-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Noted bedbug, Bret Stephens, dabbles with eugenics
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
I'm reminded of the eugenics guy in RDR2. He's the only character in the game, aside from Klansman, that you can't beat the shit out of and not be docked honor points. You can even beat him down in front of cops and they aren't bothered by it.
Remember when he tried to compare being called a bedbug with the holocaust?
I do.
calling people begbugs: unconscionable
signal boosting the eugenics review: thought provoking
Yup.
1)Put up hottake unbeacoming of the paper but its in it's "opinion" section so its all good, "Jailing people is good! Keeps the poors off the street and keeps us safe from those savages"
2)Editors dance in glee that its gone viral
3)Posts a pseudo apology if the blowback is really bad (*oh noes, there's a cancel nyt post going viral*) but hopefully put up a rebuttal that will go viral on its own
4)Rinse/Repwat. Bret, Bari, Brooks go meet in a bar somewhere in celebration and puts the tab on the company card.
Only thing I hope is the real reporters just glue their keyboards and throw away their food in the fridge. What's offensive isn't their conservative takes, but how shitty and clickbait it is.
Of course. This was the logical conclusion and it plays directly into their hand. Ya being smart + sneaky is literally jewish stereotype #1
Of course they do. Their three head columnists are Senor Bedbug, Bari Weiss, and David French. I give them no benefit of the doubt. Anyone who does is fooling themselves.
Holy fuck
How do so many "educated" dolts spout this shit with seeming zero clue that "is =\= ought". Just because we observe or don't observe something in nature, doesn't meant that it should/shouldn't exist in our society. Sports and fried food don't exist in nature, yet we don't constantly run around concern trolling ourselves about their "unnatural" existence. (Also, homosexuality has been observed in animals so it isn't even correct on its face)
who tf is actually paying for these columns.
even if you wanted to read on it so you can dunk on it on Twitter, just use the anonymous browser thing. don't give them your money to read some crazy nazi stuff.
even if you wanted to read on it so you can dunk on it on Twitter, just use the anonymous browser thing. don't give them your money to read some crazy nazi stuff.
This most annoying thing isn't the race science (which is bad) but how fucking dumb and lazy bret is. He is a profoundly stupid man and disproves his own racist thesis
You'd be surprised how popular eugenics is with rich people on the UES. They view it as "common sense" and invite Epstein and Steven Pinker to all their parties. They use it to assuage their guilt for their opulence
Is he an imbecile or a person who is intentionally making money by doing the bidding of groups determined to make these ideologies more palatable to the masses?
Both is definitely an option.
No one, no one should forget that it was the NYTimes that first gave credence and exposure to the IDW in the mainstream media.
I just read the piece, and I'm struggling to find a eugenics component to it. Stephens says/does some dumb shit, but this was a meandering "say nothing" bit for the most part. If anything, he said Ashkenazi Jews' success is attributed to a sort of thinking tradition - not pure intellectual might.
I do always enjoy Jews writing about how great they are, though. :)
I do always enjoy Jews writing about how great they are, though. :)
Did you not read any of the thread or critiques of the column?
Citing an article co-authored by a White Nationalist that was published in a journal that was historically called "The Eugenics Review", is a bit of an eugenics component, don't you think?
Bunch of right-wing grifter complaining about how the left are the real fascists.
I did, but...
This piece actually doesn't agree with that source? It's shaky to cite anything from it, but maybe that's where the ending anti-Semitism bit comes from...no idea. The whole thing is largely sloppily written, but he diverges from the "Jews do better because they're smarter" argument in presenting his own explanation.
It seems that we agree that the article is meandering and poorly written; I am confused why you would feel so confident pinning down the precise message of the piece. Usually when bad writers play with fire nothing good comes of it.
To me, especially when placed in context of Stephens' larger body of work, it seems likely that the article intentionally contains enough hedges and muddies the waters enough to allow Stephens to make his point but have plausible deniability. It's part of his cycle. Next he will be aghast at his critics and he will use that trumped up outrage as cover to move the ball even further down field.
Well there is no precise message/purpose - the damn thing ends on some weird cliffhanger. It's like a paper I'd write in 8th grade. However it's clear to me that he was trying to move away from genetic superiority in the text.
It's actually the subheading, "It's not about having higher I.Q.s." Then again, maybe you're right, as he seems to possibly buy into the results from that study. Nevermind that IQ is a highly flawed, biased measurement.
It's almost like he wants the reader to start "asking questions". The sort that take them down a rabbit hole where you engage the other works if he and his co-authors.
He uncritically inserts white supremacist eugenics views in his article and treats those views as legitimate. That's the eugenics component. Not to mention that he has a history of this shit (literally wrote an article about "the disease of the Arab mind"
Fucking hilarious, they removed the racist citation but left the racist article.
