Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

'super talented weirdos'- Dominic Cummings wants your cv

Was speaking to a friend yesterday who described Cummings MO as shooting "fireworks" and watching the reaction. It doesn't matter if they fizzle out (or lose their jobs in this case), the act is useful in itself, brings ideas into circulation, disrupts, etc. Expect more of this...
Last Sunday's "Dismantle the BBC apart from Radio 3 & 4 lol" seems very much a firework announcement in that vein - and has been very effective.
Plans to actually do it are far from a reality (yet), but just saying it has a range of effects, deemed useful by the Tories.
 
William of Walworth said:
His past tweet about aborting Downs syndrome babies was beyond out of order :thumbsdown: -- absolutely disgusting :mad: (I'd forgotten about it, but I do now remember being repulsed at the time).

But in that latest tweet, he's merely attempting to state a fact as he sees it -- selective breeding works for other species. He's not advocating it. Not for humans anyway. Or am I wrong? I don't see the latter in that tweet above :confused:
If Urbans are going to pile onto Dawkins, I suggest
1. On another thread to this one
2. Sticking to what he actually said, not what people think he said, or wanted him to have said.

:hmm:
He's wrong. It doesn't work for animals though has some benefits for the humans doing the selecting.


Fair enough, no disagreement.
But back there, I wasn't agreeing with Dawkins on that question either, just saying that in the particular tweet being referenced, he wasn't being eugenicist re humans.
 
This is more about how they think of themselves already - bold modernisers, rebels against a stuffy old system, the vanguard, new brooms, disruptors. Definitely not a bunch of wonks. All they need is someone who can do something useful.

Not working out that well for Trump, that part.

Aren't disruptors Klingon, and therefore "foreign"? :eek:
 
That’s certainly the current state of play in much of the civil service

Where the Civil Service is moribund - the DWP is a good example - it's generally because ministers, NOT Civil Servants, won't make decisions that they feel might be unpopular with "middle England", and by "middle England", I don't mean the place were "Midsomer Murders" takes place, I mean middle-class England.
Another example of a moribund dept is MoD. The upper echelons- the "mandarins", the ministers and generals - don't want to offend the arms companies, because they're hoping for a reach-around when they leave Whitehall or Parliament, so the people they're there to clothe, feed and arm, get stuck with expensive crap that isn't fit for purpose, or get kit 20 yrs late!

Most of the rest of the Civil Service keeps on working DESPITE the govt; despite resource cuts; despite personnel cuts; despite the wrecking and the misplaced faith in the likes of McKinsey that cost us - because it is US who pay their fees - hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Even the mandarins - and having worked in Whitehall I have a low opinion of the condescending Oxbridge cunts - work hard as hell to insulate their departments from the caprices of ministers and "Special Advisers" (most of whom are tremendously uninformed about the processes of departments, but have lots of IDEAS!!!).
 
They are all incel-ish aren't they, all the edgy right types, all frightened of vaginas, the inadequate skull measuring freaks

Of course they're afraid of vaginas! Like most home-schooled or privately-schooled middle class males, they believe the myth of Vagina Dentata. Hence all the frenzied basement masturbation.
 
Depends how you're measuring the benefits. For the individuals selected, it means life for them rather than never existing. At species-level, it can mean proliferation - the domestic chicken is the most numerous bird species on the planet. For the planet as a whole, it may be very destructive, not least because it enables more humans to live at any one time.

But Dawkins is clearly referring here to a technical point - the assertion that selective breeding can produce desired directed results. On that narrow technical point, he is right.

Ah, the miserable voice of the disappointed Malthusian! All these people with the effrontery not to die; How would you like to control the size of the population? Would you go the medical route like Sabisky? Or are you traditional war, pestilence and famine enthusiast?
 
Ah, the miserable voice of the disappointed Malthusian! All these people with the effrontery not to die; How would you like to control the size of the population? Would you go the medical route like Sabisky? Or are you traditional war, pestilence and famine enthusiast?
I've a long record on here of vigorously opposing all those ideas. And I despise the idea of calling a choice to keep a disabled child as immoral. It's possible to do that and not misrepresent what Dawkins actually said. Or what I actually said, for that matter.
 
Thinking about Manter's point (speculation?) that this guy got fired because of the "sex advice" rather than the eugenics (which appears to have been given the seal of approval by Cummings , hence republishing on his own blog).

They obviously knew about the eugenics but missed very old posts written under a pseudonym on Reddit. (Or did they?). Were it not for that would he still be in position?

Was speaking to a friend yesterday who described Cummings MO as shooting "fireworks" and watching the reaction. It doesn't matter if they fizzle out (or lose their jobs in this case), the act is useful in itself, brings ideas into circulation, disrupts, etc. Expect more of this...
Raptors testing the fence....
 
Back
Top Bottom