slug.com slug.com
26 7

Should some research topics be banned or results censored?

With recent advancement of science and technology, especially related to full genome sequencing and detailed brain imagery, academic researchers are now exploring what makes us who we are in more detail than ever before. One research area of potential controversy is analyzing genes to see if they can predict things like intelligence, personality, and mental disorders. While it is clear that there is no SINGLE gene for brain-related differences, researchers are now able to predict some differences by looking at thousands of places in our genomes, and generating a "polygenetic score".

For example, Robert Plomin at King's College London, describes how school performance can be predicted from DNA. Preliminary work can predict about 10% of the difference. DNA can also now predict about 18% of the chance to develop schizophrenia (see [ajp.psychiatryonline.org] ).

While his team has examined only European DNA out of fear of backlash, other researches are currently using similar techniques to examine controversial topics like race and IQ/personality, gender differences, and the propensity to be gay or trans. If it turns out that this research result in findings that are in conflict with the social justice movement, what should be the response? Should some areas of research be off-limits for the greater good?

Research that may result in controversial findings...

  • 5 votes
  • 3 votes
  • 85 votes
  • 8 votes
Admin 8 Dec 18
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

26 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

9

In my opinion research usually paves the way to knowledge, and knowledge is generally a good thing to have, so I'm against the banning of any sort of research. With that said, I do strongly think that certain researchers/research organizations should be funded privately, as Government money (aka the taxpayer dollars) needs to be spent wisely (fiscally responsible in other words).

@dd54 I concur.

4

"If it turns out that this research result in findings that are in conflict with the social justice movement..."
Not sure it is right to make a relationship between "research" (science) and "social justice" (political movement).

I have a brother who is a geneticist. He's been involved in many studies including genome sequencing. As an individual, he has always been a conservative. As a professional scientist, he strictly adheres to impartiality. My brother and I agree that science should be free from political interference.

Naomi Level 8 Dec 19, 2020

I agree that I could have worded 'social justice' reference better.

4

Hard to prove true without years of specific data collected over a wide demographic. Correlation then also is hardly proof of causation.

Agree that while there is a correlation between, say, race and cognitive traits, it is hard to say what is the root cause of differences... until now when specific genes are identified as correlated to higher IQ/etc. We're only a few research papers away from knowing.

4

Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay On Rogan.

One of the fake articles that passed gender review studies.

"Dog Humping in Portland, Oregon" All of their articles were made up with bogus statistics to give gender studies the narrative they want. This shit is ridiculous.

This is how you get tenure. This is the gold standard peer review.

Tarpon Level 7 Dec 18, 2020

I'll give you a thumbs up for "dog humping" alone.

3

Controversial topics are the ones which most need to be be studied. Science becomes much less useful if people only study things upon which everyone agrees.

3

If there is a risk of 'controversial' findings, then the research is all the more important - to either dispel them or confirm them. Controversy is probably the best indicator of what should be researched.

2

Pure research is what it is and is a huge part of the "human purpose."
To what ends that research is put is the only matter of concern.

And imagine the flip side. By way of example, consider technologies that large corporations "buy and bury."

The path of human development can only be walked successfully when the interior life of individuals is Good. It had been thought, in this country at least, that we had some idea of what constituted common ground in that regard, but events of the last 1-2 decades show otherwise.

If information can be weaponized in the normal sphere of normal people, i.e. FB, Google, etc., we had better get our act together as we pursue new knowledge.

Of course, if FCC 230 remains in effect, the dissemination of ALL research and knowledge will be under the control of the media giants, who are interested in anything but "pure research." It goes without saying, that Academia will need to look at itself and determine if its purpose is inquiry based or agenda based.

2
  1. Government should NEVER be in the research business.
  2. AI, and genetic engineering WILL eventually kill all humanity. Might be smart to make them illegal.
2

Eugenics. Population control. Killing people based on color of skin, searching pure race, and docile people according to technocratic psychopaths. Hitler and his people tried that already and the idea continued in America.

This is from the book I'm reading right now about technocrats: Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

Thirty-two states had eugenics programs, but California was in a league of its own… In California, the eugenics movement was led by figures such as David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, and Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times…. California’s movement was so effective that in the 1930s, members of the Nazi party asked California eugenicists for advice on how to run their own sterilization program. ”Germany used California’s program as its chief example that this was a working, successful policy,” Cogdell said. “They modeled their law on California’s law.”

