Read on Twitter
Eugenics is just another form of supremacist ideology dressed up as pseudoscience. Not talking about, defending or arguing for eugenics is proper to do. https://twitter.com/rasmansa/status/1379969942720811012
Conor, by the way, doesn't want to socially taboo arguments for eugenics because he's eugenics curious.
That's it. That's really it. https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1379972563527331841
That's it. That's really it. https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1379972563527331841
Which brings up Tressie McMillan Cottom's statement about 'elite' White folks like Conor and Bo Winegard. https://twitter.com/tressiemcphd/status/1211072442589990920
Many White folks tolerate the likes of Winegard, Charles Murray and Steve Sailor because their eugenics scientism justifies White Supremacy. And the majority of White folks want to preserve the supremacist framework that benefits them.
Of course, Conor is big mad. https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1380284080940412928
You don't like when someone points out that the whole 'just fight evil ideas with strong arguments' is just a lot of hogwash. https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1380284776024743938
Take it from someone who has spent decades in the rhetoric and debate game: People are never 'persuaded' to ditch a position they have long chosen. Primarily because the reasons for that position have nothing to do with arguments or evidence.
Certainly folks can change their minds over time. There are arguments that, as they go through various life experiences and changes in conditions, may lead them to think differently about a particular issue.
But the strongest argument thing doesn't play out in real life.
But the strongest argument thing doesn't play out in real life.
Cognitive studies have proven quite a while ago that, if anything, the more evidence people present for an argument, the more-likely the person holding the opposing position will cling on to what they believe. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Human beings, by nature, are trained to defend an argument or position or idea, even when the evidence suggests or proves outright that it is a dumb-as-hell thing to do.
Basically, most folks are hedgehogs, not foxes, and therefore, act accordingly.
Basically, most folks are hedgehogs, not foxes, and therefore, act accordingly.
Meanwhile there are reasons why folks who say they oppose a certain set of beliefs refuse to argue that those things should be taboo, even when the evidence also proves that there are absolutely good reasons for that to be.
One reason is that, in their own minds, they sort of believe that some of that argument is true, even if they think it is also abhorrent.
Another is because it reinforces other ideas they hold about society or categories of people within it who they want to marginalize.
Another is because it reinforces other ideas they hold about society or categories of people within it who they want to marginalize.
Those folks, by the way, are foxes. In this case, under the guise of promoting 'free speech' and 'free expression', the idea of making taboo ideas that have been used for decades to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and enslavement against long-marginalized groups is anathema.
This, by the way, is an example of foxlike thinking. Promoting eugenics under the guise of making everyone an 'elite'.
The key question starts with who gets to define 'elite'? https://twitter.com/SarahGrynpas/status/1380018140415987713
The key question starts with who gets to define 'elite'? https://twitter.com/SarahGrynpas/status/1380018140415987713
As @KHandozo has noted, eugenics was never just about elimination and eradication of marginalized groups. It has also been about creating and elevating what certain groups define as traits and people that are better than others.
Meritocracy, for example, is a form of eugenics. Instead of outright ethnic cleansing and genocide, it is about marginalization of those deemed not to be 'elite' or 'worthy' by elevating those considered the converse. https://twitter.com/JenVacca/status/1362483491716407302
Which brings us back to Conor being 'eugenics curious'. He doesn't like that characterization, of course, and folks can criticize the judgements reached by other observers.
But it is hard to argue otherwise when you make statements like this... https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1379983658115690497
But it is hard to argue otherwise when you make statements like this... https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1379983658115690497
As well as failing to remember this reality: The case for eugenics being anything other than supremacist ideology in the guise of science has been disproven long ago. All you need to do is read the Mismeasure of Man to get that.
Additionally, in the case of genetic selection to eliminate the birth of children with Down Syndrome: That is driven by the belief among many that those with that condition aren't worthy of human life. Because they aren't 'normal', likely to be 'successful', or capable.
As someone who has friends with children who have Down Syndrome, I would argue that such beliefs are utter nonsense. Also, immoral as hell, based on the kind of eugenicist thinking that long ago allowed for folks to denigrate blind and deaf people...
as well as condemn the mentally ill to asylums.
It's immoral and promotes the kinds of genocidal actions that gave us Auschwitz and the Middle Passage.
It's immoral and promotes the kinds of genocidal actions that gave us Auschwitz and the Middle Passage.
