Quote of the Day: Wokie-Wiki-Vandals Eat Their Own

 

Eli Broad died. He was a Democrat and a billionaire. The two just seem to go together, don’t they? He gave billions to K-12 education, art museums, and similar projects. But that doesn’t stop the Wokies from vandalizing his Wikipedia page. When I checked it out earlier today, I saw this at the beginning of the article:

Eli Broad (/broʊd/ BROHD;[2] June 6, 1933 – April 30, 2021) was an American billionaire entrepreneur, philanthropist, and anti-union wealth criminal.

Note the last few words of that first sentence. Broad’s father was a union organizer, by the way. There is nothing in the article that supports that opening statement. Nothing matters to the Wokies other than he accumulated a lot of money, so he must be a criminal. That he made his first fortune helping people buy affordable homes doesn’t matter. How dare he help people own detached housing? They should all be packed into high-rises in cities to not have such a huge footprint. How dare he?!

The Wikipedia page was fixed within less than fifteen minutes. That is a good thing. But it still leaves us seeing the main thing about the Wokies: They eat their own.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 68 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    We should evolve people into being able to understand that we can increase wealth.

    Plenty of people already think that, Henry. It isn’t evolution. It’s bad instruction. The culture is the problem and needs to be fixed.

    Wherever the error comes from and however it’s fixed, I think it’s the most fundamental principle in economics, more fundamental than Supply and Demand on page 1 of the econ textbook:

    Wealth is created by human activity.

    • #31
  2. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    We should evolve people into being able to understand that we can increase wealth.

    Plenty of people already think that, Henry. It isn’t evolution. It’s bad instruction. The culture is the problem and needs to be fixed.

    But we have had the theory for over a hundred years and in my lifetime, the amazing rise of an Asian middle-class (and the rise of Africa that is happening now) have demonstrated in a Popperian sense that zero-economics is false. Not to mention that incredibly racist wars and campaigns of violence have been done in many different countries on different continents against ethnic groups that are more economically successful. 

    Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe. The key to breaking out of our ignorance is genetics and not education. 

    • #32
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    We should evolve people into being able to understand that we can increase wealth.

    Plenty of people already think that, Henry. It isn’t evolution. It’s bad instruction. The culture is the problem and needs to be fixed.

    But we have had the theory for over a hundred years and in my lifetime, the amazing rise of an Asian middle-class (and the rise of Africa that is happening now) have demonstrated in a Popperian sense that zero-economics is false. Not to mention that incredibly racist wars and campaigns of violence have been done in many different countries on different continents against ethnic groups that are more economically successful.

    Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe. The key to breaking out of our ignorance is genetics and not education.

    When was the last time we actually tried education?

    • #33
  4. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    I’m not sure we have time for evolution.

    • #34
  5. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe.

    We do not believe it, Henry. Some percentage of uneducated people believe it. It is not “natural.” It is not genetically programmed. If billions of people have overcome thinking that way, we are not locked in by genetics.

    • #35
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    When was the last time we actually tried education?

    Maybe in the 1880’s? That’s when these new ideas started to become en vogue.

    • #36
  7. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I’m not sure we have time for evolution.

    So, we just kill everyone who believes in zero-sum economics to give evolution a jump? Is that how it works?

    • #37
  8. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    We should evolve people into being able to understand that we can increase wealth.

    Plenty of people already think that, Henry. It isn’t evolution. It’s bad instruction. The culture is the problem and needs to be fixed.

    But we have had the theory for over a hundred years and in my lifetime, the amazing rise of an Asian middle-class (and the rise of Africa that is happening now) have demonstrated in a Popperian sense that zero-economics is false. Not to mention that incredibly racist wars and campaigns of violence have been done in many different countries on different continents against ethnic groups that are more economically successful.

    Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe. The key to breaking out of our ignorance is genetics and not education.

    When was the last time we actually tried education?

    We have tried it for centuries I think. It doesn’t work very well with low I.Q. people and evidence doesn’t make people who aren’t genetically empirical change their minds. Just talk to the anti-vaxxers on Ricochet. They know exactly where to put a comma but their minds can’t do logic when it comes to something involving their physical bodies. 