Shamefully for California, its eugenics and forced sterilization program continued to operate until 1963. On a national and global scale, eugenics is still alive and well, most often associated with the population control policies put forth by Agenda 21.

Now with vaccines and people like Gates and rest of the technocrats, do you really want people like that to try to play God with the population of the world and no compassion or interest in anyone who is not like them?

What could possible go wrong? As someone said: "Evil people don't get up in the morning and decide to be evil. They get up and think they are doing what is best for everyone. And that is truly scary."

That is technocracy today. Marching towards utopia and creating dystopia for everyone.

George Orwell once said that the “English intelligentsia…can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism…So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Having experienced the reality of totalitarianism first-hand, Orwell knew all too well the ways in which people far removed from it employ “soothing phrases” to disguise more sinister ends. Of course, he would later coin the term “Newspeak” in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). This was the totalitarian language created to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism under Big Brother.

“The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years — imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations — not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.”
― George Orwell, 1984

In George Orwell's dystopian classic 1984, doublethink is the act of holding, simultaneously, two opposite, individually exclusive ideas or opinions and believing in both simultaneously and absolutely. Doublethink requires using logic against logic or suspending disbelief in the contradiction.

The three slogans of the party — "War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength" — are obvious examples of doublethink. The act of doublethink also occurs in more subtle details throughout the novel.

We are seeing that today with Covid 19(84) and Great Reset that sounds a lot like The Great Leap Forward, Mao Tried in the Communist China and created Great Manmade Famine.

What do you think lockdowns are doing to economy and people who depend on small bussiness and jobs? Lockdown policies doing to people's psychology, masks training to be complaint little sheep etc.

Are we except that people who treat others like sheep and ants are the people we should trust with genetic engineering ? I wouldn't.

Someone would say, yes but if we don't do it, someone else will and will be in disadvantage. Yes that is probably true. I'm sure China will do it. But you need to have men of ethics and philosophers on board, not people who are quick to do it, just because they can and never think weather they should or what the consequences would be? You don't want Bill Gates and his people do be playing with your genetics. Take my word on it.

It should be a footnote that Bill Gates’ parents were eugenecists and raised him to be one also.

With online dating helping people pick candidates based on desired traits, eugenics is going on faster than ever. For example, the top 20% of the online dating population get 90%+ of the contacts. High IQ people are finding each other more than ever and that concentrates power/etc. Advancement in IFV will also have eugenic results...

@Admin I'm not putting lot of faith in that, because matching someone based on arbitrary traits they put out there to be picked and superficial ideas like looks, etc. Does not work all that well. The other day there was article where hot women go on dating apps to get social approval because they are insecure , with no intention to actually date. etc. Also most of these matches don't last very long and marriages fall apart even more. So I would not use that as good way to judge what is going on, its just one of many factors. Also we don't know the algorithms used and how trustworthy they are.

2

A strip of lace, a pretty face, eugenics really makes the case!

Andyman Level 8 Dec 18, 2020

Yeah, right. Pure bred dogs and factory chickens. Nothing wrong with them.

2

Problem is, the left only believe results that are politically advantageous, otherwise they just scream rascist, sexist, (insert group)phobic. The left have been polluted by the post-modernist belief that there is no objective truth, only a subjective reality.
Also, a lot of academics are only doing research with getting grants and funding in mind. Which means it may be politically expedient to make certain findings, or interpret data in a certain manner.

Tom81 Level 8 Dec 18, 2020

More than expediant. Profitable. Grants are money. And no corporate university wants to waste a bunch of time on a doctoral canidates thesis to bear the fruits. Get the grant and let the students continue paying in at the same time. Double your money for none of the cost. "But we had to expand our lab and teach undergrads how to read the data that we programmed a computer to gather!"

Yes this happens. People virtue signal about their respect to science, but when I tell them I'm
a climate scientist and I disagree with the Standard Narrative, suddenly they hate.

In the sciences there are new grant directives that mandate that the research contain social justice.

Science departments are softening the PhD requirements. Most astronomy departments used to
require passing a physics qualifier and now most have dropped it.

