5 ms·

Webb was born in 1906. Why beclown themselves like this? JWST already has a name, they can't undo that association, even if they change the name.

garblegarble 5y ago
>JWST already has a name, they can't undo that association, even if they change the name. To the technical people who're already interested perhaps, but the general public won't have that association. It seems valid not to glorify people who were involved in atrocities (perhaps overstating things in this case, I've not looked into it - but as a general point) from the past. Personally I can't see them deciding to rename it, but I don't think it's silly for them to consider it, and if they did I wouldn't be bothered... just get the thing launched so we can do more science!
- Beached 5y ago
  the issue is that every has skeletons in their closet. if you go by that mentality, you can never name anything after anyone. you can never celebrate people's accomplishments ever, because that person will have ALWAYS also had something bad in their life.
  - garblegarble 5y ago
    I understand the point you're making and I'm sympathetic to it, and the knee-jerk reaction that people who do anything seriously bad are irredeemable - but I think there's a distinct difference between the different "skeletons on their closet" that makes it not the slippery slope you're worried about. There will be plenty of figures for whom "something bad" is just generally being rude/an asshole their whole life, for example - and that's quite different from actively furthering the systematic persecution of people based on something they can't control like who they love.
AllegedAlec 5y ago
It's also a bit like: 'Man born over a century ago hasn't the same values that we do today. More news at eleven.' Do you really think that Hubble didn't have such views, or any other person you name stuff after?
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Yea agreed, he held a belief that most people in society held at the time. We probably hold beliefs that will be shameful to those in the future. I constantly look back at my past self and think he was an idiot. People are fallible and make mistakes as well.
- sp332 5y ago
  Plenty of people have the same values today. here is the 2016/2020 Republican platform [PDF] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document... It includes an endorsement to "bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman". So you can't argue that we should forget his bigotry just because it's old and not relevant anymore.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    > So you can't argue that we should forget his bigotry just because it's old and not relevant anymore. I never said any of that though.
    - sp332 5y ago
      James Webb has values that people still do today. Your summary of the issue says the opposite.
  - JoeyBananas 5y ago
    That really shouldn't be a controversial statement. Having a government that imposes the values of one group on everyone sounds great when you happen to be a part of that group, but what happens when they decide to impose values that you don't agree with?
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> JWST already has a name, they can't undo that association I think this is all quite silly, but wanted to push back on this narrow point. Renaming works. Uluru was renamed in the last few decades; the new name has stuck [1]. (With more time, New York and Istanbul.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru#Name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru#Name
- rscoots 5y ago
  I think the variables here are how tenuous the current name is, and also how cool/enduring the replacement name is. Mt McKinely -> Denali is another great example. I think these factors will usually be stronger than any moral dimension.
  - metalliqaz 5y ago
    I think your example is a good illustration of my point... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali "McKinley" occurs 60 times on that page and is in the first sentence of the article.

garblegarble 5y ago

>JWST already has a name, they can't undo that association, even if they change the name. To the technical people who're already interested perhaps, but the general public won't have that association. It seems valid not to glorify people who were involved in atrocities (perhaps overstating things in this case, I've not looked into it - but as a general point) from the past. Personally I can't see them deciding to rename it, but I don't think it's silly for them to consider it, and if they did I wouldn't be bothered... just get the thing launched so we can do more science!

Beached 5y ago
the issue is that every has skeletons in their closet. if you go by that mentality, you can never name anything after anyone. you can never celebrate people's accomplishments ever, because that person will have ALWAYS also had something bad in their life.
- garblegarble 5y ago
  I understand the point you're making and I'm sympathetic to it, and the knee-jerk reaction that people who do anything seriously bad are irredeemable - but I think there's a distinct difference between the different "skeletons on their closet" that makes it not the slippery slope you're worried about. There will be plenty of figures for whom "something bad" is just generally being rude/an asshole their whole life, for example - and that's quite different from actively furthering the systematic persecution of people based on something they can't control like who they love.

AllegedAlec 5y ago

It's also a bit like: 'Man born over a century ago hasn't the same values that we do today. More news at eleven.' Do you really think that Hubble didn't have such views, or any other person you name stuff after?

bostonsre 5y ago
Yea agreed, he held a belief that most people in society held at the time. We probably hold beliefs that will be shameful to those in the future. I constantly look back at my past self and think he was an idiot. People are fallible and make mistakes as well.
sp332 5y ago
Plenty of people have the same values today. here is the 2016/2020 Republican platform [PDF] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document... It includes an endorsement to "bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman". So you can't argue that we should forget his bigotry just because it's old and not relevant anymore.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  > So you can't argue that we should forget his bigotry just because it's old and not relevant anymore. I never said any of that though.
  - sp332 5y ago
    James Webb has values that people still do today. Your summary of the issue says the opposite.
- JoeyBananas 5y ago
  That really shouldn't be a controversial statement. Having a government that imposes the values of one group on everyone sounds great when you happen to be a part of that group, but what happens when they decide to impose values that you don't agree with?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> JWST already has a name, they can't undo that association I think this is all quite silly, but wanted to push back on this narrow point. Renaming works. Uluru was renamed in the last few decades; the new name has stuck [1]. (With more time, New York and Istanbul.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru#Name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru#Name

rscoots 5y ago
I think the variables here are how tenuous the current name is, and also how cool/enduring the replacement name is. Mt McKinely -> Denali is another great example. I think these factors will usually be stronger than any moral dimension.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  I think your example is a good illustration of my point... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali "McKinley" occurs 60 times on that page and is in the first sentence of the article.