• polonius-rex@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    but that’s not what the comment said?

    Lots of people promote eugenics

    people sometimes end up accidentally talking themselves into eugenics and promoting eugenics before somebody points out that they’re talking about eugenics

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      But it is what the comment said. It’s saying that people promote eugenics without realizing it. They do so by talking about the mechanics of eugenics without naming them.

      • polonius-rex@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        i’m baffled as to what’s going on here

        • if you describe the mechanics of eugenics, people like the idea
        • if you label the mechanics of eugenics as eugenics, people do not like the idea

        versus

        • if you describe the mechanics of marxism, people like the idea
        • if you label the mechanics of marxism as marxism, people do not like the idea
        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.

          • polonius-rex@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            but that’s literally what the comment’s saying? and you’re saying "that’s an example of the opposite?

            e.g., there’s a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics

            if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn’t be if you described it using the term “eugenics”

            like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go “yeah that sounds okay”

            also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u

            • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              This is all just semantics and how the word ‘opposite’ can be applied in different ways. I wouldn’t spend too much time on this.

              • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument

                i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Except that doesn’t follow logically, but it’s pretty clear that you’re determined to work hard not to understand that.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound

                  The problem is that your argument relies on the idea that “most people support eugenics until you say what it actually is,” which is false in my experience while the post is correct.

                  • polonius-rex@kbin.run
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    i’ve given two examples where i think the average person would come down on the side of “let’s do some eugenics” until being told “haha you just agreed to do some eugenics”

                    the problem with the post is that if you boil it down, it becomes “things that sound good on the surface are automatically good”, which doesn’t hold

                • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Actually I think I get what you’re saying now and I think you have a point. I am not sure the two can be directly compared that way, though. There are different reasons for why people think each is bad once they hear the name and I don’t think the meme is actually saying that this is an argument for or against anything. Just a funny observation.