke proves the point eloquently
Are you seriously trying to imply that there are no measurable differences between each races brain composition? It may be Uncomfortable "FOR YOU" But for the rest of us it is nothing more than a factual keystone when regarding race.
Any scientific study, sanctioned or not, homebrewed or official can be valid.
As in a valid way of refuting the exact point the scientific study is trying to reach.
How is one scientific study a measure of 100% proof? I could just as easily provide 100 scientifically researched
studies (I've Googled, they break down your girls research pretty viciously with facts and references) but I digress........
...cuz sharing links isn't going to change my mind on their biased results, just like I won't change your mind.
You saw them already, bro. They're sprinkled in with all of your other "Proof Blacks Are Stupider Than Whites" googling searching. You just ain't clicking those links.
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will imply that there are "100's of links" that refute your statements and cited studies without providing a single source, therefore I am the victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
gimpwiz ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:51:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wrote an entire book shitting on Rosalind Franklin, from whom he stole some work on the DNA structure. The story's a bit complicated but he had no reason to write an entire book about the long deceased "terrible Rosie".
He's a massive douchebag and his partner in DNA research, Crick, disowned the book.
trxbyx ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 15:17:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He shared a very racist opinion and was shit on for it, deservedly. This is a racist sub so that's why it belongs here.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:49:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
jpgray ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:37:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson's poverty was arguably self-inflicted. He lost his academic positions for commonly and vociferously voicing his opinions that women and blacks are genetically/intellectually inferior
Because they stole Rosalind Franklins work and published it under their names. Watson and crick are both generally understood to not be the discoverers of dna but hey thatโs fake news duh because women canโt be smart lol you dummies
Well from what I have gathered from comments it wasn't that Rosalind was a women but rather denounced the idea of DNA. What she did was discover it but it seems Watson and Crock correctly analyzed it which in my book gives them most credit while we should give the discovery to her and the comprehension to W+C
Some argue that Christianity is not monotheistic, because the holy Spirit is considered as a god (or something like that, I am not sure as I am not a Christian). And if I'm not mistaken, it is not a semathic religion
TheWho22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:36:28 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Holy Spirit is considered both as a god, and more as a symbolic part of god at the same time. I mean it's literally completely both at the same time, so it's sort of impossible to say if it's monotheistic or polytheistic. Also it is a semathic religion I believe. It is a direct offshoot of Judaism.
It is not considered a semathic religion. As far as I know, only Judaism and Islam are semathic
TheWho22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:12:52 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why would Christianity be excluded from that group? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three abrahamic religions. Christianity peeled off of Judaism just like Islam did
That is only for churches who subscribe to the Nicene Creed/Trinity doctrine. My faith professes that they are separate, distinct beings who are wholly unified in purpose.
I've been to James Watson's house (as part of a college summer research program) and I can assure you that he lives more comfortably than 99.9% of people in the US. Beautiful large house, right on the water on Long Island Sound. He sold the prize in part to buy a David Hockney painting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html). Nobody in the scientific community really takes him seriously anymore, in part because of the virulent racism and in part because he hasn't been right about anything since the mid 90's. Honestly nice guy though - crazy in an old grandpa sort of way.
RDGIV ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:13:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL all Russians are inherently evil
jrkirby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:12:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, just the rich ones. That's not because becoming rich makes you evil; rather it's because anyone who becomes rich in Russia and doesn't participate in their system of corruption has their wealth destroyed by those that do.
I'm not sure why people spread disinformation about this. Is it hatred of Watson due to his non-PC comments? Or is it some sort of misguided gender war?
Franklin didn't discover the double helix, but it was her crystallography images, potentially shared without her permission, that led Watson and Crick to discover the double helix. If you read Watson's autobiography, The Double Helix, there's a part where he writes about his regret in how he and his partners treated Franklin, as well as how he wished she had been acknowledged for her contributions in discovering the double helix during her lifetime. To say that either Watson and Crick or Franklin discovered the double helix structure on their own would be incorrect.
It seems massively reductive to say that Franklin discovered the helix on her own, and that anybody who brings up her involvement in the situation is engaged in Watson hate or a "misguided gender war."
You know I can take some pictures of shit on the moon but if I have no fucking clue what I am talking about and some other gentleman discovers something using my pictures I sure as fuck don't believe I would have any claim to his discovery other than having took some fucking photos. Which when reduced to layman's terms that's exactly what fucking xray crystallography is; pictures taken using x-rays to get around the diffraction limit.
Pedrov80 ยท 58 points ยท Posted at 15:21:41 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The difference is she knew what she was doing and was one of the few people at the time able to take those pictures. There are millions of pictures of the moon you can find today, she had the only pictures of DNA. Mix that in with the fact that they basically stole the pictures from her, and you can see why people would be mad about her not getting credit.
She was a labtech. Without her they'd still have discovered the helical structure of DNA and without them she'd have discovered precisely nothing.
Pedrov80 ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 15:32:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was on the same level as Watson and Crick, and the only reason she wasn't given the same resources was because Wilkins thought she had a "unladylike" cold personality. It's impossible to say if Watson and Crick could have figured it out on their own. It's also impossible to say Franklin wouldn't have either.
And it's impossible to factually say that she discovered a single thing when she in fact publicly railed against the double helix. No dice.
Pedrov80 ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 15:44:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Being against something in science isn't hampering progress; there needs to be a pushback to every idea. Being wrong doesn't mean that you can't help someone be right, and being right doesn't mean anything without evidence.
Also I don't know how much you've read about the story of DNA, but she made multiple discoveries on the way to finding out the structure of DNA.
Without watson and crick we would have discovered the helical structure of DNA. With Franklin, Watson, and Crick we discovered it sooner. Without Franklin Watson and Crick wouldn't have had the information required to even begin testing the hypothesis of a double helical structure.
Would have been difficult to acknowledge her contributions 'in her lifetime' seeing as she died from cancer before Watson and Crick even won the nobel prize.
Okay? I don't understand why it's unreasonable to think or say that she should have been recognized during her lifetime. It was certainly a big discovery even before Watson and Crick were awarded the Nobel.
He has been quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 1997, as stating: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
Non-PC... lol
Either way, he stole information from Rosalind, and didn't credit her. Also writes her off as an "Assistant" and not the actual professional scientist she is.......... and it's no wonder a man that acts and thinks this way goes broke.
Another gem from his inner racist:
He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours โ whereas all the testing says not really".
So the testing of racial intelligence is not to be believed. When you cherry pick data there is no point in discussion and I'll trust the gentleman who literally discovered fucking dna before I trust you, concern trolling shit breath.
If that's the only thing you're holding onto I got bad news for you buddy. Good luck with your pathetic life maybe somebody will care you're an edgelord.
So my making a baseless and tasteless accusation is evidence of my taking part in the very act that I claim you partake in.
Does this mean you're projecting your own racism by calling internet strangers racists?
Edit: Also pointing out the fact that you have not yet denied the accusation that you fuck your own mother. What are you hiding, you closeted motherfucker?
The clue is when the popular political buzz words start getting thrown around, you know they've got a flag to wave and no point in discussing anything. It's not as if a reddit discussion is going to change their minds.
"I realize and acknowledge my position is indefensible, so therefore I will attempt to use weasel words to paint the person I am upset with in an unfavorable light and imply they identify with a political affiliation with which I disagree." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
"I realize and acknowledge my position is indefensible, so therefore I will attempt to use weasel words to paint the person I am upset with in an unfavorable light" - u/BrohanGutenberg
enyder21 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:07:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't discover DNA, his work pretained to the structure of DNA. we knew DNA must exist, but we didn't know how exactly it could fit so much information into such a tiny space. He and Crick solidified the theory by demonstrating the mechanism behind how this was possible.
He and Crick are therefore known for realizing the significance of Rosalind Franklin's helical structure findings, but widely disliked for not giving her proper credit before her death and borderline stealing Rosalind's specialized images.
Rosalind presented her work at a conference - like scientists do, idiot. And Rosalind would have shared in the nobel prize - but she died from cancer. She never wore protection when performing x-rays - dozens of times a day everyday.
Nope... these are fuckn Scientists for christ sake.... being thorough with the information is central to their life's work. People here bring up Rosalind are being thorough with the truth.
She was the best x-ray imaging person on the planet, and he took notes from her own research to find his own plans. Most research is going to have 2 sides and that actually pushes the truth to the forefront when one side is deemed incorrect. So her having her own side in no way means she was halting progress. She actually HELPED progress.
Maybe someday your concern trolling will turn into a successful far-left political career. Start with the impoverished and uneducated and feed them a line of complete bullshit, I hear that's the power move for your kind and you're off to a great start.
Why do you feel the need to be a dick? This was a civil discussion, and then people started insulting each other. Watson is a huge asshole to everyone he meets. He was fired for his behavior. Yes, he may have been part of the team who brought attention to the structure or DNA to the world, but he's still a dick and deserves to be called out on it.
Nothing the man has said on record is factually incorrect, or can be proven to be factually incorrect, and assaults upon the facts presented by the man are disgusting and logical fallacies coming from those who are the inferiors of which he speaks. This is not even getting into the topic of the assaults on his personal character, which you also participate in as we can see.
In short, if you cherry pick data and try to tell me that known facts are false and I am wrong for spreading known facts, you can kill yourself for all I care.
Rude. I'm not saying he didn't make significant contributions to modern science. I'm saying that some beliefs he voices are bigoted and he also deserves to be judged as such.
Also, speaking of someone as an inferior shows such a ballooned ego. "Oh how horrible! I'm surrounded by those who cannot even fathom my intelligence and value!"
Get a hold of yourself, he's a human being, he does the same things as you and I, except he went into a field that was still to be explored and did so. He's a smart dude, but that's it. He's not a god, he's just a dick.
Dr. Watson, who shared the 1962ย Nobel Prizeย for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, and later headed the American governmentโs part in the international Human Genome Project, was quoted in The Times of London last week as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent. In the ensuing uproar, he issued a statement apologizing โunreservedlyโ for the comments, adding โthere is no scientific basis for such a belief.โ
But Dr. Watson, who has a reputation for making sometimes incendiary off-the-cuff remarks, did not say he had been misquoted.
Please try to understand other people when you argue, other than just arguing your point. I don't know if you understood what I was talking about when I mentioned bigotry, but this is what I meant.
So you're unable to recognize that a man broken by a PC assault cowed and backed away from his factual statement in order to try and preserve his career and income in the face of massive uninformed backlash. Got it.
Part of "speaking down to people" is not recognizing their identity and being "un-PC" as you put. I could honestly care less if you're some racist person who doesn't care what they say.
But please remember that what you say hurts.
Say you have a son who is gay. Are you going to call him a faggot?
Say you have a daughter who has asperger's. Are you going to call her a retard?
Obviously something happened in your life to make you feel like you need to lash out like this, but this isn't what rational and mentally healthy people do.
You're most likely just trolling because you think this is funny, but put yourself in their position. Show some empathy, and some human emotions other than anger.
I'm going to stop commenting after this because at this point I've invested too much time into this conversation and I need to go to class. I hope you change, for your sake.
You're mad that I used the word faggot. You're going to have a hard fucking time out in the real world kiddo. Your college safe space will only be there for you for so long. You must have a strong back, what with carrying the emotional weight of the world on your shoulders and all, snowflake.
Bogsby ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 14:27:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Both of your explanations are borderline t_d material. They discovered the double helix in large part thanks to her data, which they used without credit to her. If they had actually asked for her input and involved her in mutual sharing of data and ideas, instead of stealing her work, she probably wouldn't have had the same view. She would also be seen differently historically.
huyuh ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:47:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who discovered this Roman villa, the Italian computer programmer or Google Maps?
Using satellite images from Google Maps and Google Earth, an Italian computer programmer has stumbled upon the remains of an ancient villa.
This sounds a lot like the recent court battles over CRISPR. One group discovered the bacterial antiviral system, while another realized the broad applicability of such a system.
Except you can't say that. It was her specific photography that lead to the discovery. Who is to say that a photo would have ever been taken that would have lead to said discovery had she not been the one doing it?
Cool slippery slope argument. "Well if she didn't take those photos who's to say anyone ever would!". Take that nonsense somewhere it will work, like T_D or twoxchromosomes
Except you can't say that. It was her specific photography that lead to the discovery. Who is to say that a photo would have ever been taken that would have lead to said discovery had she not been the one doing it?
To which you replied;
Cool slippery slope argument. "Well if she didn't take those photos who's to say anyone ever would!". Take that nonsense somewhere it will work, like T_D or twoxchromosomes
That's not a real rebuttal, you just said my argument fell under a bias fallacy and left it in the air without actually refuting it.
Edit: what you did is called an arguement fallacy. You said that since my arguement contained a fallacy it must not be correct.
Lmfao you used a slippery slope fallacy and then tried to incorrectly apply a different fallacy to my post pointing out your original error. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Read my edit of previous post and you'll see that you commited a fallacy as well. You can't just say I had a fallacy in my arguement and call it refuted.
Bogsby ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:03:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What? I'm not saying she discovered DNA. I'm saying her stolen data was pivotal in its discovery and that she was not given the credit she was due. People hear part of the story and end up remembering, "Franklin discovered it, her work was stolen." because it's a better story and thus easier to remember.
It doesn't have to do with people being PC etc. It's just people getting the details of the story wrong over the decades.
The people who built and launched the satellite, collected the data, and made the data available do deserve credit for that discovery, but people already give Google credit for the technology and for the imagery.
Tons of lab techs out there who hold PhD. Clearly you don't know shit about academics or research, so you should probably keep your mouth shut when grown folks are speaking.
I'm a second year medical student (certified on medical school subreddit if you want to verify), so I know a decent amount about both academics and research. Franklin was first author on multiple papers before dying at the early age of 37. Last time I checked, lab technicians don't get first author many times. She had a Ph.D. and mentored Ph.D. students (also something lab technicians don't do).
Let's apply the academic climate of today to papers authored in the fucking fifties to imply that a different publication regime and more open research field didn't have any effect. That's definitely a one to one comparison. /s
He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours โ whereas all the testing says not really"
... an never mentions the research, name of scientists, research methods... nada. But 'it's been tested' tho...
I think he busted a nut when he found out genetic testing on his DNA Helix model could one day allow a mother see if her unborn son would be Homosexual, and could change her unborn son's DNA Helix structure to Heterosexual:
"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
blinky64 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:28:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think he busted a nut when he found out genetic testing on his DNA Helix model could one day allow a mother see if her unborn son would be Homosexual, and could change her unborn son's DNA Helix structure to Heterosexual
You say that like it would be wrong for the mother to do so.
How does manipulating the child's genes affect the mothers body? It is a negotiable topic, that's why it's highly debated. You're pulling away from the original homophobic comment anyway. This wasn't an abortion topic.
thanks for replying. so there's no evidence of his claim? was it just his opinion, or was he trying to put a hypothesis together.
huyuh ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:59:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He suggested that the racial intelligence gap may have a genetic component, and any policies based on the false premise of equal potential are doomed to fail.
iguessss ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:04:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit feminists, man.
The true story about a female scientist whose contribution to a great discovery went unrecognized makes a decent post...
...but if you bend the truth a little and claim that the white devilSTOLE her solo discovery and used it to win the Nobel prize...well thats a front page post, my friend!
She discovered that DNA was helical, but didn't understand the significance of these findings. She presented this at a conference which Watson and Crick attended. Months before they won the nobel prize Rosalind Franklin passed away from cancer (She used a lot radiation before we realized we need protection) - the nobel prize committee explicitly stated that she would have shared in the award.
I'm not sure why so many people misconstrue this story - it's no secret, it's written in dozens of biographies and Wikipedia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, they absolutely did not. If you even did a cursory amount of research you'd learn that Rosalind Franklin used X-ray Diffraction to take picture of intracellular structures - one of which was 'Photograph 51' which appeared to show DNA in a helical form. She presented these pictures at a conference, without realizing how important the structure was to understanding how DNA worked.
Watson and Crick used this knowledge, coupled it with their own research and that of one of researcher, and inferred that DNA was a double helix consisting of four base pairs - our modern day concept of DNA.
She took a picture. That was it. It was a very important picture, that would have delayed the discovery of the structure of DNA for decades (at least) if she had not found it, it was a picture that likely contributed to the ovarian cancer that took her life - but it was still only a picture.
nhsof ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:29:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I always love this story. While I was in college the professor in charge of our introductory courses who was also a feminist and getting towards the end of her career, gave a whole lecture on the travesty of what happened to Franklin. Ending on and hammering home how horrible it was that she didn't even get the nobel prize. After the lecture I approached her about that fact and the next class she issued a redactment. I was proud of her for admitting she was wrong but sad to realize that she had been teaching that class twice a year for 20ish years and at the time I took it it was a 300 person class.
rhysdog1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:54:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the title doesn't say he discovered it....... it says he invented it.
Six Nobel Prizes are awarded each year, one in each of the following categories: literature, physics, chemistry, peace, economics, and physiology & medicine.
As far as I'm aware she wasn't a contributing author and there are no Prizes for technology.
gimpwiz ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:05:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She died before Watson and Crick received a Nobel prize, and they are not awarded posthumously.
But simplifying her work with x-ray crystallography as "technology" is like saying that the inventors of the blue LED should not have received their award because it's "technology." Stupid.
gimpwiz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:22:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whether she deserves to share Watson and Crick's nobel prize is up for debate, and whether she would have received one is a hypothetical, but if she had received one it almost certainly would have been in the same field - medicine. On the other hand, she was a chemist, so the argument could be made that she deserves one for chemistry, but I doubt it.
Remember, not only did Watson and Crick win the Nobel, but they shared it with Wilkins, who was a direct colleague of and worked with Franklin. Of the four largely credited for the discovery and publishing of the double-helix structure, three were alive to share the Nobel prize.
Of course, there were many other people involved whose contributions were extremely important.
Why do people focus on Franklin?
Well, for one, there's the feeling of unjust exclusion, not to mention that she died rather young from cancer. That's the emotional side.
