Jason Arday dead

[ThisWiseRobin]

Just putting this out there, but just heared.A sad end to a whole sorry mess.

You can insist all you like, there’s no evidence yet of fraud that would meet any legal definition.

And there’s absolutely nothing to suggest the family - which includes two children - are ‘complicit’.

People set up gofundeme and similar all the time for people, if you don’t like it don’t donate.

Why is it difficult for some posters to debate things they disagree with without resorting to meaningless terms like ‘leftist’?

No surprise that people would come for Cofnas though, for reasons covered above.

Apologies, to clear up the confusion, leftists - people on the left.

A new Cambridge professor in the making I see.

Oh good grief, such pettiness over someone using a word you for some reason disapprove of.

Shall we get back to the subject of the thread?

No disapproval, I just don’t think it adds anything to use broad labels about people because you don’t like an opinion of theirs. I asked a question, you deflected, which I take to mean you don’t have a response.

If you find questions petty, I won’t ask any more of you, no problem.

I don’t find questions petty. I have no idea how you have drawn that conclusion. I find snippy passive aggressive comments and ridiculous jibes about me being a Cambridge professor in the making petty.

But now you’ve clarified that your question is effectively “what do you mean by the left” I’ll decline getting drawn into that particular line of discussion thanks.

You don't mean left handed people then, there I was all confused

Seriously though from my view point we need to start calling most the far left sheep the socialist workers party because that was what/who these people were back in the day. Hence the use of reworked nazi properganda that they feel they are so original using.

The bloke they are calling a nazi in this case sounds very iffy but unlikely to actually be a nazi. Therefore using that word is pretty offensive and unnecessary considering there are plenty of other insults they could have used.

Agree it would be unlikely. In the time of the original Nazis, some Jews did support them (eg. Fritz Mandl, Hedy Lamarr's husband) but obviously a minority especially as it became clear how murderous they were.

However, from what I've seen of the 'race realist'/white nationalist circles Cofnas frequents (I'm on Substack, as is he, where many of these types congregate), more members than you would expect are Jewish. Being a member of a historically discriminated group doesn't mean you can't racist against other groups, but this isn't the same as endorsing Nazi ideology, which all but the most extreme of these types don't endorse.

I drew the conclusion because when I asked why people use the term leftist you ignored the question. Leftist is often used as a slur, using it seems pretty passive aggressive to me, and pretending not to realise it seems disingenuous.

He is in favour of eugenics, however.

What do you mean by eugenics?

Because there is pretty widespread public support for eugenics in practice, when you look at things like in-utero screening for various medical conditions, and also how people select sperm donors.

The generally repugnant bit of eugenics has been the horrific way it has been implemented at some times, and I’ve not seen any suggestion that Cofnas supports that (not that I’ve read all his work).

He said "After the revolution, I'll be the head of the dept of eugenics & race science at Harvard"

So I expect by eugenics he means discouraging black people from breeding.

On the David Starkey interview? That comment was surely a joke.

Anyway, if he does mean the latter then I vehemently disagree with him.

No, not David Starkey

https://x.com/l_a_d_j/status/2088588003530711533?s=61&t=U9XrcF693-JpMxeIueYG7g

And it didn't sound like a joke, it fits with his opinions.

Thanks.

What I find interesting about Cofnas is that he does not support colour-blind meritocracy, at least in the short run. As he thinks that will leave some groups under-represented in politically untenable ways.

That’s a much more interesting position than most of his critics credit him for.

His bit about black people disappearing from prominent positions under a colour-blind meritocracy is his argument contra Hanania, against such a system.

Anyway, I’m not a deep scholar of Cofnas but do think that bit is interesting.

So, a racist who believes in affirmative action, yet spits venom at others he believes share that view. A peach.

I think his main ire is at anti-hereditarians who, he thinks, misdiagnose the issue.

I think he certainly is angry at Cambridge and I think he’s right to be on that point. He was ejected for drawing politically unpalatable conclusions, which I think no philosopher should be. Same principle for Kathleen Stock, for example.

But as I say I don’t know him very deeply so am going on podcasts and blogs.

Yes, though his own position on heritability is not tenable on the evidence. Basic scholarship on IQ reveals the methodological gaps. His conclusions are, imo, political. Though he’s entitled to hold them and accountable to be critiqued for them.

He was dismissed from Emmanuel but continued his fellowship at Cambridge, who also found in his favour on 58 student complaints, so I’m unsure he’s right to be angry at the University. Even if he is, choosing to target a black academic is very on brand for his other expressed views, and doesn’t scream ‘calm, philosopher type’ so much as vengeful little man’. He broke a story that had already been investigated so hardly a whistleblower.

I don’t know much about him either, had never heard of him until 10 days ago but have read his material, substack and watched some videos. I suspect he won’t get the outcomes he’s hoping for from this, maybe five minutes of fame.

So, you don’t believe Arday’s claim of 1.4 million, then?

’Come for’ - what do you mean?

And do you condone it?

At this point, what is believable?

When the dust eventually settles and all the lies are irrefutable- they’ll all be on another topic doing the same deflection.

I think they know, deep down that the jig is almost up.

The semantics being played on this thread would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

I’ve had a look at some other threads and posts and I’ve concluded there is a lot of digital black face and other deceit going on which is quite fitting they’re staunch supporters of JA and minimising the fraud and deception or arguing there isn’t any.

Eww bet you felt dirty typing that. I know I did reading it! Even the world of publishing is riddled with sleaze. When the book is finally released, just watch out for a token gesture of some funds going to a charitable cause.

‘digital black face’ - never heard that before, but it’s brilliant, and bang on.

You've got to be kidding! Lefty is nothing compared to the labels the right get thrown at them. Aside from the childish names, such as knuckle draggers, we are always accused of being racist. The JA case has brought this right into the spotlight. Look at Friday night's delightful viewing; poster after posting trawling through this topic's threads calling us all racist. Are you a racist?