Leftism hates meritocracies. They will likely use genetic information to insist that genetically smart
people give money to genetically dumb people.

Looking at modern latte leftists, I get the impression that athleticism is not a priority.

People say: "Trust the scientists. Don't politicize the science".

If you give scientists power, then the process of deciding which scientist
gets the job WILL become politicized. If scientists have power then each party
will do everything they can to get their scientist in power.

Power has to be in the hands of elected officials. That being said, it would be nice if politicians were scientists.

2

"If proven true, accepted impartially." LOL. Yeah, that is exactly what most of the brainwashed have done. If science says it, it must be true. Mt typing finger will not last long enough to list all the false theories and experiments that existed at one time or another. A history full of philosophers and scientists who got it wrong . . . but they were right in their day, their truth was the truth of the day. Now we both know that in the world's mind, the experts minds, the truth changes when deemed necessary. No, just accept the latest whimsy, no thank you.

I feel it's a great idea to let any number of research and theories be tossed out there for consumption by the public, but only because we need a resurgence in that old fashioned concept of thinking for one's self. Researching something because the 'latest' findings sound fishy (or too good to be true) is a good way to get educated about all sorts of good stuff!

Sadly, you're probably right that it will just yield everyone blindly following the herd, but still. I like to attempt to stay positive lol.

@MmeLinspecteur After a lifetime of negatives, it is hard for me to get positive about science and exspurts (misspelling, intentional).

@lawrenceblair I find that to be completely valid. It's hard to keep oneself in a positive mindset when constantly besieged by bullshit. All I can say is try to keep at the positivity and it makes each day feel a bit better. And the stupidity of others a bit sillier lol.

@MmeLinspecteur raw data and procedural criteria would be nice. Kinda like nasa does with the satalites. Document and release the full spectrum of information gathered. Let others study it and relieve the burdon of bias.

@CuriousFury I would be so down for that. And that's even without my love for raw research data, too.

@TheMiddleWay Oh, you mean all those modern conveniences that science has given us, all those things that poison our air, poison our streams and oceans, all those things that poison our minds. All those things? No, I thank scientists for nothing, I thank God for what He has done, all good, nothing bad, no garbage, no litter, no poison.

@TheMiddleWay Hypocrisy? No. I was born in this time in the history of the world. I was raised in it, indoctrinated by it, I am forced at the risk of starvation to live by its rules to a certain extent.When I was a young man I believed all its claims of superior knowledge, scientific theories and all that claptrap so I lived accordingly. I am now an old man and do you suppose I should crawl off into the bushes and die like an old dog? Considering your oh so liberal outlook, you probably do, population control and all that. But no, I am in this world and I live in it but I am not of it. And if I had my druthers, which I don't, I would change it. Now if that makes me a hypocrite in your blind eyes and your brainwashed mind, tough!

@TheMiddleWay No, they don't, not totally. Maybe you should look into that a little closer. And there is still the problem of your assuming I accept sciences view of what is good for man as you do. As I said I must eat as do the Amish. You are what I call a well educated liberal, state educated and brainwashed, unable to research in any places not approved by your peers.

@CuriousFury Modern telescopes crank out far more data than astronomers can analyze,
and most of it is public. Anyone can poach.

@jaymaron yeah, and if they started treating dna data studies like telescope data, it woyld be harder to skew data, though it could be poached for study

1

I voted yes. Though I draw the line at modifying humans for militaristic purposes. The DNA studies are there to help people figure out themselves to a point.

Throw social justice aside. How about a diverse array of volunteers participate in the studies not just Europeans? Transgenders go through tons of hormones, surgery, and therapy. Men have different needs than women. Even different races all still have the same color blood. Even developmental disabilities are different and require a cat scan from time to time. DNA studies are used to catch criminals and identify murder victims. Some cases go unsolved for decades until scientific processes get better.

Social Justice has kind of become dogmatic on victim status and make as much sense as a cult sometimes.
When you have concrete data for stuff like Gender Dysphoria, disorders, and various family lineages it usually helps people. Heck, we'll still argue over the data but if we went with social justice standards we'd probably be kind of less open minded or willing to ban everything that scares us. Even though social justice does say Love and Tolerate no matter what.