Another reason might be because Watson went off the fucking rails and published a book so dismissive of her, and really specifically her, that basically everyone who had worked with him dropped him like a hot potato. (And, you know, the various other shit he's said that nobody wants to be seen with him.) So quite a few people felt it necessary to defend the person who, you know, is quite dead, and can't defend herself.
Eru-Vox ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:39:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He lost all of his money and acclaim because he was a raving lunatic racist. Brilliant scientist but garbage human being. All of that is disregarding the way he regarded Rosalind Franklin...
Well you know who never got a noble prize? The woman who found the structure of DNA for Watson and Crick to use, Rosalind Franklin. Even though Wilson (pretty sure that was his name) took the evidence and gave it to watson and crick, and thats when they were able to discover DNA. They had to change almost their whole study when i learned what Rosalind Franklin found. Then years later she passed away and never got recognition for what she did.
Came to say this. Rosalind Franklin literally got cancer taking her photos of DNA with her radioactive camera but some pricks who stole her shit got all the credit.
If I remember correctly, he was blacklisted for believing in human biodiversity affecting I.Q. and that led to him having to sell it as no one would employ him.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:35:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't expect an Eskimo to win a NY marathon over an Ethiopian anytime soon. People have adopted to their environment. Why wouldn't intelligence vary the same way running ability does. "Evolution doesn't stop at the neck" is probably right.
But at the same time with globalism around, who gives a shit. You can outsource, buy technology and have foreign firms build anything you want or need. Top 1% of any country is intelligent enough to organize and bring prosperity to that country.
Do you have any sort of evidence that black people aren't as smart as white people?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:47:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm merely agreeing with the claim that IQ varies from population to population. Which is actually the less specific claim. The Politically Correct thing to say is the IQ bell curve for every country is centered at 100, which is a much more specific claim. All you have to do is find one country that isn't centered at 100 to disprove it.
Here's a study that shows many countries have different average IQs
That's absurd. There are lots of reasons for variation in IQ that aren't genetics. The book (not a study) that you're citing is both non-rigorous and widely rejected.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:04:17 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you making the claim that IQ is centered at 100 for every country? That's so silly. Just take two high schools from across the city and you would probably find variability in average IQ scores, height, weight and so on.
There are many reasons for average height being different from country to country. We're not all centered at 175 cm. Some of it nutrition, but most of it is genetics.
I'm saying that for countries where it isn't centered at 100 there are possible reasons other than genetics. Had you even bothered to read the article you linked you would see that. I'm not going to continue wasting my time with your bullshit anymore.
Ios7 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:52:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
extemma ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 13:33:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He also got the Nobel prize for discovering the shape of DNA when it was actually Rosalind Franklin who discovered it using x-ray crystallography.
Edit: after some constructive comments along with a few moronic ones, I'll revise what I said.
Watson won the Nobel prize for discovering the shape of DNA using the crystallography data that Franklin created. The controversy comes from the lack of recognition she got for playing a pivotal role in the discovery of the structure of DNA
huyuh ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 14:06:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rosalind Franklin didn't discover anything. She actually argued against the helix structure. That's pretty much the opposite of discovering it.
Franklin had become intent on proving that DNA โ the crystal, at least (itโs not entirely clear what she was thinking) โ was shaped like a figure 8. All the while her image B remained on a shelf, in a filing cabinet โ wherever it was kept โ ignored month after month until Wilkins showed it to Watson, resulting in his famous epiphany. A few weeks later he and Crick had the structure.
Lighting ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 16:07:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rosalind Franklin didn't discover anything. She actually argued against the helix structure. That's pretty much the opposite of discovering it.
Actually
By January 1953, Franklin had reconciled her conflicting data, concluding that both DNA forms had two helices, and had started to write a series of three draft manuscripts, two of which included a double helical DNA backbone (see below). ... Crick and Watson then published their model in Nature on 25 April 1953
Bogsby ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 14:28:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not when your data leads to the discovery. She didn't discover it herself but her (stolen) data was pivotal.
iguessss ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 14:56:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dem goalposts doe...
Bogsby ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:57:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not moving goalposts, I'm responding to the claim that she did the opposite of discover the structure. Please try reading comments before responding.
iguessss ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 15:07:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OP says
He also got the Nobel prize for discovering the shape of DNA when it was actually Rosalind Franklin who discovered it using x-ray crystallography.
second guy response saying
She actually argued against the helix structure. That's pretty much the opposite of discovering it.
The 'goalposts' originally stated that she discovered the shape of DNA, full stop. This obviously isn't true.
So you come in and say
your data leads to the discovery.
Which is an entirely different statement. You moved the goalposts, fren.
Bogsby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:09:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't follow an argument. I didn't move goalposts. I'm not going to bother parsing these arguments for you, so I'm sure we'll agree to disagree.
"I'm caught, I have no further room to slide the goalposts or inflammatory comment that can be used in this situation therefore let's 'agree to disagree' so that I can avoid admitting I am wrong. Patently, entirely, without question; wrong" - u/Bogsby
blinky64 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:35:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow. Co-inventor of DNA? That's almost as amazing as that guy who invented electricity and the other dude who invented gravity.
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:24:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson was a dick. DIdnt create shit, didnt invent shit. Roselind's Franklins boss stole her work of imagiing DNA and sent it to Francis and Crick, who by looking at the images saw that the strcture was a doube helix. Roselind Franklin ended up gettiing cancer and dying from cancer sue to the radioation from taking images of the DNA, None credit given while she was alive. Again watson was a dick, an absolute dick, and he should shove his medal up his ass
While I do agree that James' achievements are overrated. Rosalind Franklin and James Watson both published their results in the same journal, same time, but in different articles. Their collaboration was more than acknowledged. The reason she did not receive Nobel prize is because they are not awarded posthumously. James said that it would have been ideal if he got to share it with Rosalind. Her x-ray images were key were because she hydrated the DNA sample, leading to a crystallographic structure that was easier to elucidate (a neat pi-stacked double helix).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get that. My issue lies in the fact that she is not equally lauded by the general public as Crick and Watson, as without her work they could not have formulated their ideas. People who are into bio and the like know the story, but most others do not. I only found out because i like to dig into science history. That being said, prior to learning about Franklin I read that in Cricks diary he noted that he discovered the shape as a result of an acid trip. My question is Did he have tis trip prior to seeing Franklins image, or did he see the image and then have the trip. I also get that just having the image is not enough, you actually need skills. I looked at image 51 many times trying to see the couble helix and still to tis day cannot. Lastly, as I understand, image 51 was taken from Franklins office, by er boss and sent to Crick and Watson. That is a huge violation of ones research, I dont think this point is emphasized enough. And again, in a very direct manner Roselind Franklin gave her life to her work, only to have it stolen from her lab. So while Crick and Watson are definitely giants, they reaced that hieght by stepping on the back of aother scientists (wo happen to be a women), but i wont go into that. ITs been a while since I researched the story but as far as I can rememeber that was pretty much it. Please correct me if I have muddled the details
I forgot what happened between Rosalind and her boss giving the spectra to Watson & Crick. The two research groups may have had an understanding about sharing data. But I don't mean to diminish the struggle that Rosalind must've gone through as a female scientists in the 50s, and how she might've struggled to command respect. And yes, James Watson most definitely was and is a dick, albeit a funny one. He is like the Kanye West of the science world. In his book, The Double Helix, James makes disrespectful remarks about some of the women he encounters.
The x-ray picture that you see is the diffraction of the x-ray beam generated by the crystal structure of DNA. Crick, a physicist and mathematician, worked on equations that modeled x-ray diffraction, using the images and equations he could back calculate the structure of DNA.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As i rememeber, she ws holding image 51 back becuse she knew it ws special(take this ith a grain of salt because i dont rememeber if I read that somehwere or made it up over time) and it was effectively stolen from her office
So, im curious what was Watson actual contribution to te findings, if Crick was the Mathematician and backworked the equations, what was Watsons role? The thing about the acid trip fucks me up though. why would he write that it was the impetus of making he discovery, if it wsnt absolutely crucial to it? I guess there is much we will never know
I'm going to have to double check but I don't think Watson did any hard science, wet lab type stuff. What he did was to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, literally, he was building ball and stick models. Which is why I think he is given a little too much credit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:35:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well what did he do with his money? You dont go from upper middle class in wages to dirt poor cause you have healthy spending habits.
He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned
by Adam Rutherford
The scientist is crying poverty and selling his Nobel prize medal, but why should anyone be interested in his racist, sexist views?
The great scientist James Watson is to auction his Nobel prize medal. He told the Financial Times this week that following accusations of racism in 2007, โno one really wants to admit I existโ, and as a result his income had plummeted and he has become an โunpersonโ.
This sounds awful: an 86-year-old hero ostracised for his views, shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow.
But itโs not awful. Watson has said that he is โnot a racist in a conventional wayโ. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those โwho have to deal with black employees find this not trueโ. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me.
And this current whinge bemoans a new poverty born of his pariah status. Apart โfrom my academic incomeโ, he says, Watson is condemned to a miserly wage that prevents him from buying a David Hockney painting.
His comments reveal a pernicious character entirely unrelated to his scientific greatness, but that is longstanding and not new. Watson is rightly venerated for being half of the pair, along with Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA, and for leading the Human Genome Project. The story of the unveiling of the double helix is messy and complex, just like all biology. It has been pored over and studied and embellished and mythologised. But simply, the race was won by Crick and Watson, and in April 1953 they revealed to the world the iconic double helix. The key evidence, however, Photo 51, was produced by Rosalind Franklin and Ray Gosling, at Kingโs College London. Franklinโs skill at the technique known as X-ray crystallography was profound, and was indubitably essential to the discovery. Crick and Watson acquired the photo without her knowledge.
With their unique insight and vision, Crick and Watson deserve their Nobel gongs. Contrary to some narratives, Franklin was not overlooked in this accolade. The rules are quite clear: Nobels are not awarded posthumously. Franklin had died from cancer aged just 37, in 1958, four years before the Nobel committee recognised what is undoubtedly one of the most significant scientific advances of the 20th or any century.
With Nobels, we put people on pedestals and gift them platforms to say whatever they like. Here, they represent science, but contrary to stereotype, there isnโt a typical scientist. Weโre just people.
Some Nobel laureates say stupid ignorant things. Most say little beyond their expertise, and some, such as the president of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, are great leaders and campaigners for science and society.
The first account of the story of DNA was by Watson himself, and reveals his character. Honest Jim is what he wanted to call the book that was published as The Double Helix in 1968. It is a classic of nonfiction writing, and deservedly so. It is brilliant and racy and gossipy, and full of questionable truths.
He patronisingly refers to Franklin as โRosyโ throughout, despite there being no evidence that anyone else ever did. Hereโs a sample of how he described her in the first few pages: โThough her features were strong, she was not unattractive, and might have been quite stunning had she taken even a mild interest in clothes. This she did not.โ
Like all contemporary biologists, my career is largely based on his work. The medal? If I could afford it, I wouldnโt want it. My field, human genetics, was founded by another racist, Francis Galton, who sought to demonstrate white British dominance over the colonies using biometrics. He gave birth to eugenics, an endeavour never realised in the UK, but that was broadly supported around the beginning of the 20th century across the political spectrum, from Churchill to Marie Stopes to William Beveridge. His and my alma mater, UCL, is currently thinking hard about how to scold his racism and continue to respect his scientific legacy, which is undeniable and unrivalled. The nicest irony is that genetics โ the field he founded and Watson transformed โ is precisely the subject that has singularly demonstrated that race as a scientific concept holds no water.
โNo one really wants to admit I existโ says Watson. Thatโs not it. Itโs more that no one is interested in his racist, sexist views. Watson, alongside Crick, will always be the discoverer of the double helix, to my mind the scientific breakthrough of the 20th century. Hereโs our challenge: celebrate science when it is great, and scientists when they deserve it. And when they turn out to be awful bigots, letโs be honest about that too. It turns out that just like DNA, people are messy, complex and sometimes full of hideous errors.
Besides the stupid fucking title when a russian oligarch spends 0.00001% of their fortune on a good dead it's exactly the same as you buying fair trade coffee. Only difference being scale. You did something nice. You're still a piece of a shit.
What aspect did I exaggerate? The part where they took her photos, the part where the photo was key to their discovery, or the part where she never got acknowledgment for her work?
Well, for start, they didn't "take" her photos; her photos were published along with her data, and they used them to deduce the double helix, which they already suspected. Her work was crucial evidence in proving their hypothesis, but it was neither where they formed the idea nor did was it her input in the data that led to their discovery. Also, she DID receive acknowledgement for her work. This is what she is most well-known for posthumously, and Watson himself said she would have been awarded the Nobel along with them had she been alive.
So when you say, "No one mentions the woman who's photographs he and his partner stole and used to develop their double helix theory," that blatantly false. 1)Lots of people said that. 2)They weren't stolen. 3)They didn't use them to develop their theory, they used them to confirm their hypothesis.
How do you know about it if no one ever mentions it or recognizes her?
Do you have a source that they were stolen? I'm not finding that at all.
You don't need consent in science to use data to form hypotheses. That doesn't even make sense. Once it's published, it's for everyone to use and cite.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:05:53 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not why he sold it. Guy has a place in cold spring harbor, a trophy wife, and despite his "rough around the edges" reputation and controversial remarks, he was doing fine financially by normal standards. He remarked that some of the proceeds would be donated to institutions, and some would go toward a painting he wanted to buy...
How does co-inventor get upvoted? Not only that, the real tragedy is that Watson and Crick never credited the work of Rosalind Franklin, who essentially showed them the actual shape of DNA.
Yes, comrade! True Russian Patriot does his part to bring true science to justice, unlike filthy Americans! Russians understand that President Putin's partner in inventing DNA deserves to keep his prize!
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:23:31 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Society has double standard when it comes to taking the scientific stance of human differences. Only tenured professors or unemployed people can make the accusation. Which isn't close to any kind of healthy scientific atmosphere.
If people really believed we were the same, they would want to shed light on it and allow the issue discussed openly, but the taboo demonstrates how people really feel. We are hiding from the truth.
Just an FYI.... you are not taking a neutral stance by being quiet on differences. People are getting blamed & killed for issues that incorrectly get blamed on oppression all over the world. This taboo is putting us back many years in reducing poverty because we got our head stuck in the sand on the science of human prosperity. The "blank slate" like people haven't chosen the moral high ground, they just chose the easy path.
Interesting story I guess but Im almost positive that the Nobel prize comes with a cash reward of over 1 million USD so Im not sure how much sympathy I have that he managed to squander it.
The $1,000,000 is not to live on, it's like a research grant. If you need machinery that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and have to pay the salaries of a dozen other researchers it goes quickly. It's usually gone in 3-5 years.
But it's cool, go on judging people without understanding anything of their field.
Denaius ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:05:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
it's like a research grant
It's not though. It's a prize.
Typically the Nobel isn't awarded until a number of years after the work that led to the award, - particularly given the requirement for proof in the scientific fields. Many of its recipients are retired or don't work anymore and few could/would ever rely on it to pay researchers or for equipment as there would never be any guarantee they would win it.
I'm not saying they're relying on it for funding - I'm saying most of the time that's what it's used for. Do you have any idea how hard it is to secure a grant? And the nobel awards aren't given 20+ years after a discovery, it's usually given 2-3 years after. Hardly enough time for most of the recipients to retire - I have no idea where you got that idea.
Denaius ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have any idea how hard it is to secure a grant?
Yes. Very. Not the point though, you said "it's like a research grant" but it isn't. Its a prize, the use of which is entirely at the discretion of the recipient. A grant, by contrast, is normally given for specific reasons or in relation to a particular piece of research depending on who or what is awarding the grant - there are a very small number that can be used for any purpose, but almost all have conditions attached to them and frequently some form of monitoring process. A Nobel Prize is not like that.
the nobel awards aren't given 20+ years after a discovery, it's usually given 2-3 years after. Hardly enough time for most of the recipients to retire - I have no idea where you got that idea.
In 2016, the average age of a Nobel recipient was 65. That is retirement age. The Nobel for Physics was awarded to David Thouless (82), and J. Michael Kosterlitz (74) for work they did on the phases of matter in the early 1970s - around a 40 year wait. It's not that unusual a fact pattern either, - to take possibly the most famous example, Einstein first came up with relativity when he was 26, but had to wait until he was 42 to get his Nobel, which is a fair few years....
I get that it's a prize. I know the difference between a prize and a research grant. I can't see my comment, so I'm not sure of my wording, but what I should have said was "it's USED like a research grant". Grants are provided by organizations with a certain agenda that does not necessarily match the agenda of the Principle Researcher - so the prize is awarded so that the PI's can research what THEY want to/think is important to research. That's not only what the prize is overwhelmingly used for - it's the actual intent behind it. And instead of looking at the average age of Noble Laureits and Physisists (for some reason?) I recommend you look at the age of recipients iof the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine and also crossrefrence this with age they were when they made their dicovery. And note that, in academia, research professors - who are the ones winning this award more often then not - tend to be older and retire far later then the average person.
I'm passive aggressive? You're the one making derogatory comments toward a struggling scientist. Do you know how little researchers get paid? It's criminal. They get PhDs and make 40k, all for trying to advance mankind.
trxbyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:20:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He ruined his own career by presenting an opinion as fact. Add to that it was a racist opinion.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 16:06:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
movzx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:51:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So discredit it because it is based on bunk data.
Sorry, but testing the IQ of people in special needs housing and then saying everyone in that country has that IQ isn't good science. Taking the IQ of people in one country and grouping other countries with it for no reason isn't good science. Not controlling for socioeconomic factors isn't good science.
Sometimes there are hard truths. And sometimes shitty, unreproducible science is done and a bunch of fuckwits latch on to it in order to justify their shitty lives.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
movzx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:11 on October 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not unrepoducable.
The research I am talking about is.
No one legitimately argues that there is no IQ gap...
You might not, but this is absolutely incorrect.
