Controversial Quotes of Beloved Historical Figures

+28

What if Twitter had existed for hundreds of years?  Here are some politically-incorrect quotes that would have ended up with historical figures getting canceled.

Albert Einstein

Would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races.

Roald Dahl

There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.

Teddy Roosevelt

Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding.

Benjamin Franklin

If it be the design of Providence to extirpate these Savages in order to make room for cultivators of the Earth, it seems not improbable that rum may be the appointed means.
Ben Franklin was of course referring to Native Americans.

Friedrich Nietzsche

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature.

Winston Churchill

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.

Mohandas Gandhi

[Ethnic slur for black people] are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.

Nelson Mandela

Kill the Boer.

Note: Unlike other entries, this is not an original quote.  It is the lyrics to a song sung by Mandela and other ANC leaders.

Queen Victoria

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendant horrors... Were women to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.

John Lennon

I like "Honky Tonk Woman" but I think Mick's a joke with that [homophobic slur] dancing.

The Dalai Lama

From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct.

Mother Teresa

I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot.

Che Guevara

The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink.

Muhammad

Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.

Jesus

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus, of course, was speaking in metaphors – not promoting the actual use of swords.  This subtlety would be lost on today's Twitter mobs.

Martin Luther King Jr.

The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired... I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist.

From a letter that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote to a teenage boy experiencing same-sex attraction.

Barack Obama

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

Barack Obama made this statement in November 2008 while campaigning for President.   That was the same year that California residents voted to ban gay marriage.  Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court made gay marriage legal in all 50 states, and today it is supported by a large majority of Americans.  What a huge turnaround in such a short time.

Want more?  Make sure to check out People Who Said Positive Things About Mussolini.

+1
Level 38
May 24, 2021
First comment!

Btw, so cool!!!!!!!! Thanks for cool blogs!

+5
Level 38
May 24, 2021
Obama...really...:(
+5
Level 47
May 26, 2021
Obama wasn't a very good president in the first place, he was just very charismatic.
+4
Level 51
May 27, 2021
He was... among the best presidents this country has seen for the 238 years of its existence.
+3
Level 56
Aug 2, 2021
+1

He was pretty good, especially if you look at who came after him

+2
Level 63
May 31, 2021
It's not too surprising, really. Most American politicians would have been against gay marriage until the 2010s, because publicly supporting it would have alienated too many voters.

Of course I can't say whether Obama was genuinely against gay marriage or just held that stance because it was safe.

