Saturday, September 14, 2013

Heh

A Pinterest account that features Taylor Swift and inspirational Hitler quotes.

From the Daily Caller:
Pinterest user Emily Pattinson has been uploading photos to the “Real Taylor Swift Quotes” board of the country singer emblazoned with Adolf Hitler’s most uplifting quotes on the human experience and attributing the quotes to Swift, BuzzFeed first noted. (Pinterest, for those of you who aren’t 24-year-old Mormon mommy bloggers, is an image-sharing site where [mostly] women upload “inspiration” boards, much like a middle-schooler’s bulletin board.) 
The Taylor Swift board has been up for nearly two months, and the photos have been “repinned” hundreds of times. But nobody noticed that these actually aren’t Real Taylor Swift Quotes, but are actually things said by one of the most evil people in all of human history.


17 comments:

  1. Apparently the 'I have sworn to only live free' quote came from Osama bin Laden.

    The one about heroes not making history, but history making heroes apparently came from Stalin, which would go along with Stalin's preference for Lamarck over Darwin.

    A lot of Hitler's bland inoffensive generalities came from Table Talk, a collection of his monologues at dinner. Although, they're probably not very reliable, being distorted by later recollections and the urge to filter out Hitler's more unpleasant utterances.

    Some of his audience were isolated and not aware of the atrocities the Third Reich was committing. Trudl Junge in her book 'Bis zur letzten Stunde' (which was one of the sources for the film 'der Untergang' - 'Downfall') recounted how one of Hitler's other secretaries had noted that she'd seen how the Jews were suffering as they were being 'deported' to the east, and asked whether Hitler could do anything to relieve their plight. Painful silence, followed by a change of topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 7:50 AM

      I thought Stalin was a Lysenkoist.

      in 1906, Stalin had declared himself for Lamarck. This was not a rejection of Darwinism per se but simply of the evolutionary mechanism that Darwin personally made famous, natural selection. For various [political] reasons, Communists preferred to think in terms of environmental selection as the impersonal mechanism driving evolution...

      After 1945, the official evolutionary theory of Soviet Communism was represented by a Ukrainian agronomist and scientific fraud, Trofim Lysenko.


      And we also know that Stalin also believed in Batfarkian Compression of history. :-)

      Delete
  2. Georgie,

    Lysenko was a Lamarckian. You're also engaging in compression of history (I take it 'batfarkian' is your usual half witted reference to my moniker?). Lysenko's malign influence on Soviet science extended from much earlier. The Russian geneticist Vavilov died in prison in 1942 owing to Lysenko's persecution.

    I wonder where you've got your quote?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right... I found where you found your quote. That cesspit of unreliable information 'EvolutionNews'. The article by David Klinghoffer from January 21, 2009.

      Georgie, you do go in for bullshit, don't you. Sources that don't bother with truth or fact checking. Or even allowing their readers to dispute their assertions.

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

      Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology.

      If Lysenko was Lamarckian, it was because Lamarck's ideas fit the politics, not the other way around.

      The author of that quote is an atheist. I'm sure it will satisfy your Lysenkoist tendency to demand that the science fit the politics.

      If Klinghoffer said "The sun rises every 24 hours", would we then be in for a billion years of Batfarkian Darkness?

      Delete
    3. Georgie,

      Right. Your latest quote is from Robert T Carroll. He's an atheist in that he thinks that there's no evidence for the existence of god(s), which is precisely the reason why I'm an atheist too.

      He's a 'live and let live' atheist. Everyone has the right to his or her personal beliefs, no matter how bizarre, provided that they don't impinge on others' rights.

      I'm not a 'Lysenkoist'. Science should not fit politics or ideology. It should be attempting to generate more accurate models of reality.

      If Klinghoffer had written that 'the sun rises every 24 hours', I would agree - within limits - sunrise to sunrise isn't exactly 24 hours (sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's shorter).

      And anyway, your second sentence confirms that Lysenko was Lamarckian. He gained influence because he promised an easy way of increasing crop yields after Stalin's disastrous forced collectivisation result in Stalin's famine in the early '30s.

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM

      backfire: "[Your] second sentence confirms that Lysenko was Lamarckian..."

      Yes, I know.

      And yes, you are a Lysenkoist, insofar as your ideology drives your discernment of truth.

      Delete
  3. Speaking of EvolutionNews, Kevin Williamson at National Review takes an unsubtle jab at cdesign proponentsists, saying that "there is no respectable case for incorporating so-called creation science, or its slightly more sophisticated and intellectually fraudulent big brother, intelligent design, into biological studies."

