Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 The Real Darwin Awards

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 02, 2001
 Comments:
The internet is home to a great many disgusting things - unashamed race hate, paedophiles' playgrounds and even something called "bukkake" which my fellow editors on adequacy.org keep talking about but which my company firewall won't even let me search for. But, arguably the nastiest, meanest-minded piece of shit on this whole World Wide Web is this, the self-titled "Darwin Awards". Below, we at adequacy take on Wendy Northcutt, the vicious boob behind the Darwin Awards, and suggest our own alternative version which is, if anything, truer to the spirit of Darwin.

[editor's note, by jsm] Corrected spelling of Wendy Northcutt's name in header.

elitism

More stories about Elitism
What a bunch of elitist indie kids
Memoirs of an Ex-Southpaw: a Report from the Trenches
Arrested Development (Part One): Saving the Human Race
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
The rise of pseudo-connoisseurship and beer
The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
Are you Adequate?
Celebrating 2000 Years of British Achievement
It's Time We Rounded Up Rich White Males
Why I want to be an American Citizen
God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
Hacker Culture and its Misportrayal by Media and Government
Engineers, the silent, Anti-Social Killers

More stories by
jsm

The Gay Tax
LNUX = FC?
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Teaching Astrology In Schools
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
A New Kind of Feminist Science

Part eugenic fantasy, part sophomoric sick humor, the Darwin Awards is a page that likes to laugh at other people's deaths, and which demands to be intellectually admired for doing so. For those who haven't come across this "meme" (despite having been thoroughly disowned by their inventor, "memes" are still big news among the half-educated pop science crowd that makes up the Awards' audience), the Darwin Awards exist to award "stupid people whose stupidity leads to their killing themselves, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool". In other words, as we say, the extremely intelligent neurobiologist who runs the Darwin Awards

  1. Thinks it's funny when other people die and
  2. Regards it as desirable to remove genes for "stupidity" (as defined by her) from future generations.
Welcome to the wonderful, somewhat racially charged world of pop sociobiology. We wonder whether the taxpayers of California (or indeed the students of Northcutt's alma mater at Berkeley, who are not exactly renowned for their lack of militancy or their sympathy for eugenics) are grateful at the use to which an expensive training in molecular biology is being put..

Of course, Wendy Northcutt is by no means as smart as she thinks she is. She doesn't appear inclined to sully her hands with anything so vulgar as mere consistency in her coffin-mocking and grave-pissing. It's not uncommon to see someone receive an award for "removing themselves from the gene pool" in the context of an anecdote which makes it perfectly clear that they were at the time of death in possession of a fully functioning spouse, child or even grandchild (who can of course go and fuck themselves if they're expecting any sympathy from our pal at the Eugenics ^H^H^H^H^HDarwin Awards). And the assumption that an eccentric death is a sign of congenital stupidity is made without any support at all. After all, Benjamin Franklin used to be in the habit of flying a kite with a copper string into thunderstorms - presumably if he hadn't been quite so lucky and hadn't survived, he'd have received an Award and a sarcastic homily from Wendy Northcutt.

In any case, there's a logical inconsistency here. Either stupidity is genetic, or it isn't. If it isn't, Wendy Northcutt is wrong, and can fuck off. But if it is, then it's rather like being black, or (maybe) gay, and it's both pointless and unpleasant to mock people for it. As far as we can tell at adequacy.org, the stupid have to put up with enough shit in their lives without the Darwin Awards posse adding to it.

But the real reason for heaping our disapproval on the Darwin Awards is their disgusting abuse of the name of Charles Darwin. Because Darwin's theory of evolution had no place in it for such concepts as "improving the gene pool" by systematically exterminating the stupid, and Wendy Northcutt either knows this, or ought to know it by virtue of their training as a scientist. Darwinian fitness is identically, logically equivalent to success in reproduction and nothing else. Not physical strength, not beauty and certainly not intelligence. Any and all prereproductive deaths are equally examples of Darwinian selection pressure. For a trained scientist to select ad hoc some eugenic selection criteria, to claim that there is significance to "improvements in the gene pool" due to selection for that criterion rather than any other, and to have the temerity to pass it off under the name of Darwin is a disgusting piece of Orwellian doublethink which puts Wendy Northcutt not very far above the Creation Scientists in the opinion of this columnist.