You may not have been making the argument I thought you were, but I thought you were one of the many people who tout the crap research that justifies the "Blacks have an IQ of 60!" garbage white supremacists "race realists" love to say.
trxbyx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That theory has flimsy evidence to back it and you know it. If you have any scientific education you know that this is not an accepted idea in the slightest.
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:49:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Surely you are aware of the fact that the article you linked does not support one conclusion or the other. As it points out, the evidence is mixed and inconsistent, and full of confounding variables. Watson presented his opinion as fact, when the only true fact about the relationship between race and intelligence is that we do not fully understand it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:56:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:00:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The degree of evidence is wildly different. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. While there is some evidence that ethnicity is related to intelligence, it is much weaker and full of confounds, and Watson's claims reach far beyond the evidence.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:05:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:29:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously genetics play a role. But Watson didn't say "genetics play a role," he essentially said black people are genetically inferior, a claim which has little to no hard evidence in support of it.
trent295 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A million dollars is not a lot of money if you have a million dollars.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:48:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While it is admirable that he took this act of patronage on behalf of a scientist down on his luck; the kleptocracy in Russia is what permitted Alisher Usmanov, who is worth 15.1 b according to Forbes to just spend 4.1 million dollars on a sentiment of patronage. I'm just saying that if he's so inclined towards justice he wouldn't be one of the wealthiest men in the world, making his quote a bit annoying. This is my opinion (no research)
Saved comment
jam11249 ยท 4013 points ยท Posted at 11:26:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Co-inventor... of DNA....
Jesus Christ
VPutinsSearchHistory ยท 1207 points ยท Posted at 11:27:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you. This is so bad it's almost title gore
Ettersburgcutoff ยท 496 points ยท Posted at 15:28:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What do you expect from Russian bots posting in a Russian sub? This is an extension of the donald. Just like uncensorednews and conspiracy.
[deleted] ยท 217 points ยท Posted at 15:37:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And cringe anarchy
ScipioLongstocking ยท 126 points ยท Posted at 16:40:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And kotakuinaction and tumblrinaction
Zachartier ยท 92 points ยท Posted at 16:52:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think that's the worst part of all of this. All the places where dissenting ideas from the norm could be discussed have been taken over by extremists. Now it's either get with the program or get on the downvote/ban train.
formershitpeasant ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 19:03:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Someone in cringeanarchy recently told me that leftist deals cannot exist with censorship and right-wing subs are better because they don't censor. I just got banned from t_d for having a different opinion (of their ability to think critically). Even without bans, dumping on dissenters with accusations of being a leftist faggot (another thing I've been called there. I'm not a leftist) is pretty effective.
Natchili ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 08:16:33 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just as effective to call everyone Nazi.
We act like there is one good and one bad side.
formershitpeasant ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:23:19 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There is a very noticeable difference between the response to disagreement from the left and right diehards. I get much more name calling and vitriol from people on the right.
Natchili ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:47:06 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, so the side you dislike is also worse. This is 100% objective.
formershitpeasant ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:50:48 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I find both sides distasteful. It's more like the worse side I dislike more.
Your attempt to falsely frame my words is 100% objective.
Inmate002 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:39:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I got banned from the Donald for sayong Twitter as a private company can censor what they want
Reacher-Said-Nothing ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:58:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My favourite part is watching actual full-on Trump supporters get banned for things like "But why didn't his muslim ban extend to Saudi Arabia? Thats where the 9/11 terrorists came from"
MehNahMehNah ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:02:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Just blame teh chans/pol and be done with it. Western Civilization saved.
Reacher-Said-Nothing ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:58:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't forget /r/canada for some reason!
No but seriously, can someone explain to me why American Trump supporters made my country's subreddit their home? Half the comments there are people calling transgendered folks "degenerates" and talking about how refugees are going to rape and murder your children and how abortion is literally murder. And then you click their usernames and they don't even live in Canada. Mods have made it a bannable offense to point out that someone regulars T_D. Didn't used to be that way before Trump came along.
FiIthy_Communist ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:14:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Blame /r/Metacanada. There's some shared moderation going on there.
Cranky_Kong ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 16:49:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and incels
TolstoysMyHomeboy ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 17:05:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and dankmemes and imgoingtohellforthis
Cranky_Kong ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 17:09:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was wondering why dankmemes was getting all Reich-y these last few months...
This confirms it: Dotard's web supporters are all /b/tards that have metastasized off the *chans, and the consequences will never be the same...
TreesnCats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:07:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
and writingprompts and marijuanaenthusiasts
kylenigga ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:53 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My fav sub. No bots in politics.....
Fecal_Armageddon ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 19:32:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What's it like thinking that everything that happens on this site that doesn't exactly fit your narrative is a Russian bot attempt to overthrow America? I feel like it would be exhausting.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 00:33:40 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've been a Redditor for 11 years on a few accounts. When I first signed up, Reddit was brand new, it didn't even have subreddits.
I have watched this site get infiltrated over the past year or two and it hasn't even been subtle. This isn't about dissenting opinions or disagreements, it's about a very, very obvious angle that has taken over a number of subreddits.
kylenigga ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:58:26 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yea, politics was the worst. Fucking corporoccrats
Ettersburgcutoff ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 20:46:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's kind of been proven though. Also, I have been a redditor for...I don't know...since the days of the demise of Digg, so about 10 years. It's a strange place now. The discourse is not as enlightening as it used to be. I'm jot saying it's all because of the Russian infiltration,but I'd bet that's part of the root cause.
ihavetenfingers ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:34:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's been infiltrated by most entities, it's something known as astroturfing, but you should know that with 10 years of karma experience.
For some reason you seem to know that this sub specifically is done by your orange muppet and those darn red russian commies however, now about that kind of proof?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:34:29 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OG Redditors unite. I almost wish I'd kept my original account. It was really funny watching people check my "Redditor since" date.
Sultan_of_Sass ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:16:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
>
urbanfirestrike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:48:00 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
brainmoney ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're coming to take our precious bodily fluids!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:35 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
+1 for Strangelove reference
bottomlines ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:18 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think Reddit admins need to take a huge share of the blame. I'm a keen TD poster. But I've been here for many years (and two accounts before this time). Not a Russian bot!
Subreddits like news, worldnews and politics used to be fairly balanced and you could engage in discussion. They were liberal leaning of course due to demographics of Reddit, but still fairly balanced and fair. But since the 2016 election started, those places went CRAZY. It was pro-Bernie 24/7, and attacking Hillary and Trump. They had no problem discussing her many scandals. And the second Bernie dropped out, it was shoving Hillary down our throats about how amazing she is. The change was just way too sudden and pervasive to be genuine.
I don't know if you were here on 9/11 last year when Hillary collapsed. The politics subreddit was... weird. It was almost as if the clock had taken us back to 2014. People were civil and nice in the comments. Anti-Hillary and anti-Trump articles were upvoted. There was a brief window - an oasis, where the activism stopped. I later read an interview with David Brock where he described how Correct The Record went dark. They were were waiting for their talking points. I can't prove that CTR was manipulating Reddit, but it's extremely coincidental.
And that's not including all of the other non-political subs such as TwoX, or Offmychest, which have gone off the deep end in liberal activism.
Or that those sub moderators now work very hard to control the narrative - for example deleting threads about Pulse as soon as the guy turned out to be ISIS. They won't take right wing news sources but happily take HuffPo and Salon.
And what about the 60+ anti-Trump subreddits which regularly brigade their way to the front page? 12,000 upvotes and 3 comments in a brand new sub with 500 subscribers? Hmm. We have one subreddit.
Or the suppression of the subscriber and upvote numbers in TD itself? Our removal from the front page and appearing in /all.
It isn't Russians who fucked up this site. It was Reddit admins and their activism.
HugeMongo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:52:38 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://38.media.tumblr.com/c26b20d3523d58572c00a59fabfc6650/tumblr_mtzmeqC16Z1qcga5ro1_500.gif
bottomlines ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:56:36 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you!
icecreampie3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:21:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not doubting you I'd just like to see the proof for myself rather than taking someone's word.
cj_would_lovethis ยท 83 points ยท Posted at 16:52:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What are you basing this on?
You haven't been to this sub before, have you? Do have a look around, see some top posts of all time. "any sub with uncensored in the title is an alt right sub" is a naive and rather lazy way of judging it and is not a sign of intelligent behaviour.
wizzlepants ยท 76 points ยท Posted at 17:29:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tbh the sub isn't doing itself any favors using the same naming scheme as alt right subs
StaticBeat ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 18:15:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That was my first thought as well, "uncensored" on Reddit is very commonly an alt right dog whistle for something radical and usually widely unaccepted on reddit like "proof the moon landing is fake."
Killersavage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
More like pushing stereotypes about some minority group or religion.
r0bb6 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:28:47 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think this sub predates when that really became a thing, but I'm not really sure. This is the first I've heard of anything to do with Russian ties. That being said I hardly ever browse this sub.
kylenigga ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:59:02 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Better than youtube
ebilgenius ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 17:32:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL having an underscore makes you Alt-Right now.
KonohaPimp ยท 77 points ยท Posted at 17:38:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I believe he's referring to the "uncensored" part. A lot of the "uncensored" subs lean alt right.
e_marou ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 17:49:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's because most on the left can't handle uncensored. In such a place people will be openly racist and jerks in some instances and there will be triggered people fainting onto couches all over the place.
I wish this wasn't true, but it is.
cloudchaser_ ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 18:36:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I can handle uncensored. I had to unsub from /r/UncensoredNews because it became a huge pile of shit, filled to the brim with propaganda. I wish there was a real uncensored news subreddit with unbiased content, but unfortunately, they're all politicized.
Gryphon59 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:58:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/neutralnews isn't too terrible, though tends to be behind on content due to trying to find less biased sources or at least point out and negate spin.
e_marou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I feel this is an artifact of my original statement. Every uncensored place becomes right wing, because only right wing opinions are censored in regular spaces. I've seen this pattern repeat a thousand times over my last 20+ years on the internet.
It was true as far back as Usenet groups.
Auctoritate ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 19:00:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, UncensoredNews became right wing because the mods are literal Nazis, proud white supremacists, and they'll ban anyone who talks about that.
e_marou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:37:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Totally true that, specifically talking about there I'd agree.
Anarchymeansihateyou ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:28:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thats because the right -wing opinions you're talking about are bullshit like "Nazi's are good people" and "Shillary and ((($oros))) are using russia as a distraction from them eating babies and blowing up the sun!"
I guess you're right If you mean right wing places and up being a cesspit of lies and stupidity due to having no standards or integrity
KonohaPimp ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 17:52:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's more like people use "uncensored" as the reason to be those ways when that's not what the sub is aiming for.
Lolor-arros ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:07:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, it's unfortunately because /r/UncensoredNews is an enormous pile of racist, paranoid shit.
I wish this wasn't true, but it is.
formershitpeasant ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:05:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's because alt-right subs make due with massive downvoting and shitting on dissenters with accusations of being a "lefty faggot."
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:27:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is quite unfortunate, considering the long legacy of the radical left being victimized by censorship dating back to the gilded age, and the work of modern leftists such as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins & the BASED ACLU to ensure a space for the exchange of ideas.
Lolor-arros ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:06:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, being similar to /r/UncensoredNews makes you alt-right.
cj_would_lovethis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:51:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The word uncensored isn't inherently left or right leaning. The sub was named so to contrast it from the default todayilearned which notoriously censors contents.
I have been saying repeatedly, this sub was not created to appease left wingers or right wingers or any particular class for that matter. All content is welcome here and mod logs are public.
wizzlepants ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:05:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not trying to imply that it is, I hope you didn't get that from my message; moreso that the verbiage you guys used has been co-oped by the alt right subreddits, so this makes it appear you're part of their "club" so to speak.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:59 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know people are being harsh, but let me explain why this is fishy.
What about this TIL makes it "uncensored"? It's been on TIL before, it's completely innocuous. There's nothing salacious or controversial about it, so why is it here? What about this post is such that it needed to be "uncensored"?
Remember, uncensorednews didn't start off as a T_D offshoot either. It got overrun as time went. If you honestly, genuinely are not trying to make this an alt-right haven then you're gonna need to keep your eyes on the ball because that "uncensored" is pretty much a lightning rod for those types to prey upon.
Ettersburgcutoff ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:19:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Same mods as uncensorednews?
cj_would_lovethis ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:25:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, not a single past or present common mod.
Can you seriously not look that up yourself? If only you put a little effort into your comments as opposed to assuming the worst...
Ettersburgcutoff ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 18:54:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems to be a trend in here, boys.
While we're at it, let's just create a new platform called uncensoredreddit. Save ya the trouble of creating an "uncensored" sub for every category.
jpgray ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bruh you're running a sub that's populated almost entirely by racist alt-right trolls. Read the comments in this thread for fucks sake lmao. Take your holier-than-thou bullshit somewhere else ๐
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:31:18 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I admit I immediately looked at the "uncensored" in the sub name and went "wow what a coincidence this is about Russia."
JohannTheViking ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:43:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, that last sentence isn't grammatically correct, you must be a hired bot from a foreign government. Boy am I smart, haha gotta go watch late night to see what drumpf is up to xddddd
HugeMongo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:45:37 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did the bots edited the source too?
Thracius_Augustus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:53:29 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DAE anything good about Russia = Russian bots
Ettersburgcutoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:57 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pushing a particular narrative is certainly happening. Both political sides are guilty of this. Listening to Sam Harris, something I recommend to everyone, really helps you emphasize with both sides. That being said, and I quote, "trump is the wrong answer to the right question." The Russian collusion is blatant and it's bleeding into social media whether you see it, experience it, or deny it.
Thracius_Augustus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:37:00 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you off your meds?
Ettersburgcutoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:44:33 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's a lame attack, try harder. I'm not sure what you find abrasive about my comments but rather than making an attempt to belittle me, you should try to have logical discourse.
Thracius_Augustus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:36:55 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Logical discourse is impossible with someone who so strongly believes "collusion is blatant" (which is false) and Sam Harris is a smart guy. If you see Russian agents everywhere, you might be paranoid.
Claidheamh_Solas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:34:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Almost?
ChemicalCalypso ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:18:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of this copypasta
Yuri909 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:30 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No it's not?
GoSwing ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 12:24:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How did we even reproduce before he came along
[deleted] ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 14:42:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ever heard of the stork.
dukemetoo ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:22:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
rare picture of the stork mid delivery.
TheWingus ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 14:35:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So we were just using RNA for billions of years.....
farefar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:52:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh did someone create the terminology and explanation for rna that long ago.
sfw_forreals ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 14:54:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ wasn't a co-inventor either. That dude just rode the coat-tails of his dad until he finally moved out of that cave.
๐๏ธ tilbot2 ยท 180 points ยท Posted at 12:33:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a Swedish bot, he does not speak English natively, ja?
captainkaleb ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 14:26:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bra bot.
southern_boy ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 14:50:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
subscribe
AFinelyStuffedShirt ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:02:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
/r/skivvies
1cm4321 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 16:31:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if anyone has told you yet, but the correct word would have be co-discoverer.
He found DNA, rather than created it. Therefore discovered DNA and did not invent it.
AbeLincolnwasblack ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:24:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Frederick Meischer first discovered DNA in the 19th century. Watson and his partner Crick merely proved the double helical structure of DNA
NotManicJustHappy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:37:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
1cm4321 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:54:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL. Discoverer is still applicable though.
AbeLincolnwasblack ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:03:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They discovered the structure, but not the thing itself. Even still, back then most scientists thought that DNA was too simple to carry genetic information, most thought that it was proteins, not DNA, that carried genetic information.
kylenigga ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:29 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Gay af
D_Man10579 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:23:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Gรธรธd bรธt
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:40:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We don't use รธ
D_Man10579 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:58:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My bรฅd?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:02:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Vรคry bรคd
MuadLib ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:00:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A mรธรธse once bit my sister
Little_Creek ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Swedish doesn't use those. You're thinking of Danish
Mostly_Void_ ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:13:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He created Dna, thanks Mr Watson
skygazer5 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:19:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Jesus Christ its Jesus Christ."
AbeLincolnwasblack ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:22:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also, not quite as perturbing, Watson did not discover DNA, he nearly discovered the double helical structure with his partner Crick (by analyzing an X_ray crystallography photo taken by Rosalind Franklin). DNA was first isolated in the 18th century by Frederick Meischer
Slathbog ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:58:56 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Franklin had already suggested the structure before Watson and Crick, who pretty unashamedly stole her work.
tryplot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:39 on November 23, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
even more, Crick said he regretted it, and said he was sorry for doing it before he died. Watson is still alive and the closest to being sorry about it was him essentially saying "she got what she deserved."
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:33:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ was the inventor of DNA.
freenarative ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:44:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If God created man... And Jesus Christ is God... Then yes, the co-creator of DNA is... Jesus the Christ of Bethlehem.
Or evolution. Whatever's your poison.
farefar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:53:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then why does Jesus pray to god.
MasterbeaterPi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:38:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I co-invented pi and all I got was this shitty username.
ATXBeermaker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:45:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, yeah, technically Jesus invented DNA.
Bears_Bearing_Arms ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:50:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus Christ = God = Holy Spirit
God created all life
That would make Jesus the co-inventor of DNA.
Checkmate Atheists
Love_Bulletz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:11:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also it's debatable whether or not he should be credited for discovering it given the circumstances.
streetlightcatz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:57:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Quite literally, according to some books.
Rocklandband ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's Jason Bourne.
Rhaifa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess some people don't know the difference between discovering and inventing...
But all hail our creators; Watson and Crick!
CycIojesus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
bro he invented dna. without him our cells couldn't reproduce.
firefightersquirrel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:43:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's confirmed he's a god. That's why he won the Nobel prize.
fuzzyfuzz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Took him years to perfect the double helix.
IAmSecretlyPizza ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like this is just a really fancy name for a parent...
zoobatula ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Discoverer...... DNA discoverer.
losh11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:58:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
RIP God.
twodogsfighting ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:36 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I invented the toe nail.
LarsLack ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:02:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I came here to make this comment.