    Klinghoffer and Luskin will no doubt be pleased.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

      And the preceding sentence noted that

      There is a very good case — in my view, a winning one — for incorporating the study of Christian thinking and texts into every school curriculum as a matter of literacy, if not moral instruction.

      Dawkins, and Coyne will no doubt be pleased.

      Delete
    2. Georgie,

      I don't know about Jerry Coyne, but I do know that Richard Dawkins would approve having Bible studies part of a school curriculum - just for its literary value, in picking the source of quotes in other works of fiction.

      '... as a matter of literacy, if not moral instruction' goes along with Richard Dawkins' view.

      And forcing students to read the Bible would create more atheists than anything else.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, Richard Dawkins supports school Bible plan.

      Said Dawkins: "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Jerry Coyne does not mind it either:

      "By all means have the Bible in schools, but let’s not pretend it’s a uniform literary masterpiece. It’s should be there as a book that was influential in our world, both for good and ill."

      How does that egg on your face feel, admiral?

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM

      Actually, Coyne's and Dawkin's view is clearly expressed by Dawkins:

      some familiarity with the King James version of the Bible is important for anyone wanting to understand the allusions that appear in English literature..."

      Because it's important to understand the "the provenance of phrases like 'through a glass darkly'".

      Of course, teaching the subject matter is "child abuse". Using it as a handy book of quotes is perfectly fine. Which is the equivalent of saying that teaching the On the Origin of Species is fine as a source of quotes. But teaching the subject matter is child abuse.

      Now understand that Dawkins isn't necessarily condemning child abuse: "I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today."

      A little mild pedophilia never hurt anyone.

      Delete
    6. LOL. Dawkins expressed the same sentiment as Williamson did. Here, admiral, I will put the quotes side-by-side so that even an idiot like yourself can see their agreement.

      W: "There is a very good case — in my view, a winning one — for incorporating the study of Christian thinking and texts into every school curriculum as a matter of literacy, if not moral instruction."

      D: "The main reason the Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture."

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 14, 2013 at 4:32 PM

      D: I believe that some familiarity with the King James version of the Bible

      Some familiarity. Some. And the King James version... Not any old version, mind you, some of which are actually better translations, but the 17th century version which is basically unreadable by modern schoolchildren owing to the archaisms.

      is important for anyone wanting to understand the allusions that appear in English literature.

      Understand the allusions, Hoots.
      allusion: a passing or casual reference
      Casual.... got that?

      I do think that not having any kind of biblical education is unfortunate if children want to read English literature and understand the provenance

      provenance: a place of origin, esp that of a work of art or archaeological specimen

      Now Hoots, Dawkins, whatever inanity he, as a "gigantic lumbering robot", may engage in, has a marvelous vocabulary. When he says "provenance", he means exactly that. As in the provenance of a Rembrandt or the provenance of an ancient scroll. OK?

      of phrases like "through a glass darkly," "all flesh is as grass," "the race is not to the swift," "crying in the wilderness," "reaping the whirlwind," "amid the alien corn," "Eyeless in Gaza," "Job's comforters," and "the widow's mite."

      Did you get all that? Let me summarize, just in case: children should have "some familiarity" with a 400 year old version of a text so they can appreciate the source of many phrases like "East of Eden".

      That is quite different from incorporating "the study of Christian thinking" into a curriculum.

      I think those mysterious, shifting patterns on your monitor must be confusing you.

      Delete
    8. Georgie,

      I think that it would quite appropriate to examine the tenets of all the world religions in schools, including Christianity. As part of a course in comparative theology. Examine the tenets. Not accept them uncritically.

      I became an atheist because I examined the tenets of Christianity and found them incoherent, and as a result that rules out Judaism and Islam. I haven't had time to examine the other religions, but I doubt that they'd be true either - it's just that they don't threaten non-believers with eternal torment in an afterlife.

      Great selling point, eh?

      Anyway. I'm not a 'Lysenkoist' in the way you use it. I don't allow an ideology to affect my discernment of truth - which in this case is the acceptance of truth claims in science.

      You're thinking of Egnor.

      Delete
    9. Admiral obviously has short-term memory loss. How else can you explain his mangling of Williamson's quote? He only has the mental capacity to mention "incorporating the study of Christian thinking and texts into every school curriculum" but forgets "as a matter of literacy, if not moral instruction."

      Poor sucker.

      Hoo

      Delete