And additional question: even if it was technically feasible, was it really ethical to surgically implant Hitler's cloned brained into the body of a silverback gorilla and make it fight against Tigerstalin?
Stalin disappeared thousands of people. Tiger Stalin "disappeared" a few, but there was no hiding it, the pile of intestines and bones was a dead giveaway.
If Hitler was Hitler today, and Hitler cloning machine. You hold world hostage with Hitler Clone Hitler Unlimited Hitler. What hold hostage with exchange for Hitler Hitler?
This comment made me reach semantic satiation of the word “Hitler” and it’s kinda nice. A word so associated with disgust has ceased to even register as a word in my brain.
Yeah to me that's the biggest objection... he's long dead, he has no surviving family that wants good for him to my knowledge. So to me that's kind of on the same level as, digging up mummies. The evil actions he commited in life don't really come into play here, and agreed it's really stupid idea to think that his behavior is genetic.
Kind of reminds me of when most of the nazi generals swore to have no kids to not carry on their DNA, except one, who said "No I won't sign that pledge, that's eugenics which is nazi ideology".
I don't think this is about "is evil genetic." The first psragraph of the article states it's about his underlying health conditions. Which I think is absolutely worth studying, if it means spotting the early warning signs and intervening before another person ends up like Hitler.
But then I remember the world we live in and realize it's probably not at all going to end up like that. So who knows? But they're definitely not going to find "the Evil Gene."
The "underlying health conditions" they mention are a possible predisposition for schizophrenia, autism, bipolar disorder, and kallman syndrome. Things that most certainly do not create hilters, and if it's being argued by anyone that they may then it is indeed apologia for fascist ideology. The thing that actually does create hitlers.
I think that his genetics might somewhat illuminate or inform historical events, but having it out there in our media environment just begs to have it abused and misconstrued by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Exaclty my point. It's information that could help us understand what conditions lead to the path he went down and thus help us understand what we can do to better prevent people from tumbling down the facist pipeline, such as better support for people with mental health issues and neurodivergent people.
But that's not how the wider world is going to receive that information. They're going to see "autism causes facism" or some shit and mistreat people even harder without the slightest hint of irony.
Your second paragraph is exactly why this line of thinking is dangerous. People with disabilities aren’t uniquely prone to dangerous ideologies. No matter how good the intentions are this would only create an association between disability and becoming fascist, which does nothing but hurt vulnerable people in the long run. We can support them without fear-mongering about how dangerous they may be otherwise.
I am not trying to imply that. What does lead to dangerous ideology is feelings of abandonment and hurt coupled with propaganda getting you to direct your anger towards people who don't actually deserve it. Which is why baseline support and understanding for everybody is important, not just those with neurodivergence and mental illness.
My interest would be in the potential to understand how, if he had these conditions, the treatment he endured might have lead him down that path. It would not be a stretch. As awful as mental health support is now, it was not just nonexistent in his time, you were downright abused for it.
But I am not saying mental illness/neurodivergence = fascist inclinations, I'm saying rejection and abuse for these things leads to resentment and isolation and these are factors extremists play on to recruit people. It is not unique to these demographics, but it can be a factor, and it should be visible without extracting and studying DNA, but if it gets people to listen, fine.
And it will get them to listen, but as I mentioned in my previous comments, they won't take the right lesson from it, and the responses I've receives prove that. All they're going to see is "mental illness leads to fascism," when I'm saying "abuse and abandonment is the problem," but that isn't coming through. We make our own demons. We have always made our own demons. And we will continue to do so as long as we choose locking them up in cages or killing them to understanding how we got here.
Realistically he was just the right person at the right time with the right ideas to make a righteous mess and end and ruin so many lives in a surprisingly short timeframe.
Also worth remembering that Hitler took heavy inspiration from Benito Mussolini, even coming to visit Mussolini early on to take inspiration from him (and later propping up Mussolini once the anti-fascists got too successful) even the Nazi sulute was inspired by Mussolini, who had lifted it from a series of silent films about a Roman hero which those films had likely invented the concept of the "Roman sulute" in one of the earliest examples of Hollywood fiction influencing reality
Hitler himself was unique, so there's always value to studying what made him that way. Even if the research shows his genes aren't relevant to his evil, that's a valuable finding.
Everybody is unique. Unless I'm an historian, I think there's more harm than good in selecting Hilter of all people as the source for that data.
Like if we want to add context to events in Hitlers life, then this could be useful. But our social discourse isn't immune to narratives that would seek to blame an individual's genetics for a social ideology / inevitable historic symptom of runaway global capitalism.
It's historically interesting to maybe understand who he was as a human being. He's often painted as a monster but he was a human, and is a warning to all of us what evil human's can achieve.
For example, they're revealed he had Kallmann Syndrome (which can cause a micropenis and undescended testes) - he may have essentially been essentially asexual which may explain some of his life choices and why he was so dedicated to politics and gaining power. They've also shown he had high genetic risks for psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, as well as ADHD, autism.
Sensationalist reporting aside, these findings do add something to our understanding of a historical figure who had massive influence on human history.
Nazis will take any data they want and turn it evil, even if it's only half true. And they'll ignore data that conflicts with their belief. It doesn't matter what science discovers.
We already have evidence that some forms of "evil" are inheritable. This isn't new. For instance example, I saw a documentary like 20 years ago that showed how one adopted baby—in a nice suburban family, with a couple other perfectly normal kids—was a criminal at a young age. Like stealing-a-school-bus-at-age-nine criminal, and that was just one of many examples. They showed two family trees: his adopted and his biological, and highlighted people who had been arrested, convicted of crimes, etc. They used a few different colors, and sometimes colored in one person's node with two or more colors. His adopted family had like one spot going back 3 generations. His biological family was a rainbow! Remember, he was adopted as a baby and raised with love, and the other kids were fine.
And science has demonstrated that offspring of stressed-out female mice are much more aggressive than their peers.
Now what do we do with this kind of data? Be proactive about helping certain kids if they have certain genes. Give them safe outlets for their impulses, or what have you. Extra monitoring. I dunno.
As for the stressed-out mothers... If you want to stop generational crime, give financial support and therapy to low income mothers. Because their stress is likely epigenetically producing criminal children.
What would a Nazi do? Nothing. Nazis don't care if people are evil. What are they going to do, eugenics themselves? They're the ones with the most colorful family trees.
