Eugenics vs Idiocracy

[Theodarzna]

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. No one has brought up race.

I'm just noticing all the examples of bad men that make for bad choices are all black.

[Elegiac]

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. No one has brought up race.

Aside from the pictures reinforcing the narrative that black women go for thugs and end up as single mothers.

[Dr Assbandit]

Maybe they want to force race into the conversation because it is easier than facing the truth that women are bad at selecting mates in our modern era.

Just because they don't pick you doesn't mean they are bad at selecting mates in this day and age.

[Deleted]

I'm just noticing all the examples of bad men that make for bad choices are all black.

That's racist!

[Deleted]

I'm just noticing all the examples of bad men that make for bad choices are all black.

Would you say the same if all those in the pictures were white or asian?

[Elegiac]

Would you say the same if all those in the pictures were white or asian?

If they where white or asian I'd be more pointing out the fact the OP feels entitled to womens' attention.

[nanook12]

If they where white or asian I'd be more pointing out the fact the OP feels entitled to womens' attention.

Sounds like some crap a feminist would say.

[Deleted]

If they where white or asian I'd be more pointing out the fact the OP feels entitled to womens' attention.

..Why? What is the difference between a stock picture of a black man and a white man?

[Elegiac]

Sounds like some crap a feminist would say.

Yeah, what of it? I am a dude, a feminist, and proud of being both.

- - - Updated - - -

..Why? What is the difference between a stock picture of a black man and a white man?

Generally because there are narratives associated with black women in ways that generally aren't with most white or asian women.

[Deleted]

Yeah, what of it? I am a dude, a feminist, and proud of being both.

- - - Updated - - -



Generally because there are narratives associated with black women in ways that generally aren't with most white or asian women.

That's projection though, maybe you should argue around the OP instead?

[Calfredd]

That's projection though, maybe you should argue around the OP instead?

Definitely not going to be able to argue with the OP that's for sure. And I don't mean because he's banned.

[Jonuts]

Do we? What are we supposed to pick?

From a utilitarian point of view? God, yes, you do. Don't feel bad though. Us guys are just as bad at is. What we find "desirable" is often at odds with what a rational actor would find desirable. Because, you know, we're not rational actors, we're people. We have likes and dislikes, and we can't turn them off at a whim.

A Eugenics thread turned racist really fast. I mean I knew it might, but it happened quick.

Why is it racist? It looks more like something made specifically for the black community, and likely from it.

I'm just noticing all the examples of bad men that make for bad choices are all black.

Except everyone is black. All of them. Even the character that's supposed to be the good guy. Googling the artist gave me a couple pages, and this is either one hell of a dedicated troll by a racist who hired a black dude to stand in pictures pretending to draw the art, or more likely, it's art done by said black dude, and all the 'bad men' in his art are black because he's specifically critiquing his own community.

Well, you heard it here folks. Black people doing art or stories based around the black community is racism. I guess BLM was a Storm Front subsidary all along...


Oh, yea, and on the actual topic. Eugenics is total shit. Designer babies is where it's at.

[Stormdash]

The thing about eugenics (and more broadly, all utopianism, all efforts to immanentize the eschaton, so to speak) is that the people who think they should be doing all the planning, are usually the most numb of numb fucks that could possibly be. Imperfect, damaged. I mean, Hitler sort of achieved the pinnacle of the trope, by being the most fail-ass non-Aryan ubermensch you could find to lead the Aryan utopia. But it applies globally -- every version of this is piloted by substandard assclowns.

But let's ignore that fact for a second, the total deficiency of everyone who has decided that a) anthropology itself should be centrally planned and that b) they either should be planning it or at least that their ideas are the right ideas that should be forced upon the whole business. Focus on on just how arrogant, how narcissistic and vain one has to be, deep inside, to even flirt with that (a) and (b) 1-2 punch. It's jawdropping.

[Krawu]

While I'd say that there seems to be a general intellectual decline in parts of the world, the reasons for this are entirely cultural and/or political. Even if a dumbing down of the gene pool was happening, it would take at least several hundred years to become noticeable.
We'll most likely never need to worry about enforcing eugenics, since we'll have designer babies in a few decades anyways. Once that happens, it'd probably be unethical to procreate without the use of gene manipulation, since leaving it out carries a chance of preventable disease and suffering for the child.

[Mormolyce]

Back to your self-pitying MRA forums, buddy.

[Deleted]

So much of that cast of characters seem to have a touch of the 'tism.

Not sure what you're on about. Care to elaborate?

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Eugenics has the problem of being "What is superior traits?"

Is there any particular group or persons with good traits or bad traits? And can we even plan that without bias?

I think the bigger problem with eugenics is the same exact problem with everything else we have as a known and registered science on planet Earth, but refuse to acknowledge so as to not cause destabilization.

The fact that everything is so intricately tied, bound, knotted, and connected to each and every thing, that subtle changes will in fact produce quite undesirable results or side effects, and resistance to the natural continuity is 99% likely to produce undesirable results without simply being lucky or overlooking the price paid and losses induced.

For example, as awesome as Michael Phelps is, you wouldn't want to be trapped in a mine shaft with him. You'd suffocate in minutes even if you both popped sleeping pills.

Everything has advantage/disadvantage, though I guess that's presented by your question of superior traits. I'm trying to say that if you play with genetics altering a patients Height, you could easily somehow render that patient infertile and hemophiliac through the mysterious entanglement, all by simply requesting 5 more inches.

Like, tall people tend to have heart problems, man.

[Garnier Fructis]

Here take another.

I've found that 'nice guys' who 'finish last' are typically just a different kind of asshole.

[starlord]

inherent racism aside, eugenics is just people saying they are smarter than nature in determining what traits are more beneficial to our survival that we have already inherited or may possibly develop.

and to address the "idiocracy" portion, our species has the benefit of deciding our own reproductive strategies. one is not necessarily better than the others. we may heaviky invest resources into few offspring, or have many but with less "quality per quantity."

both are equally valid, especially for a species as long lived as us.

[Garnier Fructis]

..Why? What is the difference between a stock picture of a black man and a white man?

Why is playing dumb even a thing.