Besides, of course, this is not how genetics works. The Nazis tried that designer baby madness back in the 1940s and it didn't work - other than to promote genocide and a whole lot of misogyny.
By the way: Yes, individuals doing various forms of 'breeding' is also called eugenics. Systems are made of people and individual actions working within frameworks that promote those things. https://twitter.com/jeremiahscholl/status/1379987606587330561
Ultimately, when someone says "I oppose something, but not making that evil thing taboo", they end up meaning that they aren't really opposed to it. Or as one person succinctly states... https://twitter.com/sschinke/status/1379986638462361603
It's a version of "I'm just asking questions", except that they don't have to ask any questions.
This is correct... https://twitter.com/estarianne/status/1380294550103617537
Screaming louder won't help you. https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1380295386162589697
Anyway, it is amazing how many White people like to think that debating the humanity of others is an academic thing that should be tolerated instead of an utterly immoral thing that should be opposed at every turn.
The sanctity of human life is hypothetical to many of them.
The sanctity of human life is hypothetical to many of them.
Always remember that Conor thinks that it is okay for White folks to engage in some pretty awful behavior under the guise of 'free speech'.
Seriously...
If you think of your fellow human beings as equal members of community who deserve respect, you don't argue that 'hey, White guys using the N-word is okay if they are old'. Or argue that making advocacy for eugenics is taboo is a bad thing.
Grympas, by the way, offers an explanation of her point, which, on one hand, is convincing, yet at the same time, ignores the reality that so much of White people's eugenics curiosity is driven by supremacist thinking. https://twitter.com/SarahGrynpas/status/1380291904332517377
Certainly, lots of folks think that perfect living can be achieved through science and technology. But Grynpas fails to look at the long history of White Supremacy and colonialism, both of which shaped the development of eugenics as well as been shaped by them.
Whether or not many White folks are secret eugenicists is an interesting question that may or may not be answerable to anyone's satisfaction. What is clear is that so much of eugenics also dovetails with the sociopolitical and electoral choices the majority of White folks make.
Just as importantly, eugenics was shaped by the efforts of White Southerners in the United States to oppress Black people freed during the Civil War. The emergence of Jim Crow laws included the development of racial categories, laws targeting Black women for sterilization...
school segregation and housing redlining.
The pursuit of White Supremacy informed eugenics and vice versa. Both, in turn, became embedded in political and other frameworks. https://nautil.us/issue/92/frontiers/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics
The pursuit of White Supremacy informed eugenics and vice versa. Both, in turn, became embedded in political and other frameworks. https://nautil.us/issue/92/frontiers/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics
White people needed justification for their systematic oppression of Black and Brown people. Eugenics provided it. As did deliberate misinterpretations of the Bible during the Middle Passage.
The chicken? Or the egg? Doesn't matter, really.
The chicken? Or the egg? Doesn't matter, really.
Many White folks don't like thinking through any of this because that means having to question everything else they believe in.
Such as in the validity of SAT tests, which originated as a tool for promoting eugenics. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2020/08/17/history-sat-reflects-systemic-racism-opinion
Such as in the validity of SAT tests, which originated as a tool for promoting eugenics. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/views/2020/08/17/history-sat-reflects-systemic-racism-opinion
Or the existence of gifted-and-talented classes and specialized high schools, which originated as ways to provide education to those deemed 'elite' by well-heeled White people.
Or the comprehensive high school, promoted by NEA in the early 20th century because it thought that immigrants didn't deserve college prep. So give the White kids deemed capable AP courses while put the immigrants (as well as Black and Brown youths) into shop classes.
So much of the nation's sociopolitical framework and systems are driven primarily by various forms of White Supremacy, be it religiously-derived or based on pseudoscience.
It really is.
It really is.
I forgot to mention blood quantum, which was imposed on Indigenous nations by America's White people. For reasons. https://twitter.com/KirosAuld/status/1380316021601484800
Kiros Auld has a great thread on this particular topic, which is especially relevant, both because of this discussion as well as due to the efforts of conservatives to eliminate the Indian Child Welfare Act. https://twitter.com/KirosAuld/status/1380319020839231490
As I stated earlier, eugenics, being a component of as well as feeding into White Supremacy, is so embedded in our framework that White conservatives and libertarians don't even recognize when they are engaging in it. https://twitter.com/tdhoma/status/1379976460614557700
