Hitler is obviously maligned

At least according to a tweet by David Josef Volodzko, a Seattle Time editorial writer.

Text of tweet by Volodzko

The text of the tweet states:

In fact, while Hitler has become the great symbol of evil in history books, he too was less evil than Lenin because Hitler only targeted people he personally believed were harmful to society, whereas Lenin targeted even those he himself did not believe were harmful in any way.

Both Lenin and Hitler generally targeted categories of people rather than individuals, and they did not care whether they personally could be considered harmful to society or not, but rather whether they were undesirable or as a group could be considered harmful to society (by whatever warped measures they used to determine that). Trying to make any comparison between Hitler and someone else, where you decide Hitler is less bad, is making an excuse for Hitler. You can say that Lenin was bad, without saying that Hitler was less bad.

Unsurprisingly, and quite correctly, the tweet led to Seattle Time firing him.

Seattle Times note on firing Volodzko

 

The text says:

A Seattle Times editorial writer engaged in Twitter recently in a way that is inconsistent with our company values and those of our family ownership. Effective immediately, he is no longer employed by The Seattle Times. While we passionately believe in creating lively discoruse through a variety of viewpoints, we do so with respect and appreciation for all communities. We apologize for any pain we have caused  our readers, our employees and the community.

Volodzko also apologized in a twitter thread, though his first tweet mischaracterized what he had actually stated in his now deleted tweet

 

The tweet says:

I recently argued Lenin was more evil than Hitler for wanting to kill more people while Hitler was more evil for actually doing it. Let me say sorry to anyone hurt or offended by that because regardless of my intentions, the comparison is a dangerous one.

This is, of course, not what he argued, but at least he seems to have understood that it is comparison that gives covers to White Supremacists and (neo-)Nazis.

 

 

What has happened with TYT?

It used to be that The Young Turks was a progressive voice, though a problematic one, given the sexism and Armenian genocide denial by Cenk Uygur in the past.  Lately, however, many are asking what has happened to them. Both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur has made anti-trans remarks, and Ana has come strongly out against the homeless.

This has led to 10 of the moderators of The Young Turks youtube channel to resign – they have written an open resignation letter.

A very different Hitchens

I am listening to an episode of the podcast Decoding the Gurus, a podcast I have some issues with, especially their both-side bullshit. In this episode, they have Matt Johnson on. Matt Johnson is the author of How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment.

It is an interesting episode, because the Hitchens that Matt Johnson talks about is not the same Hitchens that I saw back when Hitchens was alive. He has a glorified picture of Hitchens as a pure fighter for international rights and free speech, ignoring the very real damage that Hitchens helped push on the world (e.g. through his promoting of the Iraq War and his promotion of bigots and far-right monsters). I have in the past written somewhat positive about Hitchens, when I reviewed his autobiography Hitch-22, but I am not blind for his flaws – flaws that has only gotten bigger when looking back through the lenses of time.

Hitchens did fight for a number of good causes, but he also helped promote cover for bigotry against Muslims and was friends with a number of right-winged people who have caused real damage in the US and in Europe.

In order to use Hitchens as shining light, you have to have to just accept him at his words, ignoring his actions in the real word.

Unsurprisingly, the hosts of the podcast are not giving anything more than the mildest of push-backs.

 

Computer models advancing science

Computer modeling has become a more and more important tool for science. We have seen it in Climatology for decades, as well as in a number of other fields. People who have a poor understanding of science, or who are trying to deny science, such as creationists and climate change deniers, will often claim that it isn’t really real science, but that is of course pure nonsense, as empirical evidence has demonstrated it again and again.

Now, there is a new great example of how a computer model is advancing our understanding of science. As ScienceDaily reports:

First hominin muscle reconstruction shows 3.2 million-year-old ‘Lucy’ could stand as erect as we can

A Cambridge University researcher has digitally reconstructed the missing soft tissue of an early human ancestor — or hominin — for the first time, revealing a capability to stand as erect as we do today.

Dr Ashleigh Wiseman has 3D-modelled the leg and pelvis muscles of the hominin Australopithecus afarensis using scans of ‘Lucy’: the famous fossil specimen discovered in Ethiopia in the mid-1970s.

…

Wiseman was able to use recently published open source data on the Lucy fossil to create a digital model of the 3.2 million-year-old hominin’s lower body muscle structure. The study is published in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

The research recreated 36 muscles in each leg, most of which were much larger in Lucy and occupied greater space in the legs compared to modern humans.

For example, major muscles in Lucy’s calves and thighs were over twice the size of those in modern humans, as we have a much higher fat to muscle ratio. Muscles made up 74% of the total mass in Lucy’s thigh, compared to just 50% in humans.

Paleoanthropologists agree that Lucy was bipedal, but disagree on how she walked. Some have argued that she moved in a crouching waddle, similar to chimpanzees — our common ancestor — when they walk on two legs. Others believe that her movement was closer to our own upright bipedalism.

Research in the last 20 years have seen a consensus begin to emerge for fully erect walking, and Wiseman’s work adds further weight to this. Lucy’s knee extensor muscles, and the leverage they would allow, confirm an ability to straighten the knee joints as much as a healthy person can today.

