As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown

Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible

Tweet Engagement Stats

Stats are based upon replies and quotes of this tweet

Engagement Map


Replies and Quotes

Total of 786 replies and 303 quotes found
In reply to @drjulie_b
For just half a second, let’s pretend this is worth engaging with. Eugenics is the breeding of “superior” traits. As soon as you define those, you’re getting into ideology In summary, fuck eugenics. And fuck Richard Dawkins
As anthropologists, it is also our responsibility to denounce this.

He is NOT "just stating the facts."

Eugenics is not a fact. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. It is an ideology of genetics that posits the existence of "superior" traits.
In reply to @drjulie_b
He's saying that selective breeding works in other species so it would work in humans. It's a very obvious and true statement. It's not an endorsement of eugenics as a practice.
In reply to @drjulie_b
He's literally saying it's deplorable in the first line.
In reply to @drjulie_b
I have to admit, I don't see endorsement, only the statement that it would work. Like one could state that murder method X does work, without endorsing murder.
In reply to @drjulie_b
The sheer quantity of mansplaining in the replies here
Okay, I'm gunna touch this, admittedly with a 5 foot pole. I think he's just saying that genetics is a real thing, a process that is scientifically possible, that's it. I don't see him saying that he approves of eugenics. Looks like people are intentionally twisting his words.
In reply to @drjulie_b
How can that possibly be read as "supporting eugenics"?
No he’s not!!! Oh my fucking god. Why are people so determined to be mad at things that aren’t being said?

“ I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. “ - Richard Dawkins

How in the loving fuck is that “supporting” eugenics?
In reply to @drjulie_b
I mean the vestiges of it are everywhere in Sweden! When I went for a fertility referral the doctor said he didn’t want to give me one because I have a MH diagnosis, and “we don’t normally recommend having children.” I said that sounded like eugenics and he grudgingly referred me
Eugenics is indefensible, and, I'm not confident that "it works in dogs" is the slam dunk Dick here thinks it is because like...have you seen what we did to dogs? It is...not great.
In reply to @drjulie_b
I can't find the bit where he endorses it.
That is not "supporting" eugenics. he is simply pointing to the simple fact, that humans are not unique, I’m beginning to spot a trend in Twatters who include the title “Dr” in their handle, anyone else notice? 🙄
No he fucking isn't.

He said that it can work when we pu it to practice. He said that it is theoretically conceivable.

He did NOT say that we should do it. in fact he said quite the opposite. Read the entire fucking thread…

Dr Julie, you are lying!!!
In reply to @drjulie_b
I can't believe he's using dogs as an example of eugenics working as if there aren't multiple breeds of dogs that are horribly unhealthy due to generations of breeding for desirability.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Obviously being an evolutionary biologist doesn’t guarantee basic reading comprehension.
In reply to @drjulie_b
This quote doesn't seem to imply Dawkins supports #eugenics. It seems to imply that if eugenics works on pigs etc. it would work on the human animal as well.
In reply to @drjulie_b
For a "doctor" your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
In reply to @drjulie_b
He says it would be practically possible to "breed" for certain characteristics. Where does he say that he thinks that's desirable?
In reply to @drjulie_b
I'll have a fiver Richard doesn't actually support eugenics Julie (of course he doesn't!). Perhaps a clunky tweet, but it is Twitter. If you chose, you could shape a vast array of morphological, physiological, behavioural traits in humans by selection, but you would be a monster.
No, últimamente vamos faltos de comprensión lectora. Dawkins dice, desde un punto de vista teórico, q se puede hacer, no que se deba hacer. Ahí está la diferencia, no es lo mismo ni de lejos.
We are

ONLY an alert, knowledgeable, active and brave citizenry can save us from the abyss
Richard Dawkins is no different than any other pop scientist specializing in recuperating science for elites
I said this last night but:

1) we tried eugenics: monarchy! everyone ended up sick and then there were revolutions.

2) everything Dawkins talks about is symptomatic of the many men who are terrified that if women have sexual choice, they will be rejected or left behind
In reply to @drjulie_b
Wolves would disagree that it worked for dogs. Besides which all selective breeding is a hit and miss process. Breeders only keep the offspring they like and discard the misfits. In practice, that's what Dawkins has just defended, the smug dangerous fool.
In reply to @drjulie_b
I highly recommend selective breeding. I select who I breed with, and think others should be allowed to do the same. Rape should continue to be a criminal offence.
In reply to @drjulie_b
“Fire would work to destroy a house” does not mean “we should support burning down houses.”
In reply to @drjulie_b
I think that the point should be: WHY IS @RichardDawkins EVEN SAYING THIS AT ALL?! It's like saying that #ethniccleansing is deplorable & should be condemned but would work in practice. WTAF?!
In reply to @drjulie_b
Richard Dawkins said no such thing. Did you not read his tweet?
The doyens of New Atheism really are just out to prove their critics right at this point.
In reply to @drjulie_b
I can't see the endorsement at all. He's simply stating fact that it CAN work not that we SHOULD do it.
In reply to @drjulie_b
I'm no fan of Dawkins but saying something is possible isn't saying it's good.
In reply to @drjulie_b
“I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy.” - Richard Dawkins Seems like an odd way to show support, don’t you think? But hey, you got a bunch of likes and retweets, so who cares about the truth, huh?
a science that would have eliminated, before birth, only just Alexander Pope & Oscar Wilde, is of no serious worth to society; breeding animals & plants is an entirely different agenda.
Que morte horrível

