Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows 653
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about having the British apologize to everyone who was wronged by their hateful policies in the past?
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the? (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Bluntly? Screw it.
Screw an apology and a pardon, screw knighthood and whatnot. That man had no small impact on the outcome of the breaking of German codes and thus the outcome of the war. And the thanks was to prosecute him 'cause he was gay.
If that happened to me, I'd have wanted to kill myself for helping those hypocrites. Well, maybe he did. I couldn't care less about a half-assed apology half a century after driving him to suicide (or killing him altogether, depending on your point of view).
It's a bit like the history of Joan of Arc. Very popular and welcome in times of dire straits but quickly dumped once no longer useful and deemed a "security risk".
No thanks. I know what Turing did. For himself, for science, for "us" geeks. Whether you care about him, whether you apologize, frankly, it doesn't matter.
Pardon unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not a general apology? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a general to all people who have been victims of unfair discrimination?
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not age. Turing is fairly obscure outside of computer science. Everyone on Slashdot has heard of him, of course, but has your barber? Butcher? Regardless of their age.
He contributed a lot to computer science, but scientists don't usually get much press. He was also a war hero, and those DO sometimes get fame, but most of what he did was secret until long after the war.
Appology for a wrong thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok this opinion might be unpopular here, but the British Government has nothing to apologize about when talking of persecution of Alan Turing. The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time. The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law. The British government could have put him in jail, instead they mandated that he takes hormones (which, of course have caused him to grow breasts...and lead to his depression)
NOW: What British government should apologize for, is persecution of all gays in the UK and the rest of the (now) commonwealth, which includes Alan Turing. The persecution in itself was wrong, not a treatment of the particular individual.
Chemically castrated?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be lenient. He might on the other hand know Beckham's first name (frankly, I don't). Every group of people has their heroes...
Re:just Turing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this just for famous people too? Or do you include all the nameless faces that fell because of colonization? Apologizing to certain dead people who were wronged by people who are dead. I thought they invented history for a reason.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, if you keep the parlament busy that way for the next few decades they at least won't have the time to pass any more idiotic privacy-eliminating laws?
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why don't the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese apologies for their empire-building past. The various European powers for their slave trade. The various African tribes who were already practicing slavery when the white men arrived and sold them slaves from other tribes should probably go on the list. The Mongols should probably apologise for their invasion of China too. And what about the descendants of people responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire? They definitely need to apologise!
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary and stop asking people to apologise for things that were done by others often before they were born. If you want someone to apologise to Turing (or, rather, to you about Turing, because he's dead and therefore doesn't care) then why not go after the people who still persecute homosexuals. Better yet, get them to apologise to people who are still alive for things that they've actually done.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you care about him, whether you apologize, frankly, it doesn't matter.
Right, but Turing was homosexual and you're not ... or at least all accounts and his trial for "gross indecency" indicated it. I think that historically we need to not only recognize people who were homosexual but celebrate them. An apology from the British government and/or knighthood would not only be an apology to Turing but an apology to those that were tried for the same reason. Turing isn't alone in famous figures tried for "gross indecency" with Oscar Wilde [wikipedia.org] suffering the same charge. I'm sure there's a lot more. But if you had an uncle or aunt that was tried and jailed long ago for homosexuality, you could view this apology as an apology to every British citizen who was persecuted for the way they were born.
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
I think the apology would mean a lot to a lot of people and be another reason to 1) learn more about the man Alan Turing and remember him as more than just a computer scientist and 2) celebrate gay culture and heritage.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought they invented history for a reason.
To make sure you don't have to apologize for your atrocities because history is always written by the winner?
Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!! You want to get angry, you want to get fired up, you want to actually do some good and maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years ago.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we've moved on, but we all still have a long way to go with plenty of moving on to still occur.
They should and totally could, do this (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reason why the current UK govt. wouldn't do this - after all, it's apologizing for something that a completely different set of leaders is guilty of. They will do it for no other reason but because it makes sheer political sense. No, not because it's the right thing to do.