[Sidebar:- I am sending a version of this essay to Wendy Northcutt, and anticipate her replying that the Darwin Awards are "satirical". No dice fella; they aren't. According to the entire tradition of satire from Juvenal to Swift to Mencken to adequacy.org itself, the purpose of satire is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"; to comment on the vices and follies of society's ruling class. Harsh words aimed at the professional standards of two scientists pushing pop eugenics may or may not fall into that definition; pissing on the graves of the recently dead for cheap laughs certainly doesn't. Alternatively, satire is aimed at exposing hypocrisy, but your targets aren't hypocritical; they're just dead. Your awards, in so much as they are humorous at all, are sick sophomore humor, and the ascription of scientific content to them cannot possibly be portrayed as anything so well thought out as satire. Lamer]

And of course, the joke is doubly on Wendy Northcutt, because the kind of intelligence she seems to value doesn't really function all that well at all as a tool of sexual selection. Notoriously, having a size 16 brain doesn't bring in the babes and/or studs, and boasting about one's intellectual superiority even less so. The kind of personality displayed by the sort of person who laughs at the recently dead for not being clever enough is probably more effective when used as a contraceptive than the rhythm method. So ironically, by telling their predominantly sophomore science geek audience base that it's OK to be a nasty, intellectually snobbish little prick, the author of the Darwin Awards is removing 'intelligent' individuals from the gene pool far more efficiently than the assembly of gas explosions and failed bank robberies they document are doing the job on the opposition. Unless, that is, you count the 'gene pool' which builds up in the bathrooms of the science faculty dorm rooms on Friday nights when Dawson's Creek is on, which frankly, we don't.

So it is with this in mind that we at Adequacy.org, in a spirit of equal mean-mindedness and grave-pissing, announce the launch of:

The Real Darwin Awards
The idea behind the Real Darwin Awards is simple; to reward people who represent the removal from the gene pool of individuals who just didn't seem to be cut out for the Mating Game. With, it cannot be denied, a bias toward giving awards to the kind of person who has, during their spell on Spaceship Earth, given a hypocritical snicker at the "removal from the gene pool" of some poor boob, while not exactly getting a whole load of gene-propagating action themselves.

Specifically, the award is to be given to members of Mensa, the American Secular Humanist Association or similar bodies for the self-styled intellectually superior, who end up committing suicide because of an inability to 'fit in' socially due to their high intelligence. It shouldn't be too difficult to collect the first few award candidates; simply monitoring traffic on a couple of Mensa mailing lists, or Jon Katz's Hellmouth series on Slashdot seems to throw up every couple of months, the tragic story of some kid who made the Math Olympiad, but never got a girl, had no friends and was picked on, and ending up tragically taking his own life. We'll be collecting a few of these over the next year, ready for a grand Awards Ceremony where we email the family and online associates of the deceased with a few choice pieces of cruel mockery of particular foibles of the unfortunate youngster ("Perhaps if he hadn't spent so much time in his room hacking genetic algorithms, he'd have managed to make his own contribution to the biggest genetic optimiser of them all before he shot himself", or something - as you can see, we're still in the early stages). Maybe we can even get our nasty, ill-considered remarks at the expense of the dead collected and published in book form.

Adequacy.org - we're just as bad as the people we attack, but at least we're intellectually consistent. Can Wendy Northcutt say the same?


Whaddya mean not funny? (4.50 / 2) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:19:22 AM PST
Look at the 2001 nominees:

A guy juggles live hand grenades killing himself and injuring six spectators.

Some drunkard in Egypt who didn't want to pay his bar tab tried to get away by swimming in the Nile and drowned.

A teenager killed herself by getting high on toxic bug spray.

An Oxford professor drank himself to death when imbibing methanol from his chemistry lab.

