Reported as "not politics" and while I can see that argument, what they're talking about here has immense political ramifications, going back to Reagan's racist "welfare queen".
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
123 points (93.0% liked)
politics
19274 readers
2074 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I haven’t yet read Chan’s book, but I would recommend also reading Aubrey Clayton’s Bernoulli's Fallacy—which catalogs how the principle founders of eugenics were also the founders of modern statistical methodology, and how they distorted the latter to justify their beliefs.
Please please please forgive my ignorance
Looking at the basic definition of eugenics makes it seem like the sci-fi concept of editing a fetus to not have diseases. Is there something ethically wrong with that?
I know eugenics is based in nazi shit and "selective breeding" (which I'm vehemently against), but people get angry at the term, so I'm assuming we're nowhere nere the sci-fi stuff(?)
Eugenics is basically selective breeding applied to humans to weed out undesirable traits like diseases or disabilities.
It sounds okay on paper but as history showed us, it is, more often than not, used to justify heinous shit. Especially when you leave it to humans to define "undesirable traits".
Nazis used it, but so did America, Japan, China, France and many many more.
And now, imagine tech bros from the Valley wanting to engineer the genome and deliver the "perfect" baby to some rich fucks. We're obviously not there yet, but it's only a matter of time if we let them.
It’s historically been applied at the level of societies rather than individuals, and targeted at common traits seen as undesirable rather than at specific genetic defects. And it tends to be based on misconceptions about evolution—e.g., that an ideal population is one in which all members’ genotypes approach some hypothetical optimum, and any genetic diversity within a population is deleterious.
I see! That makes perfect sense! Thank you
Racists like Musk love it because it's a way to reduce "unwanted" populations without saying it outright
The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don't include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.
Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren't "tech". This article is paranoia and click-bait.
Musk and thiel, two of the worlds richest men who exclusively made their wealth in tech companies, aren't tech related?
There are about 9,600,000 people in the US tech industry and this article never even mentions 9,599,998 of them. Even if Musk and Thiel support eugenics (and that's if) they're just talking about it as individuals, not as people who run tech companies associated with eugenics in any way. Musk is an immigrant and Thiel is gay, so you might as well say that eugenics is thriving in the immigrant community and the gay community.
Musky has his grubby hands in so many areas of tech that his individual views are no longer individual. He’s a major player in the space scene right now. His exploding cars are so invasive that some people I know refer to any EV as a ‘tesla’. He also has his hand so far up Trumps arsehole that he can tickle his tonsils from behind. I think it might be important to know if this guy has dangerous views on eugenics.
Not to mention his following, however shallow, is MASSIVE in the tech sphere, especially among leadership roles. A lot of less informed people automatically lend him at least some amount of credence because he's wealthy, and we've been told that wealth is success.
Wouldn't that be like calling Lee Walton a grocer?
It’s not an investigative article—it’s a discussion with an author teasing one aspect of her book. I assume the title was meant more as a description of the book than as a claim they were trying to fully substantiate within this particular discussion about the book.
Mother Jones has about as much journalistic integrity as Salon… aka there is none
This is the kind of comment you have to reply to if you downvote
Mine, not so much, but would be nice to know why four people so far have hit the disagree button
I thought downvotes were gone, but apparently it is just me 😐 This article is problematic.
It might be your instance. I know the IKEA shark instance disabled downvotes so if I browse 196, for example, I only see downvotes from other users on my own instance.
Because being rational and reading the article ruins the rage bait
Maybe a lack of capability for nuance?:
Elon runs a nazi bar… someone’s saying Elon isn’t a eugenicist… Nazis are bad and so are eugenicists… if Elon is bad then why say Elon is not ? down vote!
Good, we're way behind schedule. The Eugenics Wars were supposed to happen back in the 90s!