The paper can be found at the Royal Society Open Science: Three-dimensional volumetric muscle reconstruction of the Australopithecus afarensis pelvis and limb, with estimations of limb leverage

Abstract

To understand how an extinct species may have moved, we first need to reconstruct the missing soft tissues of the skeleton, which rarely preserve, with an understanding of segmental volume and muscular composition within the body. The Australopithecus afarensis specimen AL 288-1 is one of the most complete hominin skeletons. Despite 40+ years of research, the frequency and efficiency of bipedal movement in this specimen is still debated. Here, 36 muscles of the pelvis and lower limb were reconstructed using three-dimensional polygonal modelling, guided by imaging scan data and muscle scarring. Reconstructed muscle masses and configurations guided musculoskeletal modelling of the lower limb in comparison with a modern human. Results show that the moment arms of both species were comparable, hinting towards similar limb functionality. Moving forward, the polygonal muscle modelling approach has demonstrated promise for reconstructing the soft tissues of hominins and providing information on muscle configuration and space filling. This method demonstrates that volumetric reconstructions are required to know where space must be occupied by muscles and thus where lines of action might not be feasible due to interference with another muscle. This approach is effective for reconstructing muscle volumes in extinct hominins for which musculature is unknown.

The paper is an interesting read and in my opinion fairly accessible.

Apparently there are consequences after all

Boris Johnson has resigned as a MP due to the result of the investigations into the partygate scandal, which is the scandal that forced him to resign as a PM. The results of the investigations are not public, and Johnson has stepped down, rather than getting pushed out. Considering the number of lies and falsehoods he have presented over time, both as a journalist and as a politician, it is rather incredible that he ever managed to become a MP, let alone the PM.

And in similar news, as most of you probably know, Donald Trump has been hit with a 37-count indictment for his mishandling of classified documents, and his behavior relating to this:

The 49-page indictment contains the first-ever federal charges against a former US president. It says the classified documents Mr Trump stored in his boxes contained information about:

  • United States nuclear programmes
  • Defence and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries
  • Potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack
  • Plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack

Prosecutors say that when Mr Trump left office, he took about 300 classified files to Mar-a-Lago – his oceanfront home in Palm Beach, which is also an expansive private members’ club.

The charge sheet notes that Mar-a-Lago hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests, including in a balDonald Trumlroom where documents were found.

Prosecutors say Mr Trump tried to obstruct the FBI inquiry into the missing documents by suggesting that his lawyer “hide or destroy” them, or tell investigators he did not have them.

“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Mr. Trump said to one of his attorneys, according to the indictment.

Source:

Of course, an indictment doesn’t mean a conviction, nor does it keep Trump from running for the Presidency, but it _is_ the first step of getting him put into jail.

This one hits hard

TW: Suicide

I have been laid low with laryngitis, so I have spent some time surfing the internet, and I came across a new music video from Linkin Park. It is not a new song, rather it is 20 years old, but it has not been released before now, and it hits hard, because of what has happened in those twenty years.

This is a song where you can feel the pain of Chester Bennington, who committed suicide in July 2017, just two months after the suicide of his friend Chris Cornell. It is like hearing the voice of a ghost, but from when he was alive, sharing his anguish with the world.

RIP Chester.

If you want to revisit the life and death of Chester Bennington, I think this Rolling Stones article is pretty good.

Listen to the whispers

As PZ already has covered, there has been some revelations about problems with two former board members of American Atheists. One was Mandisa Thomas, who has been a major voice among Black American atheists, but whose behavior has caused major rifts in that community. I have little knowledge about neither Mandisa Thomas nor the situation, but I firmly support the people who have left Black Nonbelievers as a result of Mandisa Thomas’ behavior.

The other former board member of AA was Andrew Torrez, someone I know a lot more about. Andrew Torrez was a popular legal podcaster as the co-host of Opening Arguments and Cleanup on Aisle 45. I was a supporter on both podcasts on Patreon. As the stories of his behavior have started to come out, it has also become clear that several organizations and associates, including several podcast hosts, had heard about these problems as far back as in 2017. It appear that there was an incident in 2017 that was shared broadly.

What is certainly clear, is that there has been rumors about Torrez on the whisper network for years (something PZ alludes to in his original post on the subject). The problem with the whisper network is that it is by nature vague, and that you only hear it if you are connected to it in some way. This makes it easy to ignore, but that’s a mistake. The reason why the rumors tend to be vague, is that there is a constant worry of law threats (something we certainly know the risk of here at Freethoughtblogs), especially when it involves a lawyer.

I am not particularly connected to the whisper network, but I have occasionally heard names through it, and in just about every case, later revelations have show the whisper network to be right.

This is also the case for Torrez – someone I had really hoped the network was wrong about, but which it again turned out to be right about. Looking back, I really should have known better than to ignore it enough to financially support the podcasts, thus helping platform an abuser. I apologize for that. What I did do right, was to stop recommending the podcasts as soon as I heard the whispers – and this is something we all can do. If we hear that someone is problematic, stop recommending them, until you have looked into the allegations at depth.

I don’t say that you should uncritically believe any rumor you hear, but you should remember that when people step forward, even just on the whisper network, they risk serious repercussions, so it is not something that most people would do frivolously, so you definitely shouldn’t them out of hand.