Likewise, the Lockerbie bomber wasn't released because it's the right thing to do, but because Gaddafi all but publicly promised natural gas and oil at favourable prices, in return.
In other words: fuck it all.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
That of course is the biggest problem with the petition. All should be treated equally under the law, so while they might call the petition under his name and as a memorial to his efforts, the petition should actually seek redress for everyone wrongfully persecuted under that legislation.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just be happy to see the British apologize for their current hateful policies.
To hell with apologies... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I want big $$$ compensation for what the Tories did to my Colonial ancestors! Cold hard cash in 100 Euro bills would be nice, but I'll settle for Paypal and lose that 2.9 percent if that's how it has to happen.
Re:Pardon unlikely? (Score:1, Insightful)
He was convicted of something that is totally legal today! Shouldn't they be pardoning EVERYONE convicted under these acts?
No?
If something was illegal at a point in time and you committed the action, you broke the law. You're punished for it. The law may be completely and impossibly stupid by modern standards, but it was still the law.
The converse of "Hey, let's pardon people once that law is repealed" is "Hey, let's prosecute people now that this law's been made." In the same way you can't prosecute people for committing an action before it's made a crime, out of hand pardoning of people who broke a law that gets repealed is ridiculous.
Further, if you believe that "He's done a lot of good, so..." then there exists a problem of people who further humanity enough being given license for certain levels of crime.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I would see it as an apology to homosexuals for their treatment if it was an apology to homosexuals for their treatment. Not any moment sooner. What's the statement of an apology to Turing but no other person ever tried under anti-homosexual laws? "It's still not cool to be gay, but we might descend to apologize to you if you're a fag but just so happen to save the empire and we then drive you to suicide". What kind of an apology is that, especially to the others accused and tried under this law? It's a slap in the face rather than an apology. You may rest assured that, if (big IF) that apology is eventually uttered, we'll see a lot of stress on how much Turing did for the victory of WW2 and how "misunderstood" he was, and so many other beautiful euphemisms to cover up the stink that they essentially dumped someone who had more impact on the beneficial outcome of WW2 than any general or any politician just because he's not into pussy.
An apology to Turing without an apology to the others that suffered the same fate but just didn't manage to somehow save the Empire is a slap in the face. Not an apology.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
Which is why same sex partners can get insurance covered the same as heterosexual partners. Which is why gay marriage is legal throughout the US. Which is why gay men don't get beaten and killed regularly by homophobes in the US. Which is why homosexuals can serve openly in the US military and be war heroes like Turing was without being punished if their homosexuality is discovered like Turing's was.
Sorry, but the US and many EU countries are a long long way from "over it". There is still a lot of work to be done and Turing is a good example to the world, both the west and east as to why we should be getting over it and moving on. Obviously the abuses in some countries that are not christian are as bad or worse, but that's the "we're not as bad as China" defense and it doesn't hold up. What happens in Iraq doesn't make what happens in Arkansas any less horrific and the poster you're responding to was right to point that out.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
I was always taught to get your own garden in order before you go looking over the fence. Lead by example and all that.
To what purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, Turing's been dead for 50 years. The politicians that made the laws he was convicted under are all dead. The judge who sentenced him is dead. The police and the lawyers and everyone else involved are most likely dead.
A corporate body cannot take responsibility, only an individual can, and our major moral problem is that we keep deluding ourselves into thinking that "corporate morals" means something. It doesn't. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO, and "just taking orders" is never an excuse. Just as a bureaucracy cannot take the fault for a heinous act, it can no more offer real contrition, nor can it offer a real apology.
(Which is, incidentally, one of the major reasons our society is so screwed up. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis from an intro to one or the other edition of Screwtape Letters, the great evil done today is not done by thieves and criminals in the dens of crime Dickens loved to paint, but by well-dressed men in offices, acting behind the shield of a bureaucracy.)
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:1, Insightful)
You must be new here. Everyone who kills others gets a free pass. This is just a power play, not an actual morality issue.