Just some food for thought. I don't think we should suppress science just because Nazis exist.
I find it curious that they talk about privacy for Hitler but don't mention Henrietta Lacks who this very thing happened to. Her cell cultures are being used to this day.
And also just generally a matter of practicality. If every time you raised an issue of medical or scientific ethics you had to simultaneously mention every single other instance where that issue came into play it'd be impossible to discuss them.
For fuck sake.... Genetists needs to read some social science. What is all with this making Hitler the biggest reason for the existence of Nazism and the occurrence of the Holocaust? This is why people believe that you can beat fascism with a vote, as if it is a leadership problem and not a complete social movement and social transformation problem
Government and bureaucracy is the duct tape and glue we made to hold society together but actual societal change is a more natural force that is completely separate from government.
If it turns out Hitler had some bad genes his relatives' descendants will get a bad name. This is obviously a joke, but it's actually true as well. They've all distanced themselves from the name Hitler, but surely some people know about their relation to Adolf. I guess the questions is: how bad is it when you're grandfathers half-brother or whatever his DNA is public. There is a legitimate privacy concern there, that shouldn't be too easily dismissed because 'haha hitler & privacy'.
the question if you need relatives consent to make your dna public is interesting. I have my opinions, but the question of an historical dead figure has rights to privacy is another.
However, seeing if there's an "evil" gene is both cartoonishly naive and smells of eugenics. Hitler would have approved said study.
DNA is basically your identity. Your health, your ancestry, everything. But its also, not just you. Its your family, past and future. If we start talking the DNA of the dead, and Im pretty sure we already do as the dead have no rights, then at some point someone is going to challenge the right to privacy of the living in this area. After all, we're all going to die sooner or later, so why not get that sweet, sweet data just now?
Basic harms would be health insurance. If a provider has your DNA, it might show that your great, great granny got cancer. And they use that data to increase your rates. Or worse, deny your treatment, because your granny had the same treatment, and it didnt work.
What about work? Your ancestor has his history of health issues, and so refuses to hire you because you might get that too.
DNA from you or your relatives can also be use to track you, identify you, connect you to certain locations.
But heres the big one. Cancer. Your DNA holds the key to curing cancer. Some company has your DNA, and using your DNA creates a cure for Cancer. They then make trillions of money off of it. And you get fuck all, even though it your DNA. You dont even get to say that it should be given away. Its theirs now.
Also, once a company has your DNA. They have it forever. That you and your family, easily profiled, tracked, and whatever else until the end of time. What if, at some point, some targets you or a descendant with a DNA targeted virus? Science fiction now, but maybe not in the future.
Basically, the damage that can be done is limitless.
But heres the big one. Cancer. Your DNA holds the key to curing cancer. Some company has your DNA, and using your DNA creates a cure for Cancer. They then make trillions of money off of it. And you get fuck all, even though it your DNA. You dont even get to say that it should be given away. Its theirs now.
Sorry but I just still don't understand how any of that is related to the privacy concern?
Ok, say an insurance provider now has Hitler's dna. And let's say I live in the United states of corruption also. And I have a bad gene. What will they use Hitler's dna on me to harm my privacy? I feel like I am missing something ? Am I supposed to infer a mecha-nano hitler clone drone or something similar will perform a multi stage cyber attack on my privacy?
I already have. I still wonder; what is the privacy concern?? Hitler's relatives have to also form a public organisation and start producing Hitler clones?? When does the jump happen to everyone's dna being public, is there also an implied dna registrar that happens on the timeline due to the extreme fascism? Please I need to understand how this mind contortion happens
Also, it is internationally generally agreed upon that criminals forfeit their rights to personally identifying information, such as fingerprints and DNA evidence.
Given Hitler's regime has been internationally agreed to be war criminals and have committed crimes against humanity, even if Hitler himself chose the coward's way out to avoid being convicted for these crimes, I think we can all agree on him being responsible for these crimes thus is essentially convicted posthumous.
Therefore combining the two, Hitler was and is a criminal therefore privacy protection laws don't apply, therefore his DNA should be freely usable by the scientific community.
Did he get convicted or does the ICC or ICJ need to do a court process? If any state can just allege someone being a criminal to exhume and extract dna without judicial oversight we open a door quite wide for abuse.
Edit: "Everyone knows he did it so no court is necessary" havent given humanity perfect scores in human rights before
Also while the UN/ICJ/ICC did not commit him due to the suicide, the UN War Crimes Commission did indict him as a war criminal, which, in civilised countries, does mean the withdrawal of certain rights, including the right to privacy, therefore the DNA is still processable.
I do see your point, however the fact that Hitler gave the direct orders (often well documented) that were later deemed criminal, I'd presume that would be enough to assume criminal status.
Also, yknow, defending Hitler on technicalities is like defending a paedo on the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia - legally speaking you'd be correct, but in reality it just makes you sound like you're supporting the person in their acts...
Lol, yeah I really should choose my battles of technicalities better.
According to another user he seems to have been properly and lawfully declared a war criminal so my point was moot :)
The whole study is weird. Do they think there is a correlation between his DNA and the horrible acts he did? Are we going to start rounding up anyone with that genetic marker? Put them in camps?
Disregarding the fact that he was evil, Im not sure historical figures qualify for the same rights as we average people do. I think at most, we should respect what they respected, and Hitler did not respect privacy, so get fucked nazi, your DNA is ours.
Someone who was alive in the last hundred years may well have identifiable descendents or cousins. Someone from 3,350 years ago, less likely.
Since we often tend to consider the next of kin or manager of an estate to be the legal entity able to make certain decisions following the death of the person in question, whether there is a known/discoverable agent to ask may be relevant in this kind of matter.
His internal struggle with the urge to purge conflicting with himself being a Jewish black prostitute android during a time where robots are fighting for basic human rights
Hitler's (half?) nephew served in the US Navy during WW2. I don't think William has any remaining kin though. Looks like William has four children, 3 of whom may still be alive. None of those 4 have had any children of their own.
There is nobody who has consented or is still able to consent to any experiments being conducted on his remains. Dudes a fucking disgusting stain on the canvas of humanity. Doesn't mean consent is void. Opt-out, in my original reply, was pointing to the fact you think that "the absence of a voice against consent" is effectively consenting.
