> 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.
> 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.
As a response to the very explicit example of eugenics.