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.
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”.
Is there any value to make 2 million Hitler documentaries? No, but they do it anyways.
We learned he had a micro penis, a potent weapon against his neo-nazi fans. The value is already immense.
And monorchidia
Removed by mod
Would a Hitler clone be morally culpable of someone else’s actions?
Removed by mod
Wouldn’t that make you an immoral monster who “should still be killed as quickly as possible”?
Removed by mod
Maybe if logical consistency is silly. You argued in favor of killing someone unjustifiably. Moral principles mean nothing to you?
Removed by mod
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.
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?
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
It’s both deeply essentialist, and insulting to people’s intelligence. If you’re planning on studying hitler’s DNA, who cares, knock yourself out. But it’s ridiculous to think all but the worst people are going to believe there’s an “evil” gene.
If you’re a scientist planning on cloning hitler, you have a lot more problems on your hands, and are obviously not pursuing any kind of scientific results and just want attention and deserve all the ridicule from other that idiots you will get.
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.
I think I did read a recent paper outlining just such a case study.
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.
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.
Ew, undersmencht dna
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
an argument against right to privacy
How do the dead have any rights? I’m pretty sure the dead don’t give any fucks.
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.
deleted by creator
Nice try, but I watched The Boys From Brazil. No Hitler DNA for you!
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 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? Seems some non-liberals willfully find it “very difficult” “to understand”.
text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
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
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.