Also he's dead, why do dead people deserve anything, any rights? What harm happens to Hitler? He's dead. Did we ask dinosaurs to look at their DNA, for all we know they were sentient? The whole argument is stupid.
In the case of DNA, because it's shared with relatives and descendants who might be still alive. In Hitler's case, that might not be that much of an issue, but you were talking about dead people in general.
If your parents are dead, and thus they get DNA sampled, that information gained is good enough to positively identify DNA traces of all their children.
Remember how they caught the Golden State Killer? They put a DNA sample into the genetics website GEDmatch and found a few of his distant relatives. They then used publicly available family history records to construct a family tree that included all of these matches. That allowed them to narrow down the suspects to two people. One of them could be ruled out by DNA testing a close relative, which left the last one. They then took a DNA sample from his car, which was a match and that's how they got him.
Using that kind of stuff to catch killers is likely a good use of the technology, but there's quite a few nefarious things a state could do with a DNA database of all dead people.
Because caring for our dead is a very human trait. In my state, a housing development was put on hold after the bones of indigenous people were found there and they had a connection to people claiming descent from them making the whole thing a family affair.
How did they know they were indigenous bones? Was dead person's consent asked for to check if dead person wanted to be identified as ancestor of somebody?
I mean i understand caring for our dead, but anytime it's a matter of consent, its always for the living descendants, HIPPA protects medical records for 50 years, but they're generally protected so the living descendents don't feel impact for anything that maybe damaging.
And talking about laws I know it's a tangent, but the reason copyright exist after death is so that revenue can be enjoyed by living descendents. Laws are not necessarily sensible a lot of times.
They could probably tell fairly quickly by the age of the ground they were found in. Colonisation occurred less than 200 years ago making it fairly trivial to understand if they were older. The indigenous had also maintained stories describing the area as a burial ground.
For the living indigenous its a tangible link to their pre colonisation culture, thus making it incredibly important to them. After they've had so much of their land, language, beliefs, foods and culture has been taken away from them, I'm sure you can understand why preserving the links that they still have is important to them
oh hey i live in a neighborhood like that. my entire city is on an indian burial ground. every time they develop land, they survey, catalog, and gather the artifacts before placing them on land no one is supposed to know where but it's by the park.
I may be very stupid about it and not know the normative, but what is the safest option for me is the following.
No informed consent -> no research on any samples from the patient.
Does not matter how important your research is.
I myself would like to be informed about that stuff. I may decide to donate my organs to research after I'm dead, but I have decided that.
Under that argument you could grind up the dead and use them for fertilizer. I guess if you're being 100% practical it makes sense, but humans have a certain sentimentality for their loved ones, dead or otherwise, and so don't tend to like it when you use the corpses in a way contrary to the wishes of the estate.
The Nazis couldn't have done their genocide without the support of thousands of people, all who made the decision to actively support it for their personal gain, believes, or just plain complacency. What is a genocide supporting gene in one time is a normal suburban life gene in another time.
That is not what I'm saying. More, most people won't interfere or even support someone doing things like Hitler. You don't have to love your boring 9-to-5 job organising the maintenance of the trains to the camps, but if you do it because not doing it involves inconvenience... Yeah.
Who is harmed by this? No one living. Maybe you could argue Hitler has some right to not have his remains disturbed, but DNA testing isn't very invasive and we do it at crime scenes without consent all the time, so it's minor even if relevant.
What could we learn? Nothing of value. Even if there is some "psychopath gene" or "genocide gene" you'd need 100s of examples to show the effect and far easier to just pick such candidates from living, diagnosed people who can consent.
So then should we do it? Probs not. No real reason to, even though there's little reason not to.
There's propaganda value to "Hitler was quasi-Trans" as same revisionist demonism as "Hitler was a socialist" to revive a (neo) naziism without the baggage of Hitler, that can better serve Zionist first Christofascism in erradicating Islam, humanist governance, and whatever "the woke" needs to mean.
Beyond privacy rights, is what is the usefulness of the messaging, and could that usefulness be more important to someone/agenda than the moral failures of completely fabricating it.
Ok, but only to an extent. Prisoners 100% get fingerprinted. Not sure if they collect their DNA too, but I wouldn't be at all surprised; to the point where I already assume they do.
I know my institution wouldn't allow this without informed consent from himself pre-death or legally responsible family members. Plus you have to be able to withdraw consent at any time and we have to destroy all data, including sequencing analysis, upon request. Not sure how that affects published data but we'd have to strip it out of any data repositories the publications may point to as well.
This article make a big stink about how mentioning that he had genes that showed "very high" scores for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and how we shouldn't mention that because it might make people with these disorders feel more Hitlery. It also says he had similar genes for having a micropenis but doesn't show the same concern for people with this affliction. Well, Lemmy, does this new information make you feel more Hitlery?
The way I've reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. "Being tolerant" doesn't necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn't consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
The more coherent answer is the deceased lack inherent rights/liberties.
At best, the living have duties to legacies & claims by descendants toward the deceased.
It’s call the Paradox of Tolerance
The paradox distorted by authoritarians to justify illegitimate force/authority?
Seems some non-liberals willfully find it "very difficult" "to understand".
:::spoiler text alternative
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant?
When they
"are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument"
"they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols".
The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group 'intolerant' just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: "The Intolerant" RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power.
A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
:::
Footnotes
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩
I'd call this the early version, the one practiced by responsible institutions before fascism takes over. The late version being done by the people and their allies only after the fascists have already started to destroy the institutions and perpetuate violence.
It can be difficult to tell when is the right time, but yes, when it falls to the mob to enact (closer to the version I've laid out), the fascists have probably have gained too much ground.
Authoritarianism wins when the people act authoritarian, ie, corrupt the legitimacy of their government by abandoning the protection of inalienable/universal/inherent rights & liberties.
Your "remedy" is to kill the patient.
Society has been lazily disengaging from each other, segregating ourselves into ideological spaces where no one feels challenged to change their minds.
Society isn't fully utilizing the classic remedies in a liberal democratic of speech, civic engagement, & political organization.
"my" version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people. But I get it, you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements...
...they happened AFTER institutions had fallen (hence, "late"), and people were being killed. So no, resistance movements aren't "killing the patient" the patient is already dying by the time they emmerge.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism "early"). I'm right about violent resistance movements once fascism is actively destroying institutions and killing people (then resistance movements must start protecting society).
