From the paper being critiqued: > A defensive approach will not work. As a common example, we need to refrain from claiming that whatever ableist or eugenic co

From the paper being critiqued: > A defensive approach will not work. As a common example, we need to refrain from claiming that whatever ableist or eugenic connotations terms such as “fitness” and “selection” may have in the public sphere, we understand their apolitical technical definitions. This does not hold water because our views, and especially the views of scientists new to the field, are inevitably shaped by the public sphere and public discourse around evolutionary biology—hence the persisting popularity of survival of the fittest in general biology narratives and manuscripts. This seems like a deeply stupid strategy. This sets up a whack-a-mole game of constantly changing apolitical technical language as the new terms then become co-opted by misuse or bad actors. This literally just happened with "woke", which used to be a positive term and is now used pejoratively. For people so concerned with the impact of history they seem particularly inclined to ignore it when it suits them.