Ex3__Benshermen ยท 472 points ยท Posted at 12:07:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
May I ask why this needs to be in Uncensored? I haven't read all the rules yet but this sounds like it would fit well in the regular sub
Pithong ยท 330 points ยท Posted at 15:32:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pro Russian news to the front. Alt right talking points.
Jfmsuboi ยท 141 points ยท Posted at 16:56:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A single Russians act of kindness isn't really pro Russian propaganda.
[deleted] ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 17:02:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't hurt.
Crilde ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 18:29:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. If it isn't anti Russian, it's propaganda. /s
[deleted] ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 19:08:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In a sub that's absolutely stuffed with pro-Russian stories, it holds its own. Also the money was donated because he's racist, so that fits with the ongoing agenda.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:39:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Also, uncensored need definitely is and it makes you wonder if they think, "uncensored" is a go to buzzword.
lokilokigram ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 17:35:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe not alone, but combined with a flood of similarly innocuous posts across /r/all and you've got something like propaganda.
Jfmsuboi ยท 44 points ยท Posted at 18:11:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, we can't humanise the eastern hordes
lokilokigram ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 18:20:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seriously, those savages really think that giving an eminent scientist millions of dollars and rescuing them from poverty is civilized behavior? They had every opportunity to dedicate a golf trophy to him instead, but they blew it.
morpheousmarty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:01 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They're very human. Almost too human.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:41:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. We should stop all posts of Russian people doing good things. Can't possibly spread the propaganda that Russians are people and that some of them are good, just like all other people.
kylenigga ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:00:46 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you are the fake mother fuckers
_pony_slaystation_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:14:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe not but it'll get the idiots deep down in the comments in a shouting match. It's the same when there's a black person in a gif or something.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:27 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not, but the fact that there's nothing about this that needs to be "uncensored" is the issue. Like, this is a great story, it should be on regular TIL (and I believe it has been). The fact that it's not only on this sub, but it's the first time I've ever seen this sub on the front page? Now it's peculiar.
EightyObselete ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 18:27:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL anything even related to Russian is from the alt right.
This isn't even pro-Russia, but it would still wouldn't make it to the front page of the original TIL because we need to keep the "bad Russia" narrative alive.
It's almost as if the propaganda that /r/politics feeds you have triggered you to think alt right the moment Russia's in the title. This post has nothing to do with the alt right, and isn't even a good talking point for the alt right.
Pithong ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:32:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OK we agree politics and this post are propaganda. Or are you arguing politics is propaganda but there's no pro Russian or alt right propaganda?
i_706_i ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:14:03 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They said none of that, they said this post isn't propaganda.
You're quite good at sounding like you're responding to what someone is saying but actually just arguing your own position without responding at all, you should be a politician
Pithong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:03 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes they did, they said r/politics was propaganda. It's a style of arguing where you take what you've been accused of and simply reflect it back and accuse your accuser of the same thing. Instead of attacking the projection itself, just take it as fact. The fact they had to find proof of me being subject to propaganda instead of just stating their plausible point shows they wanted to retaliate, to not only state their point but to turn it around, redirect the accusations back. Sure, I'm being propagandized by r/politics, defuse their projection as it's irrelevant anyway.
You can't say an ant is part of a colony until you see it in the midst of the colony. Those trying to force me to "prove" this is propaganda know it's not possible. Plausible deniability reigns supreme in our manipulative world, you will never find truth if you only look at the small, the individual contributions.
EightyObselete ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:46:45 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How nice would it be if you actually replied to me instead of someone else.
This is what you claimed.
/u/i_706_i is right, I never said any of that.
There is Russian/alt right propaganda that exists and I'm sure you could find it on Reddit.
As I said before in reply that you didn't respond to, quoted below.
I've established from the beginning that there is in fact alt right propaganda so you attempted to strawman here so it's pretty funny to see you take a jab at the rhetoric below.
Good attempt of trying to analyze rhetoric and logical fallacies, but considering you tried to put words in my mouth with a strawman with what I quoted above, try using your own advice.
First of all, I'm not even sure at this point what you accused me off. This post is not "alt right propaganda" so there is no reflecting at and I've already explained why this post is not propaganda. I'll quote it again for you.
What I said previously to support the argument that this post isn't propaganda:
"This is some piss poor propaganda if you want to classify it as that. This isn't praising Russia, this isn't praising the Russian government, this isn't praising Putin. It's a private Russian citizen."
What would constitute as propaganda is more or less something that contains misleading attributes and can be classified, but not limited to, the catergories above. An example would be something like Putin's approval rating administered by a RT and a link to RT's website. Yeah, that's propaganda. If you can't see how something like that, and this post are different (which you clearly can't), you can't recognize propaganda too well.
I supported my argument, I didn't do any deflection so I'll go ahead and ask you to directly quote me where my deflection was. I also supported this argument by contrasting it to your safe space over in /r/politics where there is actual propaganda.
Quote me where I'm projecting because you can't even refute why /r/politics isn't propaganda, just claim that I'm deflecting.
Because it's completely moronic to think this is a propaganda post and you know it because you admit it's not possible. Again, I made it very clear what a propaganda post would look like. Tell me what criteria this posts fit. Don't like my criteria, make your own and tell me how they fit in.
It would look something like "has Russia in the title, isn't attacking Russia or Trump" PROPAGANDA.
I do hope you reply to me this time instead of replying to someone who didn't even start the conversation with you. I'm betting you won't.
EightyObselete ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:38:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How is this propaganda? Again, you literally saw the word Russia and immediately associated it with an alt right talking point.
That's exactly what I'm saying. This is some piss poor propaganda if you want to classify it as that. This isn't praising Russia, this isn't praising the Russian government, this isn't praising Putin. It's a private Russian citizen.
It's in this sub because anything that has Russia in the title and isn't related to Trump will get downvoted.
On that note, no clue why you would acknowledge /r/politics is a propaganda subreddit but actually contribute to that mess.
Pithong ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:41:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thought both sides were the same, but only the left has propaganda and the right has none? Interesting. Also, have you browsed this sub or any of the other "uncensored" subs? What do you see?
EightyObselete ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:47:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you want to actually refute the points I made or are you just going to repeat yourself?
Some good ol' whataboutism there. Excuse me for using your favorite liberal buzzword.
Yes, uncensored_(insert popular sub here) are usually filled with right leaning posts and are often racist propaganda subreddits, which is why I don't contribute to those subreddits because they push false narratives and silence dissenters. Unfortunately you can't say the same for /r/politics.
jarinatorman ยท 95 points ยท Posted at 16:27:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The reason he had to sell off his medal is he had some... unpopular scientific opinions about race. Something along the lines of "realistically the idea that all races are equally intelligent doesnt hold up to scrutiny and is a by product of our attempt at making everyone feel good."
ramonycajones ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 16:52:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Scientific opinion" is a very generous qualifier for an old dude spouting off about race based on nothing.
RedheadAgatha ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:28:23 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure there's plenty to base on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809
and such.
jarinatorman ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 16:56:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That "old dude" was one of the scientests who discovered dna and is probably more qualified than either of us to say whether his statement is true or not lol.
Aubenabee ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 18:49:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You've got to be kidding. Seriously, you absolutely have to be a troll. First of all, he didn't "discover DNA" ... he (along with Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and others) elucidated its double helical structure. Second, just because he was a gifted structural biologist doesn't mean he knows anything at all about the biological, cultural, or social underpinnings of race.
ramonycajones ยท 114 points ยท Posted at 16:59:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
His finding was in structural biology. That doesn't make him an expert in sociology or population genetics or whatever. They're different fields. Source: I'm a biologist. I know a lot about what I work on, and little about shit I don't work on, like everyone else.
trigger_the_nazis ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 18:52:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
*stole the DNA discovery. His partner fully admits that their lab student, a black women, helped them prove it and they screwed her over.
dirice87 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:41 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then let him show his work? Give me a replicatable double blind study and I'm all in
XkF21WNJ ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 20:19:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was a bit more specific than that.
There's a fine line between noting genetics and intelligence aren't independent, and racism, and he went way past it.
boutros_gadfly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:16:39 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ha! That's Prince Phillip level.
e_marou ยท 131 points ยท Posted at 12:33:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson said something to the effect of believing evolution stops at the neck being crazy. eg. Not all human races are the same genetically or functionally.
He was excommunicated for this, because the secular creationists say not-god made evolution stop at the neck, and all brains are equal, full stop. Anything other than that, and it's "shut it down" time.
[deleted] ยท 213 points ยท Posted at 13:01:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
redsectoreh ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 14:39:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
โHe says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours โ whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level". He writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"
No source on โwhereas testing [black peopleโs intelligence] shows they are not [as smart as white people.โ
humpyXhumpy ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 15:44:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
All it needed was a "I'm not racist, but"
narok_kurai ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:10:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Look I'm not going to try and say that everyone is exactly the same and we can all sing around the campfire, but the nuances of human society and personality are complex as shit. The human genome is enormous and filled with deep inter-dependencies which functionally encrypts most of the knowledge we can derive from it. Basically, unless a geneticist knows exactly which gene sequence they're looking for, their guess is as good as yours for genes coding for intelligence, or emotional stability, or any number of things which "race realists" claim are inferior in people of color.
Now on top of all those genetics which we may or may not understand, slap on a heaping helping of environmental factors ranging from the culture and history of the region down to the nutritional value of each individual's meal. As a subset of those, you also have to consider the past several centuries of racial science (and especially pseudoscience) which influence how you view people of color, how they view themselves, and in turn how those views change the behavior of society.
Part of making a successful scientific theory is showing how your theory makes better predictions and gives stronger explanations than all others, and I just don't think racial determinism can claim that. For virtually every claim that race realism makes, an adequate or even better explanation can be found in environmental factors. Even the tests and parameters we use to measure racial differences can be flawed.
Until someone can actually isolate the genetic core of "whiteness" or "blackness" and make consistent, accurate predictions using it, I just can't take racial determinism too seriously.
Beatles-are-best ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:47:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's kind of dumb today as well considering geneticists say race is a social construct (but ethnicity IS evident in DNA). As in, the idea that all white people are the same and all black people are the same is literally a surface level way to label people and isn't backed up by actually evidence. Hence why africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world, but a lot of people just call people from there "black" as one big homogenous thing (ignoring the few white people there of course). Race obviously does exist, as a social concept, and laws and policies and opinions and bigotry and all sorts are based on these incorrect labels. We just need better education standards in the hard sciences to hopefully sort this mess out.
[deleted] ยท 95 points ยท Posted at 14:11:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
YankeeFlash ยท 112 points ยท Posted at 15:33:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 16:16:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 16:37:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The man is a molecular biologist, why is he commenting on black culture?
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 16:40:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 16:43:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No. But when someone with authority in a field makes an ignorant comment about something unrelated to their field it's only fair fucks that they be scrutinized.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:45:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:47:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't realize what you did there do you? Are you talking about black culture in general, or only black culture in a specific country? Because it does make a difference.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:51:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 16:54:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You really expect me to believe that black culture in the US is the same as it is in Germany? The UK? Egypt?
Cultures are defined by environment more than race, so fuck off with that shit.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:02:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:06:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Still not the same, more differences than similarities. Also, American culture is more similar to every other culture in the world, so you got that reversed.
The next part of your comment contradicts this part.
How can something be heavily influenced by something but only be slightly changed by it? Stay consistant please.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:17:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:23:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're saying a lot without saying anything, and I feel thats mostly because we got off topic. I asked you a question, when you say black culture do you mean in general around the world, or do you mean specifically in the US? If you mean around the world, would you care to specify what defines that culture? If you mean the US, would you like to explain why you're only using this one specific country?
Ticklephoria ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:44:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And what exactly is so uniquely ignorant about Black culture in the US vs. any other culture? Or are you barely hiding your racism?
slapshotsd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:06:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ignorance is independent of culture, and Iโd argue itโs much more universal than intelligence. Case in point: youโre presumably Asian, and canโt see the fault with Watson singling out black individuals as more ignorant or incompetent than the average employee of different ethnicity. Most every rando employee is garbage. People generally suck.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
slapshotsd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:16:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think if he had approached his comment the way you just did yours, it couldโve been interpreted much more flatteringly than it had been. He insinuated a kind of superiority that makes most people very uncomfortable, as you can see.
Murgie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:46:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is a moot point, folks. He wasn't talking about culture to begin with, he was explicitly referring to genetics.
But, to answer your question, there's a clear difference between simply talking about something, and stating something authoritatively.
He chose to do the latter, in spite of the fact that the field still knows exceptionally little about determining intelligence from a purely genetic standpoint, not to mention his own apparent shortcomings in regards to sociology.
I mean, really. Let's not pretend he doesn't realize he's relying anecdotes when he makes these claims. If he actually knew the claims he's made as matters of scientific fact, then he would simply demonstrate their factuality in a paper on the matter.
[deleted] ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 16:03:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Umm did you click the link?
Seems pretty racist.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PancakeParty98 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 16:38:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which is racist?
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:40:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 16:48:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So black culture is a culture of ignorance?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:51:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:55:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Same could be said of other cultures as well. So why are you and Watson focused on black culture specifically?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:06:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:08:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're trying to stay on topic but you're also trying to defend a molecular biologist saying black people aren't as smart as other races by saying he meant black culture isn't as smart as other races/cultures?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:19:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:24:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Then what the fuck are you saying?! Is he wrong or is he right? If he's right, why?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:30:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:34:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You also said he stated a genetic fact, then changed it to a cultural fact, and now you're saying he was wrong on all accounts. How does one do this?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:58:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your original comment claiming he made a statement of genetic fact;
Are you going to defend this? Or are you going to focus on the part that you can get away with by saying you never said it was cultural fact?
I'll give it to you that you never said it, but why are you arguing for Watson by saying he meant something other than what he said? He's still alive, and has had plenty of chances to defend himself, so why does he need you to do it for him? Especially since you don't even agree with him.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
KonohaPimp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:23:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, cool. No one was disputing that people are hard wired differently. All that was being said was that Watson's remark on race and intelligence was based on his opinion. You then came in and said he was speaking scientifically (meaning biologically since that's his field of study) and that he was actually probably speaking on culture rather than biology (which contradicts him speaking scientifically).
I mean good on you for saying you were wrong, but geez, it took you too long to see you were contradicting yourself.
PancakeParty98 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:09:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems like ur narcissistically putting down any culture different from your own in an attempt to make yourself feel superior for your opinions.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:23:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PancakeParty98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok man sure.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:28:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PancakeParty98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Seems like you're being willfully ignorant of the many Kardashian fans that are smart, thoughtful people. Seems like you're jumping through hoops to say "I don't like these people all their supporters are less intelligent than I, a mildly racist Reddit user."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:56:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
PancakeParty98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:29:14 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because earlier you seemed to imply that Watson was onto something with the "blacks are dumber." Also you're writing style screams r/iamverysmart , which lends itself to racism, sexism, etc
phweefwee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:38:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You've just defined culture. There's nothing exceptionally ignorance-loving about black culture that doesn't exist in other cultures too.
We could say the same thing about White Southern Baptists who deny things like evolution. Ignorance and the love of it is common.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:47:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
phweefwee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:54:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain where you got this from what I wrote? I'm confused.
What about a whole culture entails that they are against ignorance?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
phweefwee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, I'm not saying that all cultures necessarily have ignorance. I am saying that it is true that all cultures have ignorance and ignorance-loving people too. There is no special sense in black culture that ognorance is good. I am saying that if you place ignorance as some necessary condition for black culture, then tou may as well do it for all cultures.
Yes, a culture against ignorance is ignorant. You can't know everything. The desire to do so doesn't make it so.
Froggerto ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:27:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But he said their brains are not equal...?
Which has nothing to do with being ignorant.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:07:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Froggerto ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:24:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok sure whatever, but you can't say that and then immediately say "oh I'm not saying that. I'm just talking about their culture" because you had literally just said their brains are not equal.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:34:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Froggerto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:36:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was speaking to "you" generally.
joshTheGoods ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 16:49:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, he definitely said racist shit and it wasn't at all "scientific." He asserted that the evidence states that Africans aren't as smart as the western nations making policy on their behalf. It's nuts! Africa is made up of so many different genetic populations that it just doesn't make sense from a geneticists point of view to be talking about Africa as if it's one isolated population that evolved divergently from the rest of humanity. It's ludicrous on its face, and there's a reason his repeated comments on the topic despite ample time to look at the science got him black balled. There are PLENTY of people doing research on racial topics (despite what /r/whiterights would have you believe) and they DO NOT get black balled just for looking at the topic. Watson is NOT an expert in the nature vs nurture debate, he took a picture of an important molecule.
You know what else Watson said? That he doesn't hire fat people. Is he also making a scientific argument that fat people are genetically inferior for the work place?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joshTheGoods ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:19:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, well, you said in the comment I replied to that:
How do you reconcile these two statements?
I don't think I need to even comment on your defense of Watson's fat people hate. Re-read what you wrote, and if you still would like a critique, let me know.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:29:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joshTheGoods ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:49:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm ok with making a distinction between racism out of ignorance and malicious racism. Fair enough. But, look at the rest of this thread and recognize that when a Nobel Prize winning scientist stands up and gives a speech, people assume that the person has done the necessary work to back their claims up. You fell victim to this assumption yourself when you claimed he was stating a "genetic fact."
When it turns out that a published scientist who should know better was misstating the data, I think it's quite fair to wonder what drove someone to say obviously stereotypically controversial crap (black people and fat people have more sex drive, black people aren't as smart as white people, etc, etc) without checking their damn work first. In short, if this was "accidental racism" then it was NEGLIGENTLY accidental racism. Using his own line of thinking... why would you hire and promote a person that has demonstrated laziness through their actions? He's the intellectual version of how he sees fat people, and he deserved every bit of ostracization he got.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:58:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joshTheGoods ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:12:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is as close as we're going to get to a happy medium, but I just want to poke at the irony statement a bit to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. I can see how someone might argue that it's ironic that I'd say Watson deserved ostracization while simultaneously arguing that fat people didn't deserve the ostracization Watson was subjecting them to. I think that someone would be wrong, and I'll happily argue the point, but I don't want to waste either of our time unless that's what you were driving at with your irony comment ;).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:23:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joshTheGoods ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:41 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know why I let myself continually be surprised by people on the internet. I guess I'm just a hopeful person.