“my” version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people.
Inconsistent with your prior remarks.
The faster you string fascists up, the better off society will be. The body? Who cares, do what you want with it.
It’s not fascist, to be “fascist against fascism”.
"Faster" is not after "Nazis have already taken power and are killing people".
"String up" is force & violence.
So, you're advocating force & violence before "the fascists" use force.
Per the above, you're "misconstruing the paradox".
Intolerance of those who argue with force & violence is justified, and therefore, society is justified to not tolerate your force & violence.
you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements
Nope, cool straw man.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism “early”).
Nope, straw man of Popper, again: learn to read.
"Killing the patient" means giving into fascists by corrupting the protection of inherent rights & liberties exactly as a fascist would want you to do.
It doesn't matter that you do it to "beat fascists": you're still serving their goals like a useful idiot.
Protecting free society means protecting inherent rights & liberties from illegitimate authority, ie, freedom.
The freedom of free society comes from the rule of law & that very thing you're arguing to erode.
Yeah I'm not doing this internet debate bro shit with you. I said what I said, my opinion on Nazism isn't up for debate. But also I got better things to do. Bye.
The real challenge with DNA access is that there's too many nefarious things that can be done with that information. Without strong legal protections worldwide, some can use information from one's DNA to determine genetic conditions that they'd exclude from employment, access to social programs, or access to specific aspects of life even. Eugenicists freaking love DNA because it gives the perfect excuse, technical means and mode to carry out their practice, insurance companies could use genetic conditions to set rates in an unfair manner, and of course we could find ourselves with botique babies where certain aspects are spliced in or out in the attempt to make either the perfect child or more terrifyingly the perfect soldier.
Open access to DNA simply enables racism, social casting and eugenics at a scale and scope that humanity has yet to see, and the idea of this possibility is frankly terrifying.
Well, nothing is stopping the super soldiers, with or without open DNA. Most of those are not all that worrisome in any practical way, except employment and insurance. The only real answer for Insurance is single payer insurance at one price for everyone. The way we let insurance companies hold the noose around our necks in the US is flabbergasting. I don't know for sure that the rest of the world is quite as good as all that, since I've talked to people of many countries and never heard one that didn't have major complaints when they weren't just trying to dump on the US. I do feel like the US is the worst of the wealthy countries anyway. If we could stop the insurance companies from having the leverage to hold us to the fire, open DNA could facilitate research on lots of medical treatments. So I guess, first put the insurance companies out of business permanently, then open source the DNA. Which I suppose means never at this rate...
And additional question: even if it was technically feasible, was it really ethical to surgically implant Hitler's cloned brained into the body of a silverback gorilla and make it fight against Tigerstalin?
Everybody's so concerned with preserving Hitler's brain. But when you put it into the body of a great white shark, ooh, suddenly you've gone too far.
Ah! I knew it was not a novel approach. Thanks Pr. Farnsworth, you crazy sciency trailblazer.
I see what you did here.
Well, there's neither a great black shark nor a great Jewish shark.
Goblin sharks exist!
/j
A great white shark with fricken laser beams!
nah, put it in a Greenland shark so that piece of shit can wallow the depths for 300 yrs
Nah put it in a pergante hyena
But in the 80s, we transplanted Donald Trump's brain into a house cat addicted to cocaine.
That's ridiculous cocaine was addicted to Bill
It would be to more unethical to not do that.
Stalin disappeared thousands of people. Tiger Stalin "disappeared" a few, but there was no hiding it, the pile of intestines and bones was a dead giveaway.
I would unironically watch that on TV.
Is there any value to analyzing his DNA? The idea that evil is genetic is itself feeding into some Nazi ideas about eugenics that are deeply wrong.
Maybe we want to clone Hitler but raise him to be antifa.
Reminds me of a classic AskReddit aneurysm post.
This comment made me reach semantic satiation of the word “Hitler” and it’s kinda nice. A word so associated with disgust has ceased to even register as a word in my brain.
Give grammar lessons me unless Hitler Hitler release!
Real ambienposting hours
Give hitler me give eat hitler me eat hitler give me eat hitler give me you
I'll allow it.
Yeah to me that's the biggest objection... he's long dead, he has no surviving family that wants good for him to my knowledge. So to me that's kind of on the same level as, digging up mummies. The evil actions he commited in life don't really come into play here, and agreed it's really stupid idea to think that his behavior is genetic.
Kind of reminds me of when most of the nazi generals swore to have no kids to not carry on their DNA, except one, who said "No I won't sign that pledge, that's eugenics which is nazi ideology".
I don't think this is about "is evil genetic." The first psragraph of the article states it's about his underlying health conditions. Which I think is absolutely worth studying, if it means spotting the early warning signs and intervening before another person ends up like Hitler.
But then I remember the world we live in and realize it's probably not at all going to end up like that. So who knows? But they're definitely not going to find "the Evil Gene."
The "underlying health conditions" they mention are a possible predisposition for schizophrenia, autism, bipolar disorder, and kallman syndrome. Things that most certainly do not create hilters, and if it's being argued by anyone that they may then it is indeed apologia for fascist ideology. The thing that actually does create hitlers.
I think that his genetics might somewhat illuminate or inform historical events, but having it out there in our media environment just begs to have it abused and misconstrued by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Exaclty my point. It's information that could help us understand what conditions lead to the path he went down and thus help us understand what we can do to better prevent people from tumbling down the facist pipeline, such as better support for people with mental health issues and neurodivergent people.
But that's not how the wider world is going to receive that information. They're going to see "autism causes facism" or some shit and mistreat people even harder without the slightest hint of irony.
Your second paragraph is exactly why this line of thinking is dangerous. People with disabilities aren’t uniquely prone to dangerous ideologies. No matter how good the intentions are this would only create an association between disability and becoming fascist, which does nothing but hurt vulnerable people in the long run. We can support them without fear-mongering about how dangerous they may be otherwise.
I am not trying to imply that. What does lead to dangerous ideology is feelings of abandonment and hurt coupled with propaganda getting you to direct your anger towards people who don't actually deserve it. Which is why baseline support and understanding for everybody is important, not just those with neurodivergence and mental illness.
