1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate
argumate

there’s a reverse slippery slope effect where a range of related things all get described as ‘eugenics’:

1. attempting to commit genocide

2. using force or coercion to control the reproduction of others

3. offering incentives or encouragement to influence the reproduction of others

4. making observations that could imply that people should reproduce at different rates

5. simply observing that people currently reproduce at different rates

I think the only way to be completely safe from accusations of eugenics in the first few senses is to avoid any observations of reproduction rates and definitely avoid making any suggestions of how they might be changed, no matter how indirectly or consensually.

mitigatedchaos

Obviously you’re only makimg this post because you secretly want to practice eugenics.

Do not worry, comrade. I, too, believe that the state should subsidize the eventual heritable genetic treatment to remove peanut allergies.

More you might like

@the-grey-tribe

Totally not eugenics, then. Just compassion with the poor. Nothing to see here, move along!

CRISPR means we’re going to start getting designer babies soon enough.

Suppose you are from a family with a severe heritable peanut allergy.  You contract with Genetic Enhancements, Inc. to create an embryo, modify it to remove the genes for the peanut allergy, and then implant it.

This is technically eugenics.

But, on the other hand, there is no benefit whatsoever to a severe peanut allergy.  Not on an individual level.  Not on a family level.  Not on a societal level.  We are much better off if such an allergy doesn’t exist.

But there is a difference between people that are already created and people that don’t yet exist and may never exist, and there is a difference between mandatory, quasi-optional, and payment-based practices.

But I don’t think “is this eugenics or not?” is a good question for untangling the morality of this, because “I refuse to have children because I have a heritable genetic heart problem that will kill me at 50″ is also eugenics.

So to me, the suitable grounds to oppose it on is that they’re in prison, under the state’s care, or something along those lines.

And of course, in the original issue that was brought up, genes may not even be relevant.  Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can be extremely expensive, and how much do you want to bet that other kinds of drugs can cause similarly expensive medical disorders?

mitigated future politics
discoursedrome
argumate

there’s a reverse slippery slope effect where a range of related things all get described as ‘eugenics’:

1. attempting to commit genocide

2. using force or coercion to control the reproduction of others

3. offering incentives or encouragement to influence the reproduction of others

4. making observations that could imply that people should reproduce at different rates

5. simply observing that people currently reproduce at different rates

I think the only way to be completely safe from accusations of eugenics in the first few senses is to avoid any observations of reproduction rates and definitely avoid making any suggestions of how they might be changed, no matter how indirectly or consensually.

discoursedrome

One thing that’s interesting to me is how, with the lapsing of most government efforts to forcibly enact eugenic policies, the eugenic aspects of personal family planning become more relevant. People would generally react pretty poorly if the government mandated that all fetuses with serious developmental problems be aborted or genetically modified, but given the ability to notice this and do something about it themselves, people will still do it often enough to have a visible effect over time.

Getting away from the “eu” pretext entirely, sex-selective abortion is already a thing with visible downstream effects. These are things we can grapple with by attempting to reduce stigma, but there will always be some sorts of people heavily stigmatized, and the ability to detect that a real or hypothetical child belongs to those groups before birth or even before conception is going to continue to increase. So at some point people are going to be stuck having to decide which they like better, personal bodily autonomy or forbidding eugenics, and it’ll be a messy situation all around.

mitigatedchaos

I mean, if you offer me the choice between a baby that’s directly related to me and a genetically-engineered gauranteed above-average-or-better designer baby that’s directly related to me, I’m gonna take the second one, because there is no reason for me to have a crippled baby if the baby does not yet exist.

There is no advantage whatsoever to a severe peanut allergy, for instance (though I don’t have one). Most of the SJ stuff is based on the people already existing, and it isn’t their fault peanut allergies are a thing, but a hypothetical person that doesn’t exist yet doesn’t have the same moral weight as a person that already does.

Source: argumate
esoteric-hoxhaism

Anonymous asked:

Why is the incest taboo the only more of eugenics left standing? When will it be officially rebuked?

esoteric-hoxhaism answered:

when muslims get mad

mitigatedchaos

This is in the process of happening. The rebuked part, not the mad part. BBC3 already ran a special on it. In ten years, Liberals and Leftists will support marrying your first cousin as a diverse cultural practice that Westerners would only question out of racism.

politics
ranma-official
theonion: “SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass....
theonion

SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.

Source: theonion queue
slartibartfastibast
mitigatedchaos

The less smug you are, (and the less unethical you are), the less it stings when your most unethical behavior comes to light.

It’s good standard practice to avoid using “wit” (and snark) on people because they are low-status (”gross,” “smelly,” “ugly,” “fat harpy” and so on).  First of all, it’s just not a good mental hygiene habit.  Second of all, it cannot then come back to haunt you.

the culture war slurs cw
See this in the app Show more
Top Photos