1

Most if not all "sponsored" research tends to be agenda driven and results tend to be predetermined. I oppose all publicly funded research for that reason. If you want help funding your research, set up a non profit, and make your case to the public. Government intervention into research should be limited to that which creates a public hazard.

1

How is this a question
Question the findings regardless
Be skeptical
And if you have to ask, makes me wonder how much politics would bend the reality to fit a narrative. Also if the science is wrong, that’s why you don’t base your life solely on science. Sure it can get you to the sun, but it also can not.

It’s like the Shroud of Turin which is authenticated by the body image satellite technology scanner then 3D printed the results and yet agnostheist still try to claim it debunked because the flipping crucifixion wounds are not where they suspected would be placed if..£<!*%}£ honestly. I love y’all people, but “gullible” is defiantly an inheritance trait

1

Should be.

German universities had schools of racial studies based on Darwinian theories. Josef Mengele received a PhD in anthropology from the University of Munich and a cum laude medical doctorate from the University of Frankfurt. His published research was within the mainstream of academic thought at the time. His degrees were not revoked until the 1960s.

Just saying this to illustrate that university research can produce utter, hateful nonsense. And have it rapturously received.

It's also hard to know which groups will use which research for hateful nonsense.

@timon_phocas Also from universities is the evidence-absent dogma of racial equality. If science was working as it's supposed to, we'd be allowed to refute the nonsense that the races are equal. Instead, post-modernist (Marxist?) professors are allowed free reign to publish nonsense about systemic racism when there's literally over a century of data with millions of cases, clearly demonstrating the empirical reality of innate race differences.

*We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
[advances.sciencemag.org]

1

I had voted no, it should be banned for several reasons, the simplest being just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

It should be obvious in 2020 that humans playing with viruses can result in catastrophes that cannot be so easily contained. There are international treaties banning this research for good reason yet here we are.

We have already seen similar “science” - nephrology and eugenics in the past and currently genetics, being used to categorize groups of people. The risk is the same ideas being used as a basis to marginalize them. It is a very short step to the attempt to eradicate the lower orders, the untermenschen, from our societies.

As troubling as those developments are, we are now faced with the investigations into AI which is unregulated. Building machines that exceed the limits of their human creators sounds attractive in a naive sort of way. I have to ask, however, what “discovery” has not been weaponized? Everything from firing a sharpened stick from a simple bow, to flights into space have been turned in some way against humanity. Creating a machine that can out-think and out-perform a human, one that can not only repair but re-create itself used to be the realm of science fiction but is now science fact. How do we control that once such devices are released upon the world?

We have the intelligence to change basic biologies or make machines that think. We lack the intelligence not to.

Yes, there are risks. Some can be scary too.

@Admin a virus replicates and “lives” off its host. There is no up-side like changing milk into yogurt or juice into wine. And oftentimes the result is the death of the host. There is no benefit to be gained by experimenting to create new ones.

@parsifal Most viruses do not even affect us; of all the viruses in the world, there is only a handful that will actually harm us.
[scientificamerican.com]

@TheHerrDark agree. At best we coexist.

1

@TheMiddleWay - exactly. There's no justice, there's just us and there's just them. Which side are you on and why?

Tom81 Level 8 Dec 19, 2020

The question is the quest •i-am-on•

"us and them" mentality is zero-sum game, only played by those motivated by power, and not justice.

1

@TheMiddleWay - define social justice then. Scientifically.
Churchill also said that about capitalism - Capitalism: The worst economic system, except for all the others.
Social justice is very subjective. The new anti-racism sounds exactly like...racism - just against a different group. Like femanism these days, has just turned into

Tom81 Level 8 Dec 19, 2020

I love how my progressive family toured me arond their metro,"this is the somali neighborhood, this is the mexican neighbirhood, this is the asian neighborhood...." as they point ed out all the 'good' resturaunts for 'that cultureal cuisine'. It was never " that restutaunt has the best thai food" . No the resturaunts were used like borders of miniature countries. It just hit me funny to see caring loving humanists segregating their metropolis based off of business borders. Not evil, just funny.

Maybe that is how voting districts are jerry mandered...ethnic restaurant propensities in a given area. Sure seems easier than trying to knock door to door asking for their ethicity amd phone number.

@TheMiddleWay Oxford defines "Social Justice" as: "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society."