+2
Level 67
May 31, 2021
There has been a fair amount written about this issue, and it seems pretty clear by now that he was only taking that position because it was political suicide at the time for someone with national ambitions to promote gay marriage. This was back when the Democrats still commanded the lion's share of white union voters with more conservative social views. Obama's advisors assured him he needed them to get the victories he wanted, so he claimed to be against gay marriage. It wasn't until 2012, when Obama's popularity nearly assured him of a second term *and* polls showed that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage that Obama finally publicly supported it.
+6
Level 35
May 24, 2021
May be controversial, and you can curse me, but because of religion, I agree with Obama at the least point. I'm not hommophobical tho, and I try to respect LGBTs. I think I need to understand which "controversial concept" you are using here, if they are incorrect, or can be misunderstood.
+2
Level 35
May 24, 2021
And once again, well written, and nice font for the quotes!
+10
Level 75
May 25, 2021
Personally, I believe that if two people want to get married, regardless of gender, they should be able to get married (e.g. a man and a man).
+4
Level 35
May 27, 2021
Ok, but I personally think not. For me, God created the man and the woman for they couple each other.
+16
Level 62
May 26, 2021
"I'm not homophobic, I just think gay people should be second class citizens"
+14
Level 62
May 26, 2021
They aren't homophobic, they're hommophobical!
+3
Level 35
May 27, 2021
Do you think we should standardize people and what do they think? I am not homophobic, I do not think that being gay is the right attitude. Because of other people, do I have to start liking it? It's not because I like oranges, and you don't, that I have to force you to eat a box. This takes away the sense of a democracy. You may think it is correct, but it does not mean that I have to find it.
+11
Level 69
May 27, 2021
Right, say I don't like oranges and you do, you are not going to force me to eat oranges. In that same vein, say I'm a homosexual man and you are a heterosexual man; I'm not going to force you to marry a man. I, personally, am of the opinion that people should be allowed to love and marry anyone, regardless of sex/gender. It doesn't mean I am going to force you to do that, it just means that everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves.
+7
Level 67
May 31, 2021
MG, no one is forcing you to think a certain way or to be homosexual. You can think and do whatever you want, but if you "do not think that being gay is the right attitude," then we can certainly think you are homophobic, because, well...that's pretty homophobic.
+1
Level 56
Aug 2, 2021
I personally believe in man-to-woman relationships, rather than man-to-man or woman-to-woman, but I have nothing against gays. In fact, I know and am friends with several gays, I just don't believe it is what I should do.
+9
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Obama at the time said he supported civil unions for gay couples or something like that, which was the common center-left position in the US at the time, just not gay marriage. A few years later he came out and said that he was wrong about this. Whether this was a legitimate change in opinion or perspective (as much of the country had undergone), or just a political calculation, in either case he was supporting civil rights and equality for all Americans including the gay ones as best as he believed he could from his regular position in the political center.
+5
Level 70
May 26, 2021
Also worth mentioning that Joe Biden actually jumped the gun on this! He basically forced Obama to make a public statement supporting gay marriage after he made a (from what I can tell, sincere, not politically calculated) statement supporting gay marriage.
+4
Level 83
May 27, 2021
MG from many of your other comments I know that you have a much more narrow and inflexible view of what it means to a Christian or a Protestant than most Americans do, especially Obama, who was born in the liberal and diverse US state of Hawaii to an African atheist father and an American mother he describes as "spiritual but skeptical of organized religion," lived overseas in Indonesia after his mother was re-married to a Muslim Indonesian man, returned at age 10 to America to be raised by his maternal grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists from conservative Kansas, grew up to attend prestigious, liberal, highly international universities Harvard and Columbia, and then finally became a self-identified Christian in his 20s while working as a community organizer in Chicago. I'm sure his opinions on religious matters are highly nuanced. I'm also sure that at the time he made this quote he was neither homophobic nor of the mind that civil unions went against god.
+1
Level 55
May 27, 2021
I feel like this quote was pulled out of context a bit because I think what Obama was trying to say was that he personally didn't recommend being Gay, but that he would protect their people's rights. Not that he doesn't support LGBTQ+ rights altogether.

MG, regardless of religion Obama was an excellent president altogether.

+1
Level 83
May 30, 2021
above: I meant to write "what it means to be* a Christian"...
+4
Level 51
May 24, 2021
I'm embarrassed by what Obama, MLK, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Benjamin Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, and Albert Einstein said.
+2
Level 35
May 24, 2021
Obama may was controversial while president. I'm Brazilian, and I don't know everything about US politics. I can be incorrect for an American who knows American politics.
+6
Level 51
May 24, 2021
Well, I actually have to say I'm not a fan of what he did to some other countries, like with military strikes and all, as a non-interventionist.
+6
Level 55
May 24, 2021
Obama saved the Auto Industry, and to someone in Metro Detroit where almost everyone works in the Auto Industry, whether it be technology or Manufacturing, that alone makes him an amazing president. Yes, he did have his downsides, but he was a great president, ranked 11th out of 45th by Historians.

And Regarding the Quote, as the Political Landscape changed, Obama's position changed too.

+4
Level 51
May 24, 2021
Oh, I certainly think he was an amazing president...definitely within the top 10.
+8
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Obama was an excellent president who faced an intractable but completely undeserved opposition from the rival political party in the US, and the shamelessly partisan media outlets beholden to them, for 8 years. There was almost no legitimate controversy during his presidency. Only ginned-up faux outrage. These are the biggest Obama scandals:

1. he once wore a tan suit to a press conference

2. he once had dijon mustard on a hot dog

3. he once neglected to wear a flag pin on his lapel

4. he signed the ACA, which was basically Republican Bob Dole's healthcare plan from the 90s, and helped a few million Americans get health insurance.

5. during his presidency the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and a few people died. Though literally dozens of independent investigations and more than 30 Congressional hearings repeatedly found no fault or wrong doing on the part of Obama or the State Department. But Fox News *would not* stop talking about it...

+8
Level 83
May 26, 2021
6. Obama and his wife went on a date in New York once.

