Sunday, July 2, 2017

Left Bans Scientist Who Discovered DNA

By Professor Doom

 “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

--Beria, head of Stalin’s Secret Police 

   Only an idiot could have thought the Left agenda of shutting down Conservative speakers on campus would stop at just those speakers. Having succeeded in making it impossible for a Conservative to show his or her (Hi Ann Coulter!) face on campus without risking violence, they now are moving on to everyone who dares to utter a word against Leftist ideas…even those who simply are pursuing knowledge and have no interest in politics.

      James Watson is one of the co-discoverers of DNA, and won a Nobel prize for the achievement. Not to put too fine a point on it, but DNA is a pretty major thing for humanity to know, and few concepts have penetrated modern society so deeply and yet can be directly attributed to only a handful at most of names.

      In short, for such a contribution to human knowledge, any legitimate university would be deeply honored to have such a towering figure speak on campus.

      Unless of course, at any point of time in the past the figure said something wrongthink:

--“backlash” is Lefist for “someone complained about being offended.”

      Before going further, I want to mention that this talk was not a general address to the students, not even remotely. It was a very technical discussion on a very tiny aspect of cancer research, intended for only for the most well trained faculty and graduate students (i.e., the only ones likely to follow such a discussion). Universities hold such seminars all the time; they don’t make the papers because they are of such narrow interest.

      Now that the Left has shut down the big speakers and big talks, it’s going after even small discussions strictly among academics.

      When the Left targets you, it combs through anything you may have said, going back a lifetime if need be, and reinterprets it in the most offensive way possible (Hi President Trump!). So, here we go again:

“…has been castigated by fellow scientists for his discredited views on race and intelligence.”

--“discredited” is Leftist for “something someone was offended by.”

      Yeah, discredited, with such discreditation being published in the same journals that’ll publish research showing the penis causes global warming. This fallacy is called ‘ad hominem,’ is irrelevant in the face of his past achievements, and unrelated to cancer research.

      At the risk of overindulging in hyperbole, the gentle reader should at least consider the possibility that what this scientist might say at his seminar might have led to the cure for cancer…but the Left doesn’t care about that risk, they need shut down everyone who doesn’t toe the party line at all times.

      So, the guy wants to give a technical talk, Leftists complain, and admin has to make a decision to either adhere to the university mission of education and research…or to cave in spinelessly. You can guess how that went:

"We considered that carefully and decided to make plans to hold that lecture,"
--Carl Woese Institute for Genomic Biology Director Robinson made the call. Do note the length of the title, not a good sign at all. And, as backward as it sounds, “hold” is Leftist for “cancel.”

     I concede Watson said some things people don’t want to hear, but to his credit, he did apologize. No apology is ever enough when the Left targets you.

Clancy said Watson, "didn't apologize for everything," 

--Kate Clancy’s tweets more or less started the protest silencing the Nobel Laureate.  “Apologize” is Leftist for “die quickly.” Those experienced in dealing with the Left advise to never apologize.  

     Literally nobody is safe from these monsters people, and I know simply quoting people who disagree with them on my blog means I’ll never be a talking head on TV, and probably never speak on campus in a public forum. No great loss, I imagine.
      It’s so funny to see spineless admin cower before these people:

Robinson said free speech is a concern, but "I really respect the perspectives of the faculty who raised the concern..."

--how about respecting the faculty that want to advance human knowledge? Don’t scholars get a say? Or is campus all about ideology now?

     Seriously? Spreading the latest research on cancer (something of a life-and-death issue for many people) is even remotely the same as attempting to satisfy a perpetually displeased minority? You already tried making them happy by banning Conservative speakers and that accomplished nothing. Now they’re going for more. Can you really not see the pattern here?

     The foolishness here is mighty, but the hypocrisy manages to exceed it:

"We support Dr. Watson for his discovery and work, and believe that his remorse and subsequent apology to those groups he spoke against are genuine, but the IGB's stance is unchanged — we do not condone discrimination of any form, and the respect that we give to each individual in our community is paramount."
--“each individual in our community” is Lefist for “just us.”

      But…you’re discriminating against him! You’re showing amazing disrespect to science, scholarly work, your students, and legitimate faculty by shutting down his speech.

      And yet, admin somehow manages to spin ending of free speech and academic freedom into a noble act on their part, one where they had to struggle with the decision.

      I began my essay with a quote from the head of Stalin’s secret police because ultimately, this is the status of academics today. The thoughtcrimes defined by the Left are so widespread (and so hypocritically defined) that at the university level, literally anyone who tries to stand up against them is pronounced guilty, and silenced.

       Why are people paying $100,000 to get anything at all from universities in this environment?

1 comment:

  1. I suppose Watson's real crime, at the time of his "unacceptable" comment, was stating that there is so much unknown about the effects of DNA combinations and there placement in the genetic code. That leaves open, the possibility that his "unacceptable" comment is true.