• self@awful.systemsM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Outside the “not all EAs!” crowd I haven’t seen this before, but the authors are “democratic socialists” which basically means they hate the Democrats more than the GOP.

    the more I read, the more I get the sinking suspicion that the authors are cherry-flavored fascists who are particularly bad at smuggling their ideas under a thin guise of leftist thought

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guess it must’ve slipped his mind to mention that when he wrote about it. Whoops.

        Easy mistake I guess, when one is only human. We’ll have to wait for computerbrains to have better memories, no other solution presents itself.

        • froztbyte@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          the dodgily bad-faith stuff doesn’t end there: click to the posting account for more choice panic

            • jonhendry@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s probably more true if you include disabilities that you may not be considering. Acquired hearing loss, blindness due to retinitis pigmentosa, chronic back pain, etc. I find it very hard to believe that a person who lost their vision in an industrial accident wouldn’t leap at a chance to have their vision back. And obviously not all policies to reduce the incidence of disabilities are about eugenics. OSHA isn’t a eugenics program. Vitamin K shots and eye ointment for newborns reduce disability without being eugenics. I assume even blind disability activists don’t think babies should be put at risk of easily avoidable blindness.