Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
but that’s literally what the comment’s saying? and you’re saying "that’s an example of the opposite?
e.g., there’s a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics
if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn’t be if you described it using the term “eugenics”
like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go “yeah that sounds okay”
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
i wouldn’t say you’re working particularly hard given that all you’ve done is issue a blanket “no”, and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i’m secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy
i’ve given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it’s eugenics, and so far nobody’s disagreed with them? what’s your issue? that you don’t think most people would agree with them, or that you don’t think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
The problem is that your argument relies on the idea that “most people support eugenics until you say what it actually is,” which is false in my experience while the post is correct.
i’ve given two examples where i think the average person would come down on the side of “let’s do some eugenics” until being told “haha you just agreed to do some eugenics”
the problem with the post is that if you boil it down, it becomes “things that sound good on the surface are automatically good”, which doesn’t hold
“people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism” absolutely has baked-in implications, and an argument left unsaid, even in total isolation
if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak
the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good
i don’t think this post’s subtext is as simple as the interpretation you’re providing
Actually I think I get what you’re saying now and I think you have a point. I am not sure the two can be directly compared that way, though. There are different reasons for why people think each is bad once they hear the name and I don’t think the meme is actually saying that this is an argument for or against anything. Just a funny observation.
i’m baffled as to what’s going on here
versus
Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
but that’s literally what the comment’s saying? and you’re saying "that’s an example of the opposite?
e.g., there’s a pretty good argument that pre-natal screening is a form of eugenics
if you describe the mechanics of pre-natal screening to somebody, i suspect most would be in support of that, but wouldn’t be if you described it using the term “eugenics”
like, if you were to notice that completing tertiary education makes it more difficult for people to have children, and you decided to create some form of government aid to offset that, then oopsie daisy you just did a eugenics, but you could absolutely package that idea in a way that most people would instinctively go “yeah that sounds okay”
also to preempt pls nobody do the intellectually dishonest thing of pretending me following this line of argument means im in love with eugenics and am here to argue for more eugenics or that i just dont think eugenics is such a bad thing after all thnk u
This is all just semantics and how the word ‘opposite’ can be applied in different ways. I wouldn’t spend too much time on this.
But but there’s a person on the internet that might be wrong! *shakes fist at sky*
if you want to use the sentiment expressed in this post as an argument for marxism being good, which seems pretty transparent in this case, then that same sentiment being used to justify eugenics isn’t a good thing for said argument
i’m not that concerned with the precise definition of “opposite”, but i am concerned with whether or not the post’s logic is sound
Except that doesn’t follow logically, but it’s pretty clear that you’re determined to work hard not to understand that.
logic seems pretty clear and laid out to me but you do you, pal
multiple people are working hard to explain the obvious holes in it to you in this very thread pal 😂
i wouldn’t say you’re working particularly hard given that all you’ve done is issue a blanket “no”, and cowbee seems to be coming at the problem from the angle that i’m secretly the ghost of joseph mccarthy
i’ve given you two examples where i think most people would agree with the concepts of eugenics before being told it’s eugenics, and so far nobody’s disagreed with them? what’s your issue? that you don’t think most people would agree with them, or that you don’t think that that fact draws enough of a parallel between eugenics and the post?
The problem is that your argument relies on the idea that “most people support eugenics until you say what it actually is,” which is false in my experience while the post is correct.
i’ve given two examples where i think the average person would come down on the side of “let’s do some eugenics” until being told “haha you just agreed to do some eugenics”
the problem with the post is that if you boil it down, it becomes “things that sound good on the surface are automatically good”, which doesn’t hold
It doesn’t say they are automatically good, just that people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism even if the ideas are sound and good.
“people have a negative connotation to the word Marxism” absolutely has baked-in implications, and an argument left unsaid, even in total isolation
if i say to you “people think the word nazi has negative connotations”, then even with no other context then obviously you’d conclude that i’m a nazi freak
the post doesn’t make any justification for the ideas being sound and good, it says they sound good
i don’t think this post’s subtext is as simple as the interpretation you’re providing
Actually I think I get what you’re saying now and I think you have a point. I am not sure the two can be directly compared that way, though. There are different reasons for why people think each is bad once they hear the name and I don’t think the meme is actually saying that this is an argument for or against anything. Just a funny observation.