Dear conservatives.
If you want eugenics allow people to abort and do generic testing on their kids before they're born. It accomplishes the same thing without the brutal state control and human rights violations.
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
335 points (96.1% liked)
politics
18651 readers
4088 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It accomplishes the same thing without the brutal state control and human rights violations.
Well, that's the problem. They can't control people without those two components. It's not really eugenics if it just naturally emerges from individual choices.
Ew yeah. I hate generic kids.
Axiom: Once you’ve met a Noah or Emma, you don’t need to meet another.
But I want to meet Emma Watson...
Actually, I don't. I'll be so cringy, onlookers will die of second hand embarrassment.
What? No they don't want eugenics to eliminate diseases. They want it to eliminate Jews, and weirdly also pitbulls.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But that wouldn't satisfy their sense of self righteous vengeance. If you prevent a problem altogether, there'd be nobody to punish for it.
But where can they realize their sadistic genocide fantasies?
So Gattaca?
The brutality is a feature, not a bug.
Fashion trends seem to follow a 20 year cycle, and a 30 year cycle, where ‘90s trends are coming back into fashion.
Fascism trends seem to follow a 90 year cycle, where ‘30s trends are coming back into fashion.
When you've experienced something personally, like war for instance, you're going to know and remember personally how it felt to you, you will have strong opinions on it.
If it happened before your time, you will lack these feelings, and you will be basing your opinion on more abstract understanding that may or may not be accurate, since your understanding can only ever be as accurate as the historical material you were given.
Authoritarianism is a good example of this. It's seductively simple, and it sure would be nice if it "just worked" and we could live successfully that way. Sometimes a person needs personal experience of their own direct suffering before they can wake up from their fantasy, though, before they come to realize that we have the systems we do not because they're perfect or even great, but because they're demonstrably the least shitty of them all. Our way may be fairly bad, but other major ways are worse.
This is a very unpleasant conclusion to come to, and I understand why people may wish to hide from it inside their own fantasies of power and simplicity.
Authoritarian attitudes was the #1 predictor of Trump support if I recall.
I haven't lived through an authoritarian regime, but I lived through a terrible parent - so I've experienced the feeling of 'oh shit the structure that governs my life is fucked up and I must escape'. I think that's what made me anti-authoritarian.
I often wonder if there's a way to get people to shift away from authoritarianism. I think I get the appeal of 'simple, easy, you don't even have to think for yourself!' - but everyone needs to recognize those are trap cards.
The boot on the neck is fine, as long as you're the one wearing the boot. But you can't be sure that will always be true, can you?
It also takes a different sort of person to say that there shouldn't be a boot in the first place.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your thesis here. Many, many people who supported Hitler and Mussolini had been through WWI. Hitler himself was wounded in WWI.
It was certainly not intended to be a description of how things must or always be. Simply how they often work, it is one factor that goes into a very complex equation.
It is a large factor though. But not overriding or anything.
I highly recommend "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss & Howe.
“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf.
I was once talking about the Strauss-Howe generation theory with a conservative buddy of mine and the above quote is what he was familiar with and made sense to him.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The young puppy kickers trying to make kicking puppies respectable again
Huh. Looks like we'll be getting the Eugenics Wars after the Bell Riots in this timeline. Still on track for Irish Unification, too.
Not looking fwd to WWIII though, looks fucking horrifying. I hope I can make it to at least see first contact.
When is the U.S. going to get those extra states?
Just so you know, if you're really quick you can hit Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C and copy all of the article text before the paywall pops up. You can then just paste the text into notepad and read the full article. I was going to post the complete text here, but that big of a post seems to make Lemmy choke.
Something I didn't learn until this week, but James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (wrote "Dare to Discipline", a book about how we really needed to start hitting kid again in the 70s), was an assistant to a counselor who was a eugenics-loving, racist marriage counselor. Dobson wrote/published materials for Popenoe (the eugenicist counselor) as his assistant. Very few years later, Dobson started writing many of those same ideas as himself, but wrapped up with religion.
So these young whippersnappers might be trying to bring back eugenics, but that's largely because for the last 50 years, eugenics have been evangelized to many, many (especially Christians) in all but name.
Yet another reason to despise that guy. That's an interesting find I was completely unaware of. Sad if anyone is actually taking childrearing advice from the writing of superstitious chumps from more than a millenia ago. Like, gee, we kind of learned a few things since then...
It shouldn't be a surprise the racist right is pushing racist pseudoscience. The right believes in an immutable race hierarchy despite race being a social and not biological construct. In other words believing things without scientific evidence as usual.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There already is a respectable kind of eugenics.
It's called "genetic counseling".
Here's why it doesn't sit well with pseudoconservatives (aka authoritarians):
It's consensual.
It involves giving accurate, scientifically based information to potential parents, on the risk of genetic disorders that might lead to unhealthy children, so that they can make better decisions about parenthood.
It does not involve racial pseudoscience, antisemitism, or violent compulsion of any sort. As such, it does not fit well with pseudoconservatism, fascism, etc.
They want it to eliminate phenotypes that are different...
Normal people want it to eliminate negative genotypes that lead to genetic issues and lifetimes of suffering for future generations.
Two completely different goals.
They just fundamentally don't understand genetics, like when you tell them there's more genetic diversity within Africa than between every other population outside of Africa. They can't see genes by looking at someone, but they can see phenotypes. So 9/10 a conservative will say "but they're all Black".
An astonishing amount of racism is actually about sex and reproduction. Many racists are more threatened by "race mixing" than by the mere existence of other races.
That’s not eugenics. To qualify as eugenics, you’d have to be getting genetic counseling because you wanted to improve the human race, not because you think it’d be unethical to make your kid go through the same suffering you did with a genetic disease. Making eugenics more palatable by ignoring the ideology that defines it can harm people, so please stop.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I grew up in a cult, so my perspective is a bit off. Did people actually reject eugenics after WW2 or did they just start whispering their approval of it?
The nazis were very upfront about how they got their thoughts on eugenics from America. The way we treated Black people and the native population. Especialy the nonconsensual sterilization.
When the nazis realized they were losing, they switched to killing everyone instead.
It's kind of hard to watch that happen and the majority of the world unite against it then saying "yeah, but we'll just go right up to that line".
To a lot of Americans it was a wakeup call. But what changed American culture the most was minority service members coming back after being treated not just as equals, but heroes by Europeans. A 1940s Black man from the South would have had their minds blown at even being treated like an equal.
It was as repudiated as white nationalism.
That might explain my experience. The cult I grew up in has remarkably deep ties to white nationalism.
I think the problem is partly that things like not allowing convicted child rapists to have children seems like a really really good idea.
But then it's super duper difficult to draw the line.
If the state can take those human rights from a criminal, they can make laws that define any one of us as criminal and take them from us.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
So weird.
In 10-20 years, if not sooner, the highest IQ entity is not going to be bio-human. So, what’s the point?
Highly regarded conservatives are still coping with Jews and east asians kicking their ass
load more comments
(1 replies)
For some reason my brain associated Eugenics with Dianetics.
Same kookiness I guess
As kooky as it is, I've never seen dianetics end in genocide.
True but homicide / suicide yes
Yes, it's toxic and bad. But Eugenics is one of the worst things to ever happen to the world. I just don't want that downplayed at all. People who believe in eugenics literally think they should play God and decide who lives and who dies.
view more: next ›