7. He bowed when he met the king of Saudi Arabia

8. He once took a selfie in the Oval Office using a selfie stick

9. There was a photo of him taken in the Oval Office where we was not wearing a suit jacket.

10. He once went out biking and wore a helmet that some people thought was dorky.

11. He wore "mom jeans"

12. He once saluted a US Marine while exiting an aircraft with a cup of coffee in his hand.

I am literally not making up any of this stuff...

Perhaps the one legitimately controversial thing he did, which the Republicans actually loved for the most part but he did get a lot of flak from Democrats and Libertarians... that would be his extensive use of targeted drone strikes. US drones killed over 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in these 8 years. Around 10% were untargeted civilians.

+10
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Bonus faux-controversy: during the Obama admin, there was an outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa. Despite the administration's best efforts to help contain and combat the virus in Africa and keep it from American shores, ultimately 11 people in the US were treated for ebola and 2 of them died. There was outrage when it was revealed a doctor had flown from West Africa to New York City. One orange failed businessman and game show host tweeted that if it was found even a single case of the virus was let into the country, then "Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!"....

some years later the same failed businessman presided over a pandemic that killed at least 600,000 Americans, but was just super put-out that the media wouldn't talk about what a fantastic job he did handling it. and he still hasn't resigned though he was voted out of office 7 months ago.

+2
Level 55
May 26, 2021
Tbh some of the above "controversies" are downright silly. Now let's see the list of the Failed Businessman's controversies, and how much longer Kal can make it than the other one.
+5
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Every key on my keyboard would break before I got to the end of it. And QM would be mad at me, too. Pass.
+2
Level 55
May 26, 2021
Exactly the point.
+1
Level 54
May 26, 2021
Didn't Obama also take some flak for chewing gum at public events as a way to deter his need for cigarettes? I know it can be considered rude to chew gum in public, but from the reports, people were definitely blowing it out of proportion. Virtually anything the guy did was deemed as reprehensible.
+5
Level 83
May 26, 2021
michael: only by the networks and commentators that had pre-determined they would hate everything he ever did to try and keep their listeners angry. But they were always so obviously reaching. If anything I think Obama probably could rightfully be called the *least* scandalous president in the history of the country. Carter had the Iran hostage crisis, and having the audacity to tell Americans maybe they shouldn't be so materialistic. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Savings & Loan, HUD grant rigging, to name a few. Bush Sr raised taxes after running on a promise not to, vomited on the PM of Japan, and Clarence Thomas. Clinton had Lewinski, Starr, Whitewater, impeachment. Bush Jr. had Katrina, Mission Accomplished/protracted double occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan, Abu Graib, Harriet Meiers, etc. Trump had.... five every day. Obama... basically nothing real. No corruption. No incompetence. No gaffes. Just mustard and flag pins.
+1
Level 51
May 26, 2021
Really a hero... especially when compared to "Severely Conservative" people like Mitt Romney.
+1
Level 35
May 27, 2021
I wasn’t saying that he was bad. I just didn’t know exactly.
+2
Level 55
May 27, 2021
There are literally thousands, LITERALLY thousands of things 45 did that were worse than those Obama things listed (and there are a few more legitimate criticisms/controversies of Obama too), but it's just an unspeakable difference.
+1
Level 62
May 28, 2021
Speaking from strictly an indocentric view of American Presidents, I would agree that Obama was one of the better American presidents. The title for the worst would probably go to Nixon.
+2
Level 83
May 28, 2021
Nixon is generally ranked above Garfield, Taylor, Hoover, Tyler, Fillmore, Harding, Andrew Johnson, Pierce, WH Harrison, Buchanan, and Trump... roughly in that order. He's sometimes ranked as high as around 23rd overall putting him right in the middle of the pack. He was forced to resign in disgrace, and was openly corrupt and a criminal, but there are some (one) presidents who beat him in those latter two categories, without exaggeration, by at least a thousand percent. And while the same can't be said about those (that) other presidents, at least Nixon was a patriot who loved his country and sought the presidency out of a desire to serve. He actually did several good things during his administration, too. And was far more competent than most of the presidents usually ranked lower than him in polls. But he is pretty much only remembered for the ignominious way that it ended.
+2
Level 65
May 24, 2021
Actually I have read about many of these, and yes, it makes them look not so good.
+6
Level 69
May 24, 2021
CANCEL THEM!
+2
Level 86
May 26, 2021
Yeah that will show them. Even though most of them are dead and don't really care anyway.
+8
Level 47
May 26, 2021
I think it's a joke.
+1
Level 86
May 26, 2021
Probably is, but still...
+6
Level 55
May 24, 2021
I think that this Ronald Reagan quote deserves addition.