I mean you can't make up just how bad this is. Take the national health care initiative. Ever notice how many of the officials that are controlling the largest tax increase on Americans ever are just about all convicted tax-dodgers. This does not give these "progressives" pause. Why not ? Because they have enough political power to steal their fantasy from others, not pay it themselves. And they do it, not out of moral necessity, not out of any sort of rational judgement, but because they can. Because they can steal your money and spend it on their fantasies-du-jour, they do it.
But if you were to try something like that in Iran, you'd simply get killed. So there is no moral necessity to intervene, nor to get apologies, nor even to condemn those practices (except pro-forma when politically expedient).
In the end, of course this has one major effect : ... will either become violent and physically attack, kill and murder any critics (and obviously once they attack critics they attack anyone they consider undesirable), or they will get pestered out of existence, if not outright attacked and killed this way, by creating large "public opinion campaigns" against them (that have a tendency to turn into violent mobs in a heartbeat, you know like the G8 protests traditionally do). Historically, the last few times liberals did this to large institutions, those institutions not only became violent, but they won.
all large institutions, whether states, religions, or
If you want to see how fake power-hungry "progressive", or "liberal" public relations campaigns became violent and caused horrible disasters instead of improving the situation, look no further than Iran in 1972, the anti-shah protests and the rist of the Iranian gay-killing, extortionist muslim state. Then again, since a certain "prophet" did exactly the same as the Iranian state, perhaps one should think of this as exactly the same as what we call "islam".
Pardon em all and let gawd sort em out ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:4, Insightful)
People see what they want to see.
People that want PERSONS A to be evil hate filled monster will see everything that makes them evil hate filled monsters.
People that want PERSONS B to be perfect saints will see all the things that make them perfect saints.
People that try to point out that B has some parts of A or that A has some parts of B are told to shut up because A is A and it's the monster while B isn't the issue here it's A you goddamn monster. Stop trying to make it look good when A is filled with bastards like you.
Re:No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of agree with this to a great extent... but I find myself believing that he should get a knighthood. Not because of his treatment but because the guy earned it and saved a lot of lives with his code breaking work.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual.
First of all, I never said it's only fundamentalist Christians who bash gays. Fundamentalist Christianity is, however, one of the last and greatest bastions of hatred and bigotry left in the first world. I absolutely do not give Islam a free pass on anything, it is a vile, barbaric belief system that subjugates women and preaches intolerance. Fundamentalist Islam, however, is much less of a problem in progressive societies, however, as most fundamentalist Islamic societies are otherwise backward dictatorships that would be suffering the same human rights abuses under a similar, secular dictator. In the U.S., it is more or less impossible to get elected to higher office without professing belief in the Christian God. Fundamentalist Christians have their finger on the button and have huge sway over the minds of the people. We let people like Jerry Falwell (well not him anymore; thankfully, the God I don't believe in felt fit to strike this particular hateful gasbag down) and Pat Robertson spout the worst kind of vile hatred live on television because they do it in the name of the almighty jeebus. Fundamentalist Christians are, by far, the biggest threats to equality and freedom in America and western Europe. Thankfully, the world is beginning to leave these idiots behind as they are proven to be wrong again and again by science, and our reason brings their bigotry and backwardness to the light of day.
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
I wish this were the case, but it is not. Homophobia is still rampant. Gays are not allowed to serve in the military. Gay marriage is gaining traction, but encountering severe resistance. Gays still feel pressure to stay in the closet for fear of repercussions. Society has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go before people can grow out of their prejudices.
Re:No thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you choose something that gets you persecuted?Well, people do choose their religion, and religions can get you persecuted just as badly....
Re:just Turing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Be more consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Have every government apologize for all cases of discrimination, murder, destruction, theft, pollution, pillage and enslavement that they have done in the past, and have them pledge to not do so in the future.
But that would be utopian, when the fact of the matter is that the electorate of all western nations in some form or degree wants the above. (Yes, that most likely includes you, the reader, as well.)