I'm arguing that when a scientist makes bold assertions without any evidence to back up their claims, that they deserve to lose credibility. You'd agree with me that Kary Mullis isn't credible on climate change, right? You're going to be extra skeptical of claims Mullis makes from here on out, even if they have to do with PCR, right?
If Watson had just argued that POMC is really interesting particularly to the question of the relationship between melanin and leptin, then no one would have had a problem. He didn't do that though, he went out and made conclusions based on barely any research and research that didn't actually back up his goofy claims. Find me some research that backs these claims up:
... and on and on and on. Watson asserted that all of that crap is true in the talk he gave. He did so with no evidence, and he received the proper response from the scientific community. Make big claims, bring big evidence ... failure to do so will lead to loss of credibility.
My claim is that Watson didn't make his case. There's nothing ironic about my thinking he should pay the consequences for that. If you can show me the data backing up fat people lacking ambition based on this specific genetic reasoning (POMC related), then I'll admit that I was wrong, but I'll always maintain that the proper position in the face of lack of evidence is lack of belief and a disdain for those claiming they already know the answer.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:20:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
joshTheGoods ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely was confused. Sorry about that, I took the rare step of taking away my own upvote ;D.
bcrabill ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 16:23:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's a fact that we're all different genetically. It's not a fact that intelligence depends upon race. What evidence did he provide to prove that?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People are always harder on any theory that talks of differences. It wasn't bad science anymore than theorizing it could be cultural.
Since intelligence is high heritable and intelligence has a profound impact on prosperity it would be impossible to be separated over any given period and not have differences. That along with IQ studies, biological differences measured, & prosperity differences that range across countries and tend to correlate with racial makeup, gives plenty of evidence for him to take his stance.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 64 points ยท Posted at 14:26:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. How convenient is it to make a statement where you dress it up with mentions of "facts" and "all the research we've done has found" only for it be deemed an opinion when it blows up in your face.
There's a reason he himself has said alllllll that shit he said was wrong and the "the worst decision of my life".
A person is going to have their life affected by what they think... it'll affect how you treat others, how you work with others, what your work is, how you approach work, etc. etc.
There's a reason a smart man like this goes broke--- for being an idiot.
Datjagoff ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 14:33:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Sharing it was the worst decision of his life. You people love to misquote.
[deleted] ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 14:32:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 14:47:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now who said that?
If I'm the Administrator of a scientific role and I'm on record saying African's aren't smarter than White men, please....... inform me on the proper road ahead. The University should just keep paying this person money to keep spewing stupidity, correct?
He also mentions "researching" it as if some University or company sanctioned and funded his Blacks Are Dumber bullshit.
That's what I mean when I say you lose when you're an idiot.
[deleted] ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 14:53:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 15:47:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I mean on one hand you are right about public perception and science. However Watson does not get a pass here at least with his comments on black people. It was blatantly racist and bad science. He more or less said that those in the working world can tell that black people are noticeably less intelligent than others. With a later amended statement that there could be some capable black people here and there.
That implies that everything else made equal, black people are still noticeably less mentally capable than others and that the capable ones are genetic outliers, which is not true.
The thing about how the public receives information, isn't just that people will be offended, but when you don't fully explain your position like Watson, you have people taking your words out of context and using it as credence just as well as vilification, I mean just look at all the blatant racist in this thread.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:22:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:36:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
doubt it, because the context of the quote is the future prospect of Africa, and he uses that anecdote to support his claim that African intelligence is lower and therefore their social policies need to fit their intelligence.
Honestly it seems like Watson likes saying controversial shit for the sake of it and stretches what he initially means to say but thats just a guess.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:00:14 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
shortgethrownaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:06 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Really?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:40 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
shortgethrownaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:36:07 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you take the same gnostic stance when approaching the Lord God? 'If we knew what the Lord God is, then we wouldn't be using faith to meditate discernment.'
General intelligence is a synthesis of pattern recognition and temporal reasoning.
Those who are genetically incapable of waiting for greater expected outcomes and are unable to discern non-linear topologies have low intelligence.
Low IQ tribes persist and thrive in complex environments through communicating telepathically with their 'ancestors'. If you recognize this non-locality as intelligence while being atheistic you are a hypocrite.
Is not knowing that you are a hypocrite a form of intelligence/strength? Is Peace, War? Is freedom, slavery? How could these be measured? This so pedantic. Go meditate, just sit!
IQ is correlated with expected life outcomes. Height is correlated with expected life outcomes. No one argues, yeah but how do we really measure height? Of course this is a great question, but getting lost on scale is not a burden to low IQ individuals. Everyone agrees, that tall people 'know' better.
The army has figured that those with an 85 IQ and below may not be net productive institutionally. And presidents are taller than generals are taller than admirals are taller colonels are taller than sergeants are taller... But how do we measure leadership? If we knew, we wouldn't need 'meritocracy' to measure it.
How can we possibly know Gaussian distributions?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:24:39 on October 6, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
shortgethrownaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:20 on October 7, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Defining Truth as subjective means there cannot be such a thing as Truth, this is the trap of ideological moral relativism.
AI is a misnomer as code cannot be conscious.
Knowing, awareness, understanding, having knowledge carnally is what science is and I think you worship at the alter of orientalist dualism/idolatry, ironically.
Don't east asians outscore even Ashkenazim on intelligence tests? If the assertion that GI is merely a hammer barring expository materialism as this is what would make it an useful tool to copy when you are begging for difference of regional heuristics to be unquantifiable appears contradictory, but such dissonance is the property of moral relativism, service to self material hierarchicalism and social darwinism.
huyuh ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:00:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because legitimately meritocratic (that is, job-related) job selection practices will routinely trigger prima facie violations of the disparate impact rule, employers who adopt such practices run the risk of being required to justify themโa costly and difficult task that encourages undesirable, self-protective behaviors and may result in unwarranted liability. [...] Moreover, blacks lag behind whites in actual on-the-job performance, which indicates that employers are not unfairly excluding minorities from the workforce but rather bending over backwards to include them.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1795443
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:08:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
we're not talking about affirmative action and we're not talking about hiring people who aren't qualified. We're talking about genetics and intelligence level.
huyuh ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:20:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If businesses were able to hire based on merit, Black people in the workplace would seem equally intelligent to White people in the workplace, because they would be.
Watson wasn't wrong.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:40:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no you don't get to just slap what ever context you want to people quotes. Watson's quote was in the context was talking about the prospects of the future of Africa and how the difference in intelligence level means social policies need to much different to fit their intelligence level.
This is an absurd assertion, because everything else equal, intelligence isn't noticeably different
huyuh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:44:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was right about that, too. He also mentioned Black people at work being noticeably less intelligent. That is a result of racial discrimination in favour of black people.
http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/rushton_view_race.html
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:57:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah figured you would pull that up.
Here is the short version of the issues with those studies.
The first one is obviously flawed by failing to consider cultural and societal differences from one region to another which can significantly impact how well someone does in an IQ test. Nor is an IQ test of inherent genetic ability.
The second one isn't even culture free, you're taking children from the ages of 9-12, their intelligence would still be affected by up-bringing. Even ignoring that, the test arguably doesn't even test intelligence. If the test is "so easy all children can do it in less than 1 second" then it may as well be a reaction time test, especially if all the scores are under a second.
I don't care if the result of racial discrimination is in or not favor of black people, its not relevant to the discussion.
huyuh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what it is. And reaction time is correlated to intelligence. Reaction time tests aren't culturally biased.
The reaction time benchmark shows racial gaps in raw brain power.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Related to intelligence does not equal intelligence. Reaction time isnโt what determines your ability to understand concepts, it doesnโt determine your ability to progress society, and it doesnโt determine your ability to function within society.
No one doubts that there are differences in physiology between populations of people that have been separated over long periods of time. No one doubts that genetics can affect difference in our brains.
That being said, Intelligence isnโt measured by raw brain power as our knowledge and our society has progressed beyond that of simple brain functions, and the complex ideas we do deal with and that are required to adapt in modern society requires more than just raw brain power to the point where using raw brain power to measure how โsmartโ someone is in this day and age is practically irrelevant.
What Watson was suggesting through his quote and by extension what you are suggesting is that the differences in raw brain power and in raw brain power alone is so significant to the point that we require segregation of one group of people from the rest. That the differences in brain power make it so this group of people will noticeably be unable to function within society that we have built because they physiologically cannot understand how to adapt within it. And do remember this quote of Watson is the topic of discussion.
I will say again what I said before, itโs truly a fucking absurd position to take and also a position that Watson has redacted later in life.
And fuck it, while Iโm at it, you guys who keep pushing this view donโt even understand how to interpret the studies youโre posting. Assuming that all of these studies were perfectly done, you canโt just fucking extrapolate the conclusions to whatever you want. The first study researched something specific, difference in IQ from different regions. Now what are they trying to conclude? Exactly that, that there are IQ differences from region to region. The reasons why are not part of the study and itโs not up to you to draw those conclusions. That is not how science works.
huyuh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:30:51 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You swear a lot to emphasize your egalitarian propaganda. But you don't provide any evidence at all.
Blacks are dysfunctional in every Western nation. They have lower job performance and higher crime rates.
Trillions of dollars spent trying to uplift Blacks to White averages has been wasted.
You decry the use of IQ tests to measure intelligence. You decry the use of culturally unbiased reaction time tests. Blacks also lag behind in education, which is highly correlated to intelligence. Any metric which measures intelligence shows Blacks have less of it. Pick whichever one you want.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:50 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no you're not grasping the concept here.
Also i swore 3 times throughout that entire post, that's a bit strange of a complaint to have is it not?
You have reading comprehension issues, especially apparent if you think this discussion was on anything other than logic. I already provided the evidence for why your logic fails and its on no fault of the studies you can trust me on that.
In fact type me back what you think my main point was and try to equate that with "egalitarian propaganda". I don't need to see you agree with it, just that you understand it, because I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
TheKingofMars_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:00:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That sounds true to me. Black people have lower IQs than the average even when they live in rich countries
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:09:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
adjusted for socioeconomic conditions? which of course includes those of the parents as well? as it affects up bringing? News to me.
Also rich/poor isn't the indicator, its social policies in place that promote academics (regardless of whether its "good"), hence why east asian countries score better.
TheKingofMars_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So money matters except for Asians
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
hahaha how the hell did you get that from my comment?
TheKingofMars_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:12:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
In your comment you say we should adjust for socioeconomic conditions.
And then you say we can ignore economics because Asians beat whites even though they are from poorer nations.
So which is it? Adjust for socioeconomics or ignore economics and only social considerations should be taken?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:50:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socioeconomic
I've never said one was purely economic or purely social. There is no contradiction.
You said :
live in rich countries
I responded asking if any of those studies are adjusted for socioeconomic conditions (within said rich countries).
I added that rich/poor isn't THE indicator, as it ignores the social aspect and used Asia to support that.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:38:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
no, hell no, fucking hell no.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:57:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's where I stopped reading, man.... In a discussion of certainties, you throw the whole book out the window with that.
Good day.
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 15:01:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This, if you set standards of a test on the foundation of western europeans of course they are going to be the average and other groups would do different as a whole.
pink_ego_box ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:10:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Don't start an argument if you are not ready to read what the other say. That just shows your arrogance, your lack of self-criticism and your narrowness of mind.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:12:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:15:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Incorrect.... lol!!!!! Man, it's easy to bait and switch you fools. lolol
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:26:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Revitaligo isn't real I hope you know that.
Jarrz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:18:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
maybe keep reading on a bit longer next time lol
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:12:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're fucking black; we get it. That does not change the facts "fam".
Civil_Barbarian ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:37:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oof
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:40:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to bark at me I'm going to call you a dog, "fam".
Civil_Barbarian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:59:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not black either, "famalamadingdong"
Datjagoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:04:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Spicy story esse
Civil_Barbarian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:07:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm nordic, pardner. Sorry to shatter your worldview that only minorities disagree with you.
Datjagoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:09:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You must have me confused with someone who gives a fuck what your ancestry is.
Civil_Barbarian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:14:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well first you assumed I was black, then hispanic sooooo
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:15:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you that fucking stupid that you can't see I am trolling you because I literally could not give less of a fuck about you, your ancestry, or anything that you think? Post something of value, I'll wait.
Civil_Barbarian ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:18:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You think you're the one trolling? Which one of us is a grumpy bumpy right now?
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lmfao grumpy bumpy Jesus Christ lay off the my Little ponies bruh.
Civil_Barbarian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:30:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Oh no did you get spooked?
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 16:33:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think we know who the spook is here, Mr "Nordic".
Civil_Barbarian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:35:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right there's a skeleton in me.
huyuh ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 14:51:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
One hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. Various East Asian populations measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Whites in North America typically average IQs between 100 and 105 African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90 (see Lynn, 1997, for a recent review).
Parallel differences are found on relatively culture-free tests such as speed of decision making. Probably the simplest culture free mental tests are reaction time tests. In the "odd-man-out" test, Nine to twelve year-old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light. The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who in turn are faster than Black children (Jensen, 1998).
MalWareInUrTripe ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 14:57:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol
Drewcifer419 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 15:21:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Woooow, great repsonse!!! Please oh genius that you are, show us the studies you've done to prove this wrong.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:50:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 14:55:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bro.... 50% of this country has some kind of inner racist in them..... of course I expect half of all reddit posts to agree with a baseless racist claim.
It's a free world, think what you want. Don't cry when the free world forces your punk ass to sell your Nobel Peace Prize cuz they aren't funding anymore of your book tours and research.
Also don't agree to an Administrative Research role in a University and expect everyone there to think exactly like you.
How STUPID it must be when smart people can't realize not everyone thinks exactly like they do.....
Drewcifer419 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:22:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
LMFAO!!! 50% have a little racist in them? Okay Anita.
monkwren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:44:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, it's closer to 100%.
Drewcifer419 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:20:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Can you please post a picture of your nobel prize? Oh that's right, you don't have one. But please, continue telling us how much smarter you are than a nobel prize winner...
modscansuckmadick ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:36:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How old are you?
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:53:14 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Has no bearing on the facts at hand. It's not as easy to troll as it was in 2001, is it?
modscansuckmadick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:09:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It does if you're not old enough to develop critical thinking and logic skills.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:00:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently it's now Feelings > Science, or always have been.
stml ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:41:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A CEO can also go right ahead and say that all of his minimum wage workers are easily replaceable. Sure it's true, but do you really expect a CEO to keep his job after that?
Those who act like saying the truth all the time is socially acceptable are just socially inept.
Dekar173 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:21:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Regarding his statements and why he was punished, his word is being used by the same people who tout these tired old arguments as some sort of catch all argument for segregation and oppression. Basically, because of his mistake in the past and the appeal to authority that he's a genius (and he is) race supremacy and its advocates got 'stronger' as a result.
The statistics many racists tend to rely upon to justify their views are quite loaded. To someone more knowledgeable than that, though, they're laughable.
While I agree absolutely, races could and likely are potentially 'different' on a cognitive level due to genetics, I also doubt said difference is on a level that's of any import nowadays. Levels of socioeconomic difference have very obviously played a much larger role.
The most oppressed are more likely to commit crimes, AS WELL AS most likely to be indicted for them.
Less developed countries populations, who have access to far less and require different life skills than more developed populations have lower IQs based on the tests which are specifically designed around, and in order to test, the developed populations. How strange!
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:32:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Dekar173 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:37:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yet your stupid comment goes unchanged/deleted! Further perpetuating flawed thinking.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:41:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Murgie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:51:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, being an idiot for trying -and failing- to tell the truth.
If he actually knew his claims to be matters of scientific fact, then he would simply demonstrate that factuality by published a scientific paper on the matter.
But that's obviously never going to happen, because actual science requires the disclosure of the employed methodology, and he knows just as well as you do that "It's true because I think so, here's an anecdote that supports me." isn't going to cut it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:37:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He hasn't said that, for the simple reason that it's true that races differ in important ways (specifically that blacks are less intelligent than whites). Still a poor decision, but that's because its heritical to point out racial differences that disfavor non-whites.
In the same way that it would have been idiotic to question church dogma in the fifteenth century.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:40:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okie doke...
chrisapplewhite ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:55:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're pretty good evidence against white people being intelligent if you're saying stuff like that.
Datjagoff ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:22:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This goes against the continued "special snowflake" teachings in Western society that vilify any attempt to demonstrate evolution, the differences between races, and the chemical or structural deformities that cause sexual and behavioural oddities.
I've always said that if women were unknown until present day that somehow PC extreme-left would find a way to insist there are no differences between the sexes despite clear visible evidence of such.
fartsAndEggs ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 15:22:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure the only people who use the term special snowflake are mocking it
tehbored ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:40:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except he wasn't stating a genetic fact as he had no genetic analysis to back up his claims. All he had was some highly flaws IQ test scores.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:43:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:51:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL you're a retard who doesn't understand the first thing about biology.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:53:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:55:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not going to waste my time debating you. If you care, post to /r/changemyview or something.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:04:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:25:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How nice, but I also have two degrees in biology, and I can certify that you're a fuckwit.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:32:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:32:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you must understand that the existence of that phenomenon does nothing to support your argument.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's certainly a possibility, but James Watson had nowhere near enough evidence to make the claims he did. That's why he's racist.
SirSpasmVonSpinne ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:47:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Black People being on average isn't a genetic fact, its a statistically true statement that racists would immediately take and say "and its because they're black".
We know for a fact that poverty diminishes mental ability, add in shit schooling, crime and drugs and disease taking away parent figures, you get children raised in the shittiest environment and not being given the early nurturing human children need to properly mentally develop.
IQ capacity is very much dependent on IQ. Its why some species are smarter than others. But its stupid to ignore how influential nurture is on a mental level. If you were to meet the version of you who was raised in a shithole with no schooling and malnorished to fuck, you properly wouldn't be capable of learning to speak any language. You'd be mentally stunted for life.
hitlerosexual ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:39:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except that "fact" is blatantly false.
