this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
900 points (96.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5697 readers
2032 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

the points i was making in the latter paragraphs is that even if there is nothing morally wrong and you're not forcing anything it's still an inherently flawed view of genetics. breeding the smartest, kindest and most capable people to have those traits you'll still just end up with unhealthy offspring.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I do not defend the practice of attempting to pick "good" genes, but to point out eugenics is very much around and accepted by everyone. It's just a question to what degree, and certain people want to extend their decisions on the matter to others.

OFC you cannot simply pick pretty babies and end up with a "better" species. That is an ignorant, stupid, and Nazi-esque way to look at eugenics.

Stop letting Nazis and other similarly ignorant fucking morons define the world.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

ok, so what is your definition of eugenics?

because the dictionary definition is "the selection of desired inheritable traits to improve future generations". that is what I'm saying is an inherently flawed ideology and practice. if you mean something different you might choose a different word.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Notice how NOWHERE in the definition is, "kill the undesirables".

The very fact that certain genetic traits are desirable means the entire culture has SOME eugenics built right in. I'm trying to point out how the very concept IS NOT out there weird and abnormal.

This is exactly why and how horrible political ideologies fester: by treating them as if they're abhorrent outliers that "cannot happen here". No. Eugenics is alive and well, even in the US. It is within human nature. To act like entertaining the idea is abnormal, you push people to the extremes.

Are people dumb for being so easily swayed? YES! Though there are a lot of dumb people who can be easily swayed.

Eugenics should NOT be a dirty word, because it DOES exist in normal circles, and that fact can be leveraged by extremists to get people to sign on to their more extreme forms simply because, "anyone who thinks eugenics is good is evil!". That's just purely wrong and misguided.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

i never said Eugenics means to kill the undesirables,i never said it was morally wrong. i said it was factually wrong and that it misunderstands genetics. yes, it's societally common to think that there is merit to the idea that we could improve our species by selecting partners based on what we want out children to be like. I'm saying that it is misguided. not morally reprehensible, just not realistic.

please calm down, in not calling you a dick or anything. I'm just saying that eugenics doesn't have scientific or factual merit. it's a common misconception that genetics works that way.