My interest would be in the potential to understand how, if he had these conditions, the treatment he endured might have lead him down that path. It would not be a stretch. As awful as mental health support is now, it was not just nonexistent in his time, you were downright abused for it.
But I am not saying mental illness/neurodivergence = fascist inclinations, I'm saying rejection and abuse for these things leads to resentment and isolation and these are factors extremists play on to recruit people. It is not unique to these demographics, but it can be a factor, and it should be visible without extracting and studying DNA, but if it gets people to listen, fine.
And it will get them to listen, but as I mentioned in my previous comments, they won't take the right lesson from it, and the responses I've receives prove that. All they're going to see is "mental illness leads to fascism," when I'm saying "abuse and abandonment is the problem," but that isn't coming through. We make our own demons. We have always made our own demons. And we will continue to do so as long as we choose locking them up in cages or killing them to understanding how we got here.
Nope but sociopaths probably do have a gene we can detect
We learned he had a micro penis, a potent weapon against his neo-nazi fans. The value is already immense.
And monorchidia
Is there any value to make 2 million Hitler documentaries? No, but they do it anyways.
The personality disorders that led Hitler down the path of evil have strong genetic components, so yes there's value in studying his genes.
Is that anything unique to Hitler?
Realistically he was just the right person at the right time with the right ideas to make a righteous mess and end and ruin so many lives in a surprisingly short timeframe.
Also worth remembering that Hitler took heavy inspiration from Benito Mussolini, even coming to visit Mussolini early on to take inspiration from him (and later propping up Mussolini once the anti-fascists got too successful) even the Nazi sulute was inspired by Mussolini, who had lifted it from a series of silent films about a Roman hero which those films had likely invented the concept of the "Roman sulute" in one of the earliest examples of Hollywood fiction influencing reality
Hitler himself was unique, so there's always value to studying what made him that way. Even if the research shows his genes aren't relevant to his evil, that's a valuable finding.
Everybody is unique. Unless I'm an historian, I think there's more harm than good in selecting Hilter of all people as the source for that data.
Like if we want to add context to events in Hitlers life, then this could be useful. But our social discourse isn't immune to narratives that would seek to blame an individual's genetics for a social ideology / inevitable historic symptom of runaway global capitalism.
It's historically interesting to maybe understand who he was as a human being. He's often painted as a monster but he was a human, and is a warning to all of us what evil human's can achieve.
For example, they're revealed he had Kallmann Syndrome (which can cause a micropenis and undescended testes) - he may have essentially been essentially asexual which may explain some of his life choices and why he was so dedicated to politics and gaining power. They've also shown he had high genetic risks for psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, as well as ADHD, autism.
Sensationalist reporting aside, these findings do add something to our understanding of a historical figure who had massive influence on human history.
not really… identifying and/or ruling out genetic origins of diseases isn’t racism.
my moral objection to this is: we shouldn’t be scanning and storing hitler’s dna; that’s how you end up with Hitler clones.
Would a Hitler clone be morally culpable of someone else's actions?
not exactly, but it should still be killed as quickly as possible
Wouldn't that make you an immoral monster who "should still be killed as quickly as possible"?
Maybe if logical consistency is silly. You argued in favor of killing someone unjustifiably. Moral principles mean nothing to you?
The sort that would want a Hitler clone would be happy with a direwolf-style pseudo-clone with good marketing.
Nazis will take any data they want and turn it evil, even if it's only half true. And they'll ignore data that conflicts with their belief. It doesn't matter what science discovers.
We already have evidence that some forms of "evil" are inheritable. This isn't new. For instance example, I saw a documentary like 20 years ago that showed how one adopted baby—in a nice suburban family, with a couple other perfectly normal kids—was a criminal at a young age. Like stealing-a-school-bus-at-age-nine criminal, and that was just one of many examples. They showed two family trees: his adopted and his biological, and highlighted people who had been arrested, convicted of crimes, etc. They used a few different colors, and sometimes colored in one person's node with two or more colors. His adopted family had like one spot going back 3 generations. His biological family was a rainbow! Remember, he was adopted as a baby and raised with love, and the other kids were fine.
And science has demonstrated that offspring of stressed-out female mice are much more aggressive than their peers.
Now what do we do with this kind of data? Be proactive about helping certain kids if they have certain genes. Give them safe outlets for their impulses, or what have you. Extra monitoring. I dunno.
As for the stressed-out mothers... If you want to stop generational crime, give financial support and therapy to low income mothers. Because their stress is likely epigenetically producing criminal children.
What would a Nazi do? Nothing. Nazis don't care if people are evil. What are they going to do, eugenics themselves? They're the ones with the most colorful family trees.
Just some food for thought. I don't think we should suppress science just because Nazis exist.
I find it curious that they talk about privacy for Hitler but don't mention Henrietta Lacks who this very thing happened to. Her cell cultures are being used to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks
that's how you know the whole argument is a dog whistle...
Is this called whataboutism? Henrietta Lacks may be why we argue this, eg, do the arguments on Henrietta Lacks apply as much to Hitler?
And also just generally a matter of practicality. If every time you raised an issue of medical or scientific ethics you had to simultaneously mention every single other instance where that issue came into play it'd be impossible to discuss them.
"You mean that black person," I thought without ever having heard of her. Click the link, yep she's black. Makes sense
Does this neolithic prehuman have a right to privacy? If they can't give consent, what does it say about this project?
For fuck sake.... Genetists needs to read some social science. What is all with this making Hitler the biggest reason for the existence of Nazism and the occurrence of the Holocaust? This is why people believe that you can beat fascism with a vote, as if it is a leadership problem and not a complete social movement and social transformation problem
What if it turns out Hitler saliva cures cancer, all you gotta do is make out with a Hitler clone? You know, like with lizards and limey disease.
Now I imagine limey disease. Prime symptom is talking like "Oi guvnor, u wot?"
I think he meant, bluey disease
Government and bureaucracy is the duct tape and glue we made to hold society together but actual societal change is a more natural force that is completely separate from government.
If it turns out Hitler had some bad genes his relatives' descendants will get a bad name. This is obviously a joke, but it's actually true as well. They've all distanced themselves from the name Hitler, but surely some people know about their relation to Adolf. I guess the questions is: how bad is it when you're grandfathers half-brother or whatever his DNA is public. There is a legitimate privacy concern there, that shouldn't be too easily dismissed because 'haha hitler & privacy'.
the question if you need relatives consent to make your dna public is interesting. I have my opinions, but the question of an historical dead figure has rights to privacy is another.