@TheMiddleWay
"If I'm a somali immigrant who knows little to nothing of language and culture, it is an easier transition to surround myself with other somalis for support than to be thrown into the deep end and see if one can swim."
I can so relate myself to that as I am an immigrant in England. It is nothing to do identity politics. It is merely about comfort and reassurance. When I came to England many years ago, my English wasn't all that good. However, instead of creating a comfort zone with other immigrants who were in similar situations to mine, I disciplined myself to integrate with Brits on the basis of the principle of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". It did me good. 🙂 Meanwhile, I have met some immigrants who have no intention of assimilating themselves in British society. I don't get it.
Anyway, this is off the topic. Lol

1

China holds a patent on keeping a body (organs) alive after deactivating the brain.
Nazis ran experiments on breaking and rebreaking bones over and over.
I know this work will save lives and advance science but I still think the work should be burned and everyone involved burned on top of the work.

There are people living tpday, in america, probably laying in a gurney right now, that have donated their living bodies to science and endure experimental surgeries, one after another, for the hope of progress in some arena or another. And it is probably a military hospital pushing that science forward. From my personal knowledge 25 years ago. It is shocking.

@CuriousFury I don't believe the Chinese or nazi experiments were done willing donations.

@TheMiddleWay yeah sure, thats why we collected all the doctors we could after the war. Ponder on the implications of "operation paperclip"

@TheMiddleWay oh yeah, right. Those doctors were just nazi slaves under the heal of the governmment and didnt want to continue with implimenting their psychological manipulations of the masses with the knowledge gained from long term social experiments with torture, terror and loss. It wasnt just a bunch of rocket scientists we rescued. All operating through the cia...do you think it is an accident or coincident we are living in a defacto socialist facist state this year. Those gears have been winding up for a while. Do you not think the 3 letter agencies have not been using this unethical knowledge base to meddle in worldly affairs for the last 75 years. Look at all the regime toppling we have been doing this whole time. Experts in propoganda and spin. You may want to change your white gloves after slingin bull shit like "those practices are unethical, so they were abandon".

No hate. Just wow. You sound a bit nieve weighing this out. 18 years of continuous war, patriot act, wikileaks, nsa spying revelations, social media profiteering off of personal data collection and freedom of speech throttling. Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.

@TheMiddleWay you an idealist. It is noble. But trust me, i have worked in hospitals, surgical wards, medical wards, phlebotomy and physical therapy, and it is a corporate industry, hiding behind wings and staffs ...i have personallysuffered under healthcare systems, so demented, that i have ptsd flashbacks just seeing a hospital.

@TheMiddleWay We turned down the research but used the doctors and sciemtists. We also moved immediately to such things as the Tuskagee experiments and the others. We did evil after seeing what the evil could accomplish and taking in the scientists who did the evil.

1

Ask Stephan Mokyneaux about his mileage tackling some of these very issues for years. He's basically been cut off at the knees bc many people "can't handle the truth!"

While we're mired in BSPC culture this kind of study is going nowhere but underground.

It is a shame what happened to Molyneaux and similar voices. Censorship sucks.

0

They've been actively suppressing the reality regarding race, genetics, and IQ for decades now. We have all the research necessary to know innate factors explain over half the variance in race gaps. The only thing we don't know is the specific genes responsible for these differences.

It won't matter if they achieve 100% suppression. The Chinese or Russians will make the discovery soon after and use it to their advantage. Meanwhile, the West will continue to fight Nature and bow to the idol of racial equality.

The question is, what are Whites going to do when they realize they were conned into this bullshit about racial equality? How would you feel if you made sacrifices to be fair to people who hate you only to find out Hitler was right after all? The kind of anger that will precipitate in the wake of this knowledge is likely to be mistaken for the wrath of God.

0

Research with loaded questions begging the answer are a waste of time.

N0DD Level 7 Dec 21, 2020
0

Not banned and not pursued. Those who are afraid of science should know - the devil is in people, not in science.

We are all afraid of the atomic bomb, but we have killed many more people with hoes and picks.

Unnamed Level 6 Dec 19, 2020
0

May be pursued, but not with taxpayer money to fund it.

See my response to the post above yours.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 97

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #friends #videos #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,848Top

    Moderator