I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suff

I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suffer from being a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming navel-gazey in a way that most Substack articles are. I'm under the impression that you may be in denial of the direction that it points favorably toward (the appeal and potential of the "Tech Right" in the US). > The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. This argument is often tossed in the opposite direction. > The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. The irony of this statement is that whether the full sentence, "Traits like intelligence and work ethic, in fact all traits, indeed have a strong genetic basis," is advocating for eugenics can be interpreted as an attempt to "put words and intent" into someone else's mouth.