However, seeing if there's an "evil" gene is both cartoonishly naive and smells of eugenics. Hitler would have approved said study.
His relatives actually decided to not have children collectively afaik.
They appeared to be fairly nice chaps - a friend of mine interviewed one of them 20 years ago for a uni research project.
I feel like you still haven't explained what the privacy concern is
DNA is basically your identity. Your health, your ancestry, everything. But its also, not just you. Its your family, past and future. If we start talking the DNA of the dead, and Im pretty sure we already do as the dead have no rights, then at some point someone is going to challenge the right to privacy of the living in this area. After all, we're all going to die sooner or later, so why not get that sweet, sweet data just now?
Basic harms would be health insurance. If a provider has your DNA, it might show that your great, great granny got cancer. And they use that data to increase your rates. Or worse, deny your treatment, because your granny had the same treatment, and it didnt work.
What about work? Your ancestor has his history of health issues, and so refuses to hire you because you might get that too.
DNA from you or your relatives can also be use to track you, identify you, connect you to certain locations.
But heres the big one. Cancer. Your DNA holds the key to curing cancer. Some company has your DNA, and using your DNA creates a cure for Cancer. They then make trillions of money off of it. And you get fuck all, even though it your DNA. You dont even get to say that it should be given away. Its theirs now.
Also, once a company has your DNA. They have it forever. That you and your family, easily profiled, tracked, and whatever else until the end of time. What if, at some point, some targets you or a descendant with a DNA targeted virus? Science fiction now, but maybe not in the future.
Basically, the damage that can be done is limitless.
Basically what happened to Henrietta Lacks
So what is the actual privacy concern though?
What I just spelled out to you...
Sorry but I just still don't understand how any of that is related to the privacy concern?
Ok, say an insurance provider now has Hitler's dna. And let's say I live in the United states of corruption also. And I have a bad gene. What will they use Hitler's dna on me to harm my privacy? I feel like I am missing something ? Am I supposed to infer a mecha-nano hitler clone drone or something similar will perform a multi stage cyber attack on my privacy?
You are missing something. The ability to read. Everything is spelled out for you in the post. READ IT AGAIN. And keep reading it until you get it.
I already have. I still wonder; what is the privacy concern?? Hitler's relatives have to also form a public organisation and start producing Hitler clones?? When does the jump happen to everyone's dna being public, is there also an implied dna registrar that happens on the timeline due to the extreme fascism? Please I need to understand how this mind contortion happens
He's been dead for 80 years, that's plenty long enough for anyone's feelings to not matter.
USA: IP right is 100 years after the creators death.
So when did hitlers parents die?
US IP rights are only a good example of a bad example.
US law is an interesting response to an ethics question
Money > humans?
Also, it is internationally generally agreed upon that criminals forfeit their rights to personally identifying information, such as fingerprints and DNA evidence.
Given Hitler's regime has been internationally agreed to be war criminals and have committed crimes against humanity, even if Hitler himself chose the coward's way out to avoid being convicted for these crimes, I think we can all agree on him being responsible for these crimes thus is essentially convicted posthumous.
Therefore combining the two, Hitler was and is a criminal therefore privacy protection laws don't apply, therefore his DNA should be freely usable by the scientific community.
Did he get convicted or does the ICC or ICJ need to do a court process? If any state can just allege someone being a criminal to exhume and extract dna without judicial oversight we open a door quite wide for abuse.
Edit: "Everyone knows he did it so no court is necessary" havent given humanity perfect scores in human rights before
Also while the UN/ICJ/ICC did not commit him due to the suicide, the UN War Crimes Commission did indict him as a war criminal, which, in civilised countries, does mean the withdrawal of certain rights, including the right to privacy, therefore the DNA is still processable.
I do see your point, however the fact that Hitler gave the direct orders (often well documented) that were later deemed criminal, I'd presume that would be enough to assume criminal status.
Also, yknow, defending Hitler on technicalities is like defending a paedo on the distinction between paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia - legally speaking you'd be correct, but in reality it just makes you sound like you're supporting the person in their acts...
Lol, yeah I really should choose my battles of technicalities better. According to another user he seems to have been properly and lawfully declared a war criminal so my point was moot :)
Edit: oh, that user was you!
The whole study is weird. Do they think there is a correlation between his DNA and the horrible acts he did? Are we going to start rounding up anyone with that genetic marker? Put them in camps?
Sounds like one step away from finding another reason for the Government to round up marginalized groups.
Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it.
I rest my case
Does Tutankhamun's DNA need consent?
Disregarding the fact that he was evil, Im not sure historical figures qualify for the same rights as we average people do. I think at most, we should respect what they respected, and Hitler did not respect privacy, so get fucked nazi, your DNA is ours.
Someone who was alive in the last hundred years may well have identifiable descendents or cousins. Someone from 3,350 years ago, less likely.
Since we often tend to consider the next of kin or manager of an estate to be the legal entity able to make certain decisions following the death of the person in question, whether there is a known/discoverable agent to ask may be relevant in this kind of matter.
Ew, undersmencht dna
What privacy do you guys think your dna has???
While im alive? Don't touchy, I don't even want people taking pictures of me without permission let alone a strand of hair or skin flakes.
But once im dead who cares, not my problem anymore.
I know until the sexbots arrive that offer free simulated* sex for new subscribers
Just what I wanted, a true to life Hitler sexbot.
Actually now that I think about it that would make a banger anime.
His internal struggle with the urge to purge conflicting with himself being a Jewish black prostitute android during a time where robots are fighting for basic human rights
That time Hitler reincarnated as a Jewish black sex bot, and his communist art shop.
Your entire family tree
Your dna contains that information, yes. But what is the privacy concern
I think that's an easy one: Hitler is dead and, as far as I know, never had any direct descendants or relatives that could object on valid reasons.
Hitler's (half?) nephew served in the US Navy during WW2.
I don't think William has any remaining kin though.Looks like William has four children, 3 of whom may still be alive. None of those 4 have had any children of their own.https://lyonairmuseum.org/blog/corpsman-hitler-us-navy/
A niece or nephew isn't a direct descendant
Why should doing experiments on ones bodily components be an opt-out situation?