A toll booth collector in the middle of a snowball fight on an interstate steps partially in front of a tractor trailer for some snow and gets dragged to death.

We have the whole gamut here: playing with explosives, stepping in front of moving vehicles, drunken follies. And with all that, you've still completely missed the point of the Darwin Awards. These people knew better and yet they still did what they did and paid the price. Now you want to create a new set of awards based on people who are depressed and kill themselves. I don't see how this has any relevance to the DA. These people make the choice to commit suicide while the DA nominees just acted without thinking.


exactly (4.00 / 4) (#21)
by jsm on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:30:37 AM PST
And deciding to kill yourself is a much better indicator of dysfunctional genes than dying in an accident. Check out the statistics for the inheritability of severe depression versus accidental death. Our Darwin Awards are much truer to the eugenic ideal.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

I'm sorry. Me am stupider (2.00 / 3) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:36:17 AM PST
Please point out the link with the statistics. Thank you.


One more thing (3.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:58:40 AM PST
The desire to stay alive is tremendous in all animals. For a being to contemplate and commit suicide, he/she has to overcome this powerful urge of self preservation. It could be said that the person is not genetically defective, but transcending the limitations of their genetics.


We call that special pleading in the argument biz. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by elenchos on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 11:56:41 AM PST
You follow your psuedo-Darwinism as far as it will take you, but when the trail looks like it is heading somewhere you don't want to be, you veer off in a new direction and aver "I meant that" the way one of my cats licks its paw and acts nonchalant after skidding around the corner and slamming into the wall.

If our new tack is to say that we "advanced" humans have trancended our genes, then why only introduce this idea late in the game? Can't those who die foolish deaths be said to have "trancended" the rigged game of genetic competition and instead have taken their humanity to the next level, living out with total commitment a theater of the absurd, in true Falstaffian sublimity? Their meta-animal consciousness has seen that only through kicking over the chessboard of life and scattering the pieces can a self-aware being truly "win." And actually, if this is a valid idea, why stop with humans? Perhaps my clumsy cat has trancended the limitations of genetics as well, and runs smack into walls to prove it.

This is horseshit of course, but if we have license to abuse Darwin's theories any old way we want, what's the problem?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Please tell me... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 12:09:07 PM PST
That the first five words of your third paragraph is describing the entire second paragraph. It seems to fit :)


I can't tell you. (none / 0) (#32)
by elenchos on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 12:55:41 PM PST
This is a test of your Darwinian fitness. No cheating!


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Ahem... (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 03:05:32 PM PST
rhetorical question...


 
dying stupid (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 19th, 2001 at 12:54:57 PM PST
there is a difference to dying to an accident, killing yourself because you are depressed, and killing yourself because you are stupid. The latter is funny.


 
Interesting timing (3.66 / 3) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:43:45 AM PST
This is an interesting sequence of articles. You have the Real Darwin Awards advocating the suicide of social misfits the very day after an article presenting the suicide of a Dungeons and Dragons geek. Obviously the suicide was not presented as a good thing.

"at least we're intellectually consistent"

Are you?


Consistent (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by spitzig on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 01:08:48 PM PST
I'd say that makes him consistent. He blames a book for a kid committing suicide and he seems to think that it's not these idiots who get themselves killed fault.

Also, part of the point of the DarwinAwards is laughing at YOURSELF. Everyone is an idiot now and then. Everyone is a potential DarwinAward candidate.

Regular DarwinAward Forum poster,
spitzig


 
As if YOU were ever consistent, Anonymous Reader! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by elenchos on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 01:26:38 PM PST
Time and again I've seen you post one very strong belief here at adequacy, and then turn right around seconds later and post the exact opposite belief in reply! You are by far the most inconsistent user in the history of adequacy.org. At least adequacy can wait a day or so before doing an about face.

Fie! From now on, whenever I see Anonymous Reader, I'm just going to ignore you, because you never mean what you say. I think maybe you are even deliberately being inconsistent for some anti-social purpose. Like you just want to rile people up or something. For shame! Sure the adequacy editors may change their minds, or might want to just test an idea, but at least they're sincere! At least the adequacy editors care about Honesty and Truth!