IAMAHIPO_ocolor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:24:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'd like to point out that the hypothesis that black people have lower IQs is just that. I have struggled, and continue to struggle, with this question. It is such an ugly thought. I've come to the opinion that there is a measurable difference, which can't be explained by upbtinging- except for the population's value of intelligence and test taking.
It seems veru plausible to me that certain cultures value test results much more than others. If somebody is motivated to score highly, because they think it will intrinsically increase their value as a person, they will be utilizing all their willpower and mental fortitude. If somebody doesn't have this same cultural attachment, they may see the test as a curiosity; the results may mean less than nothing to them- if intellect or education is seen as effeminate, or as trying to be better than their community and family and trying to leave them. This hypothesis conforms to our stereotypical perception of different ethnicities' cultures.
I choose to believe this, at least in matters other than policy making. The alternative is a very ugly thought.
The only thing that gives me pause is brain volume measurements of different ethnicities- though I am not aware at all how accurate these are, or if the discrepancy can be ameliorated by accounting for nutrition, educatiom, etc.
applebottomdude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:50:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This guy rushton used to rile up the idiots
https://youtu.be/i9FGHtfnYWY
blinky64 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:23:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What he said is not racist.
Dhrakyn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:34:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He said something scientific and got shot down by the insane mass majority who didn't feel comfortable having their thought process questioned.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:40:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Facts are racist? nobody is saying anybody is better than anybody, but people are different that's all, nobody should be offended for recognizing that people are different.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 14:49:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Datjagoff ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:56:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one gives a shit about who latches on to and uses science for what ends. That's beyond the purview of a factual discussion which you're clearly emotionally incapable of having regarding this subject in particular.
quisp65 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
But when society keeps it taboo it greatly diminishes guidance and ethical input. We've created more of a monster by keeping it taboo. Plus understanding human prosperity is one of mankinds most important issues to come to grips with.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:30:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You are demonizing the issue too much and there is no reason to fear a society being open about differences and understanding human prosperity. People are individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses and ethical science & decisions will always win if we are open about it and free to discuss.
Remember in a "biologically aware" society the people that are preaching the "Blank Slate" would instead be putting a positive spin on these uncomfortable truths. Which they aren't doing now. They are currently preaching what few believe and that is such a waste.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:19:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That a person is an individual with their own strength and weaknesses and there are blacks that geniuses as well. Understanding this will also make one less likely to always blame oppression for the cause of differences in prosperity and thus society gets along better and that benefits both groups.
Also it's not just race being the issue, but these uncomfortable truths keep society from discussing and understanding how differences in anyone's biology can affect their prosperity. It keeps us from looking at almost any aspect of it because any discussion leads to the most uncomfortable issues.
I believe if we hadn't stuck our head in the sand after WW2 on human differences and instead concentrated on ethics, we would be on the verge now of eliminating human poverty as we know it.
Understanding human prosperity is too important!
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:50:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Different, to these people equals inferior and HOLY FUCK SHUT THAT DISCUSSION DOWN WE ARE/WERE KINGS/HEBREW ISREALITES/COULD FLY BEFORE THE WHITE MAN AND BUILT THE PYRAMIDS USING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY THAT WHYPEEPO STOLE -(this is actually believed by some, take a trip down Google lane)
Datjagoff ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 13:46:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
LMAO you dumb shit. I fixed your post for you;
Sorry your fee fees get hurt by hard truth.
Edit; PC brigade hitting this thread hard. I'll trust the man who literally discovered DNA over fucking Tumblr, thanks.
[deleted] ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 13:56:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Datjagoff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:59:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please directly affirm that you wholly and entirely believe that evolution "stops at the neck" because that will confirm that you are woefully misinformed and willingly eat up whatever society tells you is politically correct to believe, because fuck science if everyone isn't equal and special amirit3 m8?
Edit; Aaaaand as expected, this confirmed concern troll refuses to confirm their implied belief and is only here to try to rile up shit and has less than zero personal knowledge or conviction. A waste of air, food/water, and electricity.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:36:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Datjagoff ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:40:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I cited? Maybe you are concern trolling too many people in this thread on your alts? I didn't cite the study. Go ahead and cite something - anything - that meaningfully refuses the study beyond your unassailable statement that the researcher was "clearly just a racist". I mean with your esteemed credentials I am sure you have some evidence to the contrary.
We'll wait.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:28:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okie dokie..........
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:36:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So what have the indigenous people of Africa accomplished in the last five hundred years to place them on the same level as other civilized societies and invalidate his claims? I'll wait.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 14:42:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:48:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will resort to attacking your character and your personal achievements in life, therefore I am the victor." - u/geosensation
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:42:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Little boy... I'm not having a grown man discussion with you as you've already showed your hand--- you have a flag to wave and I'm happy you got that much spunk for a side that ignores you when it comes time to do big boy things.... both left and right do that, so I'll exit right 'chere. Woops, my melanin brain just slang'd dat werd cuz I'm frun duh hood!
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:47:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will resort to attacking your character and imply that you are younger than myself, therefore I am the victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:48:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Meh.... don't care either way.
You trolls gotta troll.
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:58:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will simply declare myself victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:59:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
lol a winner of nothing... lol i see you reflecting onto me, it's cute. You feel you actually win something..... lol
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:10:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I don't care but I will continue to post to make sure you are aware of how much I don't care. Did I mention I don't care?" - u/MalWareInUrTripe ca 2017 in which one of the inferiors of which Mr Watson spoke proves the point eloquently
TaintedTango ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:08:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you seriously trying to imply that there are no measurable differences between each races brain composition? It may be Uncomfortable "FOR YOU" But for the rest of us it is nothing more than a factual keystone when regarding race.
Here, Have some Proof. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X
peanut_monkey_90 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:13:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kek. Stay in school, buddy
Datjagoff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:18:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Concern troll is failing his charisma check I see.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:38:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:12:14 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Eagerly awaiting either complete silence and further vote brigading, or desperately claiming the findings are somehow not valid.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 14:36:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Valid?
Any scientific study, sanctioned or not, homebrewed or official can be valid.
As in a valid way of refuting the exact point the scientific study is trying to reach.
How is one scientific study a measure of 100% proof? I could just as easily provide 100 scientifically researched studies (I've Googled, they break down your girls research pretty viciously with facts and references) but I digress........
...cuz sharing links isn't going to change my mind on their biased results, just like I won't change your mind.
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:42:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Waiting on those "100" links with wet tissues and wrung hands, troll.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:43:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You saw them already, bro. They're sprinkled in with all of your other "Proof Blacks Are Stupider Than Whites" googling searching. You just ain't clicking those links.
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:00:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have nothing to offer that can refute your statements and supplied research citations. Instead I will imply that there are "100's of links" that refute your statements and cited studies without providing a single source, therefore I am the victor." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:29:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Now he alone discovered DNA? Not his team?
How many errors is you punk ass gonna make on one reddit thread??
Paging Ms. Rosalind...
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:35:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She's dead you fucking idiot. She took photos. She didn't have a clue about the actual structure and wrote vehemently against the double helix.
Keep your concern trolling the fuck away from our science, you aren't wanted.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:40:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was a labtech. Without her they'd still have discovered the helical structure of DNA and without them she'd have discovered precisely nothing.
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:48:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Savage. Wrecked. Absolutely wrecked.
PatrickPlan8 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:27:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
don't forget the sexist shit too.
gimpwiz ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:51:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He wrote an entire book shitting on Rosalind Franklin, from whom he stole some work on the DNA structure. The story's a bit complicated but he had no reason to write an entire book about the long deceased "terrible Rosie".
He's a massive douchebag and his partner in DNA research, Crick, disowned the book.
trxbyx ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 15:17:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He shared a very racist opinion and was shit on for it, deservedly. This is a racist sub so that's why it belongs here.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:49:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
provethedifference ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:17:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
They are a haven for free speech from the left or right. Upvotes and downvotes decide what lives and dies here, as it should be.
๐๏ธ tilbot2 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 12:29:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
From the sidebar.
LegoMaster87 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:02:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Uncensored subreddits means OP is probably retarded.
jerryfacetaco ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
because Watson, like most great scientists, was a racist, mysongist, white, male and shouldn't be celebrated /s
bogidyboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:42:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because denouncing the Nobel Prize = fuck Obama
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I was thinking it was because he's also said some kind of racist stuff and people don't like him. Apparently this is also a Russian run sub.
That sounds like paranoia from people that watch too much crappy tv but o well.
Murgie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:40:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Its been regularly submitted to and upvoted to the front page from the regular sub in the past.
Seems to me like OP was just looking to target a specific audience.
Ex3__Benshermen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:45:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe he was just unsure if it would fly on the regular sub?
Murgie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As you pointed out, the fact that it's entirely within the subreddits rules largely suggests otherwise.
And then, you know, there's their submission history.
Ex3__Benshermen ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:10:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Huh didn't even notice the tilbot name, oh well
jpgray ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:37:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson's poverty was arguably self-inflicted. He lost his academic positions for commonly and vociferously voicing his opinions that women and blacks are genetically/intellectually inferior
touristtownwasteland ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Because they stole Rosalind Franklins work and published it under their names. Watson and crick are both generally understood to not be the discoverers of dna but hey thatโs fake news duh because women canโt be smart lol you dummies
Ex3__Benshermen ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:50:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well from what I have gathered from comments it wasn't that Rosalind was a women but rather denounced the idea of DNA. What she did was discover it but it seems Watson and Crock correctly analyzed it which in my book gives them most credit while we should give the discovery to her and the comprehension to W+C
aheadofmytime ยท 880 points ยท Posted at 11:48:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"DNA co-inventor"
TIL god's name is James Watson.
I_DidIt_Again ยท 100 points ยท Posted at 11:57:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
God's co inventor
Opisafool ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:19:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So the Holy Spirit?
I_DidIt_Again ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:15:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't the holy spirit an angel or something?
drylube ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:23:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
its the force of god
I_DidIt_Again ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Good to know, I guess
TheWho22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:32:00 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah that'll definitely come in handy at some point
I_DidIt_Again ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:04:58 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
For sure
Trodamus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:36:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Christianity tells us that there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ...all of which are the same monotheistic deity.
This is what they call "the mystery of faith".
I_DidIt_Again ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:19:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Some argue that Christianity is not monotheistic, because the holy Spirit is considered as a god (or something like that, I am not sure as I am not a Christian). And if I'm not mistaken, it is not a semathic religion
TheWho22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:36:28 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Holy Spirit is considered both as a god, and more as a symbolic part of god at the same time. I mean it's literally completely both at the same time, so it's sort of impossible to say if it's monotheistic or polytheistic. Also it is a semathic religion I believe. It is a direct offshoot of Judaism.
I_DidIt_Again ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:05:56 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It is not considered a semathic religion. As far as I know, only Judaism and Islam are semathic
TheWho22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:12:52 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why would Christianity be excluded from that group? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three abrahamic religions. Christianity peeled off of Judaism just like Islam did
I_DidIt_Again ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:03:11 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I guess it is. I don't remember where I've heard it's not a semitic religion
nuker1110 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:12:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is only for churches who subscribe to the Nicene Creed/Trinity doctrine. My faith professes that they are separate, distinct beings who are wholly unified in purpose.
SperryGodBrother ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:33:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did you just assume one god?
aheadofmytime ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:13:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No. There are many. But, now we have proof of the two who invented DNA. They should have patented it.
Jaredlong ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:04:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
co-God
nightmarenonsense ยท 200 points ยท Posted at 13:06:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL all of genetic life began in 1953.
IranianGenius ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 15:24:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The real TIL is always in the comments
Dwayne_dibbly ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 14:31:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't realise DNA was invented what did we have before he invented it?
simjanes2k ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 14:36:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Humours
folditlengthwise ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:12:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Homonculi. All the way down.
redemily16 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Twirly spaghetti
Pylyp23 ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 14:58:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thank god he invented DNA and created this beautiful planet for us to live on!
throwaway_for_til_u ยท 145 points ยท Posted at 15:44:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I've been to James Watson's house (as part of a college summer research program) and I can assure you that he lives more comfortably than 99.9% of people in the US. Beautiful large house, right on the water on Long Island Sound. He sold the prize in part to buy a David Hockney painting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html). Nobody in the scientific community really takes him seriously anymore, in part because of the virulent racism and in part because he hasn't been right about anything since the mid 90's. Honestly nice guy though - crazy in an old grandpa sort of way.
fatcat111 ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 17:31:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He is very well off and runs Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. No reason to feel bad for him.
thefabnab ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:55 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He doesn't run Cshl. He used to be president but was asked to step down after a few choice racist comments some years ago
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:47:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This must be a pretty specific circumstance to make a throwaway for.
xkforce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:10:09 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Given how much of a shithole TIL can be sometimes, especially when it comes to things that Reddit doesn't agree with, I don't blame them.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So that is why its on /r/TIL_Uncensored
LandMooseReject ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 14:28:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does the billionaire feel about situations where critics of the country's leader are gunned down in the street?
blinky64 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:30:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does the billionaire feel about situations where the planets leaders do bad stuff?
He does not speak out against the planets leaders so he obviously approves when they do bad stuff.
Seventytvvo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:09:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
DAE everyone the same as putin?
RDGIV ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:13:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
TIL all Russians are inherently evil
jrkirby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:12:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, just the rich ones. That's not because becoming rich makes you evil; rather it's because anyone who becomes rich in Russia and doesn't participate in their system of corruption has their wealth destroyed by those that do.
Seventytvvo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, that's totally what he said...
urbanfirestrike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:49:27 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are we talking about 75% of the countries on the earth? Because I think we are
macgeej ยท 131 points ยท Posted at 12:48:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OP, your title could use some improvement
https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/29/watson-and-crick-did-not-discover-dna-10147 ... I'm more of a Rosalind Franklin fan
huyuh ยท 78 points ยท Posted at 13:55:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rosalind Franklin did not discover the DNA double helix. She actually mocked the idea. She wrote an obituary joking about the "death" of the DNA Helix. At the time she didn't know how wrong she was.
I'm not sure why people spread disinformation about this. Is it hatred of Watson due to his non-PC comments? Or is it some sort of misguided gender war?
Juniperlead ยท 88 points ยท Posted at 14:17:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Franklin didn't discover the double helix, but it was her crystallography images, potentially shared without her permission, that led Watson and Crick to discover the double helix. If you read Watson's autobiography, The Double Helix, there's a part where he writes about his regret in how he and his partners treated Franklin, as well as how he wished she had been acknowledged for her contributions in discovering the double helix during her lifetime. To say that either Watson and Crick or Franklin discovered the double helix structure on their own would be incorrect.
It seems massively reductive to say that Franklin discovered the helix on her own, and that anybody who brings up her involvement in the situation is engaged in Watson hate or a "misguided gender war."
Datjagoff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:31:49 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You know I can take some pictures of shit on the moon but if I have no fucking clue what I am talking about and some other gentleman discovers something using my pictures I sure as fuck don't believe I would have any claim to his discovery other than having took some fucking photos. Which when reduced to layman's terms that's exactly what fucking xray crystallography is; pictures taken using x-rays to get around the diffraction limit.
Pedrov80 ยท 58 points ยท Posted at 15:21:41 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The difference is she knew what she was doing and was one of the few people at the time able to take those pictures. There are millions of pictures of the moon you can find today, she had the only pictures of DNA. Mix that in with the fact that they basically stole the pictures from her, and you can see why people would be mad about her not getting credit.
Datjagoff ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 15:25:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Pedrov80 ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 15:32:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was on the same level as Watson and Crick, and the only reason she wasn't given the same resources was because Wilkins thought she had a "unladylike" cold personality. It's impossible to say if Watson and Crick could have figured it out on their own. It's also impossible to say Franklin wouldn't have either.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And it's impossible to factually say that she discovered a single thing when she in fact publicly railed against the double helix. No dice.
Pedrov80 ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 15:44:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Being against something in science isn't hampering progress; there needs to be a pushback to every idea. Being wrong doesn't mean that you can't help someone be right, and being right doesn't mean anything without evidence.
Also I don't know how much you've read about the story of DNA, but she made multiple discoveries on the way to finding out the structure of DNA.
Banshee90 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:44 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Without watson and crick we would have discovered the helical structure of DNA. With Franklin, Watson, and Crick we discovered it sooner. Without Franklin Watson and Crick wouldn't have had the information required to even begin testing the hypothesis of a double helical structure.
Chas_the_Amoeba ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 16:57:43 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Still used her images without permission. Its not that simple.
Mr_Scoggs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Would have been difficult to acknowledge her contributions 'in her lifetime' seeing as she died from cancer before Watson and Crick even won the nobel prize.
Juniperlead ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:17:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can acknowledge somebody without giving them a Nobel prize...
Mr_Scoggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:06:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
My point is 'her lifetime' was not a very long period of time after the discovery.
Juniperlead ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:30:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Okay? I don't understand why it's unreasonable to think or say that she should have been recognized during her lifetime. It was certainly a big discovery even before Watson and Crick were awarded the Nobel.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 14:14:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Non-PC... lol
Either way, he stole information from Rosalind, and didn't credit her. Also writes her off as an "Assistant" and not the actual professional scientist she is.......... and it's no wonder a man that acts and thinks this way goes broke.
Another gem from his inner racist:
EDIT: Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson
blinky64 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:26:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Evolution does not stop at the neck.
Datjagoff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:30:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So the testing of racial intelligence is not to be believed. When you cherry pick data there is no point in discussion and I'll trust the gentleman who literally discovered fucking dna before I trust you, concern trolling shit breath.
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:53:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I bet you're the type of racist that gets upset when somebody calls you what you are.
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:57:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, I laugh at idiots unless they post a threat of physical violence. I handle that differently.
KonohaPimp ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 16:08:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Says the guy telling people to commit suicide.
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:10:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe you should consider the suggestion yourself?