Whether it be an opt-out or -in situation is beyond the topic of this question, but neither are applicable here.
There is nobody who has consented or is still able to consent to any experiments being conducted on his remains. Dudes a fucking disgusting stain on the canvas of humanity. Doesn't mean consent is void. Opt-out, in my original reply, was pointing to the fact you think that "the absence of a voice against consent" is effectively consenting.
What a pointless question. There's literally nothing we could hope to learn from examining his specific DNA.
This is like how some scientist stole Einstein's brain to see what made him so smart and didn't find anything. Pointless.
The fact that this is being used as an argument against right to privacy is an ad absurdum strawman.
How do the dead have any rights? I'm pretty sure the dead don't give any fucks.
Why are we even talking about Hitler's DNA? Out of all the news why this. We are seriously weird.
Researchers sequenced his DNA recently from a bloodstained couch cushion, we've been getting glimpses into it lately.
Also he's dead, why do dead people deserve anything, any rights? What harm happens to Hitler? He's dead. Did we ask dinosaurs to look at their DNA, for all we know they were sentient? The whole argument is stupid.
In the case of DNA, because it's shared with relatives and descendants who might be still alive. In Hitler's case, that might not be that much of an issue, but you were talking about dead people in general.
If your parents are dead, and thus they get DNA sampled, that information gained is good enough to positively identify DNA traces of all their children.
Remember how they caught the Golden State Killer? They put a DNA sample into the genetics website GEDmatch and found a few of his distant relatives. They then used publicly available family history records to construct a family tree that included all of these matches. That allowed them to narrow down the suspects to two people. One of them could be ruled out by DNA testing a close relative, which left the last one. They then took a DNA sample from his car, which was a match and that's how they got him.
Using that kind of stuff to catch killers is likely a good use of the technology, but there's quite a few nefarious things a state could do with a DNA database of all dead people.
You bring up a lot of good points.
Apparently there are some rights that exist beyond death. Currently HIPAA protection after death for medical privacy only extends fifty years.
So it does appear the argument is pretty moot.
Here is an interesting read on the matter.
https://aeon.co/essays/do-we-have-a-right-to-medical-privacy-after-we-are-dead
Because caring for our dead is a very human trait. In my state, a housing development was put on hold after the bones of indigenous people were found there and they had a connection to people claiming descent from them making the whole thing a family affair.
How did they know they were indigenous bones? Was dead person's consent asked for to check if dead person wanted to be identified as ancestor of somebody?
I mean i understand caring for our dead, but anytime it's a matter of consent, its always for the living descendants, HIPPA protects medical records for 50 years, but they're generally protected so the living descendents don't feel impact for anything that maybe damaging.
And talking about laws I know it's a tangent, but the reason copyright exist after death is so that revenue can be enjoyed by living descendents. Laws are not necessarily sensible a lot of times.
They could probably tell fairly quickly by the age of the ground they were found in. Colonisation occurred less than 200 years ago making it fairly trivial to understand if they were older. The indigenous had also maintained stories describing the area as a burial ground.
For the living indigenous its a tangible link to their pre colonisation culture, thus making it incredibly important to them. After they've had so much of their land, language, beliefs, foods and culture has been taken away from them, I'm sure you can understand why preserving the links that they still have is important to them
oh hey i live in a neighborhood like that. my entire city is on an indian burial ground. every time they develop land, they survey, catalog, and gather the artifacts before placing them on land no one is supposed to know where but it's by the park.
I may be very stupid about it and not know the normative, but what is the safest option for me is the following. No informed consent -> no research on any samples from the patient.
Does not matter how important your research is. I myself would like to be informed about that stuff. I may decide to donate my organs to research after I'm dead, but I have decided that.
Under that argument you could grind up the dead and use them for fertilizer. I guess if you're being 100% practical it makes sense, but humans have a certain sentimentality for their loved ones, dead or otherwise, and so don't tend to like it when you use the corpses in a way contrary to the wishes of the estate.
Presumably the insights are just that he was a human and not a space alien.
What are they looking for exactly?
They are trying to track down the genocide gene. Then we can screen all of our politicians for it
The Nazis couldn't have done their genocide without the support of thousands of people, all who made the decision to actively support it for their personal gain, believes, or just plain complacency. What is a genocide supporting gene in one time is a normal suburban life gene in another time.
Yes, most people would love Hitler's work if it wasn't associated with Hitler/ Germany won the ww2. I fucking hate humanity.
That is not what I'm saying. More, most people won't interfere or even support someone doing things like Hitler. You don't have to love your boring 9-to-5 job organising the maintenance of the trains to the camps, but if you do it because not doing it involves inconvenience... Yeah.
That sounds like latent serial killer genes talking
People keep shouting Idiocracy.
I reckon Gaataca is the more likely outcome.
An excuse for the camps to continue Hitler's work. How is everyone stupid enough not to figure it out?
Just a weird topic especially with all this neo-nazism happening in the US government.
I am not saying it isn't newsworthy at all of course. It is just the timing is suspect.
Do dead people have rights? 🤔
They ain't go no souls.
Can't dance neither. That has major friendship implications
According to the GOP, since the dead pay no taxes to America, they have no rights.
Fetuses don't pay taxes either and yet the GOP are really interested in making sure they have rights.
Who is harmed by this? No one living. Maybe you could argue Hitler has some right to not have his remains disturbed, but DNA testing isn't very invasive and we do it at crime scenes without consent all the time, so it's minor even if relevant.
What could we learn? Nothing of value. Even if there is some "psychopath gene" or "genocide gene" you'd need 100s of examples to show the effect and far easier to just pick such candidates from living, diagnosed people who can consent.
So then should we do it? Probs not. No real reason to, even though there's little reason not to.
They will probably use Hitler's pseudoscience to start camps for psychological minorities. Where have we heard of that before?
Nice try, but I watched The Boys From Brazil. No Hitler DNA for you!
There's propaganda value to "Hitler was quasi-Trans" as same revisionist demonism as "Hitler was a socialist" to revive a (neo) naziism without the baggage of Hitler, that can better serve Zionist first Christofascism in erradicating Islam, humanist governance, and whatever "the woke" needs to mean.
Beyond privacy rights, is what is the usefulness of the messaging, and could that usefulness be more important to someone/agenda than the moral failures of completely fabricating it.