Unlike certain people.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Unlike certain people... (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 02:14:09 PM PST
Like you, possibly?


 
Well Done (4.33 / 3) (#24)
by donkpunch on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:53:35 AM PST
Thank you, jsm and Adequacy.org, for stripping away the veneer of smug intellectual superiority.

Whether you are a degreed microbiologist, a high-school dropout who enjoys "experimenting" with frogs and firecrackers, or an adjudicated sociopath, nothing justifies this sort of sniggering unrestrained glee at the death of living things.

As an editorial aside, I also commend you for getting through the entire article without once using the hackneyed term "pseudo-intellectual".



Re: Well Done (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 11:15:55 AM PST
The high school dropout experimenting with frogs and firecrackers would be exactly the sort of person who would go on to win a Darwin Award, and the occasional microbiologist is not immune merely because of their education. Darwin Awards don't go to people just because they die, or because they are stupid and die. Winners are smart enough that they should have known not to do what they did. They are frequently criminal or engaging in a malicious activity at the time of their death. They are not poor innocents who are struck by tragedy.


Just cos you don't understand, don't make it bad (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 12:06:55 PM PST
Actually, jsm, if you had spent any time looking at the Darwin Awards site, you would realise that you don't even have to die to be awarded. Fine, knock anyone you like, but if you want to be taken seriously then please do your "research" properly.


You're right (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 4th, 2001 at 03:47:07 PM PST
you would realise that you don't even have to die to be awarded

All you need to do is render yourself unable to reproduce. Getting your nads blown off is an acceptable way of getting a Darwin Award.

Oh, and all the stories where a person is still able to reproduce are classified under "Honorable Mentions", they are not actual awards.


 
Congrats jsm (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 12:52:55 PM PST
on getting more than half of your links to work!


they all worked on the day that I wrote it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by jsm on Fri Aug 3rd, 2001 at 04:34:24 AM PST
I know, I know .... it's a complete fag getting the links to work, but our readers deserve better. I'm sorry.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
Lame (0.50 / 2) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 01:50:45 PM PST
You have the Darwin Awards and Wendy totally misunderstood. I'm sorry that you feel the need to trash the site, and her, AND the regulars there, without even truly seeing what it is about. And then to go there and invite us to come check out your wonderful site, after you have totally trashed all of us. Bleh.

Plaz Tekk
Proud member of the DAF


Lame? (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 3rd, 2001 at 05:32:53 PM PST
to all concerned:


          INDECISIVE CUSTOMER
         (defending herself)
      I only pointed out that you weren't   paying any attention to what I was saying.


            RANDAL
         (turning page and reading)
      I hope it feels good.

         INDECISIVE CUSTOMER
      You hope what feels good?


            RANDAL
      I hope it feels so good to be          right. There is nothing more          exhilarating than pointing out the       shortcomings of others, is there?


Ahh, the wisdom we need truly does reside in movies...

Losthalo



 
get a sense of humour (1.00 / 3) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 02:10:34 PM PST
Jeez, get a sense of humour would you. and don't try to invade the DAF either please (you know what I mean)


 
THe thing that always bothered me (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by shren on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 03:48:18 PM PST
This:

Fun with Balloons

Why does this belong on the Darwin awards site at all? Do you know how many times I've considered repeating this stunt, with a little more planning? That is, pardon my french, so fucking cool.

Had he done this before the age of flight, he'd be regarded as a visionary and a hero. These days he's mocked, because he seperated from the pack. Most people spend thier lives working, sleeping, and watching TV. And if you go out and do something dangerous and exciting, it's either illegal or done in a trendy fucking gym (rock climbing). Everybody always does the same thing, that's the story of the human race. Do something different? Fly? Unlicensed aircraft. Build a raft to try sailing? Unlicensed watercraft. Build a go-cart? Unlicensed motor vehicle. Set up a radio station? Unlicensed broadcast.

