3 ms·

Ok, so you don't have evidence of his eugenics, and have instead created a far broader 'eugenics today' category which is to reduce undesirable traits (so broad

Ok, so you don't have evidence of his eugenics, and have instead created a far broader 'eugenics today' category which is to reduce undesirable traits (so broad that it's useless imo). There's something to some of your descriptions, but they are largely subjective interpretations. When weighed against what anyone can listen to the guy talk about, they're obviously out of context - in that they are cherry picked. I find all your gate keeping comments ironic given your own post history - which at a glance seems largely argumentative. Anyway, they're inaccurate - People can not have the same opinion as you and be genuine. If you produced credible points, I'd respond. So far I just see politics. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

op00to 1y ago
You’re not actually engaging with what I wrote. Instead, you’ve narrowed the definition of eugenics to exclude anything that doesn’t fit a 1920s textbook, ignoring how the term is used in current ethical, medical, and disability policy discussions. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s reframing the terms to make them easier to dismiss. You claimed the quotes I cited are cherry-picked or out of context, but didn’t explain how. That’s just hand-waving. If there’s something inaccurate about them, point it out. Otherwise, saying “it’s all subjective” is just the typical maga evasion bs. And finally you said if I made credible points, you’d respond… after ignoring multiple sourced, factual examples already given. You sound like a Markov chain Fox News talking point generator. That kind of posture, where nothing is ever quite good enough to warrant engagement, is exactly the sort of bad-faith behavior we expect from conservative trolls. If you disagree, fine. But engage with the content, not just the framing. I heard what I wanted to hear, a confirmation you’re posting to troll and spread misinformation, not actually engage.
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  You accused someone of eugenics which is a big statement. I'm sure you're aware of the connotations attached to it. As such the onus is on you to back it up. So far you haven't. That the guy talked about autism as causing suffering and people to miss out (I'm paraphrasing obviously), and thus understanding / curing it is worth doing, doesn't sound like with eugenics to me. That's what I would expect of anyone looking to work in health frankly. Considering his background this makes sense. You can listen to him talk - at length - about the groups of people who came to him for representation regarding autism and health impacts. Autism is broad, and you don't get to gate keep it. Look at another way. Although there are many high functioning autists (I might guess both of us), there are people who are debilitatingly handicapped. Many non-autistic and autistic people do want to understand more about autism. Since it isn't fully understood what (if anything) causes it. I don't think you need to make it political. Pushing the knowledge field forward is what science does. It does so not caring about biases (like what seems in your thread to be political). By the way, I'm not maga/conservative, nor a fox news watcher, 1920s textbook reader, or even american. You can throw mud all you like, so far none of it sticks and I think reduces your credibility. Better would be to just make meritocratic arguments.

op00to 1y ago

You’re not actually engaging with what I wrote. Instead, you’ve narrowed the definition of eugenics to exclude anything that doesn’t fit a 1920s textbook, ignoring how the term is used in current ethical, medical, and disability policy discussions. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s reframing the terms to make them easier to dismiss. You claimed the quotes I cited are cherry-picked or out of context, but didn’t explain how. That’s just hand-waving. If there’s something inaccurate about them, point it out. Otherwise, saying “it’s all subjective” is just the typical maga evasion bs. And finally you said if I made credible points, you’d respond… after ignoring multiple sourced, factual examples already given. You sound like a Markov chain Fox News talking point generator. That kind of posture, where nothing is ever quite good enough to warrant engagement, is exactly the sort of bad-faith behavior we expect from conservative trolls. If you disagree, fine. But engage with the content, not just the framing. I heard what I wanted to hear, a confirmation you’re posting to troll and spread misinformation, not actually engage.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
You accused someone of eugenics which is a big statement. I'm sure you're aware of the connotations attached to it. As such the onus is on you to back it up. So far you haven't. That the guy talked about autism as causing suffering and people to miss out (I'm paraphrasing obviously), and thus understanding / curing it is worth doing, doesn't sound like with eugenics to me. That's what I would expect of anyone looking to work in health frankly. Considering his background this makes sense. You can listen to him talk - at length - about the groups of people who came to him for representation regarding autism and health impacts. Autism is broad, and you don't get to gate keep it. Look at another way. Although there are many high functioning autists (I might guess both of us), there are people who are debilitatingly handicapped. Many non-autistic and autistic people do want to understand more about autism. Since it isn't fully understood what (if anything) causes it. I don't think you need to make it political. Pushing the knowledge field forward is what science does. It does so not caring about biases (like what seems in your thread to be political). By the way, I'm not maga/conservative, nor a fox news watcher, 1920s textbook reader, or even american. You can throw mud all you like, so far none of it sticks and I think reduces your credibility. Better would be to just make meritocratic arguments.