Doesn't a criminal give up their right to freedom by doing crimes?
So why wouldn't a war criminal give up their right to privacy by doing war crimes?
Ok, but only to an extent. Prisoners 100% get fingerprinted. Not sure if they collect their DNA too, but I wouldn't be at all surprised; to the point where I already assume they do.
I know for a fact that certain places now mandate collection of dna for many crimes.
Sure they still have rights.
But not their right to freedom. That is why they are in prison. They aren't allowed to leave.
Is it already proven that they are criminals or do you want to remove someone right in order to prove they are criminals?
Rights of people are regularly taken away to prove they are criminal.
Searching peoples homes for evidence is probably the most common way.
It's also proven that Hitler was one of the worst human beeings ever to walk the earth.
That's only caused we haven't searched the right home yet.
Most arguments for using Hitler's DNA end up supporting the eugenicist trash Nazi scientists espoused. There is little practical use for it.
Data protection only covers the living IIRC.
Ethically, it may be questionable, personally, IDGAF.
The DNA would probably fall in public domain before any significant research could be done with it.
Maybe this is the way, we looked at ancient human DNA, maybe there should be a public domain aspect to it. Sequence today, study after XX years.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?" Mark Twain
What is the scientific value of it and why can't those values be realised in a way that does not even raise ethical concerns?
The best argument for it was that eventually someone would do it and they may just as well do it rigorously.
I know my institution wouldn't allow this without informed consent from himself pre-death or legally responsible family members. Plus you have to be able to withdraw consent at any time and we have to destroy all data, including sequencing analysis, upon request. Not sure how that affects published data but we'd have to strip it out of any data repositories the publications may point to as well.
This article make a big stink about how mentioning that he had genes that showed "very high" scores for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and how we shouldn't mention that because it might make people with these disorders feel more Hitlery. It also says he had similar genes for having a micropenis but doesn't show the same concern for people with this affliction. Well, Lemmy, does this new information make you feel more Hitlery?
Oh suuure...!
Yes, fascism negates the rights of the fascists. It has to in order to protect free society.
It's call the Paradox of Tolerance, and is very difficult for centrist liberals to understand.
The faster you string fascists up, the better off society will be. The body? Who cares, do what you want with it.
It's not fascist, to be "fascist against fascism".
The way I've reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. "Being tolerant" doesn't necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn't consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
The more coherent answer is the deceased lack inherent rights/liberties. At best, the living have duties to legacies & claims by descendants toward the deceased.
The paradox distorted by authoritarians to justify illegitimate force/authority? Seems some non-liberals willfully find it "very difficult" "to understand".
:::spoiler text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper1
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they "are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument" "they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group 'intolerant' just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: "The Intolerant" RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com :::
Footnotes
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩
I'd call this the early version, the one practiced by responsible institutions before fascism takes over. The late version being done by the people and their allies only after the fascists have already started to destroy the institutions and perpetuate violence.
It can be difficult to tell when is the right time, but yes, when it falls to the mob to enact (closer to the version I've laid out), the fascists have probably have gained too much ground.
Authoritarianism wins when the people act authoritarian, ie, corrupt the legitimacy of their government by abandoning the protection of inalienable/universal/inherent rights & liberties. Your "remedy" is to kill the patient.
Society has been lazily disengaging from each other, segregating ourselves into ideological spaces where no one feels challenged to change their minds. Society isn't fully utilizing the classic remedies in a liberal democratic of speech, civic engagement, & political organization.
"my" version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people. But I get it, you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements...
...they happened AFTER institutions had fallen (hence, "late"), and people were being killed. So no, resistance movements aren't "killing the patient" the patient is already dying by the time they emmerge.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism "early"). I'm right about violent resistance movements once fascism is actively destroying institutions and killing people (then resistance movements must start protecting society).
Inconsistent with your prior remarks.
"Faster" is not after "Nazis have already taken power and are killing people". "String up" is force & violence. So, you're advocating force & violence before "the fascists" use force.
Per the above, you're "misconstruing the paradox". Intolerance of those who argue with force & violence is justified, and therefore, society is justified to not tolerate your force & violence.
Nope, cool straw man.
Nope, straw man of Popper, again: learn to read.
"Killing the patient" means giving into fascists by corrupting the protection of inherent rights & liberties exactly as a fascist would want you to do. It doesn't matter that you do it to "beat fascists": you're still serving their goals like a useful idiot.
Protecting free society means protecting inherent rights & liberties from illegitimate authority, ie, freedom. The freedom of free society comes from the rule of law & that very thing you're arguing to erode.
Yeah I'm not doing this internet debate bro shit with you. I said what I said, my opinion on Nazism isn't up for debate. But also I got better things to do. Bye.
Other dead people have no right to privacy, especially dead famous people
This means release the Epstein files.
I think everybody's DNA should be open source...
The real challenge with DNA access is that there's too many nefarious things that can be done with that information. Without strong legal protections worldwide, some can use information from one's DNA to determine genetic conditions that they'd exclude from employment, access to social programs, or access to specific aspects of life even. Eugenicists freaking love DNA because it gives the perfect excuse, technical means and mode to carry out their practice, insurance companies could use genetic conditions to set rates in an unfair manner, and of course we could find ourselves with botique babies where certain aspects are spliced in or out in the attempt to make either the perfect child or more terrifyingly the perfect soldier.
Open access to DNA simply enables racism, social casting and eugenics at a scale and scope that humanity has yet to see, and the idea of this possibility is frankly terrifying.
Well, nothing is stopping the super soldiers, with or without open DNA. Most of those are not all that worrisome in any practical way, except employment and insurance. The only real answer for Insurance is single payer insurance at one price for everyone. The way we let insurance companies hold the noose around our necks in the US is flabbergasting. I don't know for sure that the rest of the world is quite as good as all that, since I've talked to people of many countries and never heard one that didn't have major complaints when they weren't just trying to dump on the US. I do feel like the US is the worst of the wealthy countries anyway. If we could stop the insurance companies from having the leverage to hold us to the fire, open DNA could facilitate research on lots of medical treatments. So I guess, first put the insurance companies out of business permanently, then open source the DNA. Which I suppose means never at this rate...
Just ask whoever saved his brain to ask permission
i see BBC is still at the "hard hitting" story telling 🙄