It's a fistfull of crap. Government has moved from protecting it's citizens to, though laws, defining reality, the very nature of what can and can't be done (more accurately, what people will and won't consider doing). People follow along like lemmings.


hrm broken link (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by jsm on Fri Aug 3rd, 2001 at 04:32:59 AM PST
(yes, I know, pot kettle, etc -- you try writing one of these stories one day :-))

It seems that the gene pool hasn't yet improved to the point of generating a sensible HTML frames structure; I'm not getting any story from your link. What was the example? Normally, adequacy has a fairly strict policy on copyrighted material, but seeing as the editor of that site has posted private email from me in their discussion forums, I'm guessing that they're not too keen on the niceties of netiquette.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

Here (none / 0) (#47)
by bc on Fri Aug 3rd, 2001 at 04:39:23 AM PST
I think this is the correct link.


♥, bc.

 
Bylines? (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:53:47 PM PST
Hey jsm,

Speaking of the Darwin Award forums, I'm a little confused by your insistence over there that adequacy.org has no bylines. The top of this page says "by jsm". It doesn't say "posted by" or "edited by", it just says "by"! How is that not a byline?


 
Nice to hear the truth (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 3rd, 2001 at 04:28:16 AM PST
There is something awful about the Darwin Awards. They are just a spiteful excuse to pervert science and laugh at those less fortunate than us. Look at the baloon guy - the one that floated up to the stratosphere on a chair with baloons on it, and got a mention despite his non-death. Anybody else would be impressed by his fortitude and originality, but not the Darwin awards people. They drove him to suicide by 1991, when he topped himself in forest, by shooting himself through the heart. I imagine the endless, spiteful & cruel mocking of the Darwin Awards people, who interpret original, exciting behaviour as 'dumb' in their quest to improve the gene pool.

I posted this anonymously because I know for a fact that rather than refute rationally, the Darwin Award people like to find out & publicise the names and addresses of those who disagree with them, for sinister ends. ~anonymity is your protection~


Dumbshit (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 01:15:50 PM PST
This guy offed himself long before the Darwin Awards got a hold of him. His death had nothing to do with it. He actually revelled in the attention that he got afterwards. He just couldn't handle the stress of everyday life.


 
This is so stupid (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 4th, 2001 at 08:10:50 AM PST
Darwin awards is news entertainment. Stories that have not been validated as true are marked as such. They also have the right to do all this, so what's the problem now? Are you afraid of reading something disturbing? Don't read it. Are you afraid of your kids getting the wrong idea about death? Parent them. Are you resentful of someone being entertained at another's expense? DEAL WITH IT!


 
Bashing the Awards (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by Jamestown on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 05:02:02 AM PST
How can you possibly have the nerve to bash her site for being "sick humour" when you currently run a poll asking to vote for your "favourite Serial Killer".

Hypocrisy to the extreme


adequacy.org has many editors (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by jsm on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 05:39:26 AM PST
I am responsible for this article, (and for the front page story mocking the autistic, although in my defence I was drunk when I posted it). In general, I dislike sick humour. Elby is responsible for the poll, and he revels in death. We try to respect one another's beliefs.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

It is also worth pointing out... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by iat on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 06:12:52 AM PST
...that the poll about serial killers is not humour. It is a genuine question to find the most popular serial killer. Although society tries to deny it, we all have a hidden admiration for these high-profile psychos - there can be no other explanation for why news items about serial killers are so popular. Deep down, we all would like to break society's rules, to give in to our animal instincts and to take the life of another human being. The poll is simply asking our readers which of these leading serial killers, in their opinion, was the most skillful.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

Admiring serial killers (1.00 / 1) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 06:39:50 PM PST
Excuse me - "we ALL have a hidden admiration [for serial killers]"??? Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing; would you like to play again?

I don't have a single iota of interest in watching sports, either - that doesn't prevent players from earning 6 and 7 digit salaries.

I'd recommend being more careful with those imperatives, personally.



 
It was my understanding... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by CaptainZornchugger on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 09:42:17 AM PST
That you were mocking the way hollywood portrays the autistic. I don't see why this should be equated with mocking the autistic at all.