O homem não pára de falar merda há anos
Everyone who is provoked by this tweet please read this @tvolmag article, what shows the consequences of allowing the powerful to breed, either genetically or culturally:…
In reply to @sassycrass
It "works" for those animals?! How can he even think that? The over-fattened, uncomfortable, unnatural lives the cows and pigs lead; the illnesses dogs suffer that are purely bred to look a certain way, and the roses that attract no pollinators... how is any of that good?
In reply to @drjulie_b
It didn't work for roses like he thinks it did. They're all grafted onto wild rootstock because we killed their resistance to normal soil fungus while trying to make them smell more.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Yeah, sorry. It's not wrong or a politically correct crime to speak of things which are abhorrent. It is, in fact, a duty. Genocide works, too. And it's a pretty good idea to let people know that just because it works doesn't mean it's ever applicable.
Holy effin shit. R-Dawk goes straight up Theognis without a net.

The thing anout actually studying history and the history of ideas is you learn that progress is so hard because 'smart' people stupidly assume expertise is universal and bad ideas never die
In reply to @drjulie_b
He's not saying he's supporting it. He's simply pointing out that, yes, it tends to work and provides examples where it does.
problem is, whose "eugenics"? planning an ideal human being would mean, to some, deleting genes for blindness, hearing impairment, heart murmur, etc., while in fact persons with so-called defects can & do lead happy meaningful productive lives as worthy as anyone else's.
As a recently-retired cell biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this 'evolutionary biologist' with the reading comprehension skills of a five year-old and the arrested maturity of a tween.

Such a buffoon calling others 'clown' is laughable indeed.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Richard Dawkins needs to turn in his science card.
To claim, as Dawkins does, that it "would work in practice," is to utterly ignore history and much eugenics was practiced. As hard as this might be to believe, we are living in a world created by eugenics. He just chooses to ignore the past. /1
In reply to @drjulie_b
I don't think he is. He's just saying that genetic selection of specific characteristics is proven (though not for intelligence). He's not saying it's a good thing or commenting on the ethics of it.
For those saying "he said it'd 'work' not that it's good":
When a man spends 40y publicly wanking over a barbaric idea that killed 85m DURING HIS LIFE - not keeping to debate fora or exploring it in sci-fi, not denouncing it each time - time to take that obsession at face value.
i'm only in favor of eugenics if we specifically breed Dawkinses like livestock, as is quite clearly his desire, for my own personal winter store of jerkies and fine cuts of the best salted meats
Look lady, every society on earth has preferred in-group behaviors or traits that the society believes is better. Some are pretty universal. Of course those traits become more common over time because they are selected for. You’re actually mad at your own bias.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Can you point on the puppet where dawkins says he's in favor of eugenics? He's saying, correctly and I'm sure you KNOW this, that humans are an animal who are influenced by the same evolutionary pressures as any other and COULD, not SHOULD, be bred to express new traits
He stated plain facts of reality.
We define certain traits as superior in animals depending on the desired outcome.
We could do the same for humanity as well.
This is a plain fact.
It would be horrific to do so, but it is still something that can be done.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Not to bright are you
In reply to @drjulie_b
As a person who can read, I ask you, where is the support?
Dawk: "Selective breeding in humans is bad for moral and ethical reasons, not because it doesn't work."

Actual Retard, PhD: "He's saying it is good."

In reply to @drjulie_b
As a scientist, on what grounds are you denouncing him?
Richard Dawkins not understanding that humans are not cows was unexpected. Then again, not.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Read what he said again.
No, no he isnt. Which he later clarified for ppl who missed it

I would also like to point out Dawkins is an ass and an clown. But he wasnt supporting eugenics.
In reply to @drjulie_b
That is dishonest. That’s not what he said. He didn’t endorse Eugenics; he said he believed selective breeding would work for humans the same as it does for animals. And - the most important context you left out - that he made it clear you can deplore eugenics on moral grounds.
OK, so I have almost no idea who Dawkins is, & am totally comfortable in deploring eugenics. I also think it wouldn't work: who gets to decide what the desirable traits are? How could people possibly agree about what they should be, aside from the absence of congenital disease?
He is not supporting it. He is saying it works - which I maintain it doesn’t but does not change the context of his claims.
In reply to @drjulie_b
The point of what he is saying is that he DOES NOT support it, but scientifically it works.
love the confidence of an old white dude endorsing eugenics by comparing humans to domesticated animals, then dropping a "facts ignore ideology" with his chest like that's a mic drop and not an incredible self-own
100%. And as a historian of science specializing in the history of eugenics, it's my responsibility to denounce this clown as well, and to point out that it's impossible to separate the ideology of eugenics from the practice of eugenics.
I implore you to read what he actually wrote
He's not supporting eugenics in this statement. He is simply saying that it would work the same way in humans as it does in other species.