    As controversial as that sounds it seems like more and more data is backing up that we are limited imprisoned by our genetic inclinations. 

    • #38
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    But we have had the theory for over a hundred years and in my lifetime, the amazing rise of an Asian middle-class (and the rise of Africa that is happening now) have demonstrated in a Popperian sense that zero-economics is false. Not to mention that incredibly racist wars and campaigns of violence have been done in many different countries on different continents against ethnic groups that are more economically successful.

    Yet we still believe the same stupid stuff we are programmed to believe. The key to breaking out of our ignorance is genetics and not education.

    When was the last time we actually tried education?

    We have tried it for centuries I think.

    Tried this kind of education, I mean. Taught economics without leftist political bias. Taught history without leftist political bias. That sort of thing.

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    When was the last time we actually tried education?

    Maybe in the 1880’s? That’s when these new ideas started to become en vogue.

    Speaking en Francaise, are we? Well, count me out. I been educated MURICAN!

    Not really.  I just prefer speaking in Latina or Urdu meh, and I’m only any good in English if we’re being blunt.  (But full credit to the French for inventing Daflon.  That’s a good pill.)

    Getting back to the point, 1880s is, I’m guessing, at last pretty close to the right answer.  In the USA, it can’t have been anytime since education was a big left-leaning federal thing.

    Not that Dewey deserves all the blame in the world, but he’s at least a historical benchmark: the correct answer couldn’t possibly be much after Dewey, could it?  Or after the 60s radicals took over at the very latest.  Late 1800s or early 1900s seems more likely to me.

    • #39
  10. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    As controversial as that sounds it seems like more and more data is backing up that we are limited imprisoned by our genetic inclinations. 

    If you say so, it is so for you.

    • #40
  11. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Not that Dewey deserves all the blame in the world, but he’s at least a historical benchmark: the correct answer couldn’t possibly be much after Dewey, could it?

    It took decades for his bad ideas to become pervasive.

    We can also blame the Germans, including Otto von Bismarck. A lot of bad ideas come out of Germany.

    • #41
  12. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    But the main thing we should blame is “Something has got to be done!”-ism.

    • #42
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Not that Dewey deserves all the blame in the world, but he’s at least a historical benchmark: the correct answer couldn’t possibly be much after Dewey, could it?

    It took decades for his bad ideas to become pervasive.

    Tens of years, yes.

    I think it took tens of minutes for most of his good ideas to be missed, misunderstood, or ignored.

    I like Dewey.

    More later.  I got plans.

    • #43
  14. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I’m not sure we have time for evolution.

    So, we just kill everyone who believes in zero-sum economics to give evolution a jump? Is that how it works?

    That would be immoral. We should give them sex robots to prevent them from breeding like civilized people. 

    • #44
  15. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    That would be immoral.

    You’re a hoot, Henry.

    • #45
  16. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    I discuss this more in my interview in Land of Confusion. I reference to how learning about how I.Q. is more depressing than Holocaust literature. 

    https://ricochet.com/947009/loc-49-with-henry-castaigne/

    • #46
  17. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    That would be immoral.

    You’re a hoot, Henry.

    I don’t understand the joke. What’s immoral about sex robots?

    • #47
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    I’m not sure we have time for evolution.

    So, we just kill everyone who believes in zero-sum economics to give evolution a jump? Is that how it works?

    That would be immoral. We should give them sex robots to prevent them from breeding like civilized people.

    Human effort creates wealth, but never shapes humans, eh? Except when take evolution into our own hands–preferably by kinder, gentler means.

    I still prefer the old ways: Human effort shapes humans first. Virtue ain’t easy, but it’s better than sexbots.

    • #48
  19. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I still prefer the old ways: Human effort shapes humans first. Virtue ain’t easy, but it’s better than sexbots.

    Amen, brother.

    • #49
  20. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Virtue ain’t easy, but it’s better than sexbots.

    Humans are more creative and industrious than they are virtuous. As I wrote before. 

    Perhaps more relevant to our ongoing debates on Ricochet. Sex robots might convince people to end abortion. Many Ricochetti have made an appeal to G-d and morality to end abortion. I do lean towards cynicism; but I see zero evidence that such morality has a widespread appeal.