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:01:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you don't deny you're a racist.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:05:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Intelligent members of society realise there is no need to refute baseless accusations made for the purpose of concern trolling. :)
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:09:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Ding ding ding.
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:11:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are your chikin tendies done microwaving already?
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:18:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You done not being a lonely sack of shit?
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:21:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You mad yet? ;)
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:21:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How can I get mad at somebody so pathetic?
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Aww I'm sorry you're upset :(
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:24:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Did you run out of words trying to sound smart?
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:29:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, just languishing here in this deadend comment thread but still enjoying how fucking mad I know you are.
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:47:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If that's the only thing you're holding onto I got bad news for you buddy. Good luck with your pathetic life maybe somebody will care you're an edgelord.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:48:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
K
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:50:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's probably the most of a concession I'll ever get from a racist, I'll take it.
Balrizangor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you deny that you fuck your mother? How come you have not denied this yet you motherfucking shit?
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:25:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand your need to project.
Balrizangor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:11:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So my making a baseless and tasteless accusation is evidence of my taking part in the very act that I claim you partake in.
Does this mean you're projecting your own racism by calling internet strangers racists?
Edit: Also pointing out the fact that you have not yet denied the accusation that you fuck your own mother. What are you hiding, you closeted motherfucker?
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I understand you want me to be a bad guy but that's not possible while you're fucking your own mother.
Balrizangor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have now had 3 chances to distance yourself from the rumor that you fuck your own mother. I'm going to guess that is because it is true.
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:17:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And you've had 3 chances to crawl out from inside your mother yet here you are wretched.
Balrizangor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:19:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Your new flare: REALLY_loves_his_old_lady
You are a disgusting person and I am morally superior to you.
hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:20:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You don't have to keep convincing me how bad you love incestuous relations with your mother I get it.
Balrizangor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:01 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tell me about your racism. Do you get shit for it in path of exile often?
Edit: So you don't deny you're a
racistmotherfucker?hippityhoppitypoopoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:51 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
At this point it seems a bit rude to your mother to try to have a conversation with another person while you're making a brother and a new son.
BrohanGutenburg ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 14:51:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you saying you think he's right?
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:06:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He's breaking apart at the seems now......
The clue is when the popular political buzz words start getting thrown around, you know they've got a flag to wave and no point in discussing anything. It's not as if a reddit discussion is going to change their minds.
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:30:07 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"seams". The word you were searching for, and failed to grasp, was "seams".
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:20:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I realize and acknowledge my position is indefensible, so therefore I will attempt to use weasel words to paint the person I am upset with in an unfavorable light and imply they identify with a political affiliation with which I disagree." - u/MalWareInUrTripe
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 15:02:46 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I realize and acknowledge my position is indefensible, so therefore I will attempt to use weasel words to paint the person I am upset with in an unfavorable light" - u/BrohanGutenberg
enyder21 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:07:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit, you're fucked dude
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cool rebuttal drink everything under your sink
SushiGato ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:25:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Bad bot
DefNotPeterWiggin ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:47:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't discover DNA, his work pretained to the structure of DNA. we knew DNA must exist, but we didn't know how exactly it could fit so much information into such a tiny space. He and Crick solidified the theory by demonstrating the mechanism behind how this was possible.
He and Crick are therefore known for realizing the significance of Rosalind Franklin's helical structure findings, but widely disliked for not giving her proper credit before her death and borderline stealing Rosalind's specialized images.
AbeLincolnwasblack ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:35:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Crick did not discover DNA. Frederick Meischer isolated it in the late 19th century from pus on the surgical bandages of hospital patients.
Mr_Scoggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:44:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rosalind presented her work at a conference - like scientists do, idiot. And Rosalind would have shared in the nobel prize - but she died from cancer. She never wore protection when performing x-rays - dozens of times a day everyday.
eskamobob1 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:43:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Novel prizes can be awarded postmortem
Mr_Scoggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:31:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not anymore they can't, not for 40+ years. And they only do that if there's someone who can accept the award on the individuals behalf.
peanut_monkey_90 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 14:03:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The guy's an asshole.
huyuh ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 14:12:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So we should lie and pretend that someone who explicitly argued against the double helix actually discovered the double helix?
People who lie are the biggest assholes of all.
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:04:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nope... these are fuckn Scientists for christ sake.... being thorough with the information is central to their life's work. People here bring up Rosalind are being thorough with the truth.
She was the best x-ray imaging person on the planet, and he took notes from her own research to find his own plans. Most research is going to have 2 sides and that actually pushes the truth to the forefront when one side is deemed incorrect. So her having her own side in no way means she was halting progress. She actually HELPED progress.
TaintedTango ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:04:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You seem like a Cunt Peanut_Monkey_90.
peanut_monkey_90 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:08:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Kys
Datjagoff ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 14:10:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
There's the faggot cunt we were looking for, glad you could take off the mask and get comfortable.
peanut_monkey_90 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:14:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thx Senpai
Datjagoff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 14:16:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Angry black spotted. Plz no shoot.
peanut_monkey_90 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:18:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
NEET racist spotted, pls no procreate. Oh, wait, not a concern irl
Datjagoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:26:47 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe someday your concern trolling will turn into a successful far-left political career. Start with the impoverished and uneducated and feed them a line of complete bullshit, I hear that's the power move for your kind and you're off to a great start.
goose1492 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:06:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you feel the need to be a dick? This was a civil discussion, and then people started insulting each other. Watson is a huge asshole to everyone he meets. He was fired for his behavior. Yes, he may have been part of the team who brought attention to the structure or DNA to the world, but he's still a dick and deserves to be called out on it.
Datjagoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:08:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing the man has said on record is factually incorrect, or can be proven to be factually incorrect, and assaults upon the facts presented by the man are disgusting and logical fallacies coming from those who are the inferiors of which he speaks. This is not even getting into the topic of the assaults on his personal character, which you also participate in as we can see.
In short, if you cherry pick data and try to tell me that known facts are false and I am wrong for spreading known facts, you can kill yourself for all I care.
goose1492 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:42:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rude. I'm not saying he didn't make significant contributions to modern science. I'm saying that some beliefs he voices are bigoted and he also deserves to be judged as such.
Also, speaking of someone as an inferior shows such a ballooned ego. "Oh how horrible! I'm surrounded by those who cannot even fathom my intelligence and value!"
Get a hold of yourself, he's a human being, he does the same things as you and I, except he went into a field that was still to be explored and did so. He's a smart dude, but that's it. He's not a god, he's just a dick.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:50:20 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"Scientific fact = bigotry" - u/goose1492
goose1492 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:58:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Please try to understand other people when you argue, other than just arguing your point. I don't know if you understood what I was talking about when I mentioned bigotry, but this is what I meant.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:00:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So you're unable to recognize that a man broken by a PC assault cowed and backed away from his factual statement in order to try and preserve his career and income in the face of massive uninformed backlash. Got it.
goose1492 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:18:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Juuuust gonna drop this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ARK/comments/6wybjq/slug/dmc2mk7
Part of "speaking down to people" is not recognizing their identity and being "un-PC" as you put. I could honestly care less if you're some racist person who doesn't care what they say.
But please remember that what you say hurts.
Say you have a son who is gay. Are you going to call him a faggot?
Say you have a daughter who has asperger's. Are you going to call her a retard?
Obviously something happened in your life to make you feel like you need to lash out like this, but this isn't what rational and mentally healthy people do.
You're most likely just trolling because you think this is funny, but put yourself in their position. Show some empathy, and some human emotions other than anger.
I'm going to stop commenting after this because at this point I've invested too much time into this conversation and I need to go to class. I hope you change, for your sake.
Datjagoff ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:20:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You're mad that I used the word faggot. You're going to have a hard fucking time out in the real world kiddo. Your college safe space will only be there for you for so long. You must have a strong back, what with carrying the emotional weight of the world on your shoulders and all, snowflake.
Bogsby ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 14:27:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Both of your explanations are borderline t_d material. They discovered the double helix in large part thanks to her data, which they used without credit to her. If they had actually asked for her input and involved her in mutual sharing of data and ideas, instead of stealing her work, she probably wouldn't have had the same view. She would also be seen differently historically.
huyuh ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 14:47:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Who discovered this Roman villa, the Italian computer programmer or Google Maps?
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050912/full/news050912-6.html
KonohaPimp ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 15:07:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The computer programmer did, thanks in large part to Google satellite imaging.
Change "computer programmer" to "Watson, Crick team", and "Google satellite imaging" to "Franklin's research photos".
You can't say that someone didn't help discover something when it's their research being used as evidence.
RideMammoth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:41:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds a lot like the recent court battles over CRISPR. One group discovered the bacterial antiviral system, while another realized the broad applicability of such a system.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:22:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
KonohaPimp ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:25:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Except you can't say that. It was her specific photography that lead to the discovery. Who is to say that a photo would have ever been taken that would have lead to said discovery had she not been the one doing it?
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:31:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Cool slippery slope argument. "Well if she didn't take those photos who's to say anyone ever would!". Take that nonsense somewhere it will work, like T_D or twoxchromosomes
KonohaPimp ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:35:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I have no rebuttal, so I'll resort to attacking the intelligence of some random internet stranger" - u/Datjagoff
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:41:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Weird that you don't have any rebuttal yourself aside from a logical fallacy, but cool story kiddo.
KonohaPimp ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:43:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Still provides no rebuttal and claims a rebuttal is needed for his non rebuttal.
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:49:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You have said nothing of value. Specify what I need to give a rebuttal to and I'll go ahead and make you look more uninformed. I'll wait.
KonohaPimp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:56:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
To which you replied;
That's not a real rebuttal, you just said my argument fell under a bias fallacy and left it in the air without actually refuting it.
Edit: what you did is called an arguement fallacy. You said that since my arguement contained a fallacy it must not be correct.
Datjagoff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:58:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lmfao you used a slippery slope fallacy and then tried to incorrectly apply a different fallacy to my post pointing out your original error. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
KonohaPimp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:01:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Read my edit of previous post and you'll see that you commited a fallacy as well. You can't just say I had a fallacy in my arguement and call it refuted.
Bogsby ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:03:57 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What? I'm not saying she discovered DNA. I'm saying her stolen data was pivotal in its discovery and that she was not given the credit she was due. People hear part of the story and end up remembering, "Franklin discovered it, her work was stolen." because it's a better story and thus easier to remember.
It doesn't have to do with people being PC etc. It's just people getting the details of the story wrong over the decades.
The people who built and launched the satellite, collected the data, and made the data available do deserve credit for that discovery, but people already give Google credit for the technology and for the imagery.
Datjagoff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:22:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dillonmedlock ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 15:53:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She had a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Cambridge. That's the polar opposite of a lab technician.
Datjagoff ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:56:48 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Tons of lab techs out there who hold PhD. Clearly you don't know shit about academics or research, so you should probably keep your mouth shut when grown folks are speaking.
Dillonmedlock ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 16:00:29 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a second year medical student (certified on medical school subreddit if you want to verify), so I know a decent amount about both academics and research. Franklin was first author on multiple papers before dying at the early age of 37. Last time I checked, lab technicians don't get first author many times. She had a Ph.D. and mentored Ph.D. students (also something lab technicians don't do).
Datjagoff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:04:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Let's apply the academic climate of today to papers authored in the fucking fifties to imply that a different publication regime and more open research field didn't have any effect. That's definitely a one to one comparison. /s
beginagainandagain ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:54:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
what comments did he make?
MalWareInUrTripe ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 15:13:09 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
This is is his exact quote:
... an never mentions the research, name of scientists, research methods... nada. But 'it's been tested' tho...
I think he busted a nut when he found out genetic testing on his DNA Helix model could one day allow a mother see if her unborn son would be Homosexual, and could change her unborn son's DNA Helix structure to Heterosexual:
blinky64 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:28:15 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You say that like it would be wrong for the mother to do so.
TrainerSam ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:17:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Would it be wrong to change an unborn child's skin color from black to white because the mom doesnt want a black kid?
blinky64 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is actually quite a difficult question, I'll admit it.
She should have the right do it, I am pro choice. If she has the right to abort the fetus she has the right to change the fetus's skin color.
So yeah, after some thought she should have the right to do so.
TrainerSam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:30:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pro choice so I've never considered that if the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy, does she also have the right decide other factors.
But that's getting away from Watson homophobic comment, which to me, yours seemed like it was too.
blinky64 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:44 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I think you might have some lingering pro life views that must be dealt with.
Her body, her choice.
This is non-negotiable and you should know that.
TrainerSam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:42:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does manipulating the child's genes affect the mothers body? It is a negotiable topic, that's why it's highly debated. You're pulling away from the original homophobic comment anyway. This wasn't an abortion topic.
beginagainandagain ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:13 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
thanks for replying. so there's no evidence of his claim? was it just his opinion, or was he trying to put a hypothesis together.
huyuh ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:59:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He suggested that the racial intelligence gap may have a genetic component, and any policies based on the false premise of equal potential are doomed to fail.
iguessss ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:04:02 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit feminists, man.
The true story about a female scientist whose contribution to a great discovery went unrecognized makes a decent post...
...but if you bend the truth a little and claim that the white devil STOLE her solo discovery and used it to win the Nobel prize...well thats a front page post, my friend!
Mr_Scoggs ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 15:39:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She discovered that DNA was helical, but didn't understand the significance of these findings. She presented this at a conference which Watson and Crick attended. Months before they won the nobel prize Rosalind Franklin passed away from cancer (She used a lot radiation before we realized we need protection) - the nobel prize committee explicitly stated that she would have shared in the award.
I'm not sure why so many people misconstrue this story - it's no secret, it's written in dozens of biographies and Wikipedia.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Mr_Scoggs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:04:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No, they absolutely did not. If you even did a cursory amount of research you'd learn that Rosalind Franklin used X-ray Diffraction to take picture of intracellular structures - one of which was 'Photograph 51' which appeared to show DNA in a helical form. She presented these pictures at a conference, without realizing how important the structure was to understanding how DNA worked.
Watson and Crick used this knowledge, coupled it with their own research and that of one of researcher, and inferred that DNA was a double helix consisting of four base pairs - our modern day concept of DNA.
She took a picture. That was it. It was a very important picture, that would have delayed the discovery of the structure of DNA for decades (at least) if she had not found it, it was a picture that likely contributed to the ovarian cancer that took her life - but it was still only a picture.
nhsof ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:29:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I always love this story. While I was in college the professor in charge of our introductory courses who was also a feminist and getting towards the end of her career, gave a whole lecture on the travesty of what happened to Franklin. Ending on and hammering home how horrible it was that she didn't even get the nobel prize. After the lecture I approached her about that fact and the next class she issued a redactment. I was proud of her for admitting she was wrong but sad to realize that she had been teaching that class twice a year for 20ish years and at the time I took it it was a 300 person class.
rhysdog1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:54:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
the title doesn't say he discovered it....... it says he invented it.
brandtj15 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:38:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
THANK YOU!!!!!
cajunhawk ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 14:49:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What did people do before this dude invented DNA? /s
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 15:40:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Heโs not the co-inventor but one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Quite a big difference.
cfbones ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:16:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
We sure about this? I know the guy on a decently personal level and I can tell you he has never lived anywhere that is remotely close to poverty
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:31:00 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
YongeArcade ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:50:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well he could send a photograph, which I understand is all she contributed to discovering DNA.
Feminism reminds me how the Nazi's too tried to re-write history. I guess that is where the term Feminazi comes from
gimpwiz ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 17:54:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"All she contributed" as if the X-ray crystallography and resulting photos weren't a big fucking deal.
Crick, the non-douchebag of the pair, credits her discovery as important.
leoroy111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:31 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Which subject should she received a a prize for?
As far as I'm aware she wasn't a contributing author and there are no Prizes for technology.
gimpwiz ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:05:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She died before Watson and Crick received a Nobel prize, and they are not awarded posthumously.
But simplifying her work with x-ray crystallography as "technology" is like saying that the inventors of the blue LED should not have received their award because it's "technology." Stupid.
leoroy111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:06:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Lets just assume she didn't die.
gimpwiz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:22:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Whether she deserves to share Watson and Crick's nobel prize is up for debate, and whether she would have received one is a hypothetical, but if she had received one it almost certainly would have been in the same field - medicine. On the other hand, she was a chemist, so the argument could be made that she deserves one for chemistry, but I doubt it.
Remember, not only did Watson and Crick win the Nobel, but they shared it with Wilkins, who was a direct colleague of and worked with Franklin. Of the four largely credited for the discovery and publishing of the double-helix structure, three were alive to share the Nobel prize.
Of course, there were many other people involved whose contributions were extremely important.
Why do people focus on Franklin?
Well, for one, there's the feeling of unjust exclusion, not to mention that she died rather young from cancer. That's the emotional side.
Another reason might be because Watson went off the fucking rails and published a book so dismissive of her, and really specifically her, that basically everyone who had worked with him dropped him like a hot potato. (And, you know, the various other shit he's said that nobody wants to be seen with him.) So quite a few people felt it necessary to defend the person who, you know, is quite dead, and can't defend herself.
leoroy111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:03:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That is a good answer, thanks.
dxguy10 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:24:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Haha feminazi that's hilarious
JohnPlayerSpecia1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:07:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
he co-invented DNA?!
Eru-Vox ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:39:18 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He lost all of his money and acclaim because he was a raving lunatic racist. Brilliant scientist but garbage human being. All of that is disregarding the way he regarded Rosalind Franklin...
Shit_in_1_hand ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:40:23 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's too bad he stole the data from a woman and took credit for it after she died.
NicoolioDroolio ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:04:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well you know who never got a noble prize? The woman who found the structure of DNA for Watson and Crick to use, Rosalind Franklin. Even though Wilson (pretty sure that was his name) took the evidence and gave it to watson and crick, and thats when they were able to discover DNA. They had to change almost their whole study when i learned what Rosalind Franklin found. Then years later she passed away and never got recognition for what she did.
PancakeParty98 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:42:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Came to say this. Rosalind Franklin literally got cancer taking her photos of DNA with her radioactive camera but some pricks who stole her shit got all the credit.