Re:No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
While I do love this as it gives me another argument against people who blindly thrash through life with no regard what so ever for logic, fact and common sense, I must say I disagree with you somewhat.
Why celebrate "gay culture and heritage"? You seem like you respect Alan Turing, ergo I assume you pride yourself in logic thinking and sense. Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
Yes, gays have been mistreated and ridiculed, beat and spat on. Still though, is the road to acceptance paved with pink man-strings, over-the-top genderized personalities, celebrations of ones (logically speaking) flawed dna and throwing the fact that you are different in everyone's faces? Really?
Strictly logically speaking, celebrating "gay culture and heritage" would be like me celebrating "diabetic culture and heritage". It's bullshit. It doesn't work that way. How about we all just get with the times, face the facts and realize that gay people are different and that it does. not. matter. (apart from those who for some reason think everyone needs to know where they like to stick their genitalia).
It's like racism in a way. If a black guy calls me whitey, pasty, whatever.. what happens? I don't give a shit, because my skin is indeed roughly the color of light dough (at least compared to the black guy). Now reverse the situation, see what happens if I refer to a black guy as black. It doesn't matter how politically correct I try to be, it doesn't matter that in a room full of white people his skin color is his most easily identifiable visible feature. He might be a cool guy, but most likely I will get a fist to the face, repeatedly. Likewise, if a gay guy calls me straight, even if he means it as a demeaning thing to say, he completely gets off the hook because noone cares. Refer to a raging homosexual as.. well.. gay, and you at the very least get a good screaming too.
*sigh* Can't we design some virus or some such that forces the right half of the brain to be the dominant one already?
Re:No thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
An apology penned by the persons who currently constitute government in the UK would be utterly meaningless since those are not persons who had anything to do with Turing's treatment.
"The Government" is not some sentient, undying, collectively intelligent entity which can itself apologise for its behaviour. It is merely a label for a group of individuals currently fulfilling certain roles.
By all means seek out politicians and civil servants who had a direct hand in injustices of the past and pursue them for apologies over their behaviour. But don't waste time asking for an apology from people which - whatever they may be guilty of - are not guilty of the injustices in question.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know there have been apologies for slavery, but it just doesn't make any sense.
As a former foreign minister of Denmark said on the issue: We do not apologize for things we haven't done, to people it wasn't done against.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:1, Insightful)
I am always amazed that when I leave "gay-friendly" cities in the US, just how intolerant every smallish town seems to be. I can walk down the street and hear every slur in the book, just for wearing a new sweater. So backwards. And I agree with all your points on Xianity, sad religion, sad people.
As the bumper sticker says, "God, save us from your followers."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
what's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, Alan Turing was really important to computer science. And he suffered because of a law that we currently find injust. But what's the point of this posthumous apology? The guy is dead. He's not going to feel any better if someone says they're sorry.
Is the point to get his name out there? To increase his fame? To get him the recognition he deserves? Why? Yeah, he's a big deal to computer scientists... But the world doesn't revolve around us. Why is it so necessary for the world to recognize his contribution specifically?
Is the point to make the British government apologize for treating people badly in the past? Again - why? They don't do that anymore, do they? Homosexuality isn't currently on the books as a crime, is it? Isn't that enough then? And if it isn't, where do you stop apologizing? Are you going to ask for a formal apology to every single person who was convicted of a crime that we now disagree with?
The past is the past. Bad things happened, innocent people suffered, but it is over now. Time to move on.
I'm not suggesting that we sweep all this nastiness under the rug, hide it, or forget about it... By all means, let's learn from our mistakes... But apologizing to dead people just doesn't get you very far.
the apology isn't for turing you moron (Score:3, Insightful)
the apology is for us. if you have a conscience, you feel bad about something done wrong, and you try to make amends for it. it doesn't matter if you are the perp, or some other guy is, or its something wrong that happened 1000 years ago
its a simple, healthy, normal, human instinct
why the retarded antagonism to a simple human impulse?
