Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement. We are supposed to give infinite benefit of the doubt to people even after it is super clear what it is that they are saying. I have seen these paranoid SJW accusations to .... turn out truth enough times already.

Turns out, people who say these things are the ones who actually listen with comprehension to what is being said in those circles.

> Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement.

There are fair cases of dog-whistle racism. But that is the person who is indeed racist and not necessarily everyone who falls to the whistle or happens to be next to that person. The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics.

Typically division would make sense if you're cutting off the terrible people. Unfortunately, current western politics is cutting off half of the population with a blunt instrument.

A lot of these snap judgements block our ability to self reflect. How can you tell if you're in a cult or an echo chamber?

How do you know your confirmation bias isn't lying to you?

> As a person that would be considered dysgenic, yes, I think eugenics is bad, I guess you got me there.

Implying that I support Eugenics because I want to listen to people and not pre-judge them is pretty much the exact thing I'm complaining about.

I brought up eugenics because I’ve seen this before and you stepped up to bravely defend it against accusations of wrongthink. I think you’re telling on yourself here.

When did I defend eugenics? What specifically did I say?

> Everyone who disagrees with the "one truth" is obviously a racist who is aligned with the worst of the other side. There can be no deviation or nuance. No debate, or benefit of doubt.

As a response to the very explicit example of eugenics.

You said this:

> If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places that aren't gutter racism (they're eating the dogs etc) are going to be eugenics-adjacent, "enlightened" scientific racism instead. At least, that's what I've noticed among rationalists online.

I responded without talking about Eugenics at all... My problem was with this phrase of yours:

> "If I were to guess, the types of conversations that happen in these places"

That's a pretty problematic phrase. You're "guessing" what they're saying then judging them to be guilty based on your imagination.

Notice you're blaming me for that in this thread even though my response didn't mention that in any way. You chose to interpret that as me supporting Eugenics. That's projection. That isn't me.

That is a problematic way to look at life and at people in general.

Given that we now have tools that can fix some serious genetic errors, and enable even people who were dealt very bad cards in life, to live a healthy life - and given that this sector of biology is constantly evolving towards more capabilities, I would argue that it makes more sense to study genetic diseases and disorders than ever.

100 years ago, when genetics was unchangeable, the only solution to any genetic problem was heavy-handed: stop that individual from procreating. I agree that this is basically fascist (though even social democrats weren't immune to this).

But in 2050, we might be able to fix terrible things like Huntington's Chorea with a single shot. Which is fascinating, but it also needs some honesty. In the late 20th century, there was a lot of activism that tried to pass off seriously debilitating diseases as "being differentially abled" etc. While I can understand them wanting to stop eugenic thinking from seeping in, this attitude becomes counterproductive when tools are being developed to actually help the sick people. Similar to anti-vaxxerism, in fact.

Not everywhere is America (in fact, 96% of humanity is outside the US) and local conditions, sensibilities and conflict topics vary.

Here I live in a nation that was considered non-Aryan by the Nazis and destined to become a nation of illiterate slaves for their Master Race. During their 6 years of rule here, their plans were only mitigated by their need to win the war first, for which they needed the local industry to be operable - hard to square such necessity with repressions against the workers themselves. But they did succeed in murdering parts of our intelligentsia.

So yeah, race-based repression is evil, I am with you on this.

But I am also close to a doctor who prescribes hearing aids for children and the main context in which I hear the word "eugenics" is her problems with the deafness advocates, who want to prevent deaf kids from hearing. And they play the "eugenics" card incessantly.

I am sick of them, they are at best severely misguided, at worst evil people. And if enough people say that "helping kids hear is eugenics", they will drown out the racialists in public discourse, at least locally.