But maybe I read too much into things.



nah (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by jsm on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 08:12:41 AM PST
We're more or less making fun of the autistic, in a pretty horrible manner. There's no real excuse for it, but what the hey. I'm a nasty person.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
Respect (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 06:35:05 PM PST
If you can respect Elby's beliefs, why not those of everyone else? I found the Darwin Awards website pretty lame, all things considered. But some of the stories were quite funny. And who are you to decide for me (or anyone else) what is 'sick humour'?

This is the first article I've read on my first visit to this site (an embedded link from elsewhere got me here), but so far, I have found nothing I could describe as "adequate", at least in terms of content.

Just my $.02...


Simple (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by elby on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 08:02:35 PM PST
Through the long time the editors on this site have known one another, we have learned a grudging respect for one another, despite how stupid another editor's beliefs might seem.

-lb


 
misrepresentation (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by Argent on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 02:55:32 AM PST
A little dissection follows. I enclose quotations from the original opinion piece thus: {text} {...the Darwin Awards is a page that likes to laugh at other people's deaths, and which demands to be intellectually admired for doing so.} Demands? Hardly. We invite people to share our thoughts and humor and contribute to same in diverse philosophy forums. {...the half-educated pop science crowd that makes up the Awards' audience...} Presumptuous, eh? There are very well educated folk reading and posting there. Lawyers. Engineers. Surgeons. Technicians. Computer consultants and programmers. Mathematicians. Physicists. Poets and other artists. Games designers. The list is large and multifarious. Only a little experience at the site is necessary to realize that the "half-educated" term verges (IMHO) upon libel. Yes, "jsm," the criminal act of libel. (Not slander, BTW. Look it up.) {...the extremely intelligent neurobiologist who runs the Darwin Awards ... Regards it as desirable to remove genes for "stupidity" (as defined by her) from future generations.} It's stupidity as defined by lexicographers, and agreed upon by countless observers of the human scene, not just "as defined by her." If you want to try to smear someone, do your research first. {...the use to which an expensive training in molecular biology is being put...} ...is the user's choice, not yours. Income taxes, and other forms of money transfer, will repay the State of California whatever it may be owed. {Of course, Wendy Northcutt is by no means as smart as she thinks she is.} Back up your allegations; else don't waste time & bandwidth with them. {It's not uncommon to see someone receive an award for "removing themselves from the gene pool" in the context of an anecdote which makes it perfectly clear that they were at the time of death in possession of a fully functioning spouse, child or even grandchild} Again, do your research. It is quite clearly specified in the criteria for a Darwin Award that one must remove one's ability to further contaminate the gene pool. (It is preferable that the removal be made before procreation, but it is not necessary. You undermine your case by spouting such foolishness. {After all, Benjamin Franklin used to be in the habit of flying a kite with a copper string into thunderstorms} "In the habit?" You exaggerate. There is some doubt (expressed in the very text to which you link in your statement) as to whether Franklin did that experiment at all! Even if he did, a "copper string" (the better term would be "wire") would have been impractically heavy. An ordinary string, wetted in the storm, would suffice to conduct. {...Darwin's theory of evolution had no place in it for such concepts as "improving the gene pool" by systematically exterminating the stupid...} Evolution is not systematic; again, do your research first so you won't use technical terms too loosely (or just wrongly). Besides, if the stupid and foolish tend to get killed out of the gene pool more than the intelligent and wise, is this not exactly the "survival of the fittest" which is Darwinian? {...Wendy Northcutt either knows this, or ought to know it by virtue of their training as a scientist.} "Their"? She is not plural. The use of "her" should do it. {Darwinian fitness is identically, logically equivalent to success in reproduction and nothing else. Not physical strength, not beauty and certainly not intelligence.} But what if the more intelligent beings, presumably better able to keep from getting killed prematurely, thrive while the less intelligent ones do not? Sounds like "success in reproduction" to me. {...the ascription of scientific content to them cannot possibly be portrayed as anything so well thought out as satire. Lamer] } Your rhetorical prowess is exemplified by your stooping to insult. Or didn't you know about the ad hominem fallacy of argument? {The kind of personality displayed by the sort of person who laughs at the recently dead for not being clever enough is probably more effective when used as a contraceptive than the rhythm method.} And this is meant to say what? The rhythm method is notoriously under-effective. Saying that something is more effective is nearly meaningless without adequate qualification. {...their predominantly sophomore science geek audience base...} Your research is again shown to be inadequate. Additionally, your ad hominem method of "argument" continues to show the lack of worth of your thought. {...the bathrooms of the science faculty dorm rooms...} Faculty are not usually housed in dorms. Again, if you wish to smear, at least avoid doing so in a slipshod manner.