Re:Appology for a wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok this opinion might be unpopular here, but the British Government has nothing to apologize about when talking of persecution of Alan Turing. The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time. The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law.
Are you telling me that, if you lived in a country where your having sex was made illegal, that you would just stop having sex? Seriously? Do you think you could do that? Do you think that the average guy could manage that for any length of time? Because that's what it was. Turing was just a guy, living in a place where having sex with his chosen partner was illegal.
Some laws are just plain unjust. There is absolutely nothing wrong in breaking such laws.
NOW: What British government should apologize for, is persecution of all gays in the UK and the rest of the (now) commonwealth, which includes Alan Turing. The persecution in itself was wrong, not a treatment of the particular individual.
Agreed, both because the persecution in abstract was wrong, and the treatment of the individuals (Turing and the nameless others) was also wrong.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey! Those privacy eliminating laws are important for being able to weed out the homo^Hcommu^Hmusli^Hdruggie^Hterrorists!
A real apology might be to name a privacy or anti-discrimination act after him. But we know that won't happen.
i hearby declare urination illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
hold your bladder until we change the law, or its your fault your pants get wet
sound absurd? that's what you are saying
"The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law."
acting on your sexual orientation is not only your essential human right, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to act on it
Awful attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this attitude is that we don't acknowledge that something was done wrong. Sometimes an apology is all that is needed to mend ties to some wronged group, and then healing can begin. The Mongols and the roman empire are poor examples. No one has memory of the emotional impact of the Mongols and the Roman empire. But there is still plenty of emotions over the european impact over Africa, the middle east, and southeast asia. Hell, a lot of what's going on in those areas, mostly bad things, are a direct result of the actions that were taken by those imperial powers. And yet most governments go along like "Oh really we did something wrong? Well that wasn't my fault that was someone else. I'd never do that to you." Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
I like the idea that someone else posted that apologies should be given to the entire community, and not just to Alan Turing. Alan in this case is a good poster child.
Western Countries still have plenty of people with lots of illogical hatred. I think that if Britain were to do this it would go a long way to further showing how backward the US is in it's own hatreds. If you tried this in the US there would actually be a huge political backlash. And an apology doesn't have to mean you are weak, an apology just has to mean you were too cruel in the past, and that the government by the people and for the people will try to do better to preserve your basic human rights.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't we just have everyone apologize to everyone else for being short-sighted and only interested in their own goals? That pretty much covers everyone and every nation, ever. Both individually and collectively.
There's a certain point where it just makes the world a better place if you just go around forgiving people if they are genuinely sorry rather than trying to extract reparations and apologies from everyone for everything. I know that there are still open wounds in many places, but they don't heal as well if you keep picking at them.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
Yay the 21st century! Where we legalised torture, and turned a blind eye to torturers. Where doctors who perform legal services can be shot while serving as an usher in church. Where gay couples can have their marriage rights taken away from them.
Now, which country MIGHT I stand a chance of making some change in... the western democracy where I live, or some Sharia-ridden country where I am lucky enough NOT to live?
I know... I'll go after the guys living *over* *there*. Otherwise, I might actually change something here, and that could make YOU uncomfortable.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Do e-petitions have more sway in UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:1, Insightful)
You're right.
We should strive to emulate the example of those nice people in Iran. The hell with this "fifty years of constant improvement in the treatment and legal status of homosexuals" nonsense.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the point in saying guilt should't be hereditary, although the UK government is not a single person.
However, claiming injecting people with "hormonal treatments" was normal is like claiming that waterboarding is normal now. They all knew what they were doing was wrong then, just like we all know what we are doing is wrong now. We just make a pretense that it isn't.
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Has Jay ever shown a segment where everyone shown got the right answer?
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentalist Christianity is, however, one of the last and greatest bastions of hatred and bigotry left in the first world.
You need to get out more. There is plenty of hatred and bigotry to go around in the world, and if all the fundamentalist Christians disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, that wouldn't change. In fact, that statement itself reeks of hatred and bigotry.