"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."

+1
Level 55
May 24, 2021
This is from Wikiquote.
+1
Level 38
May 24, 2021
wow omg
+13
Level 61
May 24, 2021
Call me fragile, but if you need to censor a word, the quote isn't controversial - it's outright offensive.
+3
Level 75
May 26, 2021
I wonder what you think controversial means
+1
Level 51
May 27, 2021
Yes, he does.
+2
Level 58
May 28, 2021
I wonder what you think connotation v. literal meaning means.
+3
Level 58
May 25, 2021
Just to be clear to everyone, QM is stating these as controversial, so no need to attack him in saying that he is one side or the other.
+2
Level 35
May 25, 2021
But which concept is used here? Depending of it, I can try to clarify what Jesus was meaning, this, if a discussion larger than Chipre starts after my opinion. As I say, an A (opinion), can easily become an ABAABBCADBCC (more opinions making a discussion).
+3
Level 86
May 26, 2021
What's funny is that Lennon was technically canceled back in the 1960s by religious Americans when he "said" that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. I highly doubt he would get canceled for that if he said it today.
+1
Level 67
May 31, 2021
Ha. A very interesting observation.
+4
Level 81
May 26, 2021
Pretty much every person in history was in some way discriminative against other groups, who would've thought...
+1
Level 67
May 31, 2021
Except Brando. Which is so weird.
+1
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Unpopular opinion: eugenics gets a bad rap and Teddy Roosevelt (who was just voicing the overwhelmingly popular and common opinion of the day) was right. Today eugenics is mostly commonly associated with Nazism; but Hitler was a racist moron who got this all wrong just like he got Darwin all wrong. Divorce eugenics from other bankrupt ideologies such as racism, nationalism, phrenology, and ethnic purity, and also throw out the awful execution in the form of forced or nonconsensual sterilizations and other such shenanigans, and I don't see why it's such an awful idea. It's just a fact that there are too many of us. And a lot of the problems in the world can be blamed on the fact that many of us were born to parents not fit for the job. (and I know most of you reading this your minds immediately went to something racist. I said divorce it from racism. You're being racist for having these thoughts, not me.)
+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
But even given the safe assumption that we are never going to go back to the idea of either encouraging or banning certain people from reproducing to breed better people... I think that it's all but inevitable that we're going to end up with a sort of back-door alternate eugenics in the future. Once genetic modification of human embryos becomes more widely accepted, and doctors around the world have the power to easily switch out a few genes so that babies born do not have a propensity for Alzheimer's, or colon cancer, or sickle cell... I think probably at that point doctors are going to start saying that it's unethical to not make these changes. And once we're used to that... I don't think it's a stretch to say it's likely we'll start getting customized humans with a few more IQ points, lower risk for obesity, better eyesight, and probably no male-pattern baldness. I don't see the downside to this.
+1
Level 58
May 26, 2021
Would you really like to see every human exactly the same? I certainly don't, the idea disgusts me.
+2
Level 54
May 26, 2021
He's not saying that every human would be the same. He's saying that in this hypothetical world, the probability of hereditary diseases and potentially harmful mutations would be significantly reduced.
+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
When I think about the wonderful variety in human beings I think of the way that we have different personalities, interests, talents, and abilities. The huge variety in skin tones, eye colors, and physical dimensions. I think of the different ways that we experience love, and joy, and humor.

When Clutch thinks about this I guess he thinks of multiple sclerosis, down's syndrome, and whatever made our last president the way he is.

I understand some people feeling threatened by designer babies. They imagine everyone selecting against things like...dwarfism... and vitiligo... and maybe Asperger's... and there are people now who have those things who are beautiful, productive, and valuable members of society in their own way. I mean with Asperger's it seems like a very high percentage of the most brilliant and creative people in history may have been on the spectrum.

