Who They Can’t Outthink, They Ridicule

56 Responses to “Who They Can’t Outthink, They Ridicule”

1. dadanarchist says:

   December 19, 2007 at 11:35

   Actually, there were those on the Left that supported eugenics, but you have to realize that eugenic movements themselves were a mixed bag, and reflected the political environment out of which they sprung. Historians suggest a sort of “positive” and “negative” eugenics. Positive eugenics entials government-provided health care, childcare training and assistance to poor mothers, sports programs like the Boy Scouts and gym class, hygiene programs, food subsidies, etc. “Negative” eugenics would be sterilization, institutionalization, euthanasia, and the programs that comprised the Nazi Party’s T-4 program which laid the grounds for the Holocaust.

   Sources: Daniel Kevles “In the Name of Eugenics” and Susan Pederson “Family, Dependence and the Origins of the Welfare State”.

   Using Spongebob’s logic, any type of investigation into genetic factors, including efforts to solve diseases, is fascist, as are most public health programs like childhood inoculations.
2. Tamsyn says:

   December 19, 2007 at 13:02

   To quote myself from an earlier post:
   “Fact: when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it was opposed by bigoted Southern Democrats. These men were so upset that LBJ (a democrat) signed the bill into law, that they left the democratic party and joined the republican ranks.”
3. x_eleven says:

   December 19, 2007 at 15:53

   “You mentioned Ann Counter and I’m reminded of how she had something hurled at her by a leftist protester. David Horowitz has been assaulted as well… That’s nearly textbook fascist behavior through and through.”

   As I said in the previous post, you can find authoritarians on the left, and you can find authoritarians on the right. Such behaviour is discourteous and uncivilized. This is what happens when authoritarians become so convinced of their own rectitude that they view all who disagree as evil to be destroyed, and not simply as folks who have an honest difference of opinion to be persuaded by arguement and debate. “Brown Shirts” or “Red Guards”: it’s never a pretty sight.

   I wonder if Goldberg’s big mistake here is his use of “fascist” when he really means “authoritarian”?
4. Tamsyn says:

   December 19, 2007 at 19:19

   “I wonder if Goldberg’s big mistake here is his use of “fascist” when he really means “authoritarian”?”

   I don’t know, that might imply that he had a clue.
5. Nathan says:

   December 22, 2007 at 00:51

   so now that you know that jonah’s year of effort resulted in an argument that the nazis were pro-gay and that gay art was the “artistic oxygen” of the nazi movement, are you still comfortable standing smugly behind it? do you think anyone capable of such an argument is in the least intellectual, honest, or worthy of debate?

   hint: the nazis put the gays in concentration camps and, uh, killed them. homosexuality was a capital offense after 1942. jonah bases his argument on the fact that a single nazi, rohm, was apparently gay.
6. Jimmie says:

   December 22, 2007 at 01:13

   Nathan, here’s what I do know about the book. Every single review thus far (and I believe there have been either four or five) says that the book is very well-researched and well-argued. Not every review agreed with the premise, but none of them – not one – criticized the book for being dishonest, anti-intellectual, or unworthy of debate.

   I’ll go ahead and take the words of the people who have actually read the book as opposed to the folks in this comment thread who have not and are relying on the words of other people who have not.