Re:What the? (Score:2, Insightful)
I bet not one person that I work with has even heard of Alan Turing or the ENIGMA machine.
Ah, you mean the machine that Matthew McConaughey and some brave American servicemen (TM) rescued from U571.. Yes, Alan Turing must have been an American like Stephen Hawking, and that crew of brave American servicemen (TM)...
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Symbolic acts" aren't worth the archetypes they're printed on.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you think an apology from the people who didn't do it to the people it wasn't done to is pointless doesn't mean that you think that it should be forgotten.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
Yet homosexuality is a widely observed phenomenon.
Ergo, either evolution is broken, or there is something going on that is more subtle and interesting than your naive notions of what is adaptive or "logical". Personally, I'm betting the latter.
"I can't make sense of this in evolutionary terms" does not mean "This does not make sense in evolutionary terms." It most probably means, "There are things that make sense in evolutionary terms that I don't understand (yet)."
Given the known correlation between homosexuality in male humans and birth order (men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual) there is such a stunningly obvious evolutionary reason for it that I can't be bothered to explain it to you.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know there have been apologies for slavery, but it just doesn't make any sense. As a former foreign minister of Denmark said on the issue: We do not apologize for things we haven't done, to people it wasn't done against.
Indeed I find it a little offensive. At the time Britain was involved in slavery, my ancestors were being somewhat oppressed by the system of land lords (and tenant farmers) that existed in England. They certainly didn't have the vote. And yet, apparently, I'm supposed to apologise on the grounds that more than two centuries ago, many of the people who were oppressing us also happened to be oppressing some other people.
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm a big sports fan, but plenty of people remember sports figures from the last century. Audio and video recording has much to do with that. Mozart, Galileo and Aristotle had the means to record their accomplishments, the athletes of their time did not.
Re:just Turing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Does that mean the USA never has to apologize for the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:2, Insightful)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
I am not allowed to call that bigoted? Seriously? If you said that every word of Mein Kampf was literal truth, I would be more than justified in saying that you are a racist.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard of Turing, but did not know about his "persecution" by his own government. These types of things often don't make it into the textbooks, just like over in Europe you probably never heard of the U.S. government's nuclear experiments on non-whites (second-class citizens in the 1950s).
Democracies often kill their best and brightest, simply because they are "odd". The most famous example is Socrates who had committed no crime, but was killed with a simple majority vote by his Athenian neighbors. That's why most modern liberal societies are Not democracies (rule of 51%) but instead Republics (rule of law), in order to protect basic individual rights.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, the hatred and bigotry shown by Fundamentalist Christians was only just eclipsed by the GP poster's hatred and bigotry of ... Fundamentalist Christians. Good job swinging the hypocrisy needle to OVER 9000 there, dood.
I don't know where these "Fundamentalist Christans" of yours live. I've never met someone that professed to be a Christian and promoted hatred or bigotry of anyone. Perhaps it's not prevalent where I live.
Knighthood makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that apologizing for something that you didn't to to people who are no longer alive doesn't make much sense. I think that John's first suggestion of knighting him is a great idea. It's not an apology; it is honoring him for his tremendous contributions to the country, in spite of the horrible way he was treated.
It has much of the same social benefit that apologizing to him would. He should have been knighted while he was alive, and the only reason he wasn't was because he was gay. Choosing to do so now recognizes this fact and states that we will no longer overlook someone because of their sexuality.
If you want to apologize, apologize to the people who are still living that were put though this garbage. For Turing in particular the important thing is to remember what he accomplished and what he was put through, and officially honoring him is an excellent way to do this.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about you just plain forget about living. The Jews keep the remembrance of the Holocaust alive because there are still many thousands of people across the world that wish to continue where Hitler left off.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your views might not align with that of others. That does not mean that we should consider with different views to us as weak-minded.
I consider athletic achievement on par with intellectual achievements, along with military, monetary and political achievements. Why? Because they are all attained by people who dedicates their life to a single goal. In my view, that is the most important thing.