+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
These people who feel threatened might think that by choosing to not give your children these traits you are in a way attacking or negating the value of the people alive who already have them. Or like Clutch said making everyone "the same" which to me feels like a large overstatement but I can see how eliminating certain things would at least potentially reduce some variety in the species which could... potentially... be nice to have? I guess. I mean if we got rid of all the stupid people who would we have left to serve in Congress? And there would be no Forrest Gump. Personally I might miss super petite women... as I can see everyone opting to be within a certain average height range or slightly taller. I always loved small girls but for some reason everyone seems to want to have tall children. As a giant myself I know that's not always all its cracked up to be.
+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
but... ultimately... in the end... I don't think that my fetish for small girls or the enjoyment that someone else got from looking at artwork produced by someone with schizophrenia really justifies allowing humans to be born with serious life-quality-reducing defects when we have the power to stop that. And in terms of what would be best for society... I do like variety... but... could we at least just make everyone a little bit smarter? Pretty please? Give me 5 or 10 IQ points? And no cogenital diseases? And maybe cure cancer? I'd be fine leaving the rest as is if you give me that much.
+2
Level 58
May 26, 2021
I can understand the diseases and conditions like sickle cell being removed, but the idea of adding IQ points and strong eyesight, while removing baldness and obesity seems a bit unnecessary. I believe that life is meant to give us challenges, and while harmful conditions and serious diseases would be great to remove, if you get too far then you start to get into the Utopian type of society. I'm not trying to use a slippery slope here, but even just off of the things you mentioned I can get these vibes.
+2
Level 54
May 26, 2021
The hair loss may have just been a joke. I know Kal is sarcastic, but you can ask him. As for some of the other things, I don't know if reduced obesity or increasing eyesight would make that hypothetical society vastly more utopian than ours.

If those things are too utopian, then the lines between innovation, education, and obsessiveness start to get blurry. Is the education of good health and wellness much different from reducing the chances of obesity? Is laser eye surgery that far from strong eyesight? Asking questions like those may suggest we're closer to utopia than most think. Obviously, it would still be a vast distance away, but with the way people are, innovation moves us towards ideas like this anyway.

+7
Level ∞
May 26, 2021
I think genetic engineering is inevitable. When some people have it, everyone will want it because they won't want to be left behind.

When it does happen, it will be massively disruptive to society.

For example, in the United States, women want to marry tall men. Women express an average preference of 6'2" which is the 94th percentile and nearly 5 inches taller than the average. With genetic engineering, heights would rapidly increase as people want to be "taller than average". The end point of this arms race is one in which everyone is a giant.

This is just one consequence, and by far not the largest.

+2
Level 60
May 26, 2021
I would not consider genetic modification to be a "back door" form of eugenics. It may have the some justification, but eugenics is specifically referring to forcibly preventing people from having and/or raising children in the first place. At least that's how I've heard it used. Genetically modifying the child that is had is a very different thing, and "fixing" kids with disabilities is very different from euthanizing or kidnapping them.

I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, but I don't think what you're talking about would qualify as eugenics.

+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
Eugenics was the idea that the species could be improved, to the benefit of everyone, by encouraging traits thought desirable to be reproduced more and discouraging the reproduction of traits thought undesirable. Basically just through guided artificial selection... which as Roosevelt pointed out humans have been doing for thousands of years when it comes to agriculture and animal husbandry - selecting the best crops and animals to breed or replant. Of course, when you start talking about people like livestock, this is going to rub some the wrong way. But for a while, anyway, the idea was enormously popular especially in the US.

Forced or involuntary sterilizations and euthanization of undesirables were examples of this idea, or similar ones, taken too far. The core idea behind eugenics is to propagate desirable genes while eliminating undesirable ones. How exactly you do this is secondary.

