I’m enjoying the irony in this headline immensely…
Presumably the organisers are going to have to have a rethink and repackage their gathering as The Bristol Festival of Nice Ideas from now on
Watson has been quoted as being “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 - whereas all the testing says not really.”
The hysterical responses to Watson’s comments have proven to be consistently good value – especially those coming from Liberal Humanists who are claiming that Watson’s comments are somehow scientifically inaccurate
In particular, I’ve read some right old cock coming from people, offended by Watson’s comments, who are claiming that on a genetic level there is no such thing as race and that any differences between races are really only skin deep
Yeah, tell that to the sickle cell
People who buy into Darwin claiming that every individual and every sub-group within a species are all equal?!
For fuck's sake
The problem for Liberal Humanists who want to believe that people are all equal is that science will never be able to prove anything of the kind
That’s not to say that Watson isn’t a racist old scrotum
Far from it, Watson is the latest in a long line of racist old scrotums, stretching all the way back to Darwin and beyond
Darwinian Evolution was hugely popular amongst the ruling classes in 19th Century England because it gave the stamp of scientific approval to some of their favourite concepts. Concepts such as the inherited genetic superiority of their class, the ‘surplus poor’, the ‘White Man’s burden’ to improve the rest of the world, marvellous ideas like that.
Watson talks like a racist because the logical conclusions of Darwinism are racist
But the important thing from a Secular Humanist point of view is that Darwinism is not (sic.) a religion, which makes it A1 Number One in their book regardless of the implications of uncritical acceptance
I’ve seen various attempts over the years to pretend that Darwinism isn't implicitly racist/ ageist/ sexist. Most of these arguments boil down to the claim that humanity has learned that collaboration is more productive than competition
But, hey, wouldn’t humanity be even more productive if the people collaborating were all engineered to be genetically superior? Wouldn’t a spot of eugenics help things move along a lot more efficiently?
Even if I didn’t reject Darwinism because I’m pretty certain Life doesn’t work like that, I’d still personally be inclined to reject it because I don’t like the idea of living in society run in accordance with Darwinian principles
And even though I’m not religious I’d much rather live in a society run on Christian or Islamic than Darwinian principles – the belief that all people have equal worth as human beings, that compassion and empathy are worthwhile in themselves, that we are at our best when overcoming misfortune and injustice... unscientific crap like that
The problem is, of course, that so many who claim to be Christians or Muslims aren’t anything of the sort
Oh, yeah, and having to believe three unbelievable things before breakfast.
That’s a bit of a problem too…
and a vaguely relevant story that only native-born North Londoners will be able to fully comprehend...
I was sitting in my Mum's lounge yesterday, chatting with one of her cousins, when my Mum came into the room with a plumber who was round to fix her toilet.
She introduced me to him. I stood up, shook his hands and straight away without any warm-up he said (not in a friendly way)...
'You look like an Arsenal supporter. Are you?'
' When I used to go, yes'
'I knew it. I can spot an Arsenal supporter a mile off'
'You a Spurs fan then?'
then he just glared at me for a few seconds before my Mum led him off towards the bathroom...