Now, coming to your view, you have considered only scientists and artists. The point, I guess, being that the world is the way it is now only due to scientific achievements. I disagree on that. Politics and military has played a far far bigger role in shaping the world as we see it now. Again, much of athletic achievements and military achievements go hand in hand. Also, when survival was at stake - which was the case for majority of human existence, athletic capabilities played as big a role as intellectual capabilities. Similar is the case with monetary and artistic achievements too.
I am also more inspired by intellectual achievements than others, but let us not denigrate others based solely on that. Judging others by our morals is not always correct.
Re:Appology for a wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time.
So did: Oskar Schindler [wikipedia.org], The Suffragettes [wikipedia.org], Galileo Galilei [slashdot.org], the Founding Fathers of the United States [wikipedia.org], and Jesus Christ [wikipedia.org].
Breaking the law is not necessarily a bad thing when you live in an unjust world.
Re:Appology for a wrong thing (Score:3, Insightful)
How was that prosecution wrong?
No, seriously, this is not a troll.
If not a troll, it is a seriously unconsidered argument. You are essentially arguing that if something is the law, then prosecutions under that law can't be "wrong". Are you seriously trying to argue that prosecutions under the Nuremberg Laws [wikipedia.org], which resulted in people being sentenced to death for the "crime" of belonging to a certain ethnic group, were not wrong, because they represented the laws of the prevailing government of the day?
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your post in principle, but I just thought I'd point out that the argument that guilt is not hereditary is often used in the wrong situations. An example from Australia would be the relatively recent apology to the Aboriginals (our indigenous population) for their mistreatment by past governments. The former Prime Minister, the (dis)-Honourable John Howard [wikipedia.org], used this exact argument for the over a decade he was in office, and somehow, completely missed the point of the argument for an apology in the first place. Nobody was claiming that he or anyone else was personally responsible for the mistreatment, but rather, that the apology would officially _recognise_ the past mistreatment. Our current Prime Minister, the (only slightly less dis)-Honourable Kevin Rudd [wikipedia.org]
recognised this and made an official apology.
Thus, it is of historical importance, and by extension of moral importance. Until the apology was made, the government had never, ever, officially admitted their past wrong doing, and by doing so, they effectively go a long way to closing a past chapter of Australian history that is less than pleasant, so that the majority can move on. I'd suggest something similar is what is at work here, recognition of Alan Turing's mistreatment officially absolves him of any wrong doing. I'm not saying I think this is necessarily worthwhile, but I also don't believe the motive for doing so is in anyway some ill-conceived idea based off the notion that guilt is hereditary. Further, stating that an apology is only appropriate when you are personally responsible is simply not accurate. When someone tells me that a close friend has died, I'll tell them I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm in no way admitting I was responsible for their death. It's purely an indication of my sympathies; an apology for Turing is similar in concept. I really do find the notion many present that seems to me to indicate that apologising is either an admission of guilt or an admission of weakness (or both) very quaint at times, and says a lot about that person. Admitting something in the past was wrong that you have even a historical connection to, is in my view, a sign of strength and intellectual wellbeing.
Re:Sorry but no.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So the Vatican was wrong to apologize for the treatment of Galileo? I mean, Galileo was disobeying edicts of high-ranking church officials, which, in southern Italy at the time, was the law.
As others have pointed out, the Brits were happy to employ Turing, and surely must have known about his personal life. When the war was over, they threw him to the wolves. They were quite happy to ignore the anti-sodomy laws when it suited their needs. So this isn't just a matter of Turing disobeying the laws of the time, it's an issue of the British Government permitting to happen so long as Turing could help them win the war.
Re:just Turing? (Score:1, Insightful)
That's right. It was war, and they were acts of war. I don't see anyone apologizing for anything they did in war; they do look back and go 'those were horrible things and it would have been nice if we didn't have to do it' but they had to be done as they were the best option open to anyone at the time.
Let's Not (Score:3, Insightful)
How about making no apologies for the past and moving on. if you want to carry generation after generation of grudges for past wrongs move to the middle east, they've taken 8000 year old grudges to an art form.