+4
Level 83
May 27, 2021
I'm also aware that my own take on this may be biased by the fact that I don't, personally, particularly care about having children. For other people who see this is more important, anyone even so much as suggesting that they should or should not have kids, or have more or fewer, this would be an enormous and unwelcome intrusion. Might also evoke horror stories from one-child-policy China. And in the real world it may be that any serious attempt to follow the idea of eugenics through to a logical conclusion will end up awful. My ideas might be overly utopian and unrealistic.
+3
Level 83
May 27, 2021
aside: why would the baldness thing be a joke? Seems too vain or frivolous? I'm sure there are quite a few men (and women, I've known some) who feel that baldness has had a significant negative impact on their lives. It's not killing anyone... but it could significantly impact your self-esteem, job and romance prospects, et cetera. Seems like a worthy thing to root out, if you had the option. Don't see the benefit to keeping it around... superior aerodynamics?
+1
Level 54
May 27, 2021
When you put it that way, I guess it makes sense. But as I said, you can be sarcastic/joking, so my interpretation of that line was more of a guess than anything. Also, I didn't think of the positives you mentioned, probably cause I'm only eighteen and not balding. Balding older Michael is looking at me with shame.
+3
Level 76
May 27, 2021
As someone who was half-bald by 18 I can attest that it's not fun to feel like a grandpa who sneaked in among young people. Although I might have felt like that anyway.
+1
Level 66
May 29, 2021
The vast majority of the problems faced by our species are not the fault of intrinsic deficiencies within the human genome, at least not at the most relevant level of analysis. Evolution has done a pretty good job of adapting us to conditions that we would have faced a sufficiently long amount of time ago, and changes in our society such as the invention of electric light have led to conditions that we are not adapted for. The first "improvement" any proponent of eugenics should want to make would be the reduction of our optimal sleeping hours from 8 hours (this could easily be an underestimate in my opinion) to 6 hours or thereabouts. But instead you are talking about multiple sclerosis and Down's syndrome, which as far as I know are not evolutionarily beneficial anyway, and conditions such as male pattern baldness which only cause problems due to arbitrary social perceptions.
+1
Level 66
May 29, 2021
Also, your suggestion that forced sterilisation and "euthanasia" are examples of the idea taken to extremes, and also that the principles of your version of eugenics are basically the same as those of agriculture, are contradictions. These two things are vital components of breeding programmes in animal agriculture, and the second also in plant agriculture if destroying a plant can be said to be euthanasia.
+1
Level 83
May 30, 2021
I don't think they're necessarily vital. You could have a program, for instance, that sought to encourage people to get tested and follow certain guidelines through education making it totally voluntary. Most plants don't respond well to education. You could do something with tax credits or penalties. Issue reproduction licenses to parents that had taken parenting courses. Incentivize those with healthier genes to take such courses, or to donate sperm. Outlaw from sperm donation certain people with various congenital defects (I think they probably already do this, and they also select for people with higher IQs, better educations, that are taller, etc... or they allow their customers to select based on this... eugenics in play at sperm banks on a smaller scale already). Voluntary sterilizations with informed consent. etc.

But I don't think this will ever happen on a large scale (again). Especially since genetic modification is probably much easier.

+1
Level 83
May 30, 2021
and what have you got against sleep? You think being awake is better? Isn't that an arbitrary perception? The perception of baldness may be (somewhat) arbitrary, but the effect it will have on your life is not.
+3
Level 66
May 26, 2021
Of course the association with the Nazis has negatively impacted the image of eugenics, and it seems likely that there will at least be an attempt to remove genetic diseases in utero at some point in the future, but I think the comparison to farm animals is a clear indicator of why Roosevelt's position is worrying. Selective breeding, so far, has never been performed in the interests of those being bred, but rather almost always against their interests in favour of those of "society". Do you really believe that most politicians have a low IQ? I suspect the average IQ of a politician is well above 100 (they are disproportionately likely to have been successful studying history or law) but it doesn't stop them believing stupid things. As somebody who scores very highly on IQ tests, I see no reason why society would suddenly become better if everyone with a lower IQ was raptured (it could easily be worse). And this is not too far off what would happen if population is greatly reduced.
+1
Level 60
May 26, 2021
I don't think Kalba is promoting the killing of low-IQ individuals. I think they're promoting the use of genetic modification to make IQs higher. This could very well still have ethical implications, but it's not rapture.
+2
Level 66
May 26, 2021
Yes I know, I was making a comparison suggesting that the results of people with a low IQ being magically removed would be similar to the result of genetic modification to increase IQ combined with a population reduction.
+2
Level 83
May 26, 2021
I was partially joking about Congress. I'm sure the average IQ there is above 100. Though certain individual members (Gohmert, Green) undoubtedly bring down the average. But picking on Congress as a whole is usually something that is a surefire way to bring people together in this country as they are pretty well universally hated. It was a laugh/applause line...

I disagree that the world would be worse if everyone had higher IQs. I know that being ignorant, irrational, ill-informed, etc is not necessarily the same thing as being unintelligent. But there is some correlation. And I can think of all sorts of problems caused by mass stupidity, greater than my routine annoyance at having to deal with these people.