congratulations sir. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by jsm on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 05:29:02 AM PST
For that masterly paragraph, you deserve some kind of an award. I will officially present you with one just as soon as I can think of a suitable dead scientist to name it after.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

flattery will get you... (1.00 / 1) (#66)
by Argent on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 07:40:35 PM PST
...not very far. Thanks for the compliment ("masterly"), but please reply more substantively, 'K?


 
Are you a real lawyer? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by iat on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 06:11:28 AM PST
Only a little experience at the site is necessary to realize that the "half-educated" term verges (IMHO) upon libel.

Not really. The phrase "half-educated" is nonsense, and is in no way libelous. For a statement to be libelous, it has to be a defamation of character. Since there no criteria by which to determine whether someone is quarter-educated, half-educated or fully-educated, the phrase "half-educated" clearly has no meaning. There is absolutely no way you could sue someone for libel for describing you with a meaningless adjective.

Yes, "jsm," the criminal act of libel.

Wrong again. Libel is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

(Not slander, BTW. Look it up.)

No need to look it up. Most people are fully aware of the differences between libel and slander, and know that your attempt to sound threatening by using a few legal words is risible.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by jsm on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 06:31:09 AM PST
It's also not possible to libel a "crowd". Libel, even under UK law which is probably the strictest of any democracy (arguably France is stricter on privacy, but this is true even of France), has to be aimed at a specific, identifiable individual.

And since the article never mentions "slander", I don't know why I'm being asked to look up either of the terms.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

lbel and slander (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by Argent on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 06:21:09 PM PST
I may have overdone it with the "veges on libel" bit; sorry if so. However, jsm, you did use "slander" where "libel" would have been the correct term in one of your responses at the Darwin Awards Forums. That's why I made specific mention of the distinction: for educational purposes.


 
addendum (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by jsm on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 06:54:18 AM PST
there is actually such a thing as "criminal libel", but it's very rare. You have to be deliberately spreading a falsehood with intent to cause damage to someone. There needs to be a smoking gun -- a witness or other evidence effectively where the defendant is saying "haha, I'll libel them and destroy! them".

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

I stand corrected. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by iat on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 07:02:10 AM PST
I never knew that. I learn something new every day at Adequacy.org, which makes a complete mockery of our detractors' claims that there's not enough serious discussion here.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

 
Some Fallacies... (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 7th, 2001 at 05:00:47 PM PST
I'm not exactly a fan of the Darwin Awards, but this article doesn't exactly discredit them...


"Either stupidity is genetic, or it isn't."

You're missing a whole middle-ground here. Some of our intelligence is genetic, some of it is environmental. There may be some other factors too (like did the mother drink alcolhol during pregnancy [which could be argued as environmental, but that's another bunny trail entirely...]).


"...abuse of the name of Charles Darwin."

I think you're confusing the man and the theory. Many creationists like to say that Darwin didn't believe in "Darwinism". So fucking what. We're not talking about the man, we're talking about the theory.

"...Darwin's theory of evolution had no place in it for such concepts as 'improving the gene pool' by systematically exterminating the stupid..."

If stupidiy is (at least partially) a genetically inherited trait, then this is, in fact, a logical corollary of evolution (sometimes referred to as selective breeding, depending on who/what is doing the selection). If you kill someone who has a genetic trait (or if they kill themselves) before that person has children, then you have reduced the percentage of the occurence of that trait in the overall population. If, because of this, the resulting population is more able to survive long enough to have children, then the process can be referred to as evolution.


