I’m sure that racists would come up for other ‘reasons’ for their hatred (perhaps they’d blame it on hiphop) but, unfortunately, for now, we’re stuck with pseudoscience.
It’s really depressing if you study the history of how Darwin’s great idea was immediately grabbed and warped into social darwinism (racism), and scientific racism (racism) with a sprinkling of pop psychology and garbage social science thrown in, to create a witches’ brew of wrongness that is still with us, to this day: [politico]
“You’ve never seen him sick. You’ve never seen him without energy,” Brenden Dilley, a self-described “MAGA life coach,” told his viewers on his radio show Friday. “[He’s] not walking around with weak-ass, p—- f—— genetics. He ain’t got those liberal genes. These are, like, god-tier genetics; top 1-percentile genetics.”
That’s a nearly perfect summary of the stupidity and ignorance of scientific racism. I’m not going to try, but I’m pretty sure one could write a book, or a goodly thick pamphlet, just digging into what’s wrong about that chucklefuck’s stated beliefs.
[source]
Upon graduating from high school, Brenden went on to become a highly successful personal trainer, receiving his certification through the National Academy of Sports Medicine.
So, that puts him on that bottom bar of the Pew chart. Surprise, surprise.
These are, like, god-tier genetics
As my dad used to say, “he chose his parents well.” In terms of learning how to be a corrupt, tax-dodging asswipe, that is. Is that nature, or nurture? If you look at Trump’s siblings, I think it ought to be obvious that (aside from a genetic predisposition for really bad combovers) there’s nothing outstanding about any of the Trumps. They’re just traditional american grifters. And, like grifters everywhere, they appeal to the lower end of the educational spectrum [pace James Randi’s incorrect dictum that it’s easiest to fool scientists – which is an odd thing for him to say given that he was friends with Richard Feynman who supposedly was extremely good at seeing through Randi’s tricks]
top 1-percentile genetics.”
That’s my favorite part: an appeal to the “gospel of wealth” which was actually an alternate explanation for wealth, namely “god wants me to be rich.” Remember: the folks who brought you the gospel of wealth were people like Andrew Carnegie and the other american robber barons – many of whom came over to the US poor and starving, then scrabbled their way over a heap of corpses to great wealth. If there was any genetic argument that they were special, somehow, they would have come to the US in great gold-covered ships full of silks and champagne because their forebears would have also been wealthy. No, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Frick, Ford, were trying on the “gospel of wealth” in order to justify their vast fortunes as being something other than “luck and ruthlessness.” Capitalists have to justify their wealth because otherwise, you know, people might realize it’s not entirely theirs.
For one thing, it also displays a complete failure to understand what a “novel virus” means, and how viral immunity works. To me, it’s incredible that anyone can reach adulthood without gaining some basic understanding of bacteriology or virology – those are matters of life and death – now, rather obviously. The reason novel viruses are so interesting is because nobody has immunity to them; there’s no godlike DNA that carries immunity to something that humanity has minimal experience with.
It’s a tribute to american ignorance that we still have people who hold such retrograde, stupid, wrong ideas. Partly, I suppose that’s due to a load of ignorant christians who fight tooth and nail to keep evolution and science off of the curriculum – which has everything to do with preserving their power and nothing to do with education. After all, if they really had faith in their ideas, it would survive a bit of science, amirite? Nurture, not nature. I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with bootlicker Dilley’s DNA that a little studying couldn’t cure – instead he’s got to serve stereotypes like “dumb jock.” #SAD.
And of course, the bone spurs.
Conservatism is recessive.
(sorry, couldn’t resist that)
Well yes, but Randi also knew John Hasted, Harold Puthoff* and Russell Targ.
* Puthoff was an engineer, not a scientist; if you differentiate.
Reginald Selkirk@#1:
And of course, the bone spurs.
Which is why his personal doctor is an osteopath. You never know when they’ll start acting up again.
Reginald Selkirk@#3:
Well yes, but Randi also knew John Hasted, Harold Puthoff* and Russell Targ.
Yes, but Randi’s point was that the smarter people are, the easier they are to fool. Feynman had more horsepower and curiousity than those 3 put together. And, from what I have read about the guy, he was a serious practical joker and damnably hard to fool.
[If you have not listened to the Los Alamos From Below tapes, I recommend them, especially the bit about when he punked Teller (who hated him)]
sqlrob@#2:
Conservatism is recessive.
Ah! Good one.
The most interesting thing about the Pew chart is that, as education goes up, only two categories change much. “Consistently Liberal” rises, while “Mixed” decreases. If you interpret “Mixed” as indicating “uncertain”, the conclusion is that the more you learn, the less confused and ignorant you get. What a shock!
Of course, the pathetic souls stuck in that “Consistently Conservative” crowd would just point to this as evidence that education is all left-wing brainwashing, and use it to justify cutting education funding.
Randi had a point, though I think he mischaracterized it.
I put it to you that it’s easiest to fool anyone who thinks it is hard or impossible to fool them. This is a trap highly educated people often fall into, because the important part – critical thinking – is rarely part of anyone’s STEM curriculum, and they subconsciously start feeling impervious instead of realizing this just means they’re well equipped to do the unavoidably necessary work of Not Being Fooled. Surgeons and physicists are particulary susceptible to this, I reckon; it is a disease of the smart-but-lazy-thinkers who easily mistake their expertise in one field for expertise everywhere.
I recently discovered that Franco’s regime believed that being a leftist was a genetic defect. That’s why they sterilised left-wing women.
(For those who don’t know, Franco was the Spanish fascist dictator 1936-1975)
@mjr, 5:
“especially the bit about when he punked Teller”
I had to read that twice. Edward Teller, of course.
re sheila @9: For those wondering, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
so, there’s some correlation between fear response and conservative politics, with conservatives tending to be more scared of things. and base fear/anxiety is somewhat influenced by genetics (at least in other mammals)
so if we’re going to be reaching ridiculous, poorly supported conclusions about genetics and politics, we should at least conclude that conservatives have scaredy cat genes :P
anyway, everything points to brains being massively influenced by environment, as that result shows. I would bet if you find the right environment you would get the opposite effect to that reported above (hmm, maybe france or india?)
dangerousbeans @ #12: I would bet if you find the right environment you would get the opposite effect to that reported above (hmm, maybe france or india?)
Do you think that more study and education could lead, on average, to less compassion and understanding? Specifically, in France?
Determinism?
Dig up Hitlers few remaining teeth that likely fell off when he was buried behind some NKVD shack in East Berlin.
Now, raise a hundred Hitler clones in varying circumstances.
I bet an arm and a leg that those raised in loving, harmonic homes and getting a good, well-rounded education will not go near Qanon or other extreme groups.
For the hell of it, vary the fetal testosterone exposure so you get a lot of gay hitlers- the Hitler cult will not survive that.
@cvoinescu they’re not measuring compassion and understanding, they are measuring agreement with the status-quo. Access to education is often correlated with wealth and social power, so maybe in some places it correlates with people being more conservative?
as for France, i was just trying to think of places that have notably different social/political environments. Maybe that holds true in some other societies, but I don’t know