It's science
Dawkins is not advocating Eugenics.
He is saying the science is possible just as it does for GM crops, which s quite a different thing.
I take Dawkins words as a warning.
I love that this person (among many others) understands Dawkins as well as Dawkins understands Aquinas. The irony is wonderful.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Read it again. He's obviously not supporting it.
In reply to @drjulie_b
He’s clearly stating the mechanics would work just like in animals .. that we do today with animal breeding He is CLEARLY not endorsing it as something we need to start doing with humans. Just that it would be possible You’re twisting his statement to support your conclusion
In reply to @drjulie_b
Let's pretend to engage with this argument. Breeding specific dogs for so-called desired traits is an argument against what he's saying. For example snub-faced dogs: they can't really breathe easily. Even in the theoretical approach he appears to be using, this argument is void.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Eugenics doesn’t work for cows, horses, or roses by making them BETTER. It simply amplifies the traits that make them more useful to someone other than themselves. This is at the core of what makes it objectionable.
In reply to @drjulie_b
It doesn’t “work” for cows or pigs or chicken or wheat or dozens of other food sources. We have systemic health issues because of the way we “improved” food. Our hubris at playing god is killing us. Tinkering with human genes after failing with animal and plant husbandry is 🙄
It's almost like science has to rely on some other set of principles to guide it... like they're necessarily governed by a more noble body of knowledge...
In reply to @drjulie_b
Surely it is diversity that strengthens any species? You only have to look at dog breeds pushed to extinction and cow breeds only able to deliver carves through cesarean section to see that selective breeding does not work for a species.
In reply to @drjulie_b
He’s not endorsing it though. He states his opposition to it clearly in the first line. This reads to me as though he is saying that we use Eugenics on animals and have done for years, and there is no biological reason it wouldn’t work on us.
The pseudoscience of eugenics has been properly debunked and should never be revived. Eugenics has racist & discriminatory elements and has been used as the basis for muder and the forceful sterilization of human beings. It is also the underpinning of redlining in the USA.
How can you be a doctor and misunderstand everything Dawkins said, they must let any old bumbling retard become a doctor these days
In reply to @drjulie_b
I feel like an evolutionary biologist would know he's making an 'is' statement which is different from an 'ought' statement
Eugenics “worked” for dogs in the sense that now most dog purebreeds have multiple debilitating genetic diseases that we gave them ON PURPOSE by INBREEDING them.
Call me whatever you want, but I don’t think we should do that to dogs, let alone humans.
Absolutely *nowhere* in his Tweet does @RichardDawkins support eugenics.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Functional illiteracy brought on by pathological levels of self-righteousness. That (lots of) formally highly educated ppl can have such laughable reading and critical thinking skills is an indictment of our systems of #education.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Functional illiteracy brought on by pathological levels of self-righteousness. That (lots of) formally highly educated ppl can have such laughable reading and critical thinking skills is an indictment of our systems of #education.
In reply to @drjulie_b
You’ve been muted without follow for putting your emotions ahead of science, but at least you have a PhD.
I didn’t expect to find such a good demonstration about the urgent problem with the Royal Society’s Galton tweet three tweets down my timeline. The past is present, and we have to be clear about it.
In reply to @drjulie_b
Ugh I’ll be burning his books 📚
In reply to @drjulie_b
More people should watch Gattica.
In reply to @drjulie_b
You appear not to understand the point he was making, that forms of eugenics operate irrespective of our beliefs. He was not advocating the murderous type you appear to be implying. I would suggest a little more thought and caution.
What is so "obviously indefensible" about eugenics, or anything for that matter? If we're all just evolved stardust, who cares?
If you think this is a statement in support of eugenics, learn to read.
This tweet from Dr Julie shows that even evolutionary biologists can be dumb as a ton of bricks. Dawkins says "I deplore eugenics", Julie replies "I must denounce this clown since he's supporting eugenics" lol what an idiot 😂
Dawkins has been off the rails for years. I read one of his books once, then got cross that it seemed to breed a bunch of cultish, militant atheists intent on telling religious people they were stupid and they as Dawkinites (or whatever) were better because they read a book.
In reply to @drjulie_b
On the other hand - the fact that eugenics 'would work': that we could eradicate, features, traits, whole races, from our gene pool is precisely the reason we must oppose it on ethical and ideological grounds.
The comments on this post...🤦🏼‍♀️

The reality is this: Dawkins does not directly endorse eugenics (he, of course, skirts that) but he suggests it “works.” This word is the problem. People like Dawkins think they already know what superior humans look like and what they don’t.
Over 524 replies and quotes not shown


2,913 retweeters not shown
Register for Trendsmap Access
Login via Twitter to start your free trial now

Don't have a Twitter account? You can also register via Facebook or Instagram

* Analytics, alert and visualisation tools require additional authorisation
Existing users can login

Our trial allows access to only the 8 hour timeframe for this page.

A Trendsmap Plus subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Signup Now