    Take the example of slavery. Slavery was universal until the United Kingdom had the industrial revolution. Christian morality had alot to do with ending slavery; perhaps it was even a necessary precondition.  However, I think that it was only doable with the wealth generated from the industrial revolution. On average, the working classes aren’t capable of caring about strangers enough to make the sacrifices necessary to end slavery and the ruling elites are too busy trying to go to war with each other to think about emancipation. A man can work himself near to death to provide for his wife and his child but it is not in our nature to sacrifice ourselves for strangers. 

    Getting rid of abortion means sacrificing much of our sexual freedom. With robots that makes the sacrifice much easier to do. Think about how hard it is to reform entitlements. Once people have a thing, they refuse to give it up. What is true of government programs is true of sexual freedom as well. 

    Ultimately, we should put our faith in our technology, not our temperance. 

     

    • #50
  21. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Humans are more creative and industrious than they are virtuous.

    So you would rather they pursue technology without moral improvement? Developing virtues are how we determine what technologies should be pursued and which should be avoided.

    • #51
  22. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    If Fauci and the Chinese scientists of Wuhan were more virtuous, they wouldn’t have been funding and pursuing certain lines of research.

    • #52
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Virtue ain’t easy, but it’s better than sexbots.

    Humans are more creative and industrious than they are virtuous.

    Yes. But, first, should they be?

    And, second, which will do more good?

    Third, creativity and industry without virtue are worlds of trouble.

    But, fourth, who’s against creativity and industry?  Them’s good things–and, like most virtues, they work best with other virtues.

    • #53
  24. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Humans are more creative and industrious than they are virtuous.

    So you would rather they pursue technology without moral improvement? Developing virtues are how we determine what technologies should be pursued and which should be avoided.

    It’s not what I want humanity to be. It’s what humanity is. Sex robots seem more fitting with human nature than an end to widespread sexual freedom. 

    • #54
  25. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s not what I want humanity to be. It’s what humanity is.

    Humanity is not what you think it is. Is there a base level to human nature? Yes, certainly. Is there also an altruistic and virtuous component? Yes. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of culture have gone into teaching what virtues are and how to develop them in the young. We have seen that if a culture emphasizes virtues, we get more virtuous people. If a culture emphasizes and rewards corruption, we get more corrupt behavior. It ain’t rocket science.

    • #55
  26. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s not what I want humanity to be. It’s what humanity is.

    Humanity is not what you think it is. Is there a base level to human nature? Yes, certainly. Is there also an altruistic and virtuous component? Yes. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of culture have gone into teaching what virtues are and how to develop them in the young. We have seen that if a culture emphasizes virtues, we get more virtuous people. If a culture emphasizes and rewards corruption, we get more corrupt behavior. It ain’t rocket science.

    Indeed. But it doesn’t seem like we can emphasize critical thinking and empiricism into people.

    • #56
  27. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Indeed. But it doesn’t seem like we can emphasize critical thinking and empiricism into people.

    Of course we can. It may not be successful in all cases, but we can do it. Not the way current schools go about it, but we used to be quite successful at it.

    • #57
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    It’s not what I want humanity to be. It’s what humanity is.

    Humanity is not what you think it is. Is there a base level to human nature? Yes, certainly. Is there also an altruistic and virtuous component? Yes. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of culture have gone into teaching what virtues are and how to develop them in the young. We have seen that if a culture emphasizes virtues, we get more virtuous people. If a culture emphasizes and rewards corruption, we get more corrupt behavior. It ain’t rocket science.

    Indeed. But it doesn’t seem like we can emphasize critical thinking and empiricism into people.

    I wouldn’t know. Seriously. I only know enough history to know we haven’t tried it in north America at least since my grandparents were kids.

    • #58
  29. KevinKrisher Inactive
    KevinKrisher
    @KevinKrisher

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    What’s a wealth criminal?

    They used to be called kulaks.

    • #59
  30. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Except when take evolution into our own hands–preferably by kinder, gentler means.

    Isn’t that just another term for eugenics?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.