vijayjohn wrote:I forgot who this was, so I looked up his name, then tried to look for that post where you mentioned him to make sure this was the person I thought it was.
Have I mentioned him before? Probably. He's a shit-disturber at U of T. I find him obnoxious and his fanboys even moreso.
Yesterday, at dinner, my dad brought up this thing with Google but said nothing about that except "you know, that guy is a molecular biologist." Then I said, "No, he isn't!" (this is pretty much a reflexive reaction for me whenever my dad says anything about the world that surprises me), and he said, "Yeah, he is." Now I'm wondering whether that was why he said that. I also have no clue where he got the idea that he was specifically a molecular biologist.
EDIT: I guess his brain made it up. If he forgot Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, I guess he could forget whether someone is a systems biologist or a molecular biologist.
a) as I said "systems biology" is vague, meaning it can be any aspect of biology as long as it focuses on systems, so molecular biology could count
b) nevertheless I think it's misleading to call someone who works for Google and not in a lab a biologist
c) this is the first I've heard of him being a molecular biologist but if he is, that proves my point about his expertise being irrelevant to his arguments, unless he studies molecular neuroscience maybe
md0 wrote:On the flip side, when my views departed from what I believed around 2010~2012, in many occasions I was called homophobic and was shown the door out of forums for saying that we shouldn't use "biological destiny" arguments to support legalization and acceptance of gender and sexual identities, because those arguments also enable people who we do not want to enable and normalise, such as pedophiles (the subset of pedophiles who actually believe that pursuing their urges should be acceptable to be precise - not all pedophiles believe that).
The only reason I find myself arguing routinely about the biology of gender and sexuality (these days mostly gender though a decade ago it was still au courant to argue about homosexuality) is because the people who call it unnatural and an aberration won't accept any other kind of argument. It's stupid and fallacious to argue about that when our treatment of LGBT people (and pedophiles) is a moral issue and has nothing to do with the origins of gender and sexuality and to what extent they're "biotruths". As interesting a topic as that is, I would prefer to discuss it with people who have no political agenda and know what the fuck they're talking about, ie. not reactionary bigots. Anyway, banning you over it is obviously unfair.
I think 5 years ago I had a terrible argument with him among other users (terrible as in, my points where terrible and my tone was unreasonable) where I supported some kind of draconian hate speech law that doesn't even make sense to me anymore. And while it's true that I was going through some very difficult times back then, which explains my tone and temper, the views I held at that point were truly incoherent and I promoted them mostly through personal attacks, which was both unfair to the participants and ineffective in general.
I have only the vaguest memory of that. I wouldn't worry about it. I said so much cringey shit here back then that I don't remember at all and is best left in the past. Everyone else has probably forgotten about it too.