WeDoNotSow ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:15:40 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The Nobel prize doesn't go to the deceased.
NicoolioDroolio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:19:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I know but she should have gotten it when they did bottom line.
WeDoNotSow ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:32:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How? She was dead.
Thereminz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:26:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dna didn't exist until ole jd watson came along
Talk about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps damn
Blackwind36 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:02:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If I remember correctly, he was blacklisted for believing in human biodiversity affecting I.Q. and that led to him having to sell it as no one would employ him.
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:35:37 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't expect an Eskimo to win a NY marathon over an Ethiopian anytime soon. People have adopted to their environment. Why wouldn't intelligence vary the same way running ability does. "Evolution doesn't stop at the neck" is probably right.
But at the same time with globalism around, who gives a shit. You can outsource, buy technology and have foreign firms build anything you want or need. Top 1% of any country is intelligent enough to organize and bring prosperity to that country.
Love_Bulletz ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:14:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have any sort of evidence that black people aren't as smart as white people?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:47:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm merely agreeing with the claim that IQ varies from population to population. Which is actually the less specific claim. The Politically Correct thing to say is the IQ bell curve for every country is centered at 100, which is a much more specific claim. All you have to do is find one country that isn't centered at 100 to disprove it. Here's a study that shows many countries have different average IQs
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Love_Bulletz ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:52:34 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's absurd. There are lots of reasons for variation in IQ that aren't genetics. The book (not a study) that you're citing is both non-rigorous and widely rejected.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:04:17 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Are you making the claim that IQ is centered at 100 for every country? That's so silly. Just take two high schools from across the city and you would probably find variability in average IQ scores, height, weight and so on.
There are many reasons for average height being different from country to country. We're not all centered at 175 cm. Some of it nutrition, but most of it is genetics.
Love_Bulletz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:05:52 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm saying that for countries where it isn't centered at 100 there are possible reasons other than genetics. Had you even bothered to read the article you linked you would see that. I'm not going to continue wasting my time with your bullshit anymore.
Ios7 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:52:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Man I love those comrades , I mean Russians!
MasterBet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:04 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks American
extemma ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 13:33:17 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He also got the Nobel prize for discovering the shape of DNA when it was actually Rosalind Franklin who discovered it using x-ray crystallography.
Edit: after some constructive comments along with a few moronic ones, I'll revise what I said.
Watson won the Nobel prize for discovering the shape of DNA using the crystallography data that Franklin created. The controversy comes from the lack of recognition she got for playing a pivotal role in the discovery of the structure of DNA
huyuh ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 14:06:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Rosalind Franklin didn't discover anything. She actually argued against the helix structure. That's pretty much the opposite of discovering it.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/2013/04/25/on-dnas-anniversary-how-rosalind-franklin-missed-the-helix/
Lighting ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 16:07:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Actually
Franklin first with the Helix [ source ]
Bogsby ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 14:28:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not when your data leads to the discovery. She didn't discover it herself but her (stolen) data was pivotal.
iguessss ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 14:56:11 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Dem goalposts doe...
Bogsby ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:57:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not moving goalposts, I'm responding to the claim that she did the opposite of discover the structure. Please try reading comments before responding.
iguessss ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 15:07:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OP says
second guy response saying
The 'goalposts' originally stated that she discovered the shape of DNA, full stop. This obviously isn't true.
So you come in and say
Which is an entirely different statement. You moved the goalposts, fren.
Bogsby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:09:03 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You can't follow an argument. I didn't move goalposts. I'm not going to bother parsing these arguments for you, so I'm sure we'll agree to disagree.
Datjagoff ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 15:24:28 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
"I'm caught, I have no further room to slide the goalposts or inflammatory comment that can be used in this situation therefore let's 'agree to disagree' so that I can avoid admitting I am wrong. Patently, entirely, without question; wrong" - u/Bogsby
blinky64 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:35:56 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
MUH WOMEN IN STEM
Solid_Jack ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:02:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wow. Co-inventor of DNA? That's almost as amazing as that guy who invented electricity and the other dude who invented gravity.
[deleted] ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 15:24:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Watson was a dick. DIdnt create shit, didnt invent shit. Roselind's Franklins boss stole her work of imagiing DNA and sent it to Francis and Crick, who by looking at the images saw that the strcture was a doube helix. Roselind Franklin ended up gettiing cancer and dying from cancer sue to the radioation from taking images of the DNA, None credit given while she was alive. Again watson was a dick, an absolute dick, and he should shove his medal up his ass
Datjagoff ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:32:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
ThoroughDipper ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 17:40:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
She was not a lab tech, she was a PhD scientist. Lab techs generally don't have graduate degrees, especially a PhD.
Edit: as a matter of fact, considering this is the 50s we are talking about, lab techs probably didn't even have a bachelors degree.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:46:36 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
without her images they would ave discovered fuck all.
username relevent
Datjagoff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 15:48:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Without her they would have found another fucking lab assistant and been set back by a year, two tops. BTFO feminist agenda. Next!
AnorexicBuddha ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:02:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
oh no, it's retarded
ThoroughDipper ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:32:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While I do agree that James' achievements are overrated. Rosalind Franklin and James Watson both published their results in the same journal, same time, but in different articles. Their collaboration was more than acknowledged. The reason she did not receive Nobel prize is because they are not awarded posthumously. James said that it would have been ideal if he got to share it with Rosalind. Her x-ray images were key were because she hydrated the DNA sample, leading to a crystallographic structure that was easier to elucidate (a neat pi-stacked double helix).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get that. My issue lies in the fact that she is not equally lauded by the general public as Crick and Watson, as without her work they could not have formulated their ideas. People who are into bio and the like know the story, but most others do not. I only found out because i like to dig into science history. That being said, prior to learning about Franklin I read that in Cricks diary he noted that he discovered the shape as a result of an acid trip. My question is Did he have tis trip prior to seeing Franklins image, or did he see the image and then have the trip. I also get that just having the image is not enough, you actually need skills. I looked at image 51 many times trying to see the couble helix and still to tis day cannot. Lastly, as I understand, image 51 was taken from Franklins office, by er boss and sent to Crick and Watson. That is a huge violation of ones research, I dont think this point is emphasized enough. And again, in a very direct manner Roselind Franklin gave her life to her work, only to have it stolen from her lab. So while Crick and Watson are definitely giants, they reaced that hieght by stepping on the back of aother scientists (wo happen to be a women), but i wont go into that. ITs been a while since I researched the story but as far as I can rememeber that was pretty much it. Please correct me if I have muddled the details
ThoroughDipper ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:25:38 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I forgot what happened between Rosalind and her boss giving the spectra to Watson & Crick. The two research groups may have had an understanding about sharing data. But I don't mean to diminish the struggle that Rosalind must've gone through as a female scientists in the 50s, and how she might've struggled to command respect. And yes, James Watson most definitely was and is a dick, albeit a funny one. He is like the Kanye West of the science world. In his book, The Double Helix, James makes disrespectful remarks about some of the women he encounters.
The x-ray picture that you see is the diffraction of the x-ray beam generated by the crystal structure of DNA. Crick, a physicist and mathematician, worked on equations that modeled x-ray diffraction, using the images and equations he could back calculate the structure of DNA.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:39 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
As i rememeber, she ws holding image 51 back becuse she knew it ws special(take this ith a grain of salt because i dont rememeber if I read that somehwere or made it up over time) and it was effectively stolen from her office
So, im curious what was Watson actual contribution to te findings, if Crick was the Mathematician and backworked the equations, what was Watsons role? The thing about the acid trip fucks me up though. why would he write that it was the impetus of making he discovery, if it wsnt absolutely crucial to it? I guess there is much we will never know
ThoroughDipper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:43 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm going to have to double check but I don't think Watson did any hard science, wet lab type stuff. What he did was to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, literally, he was building ball and stick models. Which is why I think he is given a little too much credit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:35:19 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well what did he do with his money? You dont go from upper middle class in wages to dirt poor cause you have healthy spending habits.
PatrickPlan8 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:23:45 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal
OliverBludsport ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:24:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Besides the stupid fucking title when a russian oligarch spends 0.00001% of their fortune on a good dead it's exactly the same as you buying fair trade coffee. Only difference being scale. You did something nice. You're still a piece of a shit.
UsernameCash ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:35 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
inventor you say, just like newton invented gravity
fourierfun ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:51:42 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Guys like him are like Galileo's of the modern age.
Eskimo503 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:10:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I thank God every day Watson and Crick invented DNA.
PancakeParty98 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:39:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
No one mentions the woman who's photographs he and his partner stole and used to develop their double helix theory.
WeDoNotSow ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:13:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
People mention that literally every time he comes up, and it's always exaggerated like you're doing.
PancakeParty98 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:38:05 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What aspect did I exaggerate? The part where they took her photos, the part where the photo was key to their discovery, or the part where she never got acknowledgment for her work?
WeDoNotSow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:23 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well, for start, they didn't "take" her photos; her photos were published along with her data, and they used them to deduce the double helix, which they already suspected. Her work was crucial evidence in proving their hypothesis, but it was neither where they formed the idea nor did was it her input in the data that led to their discovery. Also, she DID receive acknowledgement for her work. This is what she is most well-known for posthumously, and Watson himself said she would have been awarded the Nobel along with them had she been alive.
So when you say, "No one mentions the woman who's photographs he and his partner stole and used to develop their double helix theory," that blatantly false. 1)Lots of people said that. 2)They weren't stolen. 3)They didn't use them to develop their theory, they used them to confirm their hypothesis.
PancakeParty98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:52:30 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
WeDoNotSow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:19:52 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How do you know about it if no one ever mentions it or recognizes her?
Do you have a source that they were stolen? I'm not finding that at all.
You don't need consent in science to use data to form hypotheses. That doesn't even make sense. Once it's published, it's for everyone to use and cite.
Reacher-Said-Nothing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:56:51 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Well that explains why it's on /r/til_uncensored.
Still leaves me wondering how it got upvoted to the front page though.
Oh who am I kidding I'm not wondering
Eben_MSY ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:17:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Discoverer
Drewcifer419 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Those dirty fucking Russians
flaskman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:35:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
too bad because losing his medal was karma
jarvispeen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Mr. Watson did this 12 more times until he amassed a large fortune.
Xenomech ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
What does it say about a society when its brightest minds are left to wallow in poverty?
teh_dahnald ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe he was bad at managing his money
funkymoose123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
You think a guy like that would be employable after that.
panzerkampfwagen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:04:57 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He didn't invent DNA.
He didn't even discover DNA.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:05:53 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That's not why he sold it. Guy has a place in cold spring harbor, a trophy wife, and despite his "rough around the edges" reputation and controversial remarks, he was doing fine financially by normal standards. He remarked that some of the proceeds would be donated to institutions, and some would go toward a painting he wanted to buy...
This post is misleading trash.
EvidenceBase2000 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:48:37 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
How does co-inventor get upvoted? Not only that, the real tragedy is that Watson and Crick never credited the work of Rosalind Franklin, who essentially showed them the actual shape of DNA.
chrisphoenix7 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:22:09 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, comrade! True Russian Patriot does his part to bring true science to justice, unlike filthy Americans! Russians understand that President Putin's partner in inventing DNA deserves to keep his prize!
HeWhoSpeaksVillain ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:24:32 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Co-inventor, so Jesus?
quisp65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:23:31 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Society has double standard when it comes to taking the scientific stance of human differences. Only tenured professors or unemployed people can make the accusation. Which isn't close to any kind of healthy scientific atmosphere.
If people really believed we were the same, they would want to shed light on it and allow the issue discussed openly, but the taboo demonstrates how people really feel. We are hiding from the truth.
Just an FYI.... you are not taking a neutral stance by being quiet on differences. People are getting blamed & killed for issues that incorrectly get blamed on oppression all over the world. This taboo is putting us back many years in reducing poverty because we got our head stuck in the sand on the science of human prosperity. The "blank slate" like people haven't chosen the moral high ground, they just chose the easy path.
SpirantBlitz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:01 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
If you know James Watson, he was in poverty for a reason... spoiler alert: he was a dick
Normill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:26:38 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He was touched by the gesture and then went: โSweet! Letโs get this one back into auctionโ
youhawhat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:57:30 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting story I guess but Im almost positive that the Nobel prize comes with a cash reward of over 1 million USD so Im not sure how much sympathy I have that he managed to squander it.
Mr_Scoggs ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 15:48:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The $1,000,000 is not to live on, it's like a research grant. If you need machinery that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and have to pay the salaries of a dozen other researchers it goes quickly. It's usually gone in 3-5 years.
But it's cool, go on judging people without understanding anything of their field.
Denaius ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:05:27 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
It's not though. It's a prize.
Typically the Nobel isn't awarded until a number of years after the work that led to the award, - particularly given the requirement for proof in the scientific fields. Many of its recipients are retired or don't work anymore and few could/would ever rely on it to pay researchers or for equipment as there would never be any guarantee they would win it.
Mr_Scoggs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:10:24 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not saying they're relying on it for funding - I'm saying most of the time that's what it's used for. Do you have any idea how hard it is to secure a grant? And the nobel awards aren't given 20+ years after a discovery, it's usually given 2-3 years after. Hardly enough time for most of the recipients to retire - I have no idea where you got that idea.
Denaius ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:54 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Very. Not the point though, you said "it's like a research grant" but it isn't. Its a prize, the use of which is entirely at the discretion of the recipient. A grant, by contrast, is normally given for specific reasons or in relation to a particular piece of research depending on who or what is awarding the grant - there are a very small number that can be used for any purpose, but almost all have conditions attached to them and frequently some form of monitoring process. A Nobel Prize is not like that.
In 2016, the average age of a Nobel recipient was 65. That is retirement age. The Nobel for Physics was awarded to David Thouless (82), and J. Michael Kosterlitz (74) for work they did on the phases of matter in the early 1970s - around a 40 year wait. It's not that unusual a fact pattern either, - to take possibly the most famous example, Einstein first came up with relativity when he was 26, but had to wait until he was 42 to get his Nobel, which is a fair few years....
Mr_Scoggs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:06 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I get that it's a prize. I know the difference between a prize and a research grant. I can't see my comment, so I'm not sure of my wording, but what I should have said was "it's USED like a research grant". Grants are provided by organizations with a certain agenda that does not necessarily match the agenda of the Principle Researcher - so the prize is awarded so that the PI's can research what THEY want to/think is important to research. That's not only what the prize is overwhelmingly used for - it's the actual intent behind it. And instead of looking at the average age of Noble Laureits and Physisists (for some reason?) I recommend you look at the age of recipients iof the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine and also crossrefrence this with age they were when they made their dicovery. And note that, in academia, research professors - who are the ones winning this award more often then not - tend to be older and retire far later then the average person.
Mr_Scoggs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:11:52 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
And as aside - never say "proof" in reference to science. Nothing can even be proven, just 'shown' or 'indicated'.
youhawhat ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 15:52:59 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Take your passive aggressive BS somewhere else. I'm sorry u/iamverysmart
Mr_Scoggs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:23:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
I'm passive aggressive? You're the one making derogatory comments toward a struggling scientist. Do you know how little researchers get paid? It's criminal. They get PhDs and make 40k, all for trying to advance mankind.
trxbyx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:20:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
He ruined his own career by presenting an opinion as fact. Add to that it was a racist opinion.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 16:06:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
movzx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:51:08 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
So discredit it because it is based on bunk data.
Sorry, but testing the IQ of people in special needs housing and then saying everyone in that country has that IQ isn't good science. Taking the IQ of people in one country and grouping other countries with it for no reason isn't good science. Not controlling for socioeconomic factors isn't good science.
Sometimes there are hard truths. And sometimes shitty, unreproducible science is done and a bunch of fuckwits latch on to it in order to justify their shitty lives.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
movzx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:11 on October 9, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The research I am talking about is.
You might not, but this is absolutely incorrect.
You may not have been making the argument I thought you were, but I thought you were one of the many people who tout the crap research that justifies the "Blacks have an IQ of 60!" garbage
white supremacists"race realists" love to say.trxbyx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:10 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
That theory has flimsy evidence to back it and you know it. If you have any scientific education you know that this is not an accepted idea in the slightest.
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:49:26 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Surely you are aware of the fact that the article you linked does not support one conclusion or the other. As it points out, the evidence is mixed and inconsistent, and full of confounding variables. Watson presented his opinion as fact, when the only true fact about the relationship between race and intelligence is that we do not fully understand it.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:56:55 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:00:16 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
The degree of evidence is wildly different. There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. While there is some evidence that ethnicity is related to intelligence, it is much weaker and full of confounds, and Watson's claims reach far beyond the evidence.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:05:33 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
tehbored ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:29:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously genetics play a role. But Watson didn't say "genetics play a role," he essentially said black people are genetically inferior, a claim which has little to no hard evidence in support of it.
trent295 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:53 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A million dollars is not a lot of money if you have a million dollars.
Andergaff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:38:22 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure he co-invented DNA.... that would be the ancient aliens. I mean, what else could it be!
Cade_Foster_117 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:47:12 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck this sexist prick
Seventytvvo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:21 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Russian propaganda spam
Scruffmygruff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:34 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely smells like vodka
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:37:32 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
A situation in which a Russian magnate (worth 15.1 billion, forbes) can afford to spend 4.1 million dollars out of principle is what is unacceptable.
MasterBet ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 16:59:25 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Wot?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:48:50 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
While it is admirable that he took this act of patronage on behalf of a scientist down on his luck; the kleptocracy in Russia is what permitted Alisher Usmanov, who is worth 15.1 b according to Forbes to just spend 4.1 million dollars on a sentiment of patronage. I'm just saying that if he's so inclined towards justice he wouldn't be one of the wealthiest men in the world, making his quote a bit annoying. This is my opinion (no research)
Terrace-house ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:12:58 on October 4, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
OP, do you even know what the hell Watson's work was about lmao. "DNA co-inventor"? What were we made of before Watson?
ProfThadBach ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:06:52 on October 5, 2017 ยท (Permalink)
Of course it was a Russian who saved it for him. They will save us all. /s