How do you think it would be worse? Fewer people satisfied with menial jobs? I really can't think of how it would be worse.

+2
Level 58
May 28, 2021
My view: Most politicians are narcissists with loads of knowledge, but no knowledge of how to use and apply it (wisdom). They have trouble taking in social cues, and I doubt they would have a large IQ.
+3
Level 83
May 28, 2021
A lot of people with high IQs.... and though I don't have hard data in front of me I'd guess even the large majority of people with extremely high IQs... struggle with social cues. I think politicians are actually the exact opposite... often kind of dumb (far from all. but perhaps a plurality) when it comes to abstract reasoning and some other aspects of intelligence frequently associated with high IQ... but most of them have very high social intelligence... exhibited in their ability to give compelling or charismatic speeches, win debates, shake hands and make phone calls to convince people to vote for them or contribute money to their campaigns, figure out what to say that lines up with what people want to hear, win elections, work with their colleagues to get legislation passed (or block it), and look decent on camera. And while a handful of politicians are brilliant, most of them aren't, and yet those that aren't I think would still be described as "good with people"
+1
Level 73
Jul 2, 2021
It would make no real difference to humanity if people were "bred" to be physically or intellectually superior to what we are now, because our main issue is human nature itself. That can't be bred away.
+7
Level 55
May 26, 2021
I think it’d be interesting to see the opposite of this blog. “Evil” historical figures that said very uncontroversial things. Could be neat.
+10
Level 83
May 26, 2021
When diplomacy ends, war begins.

-Adolf Hitler

Finger lickin' good!

-Donald Trump

+2
Level 60
May 26, 2021
I was going to point out that some of these quotes are misleading as they were said before the speaker grew into the personage they became famous for, but then I remembered we're talking about Twitter
+2
Level 56
May 26, 2021
Guevara's quote is weird to me. Didn't he and the Cuban army go to Angola to help fight a rebellion?
+2
Level 54
May 26, 2021
That doesn't really mean much. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation while still believing that African Americans were inferior. You have to remember that some of these people were leaders, and politics don't always equate to one's actual opinions.
+1
Level 67
Jun 1, 2021
Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation did align with his opinion. There is some disagreement regarding whether he believed African Americans were equal to white Americans, but there is universal consensus that he believed they deserved to be free. Thinking a race is inferior is not the same as thinking they should be enslaved.
+1
Level 60
May 4, 2022
I've heard somewhere (can't find the source now though…) that Guevara's quote here comes from early in his life, before he was even a communist, and that he parted with racism before he held any sort of political power.

There's still the chance that what I've heard is bollocks, but even if that is the case, there are different levels of racism (as jmellor brought up). Che thinking Black people are inferior does not mean he thinks they are deserving of civil war.

+3
Level 55
May 27, 2021
As much progress as we still have to go as a world towards true equality.....man we have come a long way in a relatively short time. Let's just hope we can maintain the progress we've made and will make.
+2
Level 61
May 29, 2021
No lies spotted.
+1
Level 44
Jul 13, 2021
You do a little trolling
+6
Level 76
May 31, 2021
I fail to see what's wrong, or controversial, in Einstein's quote. Of course it'd be a pity if the Chinese (or any other group, for that matter) supplanted all other races.
+4
Level 55
Jul 6, 2021
I don't think there is much wrong with that. I just think that since China is so powerful today, it would get cancelled.
+1
Level 60
May 4, 2022
I think it's less the quote itself but the implications behind him saying such a thing. I could say, "it would be a pity if the Slovenes supplanted all other races", and that would also be correct, but it would be a very bizarre thing to say since nobody thinks that's ever going to happen.

Einstein saying this has the implication (out of context, at least) that the Chinese supplanting all other races is a real threat, even if small. It seems to buy into the idea that there is a global conspiracy for Chinese to supplant all other races.

Of course, the Chinese state is currently orchestrating numerous genocides, and Taiwan embraced settler-colonialism against the island's native peoples, and ancient Chinese history long included the absorbing of other peoples into Han identity…

but the situation is still precarious because of the long and disgusting history of Chinese exclusion in at least the US, and anti-Chinese racism as a whole is often tied to the sentiment Einstein shared.