What's done is done. You can't undo it, you can right a past wrong. It's done, it's over, he's dead. Move on and try not to make new mistakes rather then wasting time and energy trying to save face on old mistakes...
Re:Awful attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
No... I just don't think it was me who did it... or them to whom it was done. A person who did not commit the wrong apologizing to one who was not among those wronged... accomplishes nothing.
Read this, and I think there is a point (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone that doesn't know Turing's life story should definitely read:
Alan Turing: the Engima
by Andrew Hodges.
It's a great book.
Alan Turing did great, great, things for Britain and the world.
He was one of the most important figures in defining the outcome of WWII.
He was one of the few mathematicians responsible for inventing the computer, both in laying foundational theory and physically engineering them.
He published insightful papers and commentary, across a wide range of topics, that are still relevant today. For example, in my PhD thesis I am citing a paper of his that is cited in pretty much every major text in my field (evolutionary computation). The field has only really existed since the 1970s, 20 years after his death, yet Turing foresaw its potential.
I know that some people will be dissatisfied with the fact that the apology might seem empty, or it is one of a million apologies that should be made, but I think it's important to recognise what an exceptional man Turing was and just how pivotal he has been in our history. To apologise would be to recognise our gratitude for his achievements, as well as the dreadful mistakes that were made at the time.
If we don't recognise the errors we have made in the past, then I see no reason to imagine we are any different from those in power back then. I think that at least some people want to correct past mistakes.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Infamous [merriam-webster.com]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fundamentalists don't follow the laws laid out in the Old Testament, only the New Testament. Not that I agree with their viewpoint, but your example is completely ridiculous and moot.
Maybe you should spend a tiny bit of time checking your facts instead of ranting about them on Slashdot.
Re:just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the bombings that essentially saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of civilian lives? Which were legal under the then-current laws of war?
Unlikely? (Score:3, Insightful)
> pardon is 'unlikely,'
Get over it, he's fucking dead, and all it costs you people is making some words happen. What's the matter, will the guilt become unbearable if you admit it? You know, we know, you know we know, and we know you know.
Either apologize, pardon, and clean the slate, or someone in the future is going to do it, as well as apologize to him, and us, because you didn't have the balls that Turing had even after you subjected him to estrogen emasculation. That's psychological AND physical torture, with the perpetrators attempting to skip with less than full accounting.
If the Crown's proud bastard son Australia can apologize to an entire race for worse http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7241965.stm [bbc.co.uk] you can manage this surely. Or if you've actually managed to export all your intestinal fortitude, ring up down under and see if maybe Kevin Rudd could pop up topside and do it for you.
No matter what you do it won't be enough because he saved all your asses many times over, and started a movement that makes modern life possible. So the only measure of your sincerity, humility and mettle will be your effort. Most visible in that effort will be that which you put towards minimizing your responsibility then and now.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
When Jay Leno shoves a microphone in your face, you know that the only way you're going to get on the air with an outrageous answer. Is it an wonder there are so many outrageous answers?
Has Jay ever shown a segment where everyone shown got the right answer?
So, are you saying that instead of him interviewing people who either aren't bright or are uninformed, he's interviewing people who will lie and make up stuff in order to be seen for a few seconds on TV? Seems worse :)
Re:No thanks (Score:1, Insightful)
God, in His benevolence, has provided us with artists, interior decorators and fashion designers.
Re:Jesus a law-breaker? (Score:3, Insightful)
"King of the Jews." That's not a crime.
The Jews considered it blasphemous that Jesus claimed to be both God and the Jewish Messiah. asked directly by the Sanhedrin if he was the Christ, Son of God. Jesus responded, as in Mark 14:60-62: "And Jesus said, "I am;" [wikipedia.org] Blasphemy was a crime punishable by death under Jewish law. The other stuff about it being political may well be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that claiming to be Son of God was considered blasphemous and hence illegal by the authorities of the day.