"...Benjamin Franklin used to be in the habit of flying a kite with a copper string into thunderstorms..."

This is not the result of stupidity. Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning was electricity. He discovered that electricity could be transmitted through metal more easily than air. He discoverd that electricty was polar just like magnetism.

He was the first person to find out about these things! Before he made these discoveries, he didn't know that such a thing was dangerous.


"...[stupidity is] like being black..."

Being black does not increase or decrease the odds of survival in a truly non-racist society. Being black has nothing to do with job performance. Being black has nothing to do with how well I'll do in college. Being black has nothing to do with how good a judge/cook/professor/garbage-hauler/teacher/senator a person can be.

But, being stupid *does* affect these things.


"Wendy Northcutt is by no means as smart as she thinks she is."

This is clearly a personal attack, a very "disgusting" (as you put it) way to try to discredit someone's work (whether their work be crude humor like The Darwin Awards, or a scientific theory like Evolution").


"I am sending a version of this essay to Wendy Northcutt, and anticipate her replying that the Darwin Awards are 'satirical'."

How nice, you're putting words in her mouth. (I believe this is referred to as a "straw man" argument.) On her website, she refers to The Darwin Awards as "black humor". No where on her site (that I can find) does she refer to them as satire.

If you don't appreciate her humor, that's fine, but don't mistake it for something that it isn't.


"Notoriously, having a size 16 brain doesn't bring in the babes and/or studs."

I'd like to see your evidence. From my experience (only anecdotal evidence, but evidence nonetheless) I see many smart people having children and many stupid people having children. It seems to me that (for the most part) smart women like smart guys and dumb women like dumb guys (and vice versa). So people hook up and get laid either way...

Where the stupidity comes in (in theory) is when people do stupid things and get themselves killed before they have children.


I think your hyprocrisy speaks for itself:

"...by telling their [sic] predominantly sophomore science geek audience base that it's OK to be a nasty, intellectually snobbish little prick..."

... followed by...

"...but at least we're intellectually consistent. Can Wendy Northcutt say the same?"



--
Mark Fassler
fassler at monkeysoft dot net


Corrections (none / 0) (#73)
by ucblockhead on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 11:57:33 AM PST
If, because of this, the resulting population is more able to survive long enough to have children, then the process can be referred to as evolution.
Yes, but the word "improve" has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Creatures don't "improve". They become better adapted to their environment. "Improve" implies that some creatures are better than others from an evolutionary standpoint. This is not the case. Some creatures are merely better adapted to a particular environment than others. If "stupid" creatures survived more often than "smart" ones, then the creatures will evolve to be stupider. (Not as unlikely as you'd think given that more brains need more resources to support. Neandarthals had larger braincases than humans.) I believe that this is what the author is getting at.

I'd like to see your evidence. From my experience (only anecdotal evidence, but evidence nonetheless) I see many smart people having children and many stupid people having children.


Cyril Kornbluth wrote a short story called "The Marching Morons" that was predicated on the idea that smart people are more likely to understand how to use birth control and are more likely to recognize the dangers of overpopulation than stupid people, the result being humanity breeding itself stupid.

This is not the result of stupidity. Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning was electricity.
You don't give Franklin enough credit. He knew damn well what electricity was at the time. People had learned to create it in various was before this experiment. The kite experiment was meant to prove that lightening was electricity, something that some people at the time suspected, but that none had proven. It was not at all some sort of random act that discovered electricity. As such, it was either a brave act or a foolhardy act, depending on your opinion. But it was not an ignorant act.


 
Wow (0.70 / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 02:48:31 PM PST
I really wish I had more time to spare here so I could write a decent review of your essay and tell you why you are wrong, but it appears several people have beaten me to it anyway.

Let me just say that you have completely failed to find the humor in the darwin awards, which, by the way, is satire.

From dictionary.com: satire - A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

From the bits that I've read from the darwin awards, I'd have to say there is plenty of wit, derision, and irony to go along with the human vice and folly.

And on a personal note, you are a horrible monster and I pray for your death.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.