Trump State Department official has called for mass sterilization of ‘low-IQ trash’
The march to Nazism takes another step
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/darren-beattie-trump-state-department-b2696297.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world977
Comments353
Wait...why cull their voter base?
They don't need voters any more.
I have a feeling they're going to define anyone who has a college degree and leans anywhere to the left of conservative extremism "low IQ trash".
Yep, the Nazis defined socialists as degenerates, so I expect any sign of empathy to be seen as a sign of low IQ.
They’ve thought this for decades. Tradespeople have been resenting college nerds who don’t have common sense (funny thing is I’m both of those things). And the cheaters (like tax cheats and grifters) think that the rest of us are dumb for not cheating to get ahead.
Shit! I just paid for a vassecectomy!
I mean this is less of a "government funded" thing and more of a "you get it done or we cut your balls off ourselves".
And personally, I'm of the opinion that now that they want undesirable people sterilized, I won't submit. The worst thing we can do right now is give them anything.
It was just some gallows humor. Real tiny gallows.
Yeah, that's why they're trying to make questioning Trump's greatness a mental disorder. So they can identify us as irredeemable to dispose of us
Probably worse, enemies or the state. Anyone not in lock step will be put in a camp...prolly about a year out...stay safe
Maybe, but I think it will probably start with the amount of melanin you may have first.
Your college degree will be the new “Star of David” to identify you to the authorities.
Ironically, many of the Republican asshats have degrees, even from (gasp! shock! horror!) Ivy League schools...
He also attended a white nationalist rally that got him fired from his job as a Trump speech writer, suggested rewards for sterilization like "air jordans", and a few more pieces that suggest he's got a pretty easy way to determine who is "low iq" at a quick glance.
He wants to euthanize non white people
Edit: Sterilize, not euthanize. I'm sure he would hate to kill all of them
"Like" as in, present tense?
I liked it as a kid but I think I outgrew it...so I guess I'm good?
Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile...
Ahh shit.
Most of Trump's base was probably cheering him on until he got to this part:
Let's be real, they're never going to hear about any of this.
Just a quick reminder that the US Supreme Court affirmed the federal government's right to sterilize citizens in Buck v. Bell and it's never been walked back.
So that's cool.
It seems that Trump and Kennedy are going to lose their balls then. ✂️ A minute of silence. 😔
IQ tests don't measure intelligence. It measures how good you are at passing an IQ test.
Every tests measures first and foremost how well one takes that test. There are many IQ tests with varying usefulness.
Nope. IQ measures how Western you are.
We cannot test intelligence. That's what the creator of the IQ test concluded after the eugenics championed their attempt to do so.
The problem is not so much the test itself, which can be useful sometimes, but the idea that 'intelligence' can be fully encapsulated by a single number that is both immutable and discrete.
Sorry, but that is only true for a narrow, archaic band of the term IQ. Though I admit that within that narrow interpretation, you’re right. But there have been many tests devised since then to attempt to address those concerns.
Attempt. And fail.
Maybe, in varying degrees, but also some success. Though intelligence itself is tough to pin down in the broader sense, there are some aspects of the measurement that are useful in both clinical settings and in research.
It's all about making the cut. Whether you do it or you don't.
i feel like it's possible to do though.
It's not. All you can do is measure culturally relevant knowledge. That's what we learned
That's true. How can we possibly measure logic if logic follows the characteristics of 1900's classical logic? Does that translate to real intelligence or the ability to get things done? I don't think so. What if the person just don't want to get a IQ test? All the more, what if their qualities are not measured by finding out how many balls are inside a cube? I think classical logic doesn't translate to intelligence.
If there is a civil war, I look forward to shitty rulings like Buck vs Bell to be overturned by the good guys. This kind of shit is a black mark on human decency.
You are far more optimistic than I
I am not certain of victory at all, it is just that surrendering in advance has a guaranteed outcome. "Elbows up" has risks, but gives a chance for things to turn out decently.
Right on schedule. These guys are following a playbook...step by step https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939
OP's article is 3 months old, being dated 2025-02-11.
One fucking month ago we, for the first time in human history, cured a genetic disease in a human at the DNA level, using gene editing techniques that fixed a 10-month-old's liver specifically without altering the rest of his body's DNA (thus preserving genetic diversity). Are we really going to start fucking genociding people while we stand at the very goddamn cusp of cleanly subduing genetic disorders?? And we're going to fucking revive measles and polio while we're at it?
Hello to my Americans friends, and an outsider looking in, we have a very famous saying about the situation you're currently in. It roughly translates to, "holy fucking shit, you guys are totally fucked". Honestly I'm baffled by the seeming lack of tangible response from the general public, I understand 30 odd % voted for this and another 30 or so couldn't be bothered. But the rest of you should be shutting down everything, how are you just holding these weekend protests and hoping for change. Cripple the bloody country! The longer you wait the worse it gets.
Sincerly someone who knows what Dictatorships are.
I feel this way every time I wake up. I am a pretty avid history enthusiast. I know what the parallels are. I know the direct analogies to what’s happening here now.
It ultimately boils down to the fact that the vast majority of the country is unable to mount a general protest because we’re all wage slaves, and healthcare is tied to having a job here, so we’re all predominantly conditioned to be nice little worker lemmings for the most part. And then there’s the imbecilic “exceptionalist” streak that a lot of people have, which is more or less the societally-toxic idea that you’re just a temporarily inconvenienced billionaire who hasn’t come into their own yet.
"It ultimately boils down to the fact that the vast majority of the country is unable to mount a general protest because we’re all wage slaves, and healthcare is tied to having a job here, so we’re all predominantly conditioned to be nice little worker lemmings for the most part."
That's the problem right there, right now you NEED action, no revolution was won and no government overthrown by people tweeting, and we all know how well "Thoughts and prayers" works.
That's easy to say from the outside. Say I do all of that, sacrifice everything for the cause, but there's no groundswell of the same afterwards. So I just gave up everything, and accomplished nothing.
Yes it's a pretty negative and defeatist attitude, but the country is far too large compared to most European countries for fast response gathering to really work, and the media is complicit in covering up news about things like that, making that outcome extremely likely.
I'm just a school bus driver so it doesn't really make a difference either way what I do versus something like retail or fast food workers, but there is a different way to do it here than in countries the size of a small state. I just don't know what that is.
It is easy to say from the outside, however I say this as someone who took part in mass protests hoping to bring down a massively corrupt government who literally stole all the peoples money, I've been tear gassed, water cannoned and had rocks thrown at me. I mean no offense to you at all but yes, it is a defeatist attitude and unfortunately I can't offer any options as to what to do, but doing nothing will enable your freedoms and liberties to be eaten away altoghether. I think people are more prone to react once it affects them personally and that's understandable, especially how most American workers are held hostage by their jobs (paycheck to paycheck living, health insurance etc).
I wish you luck friend.
1
People will die either way, Trump is gutting medical aid and social services across the board. People can either accept it meekly and just die, or try and fight and die. Honestly there are no good choices left for normal Americans who didn't vote for this. But a choice has to be made.
That's fair, but I think that a non insignificant number of people just don't care. Yes, protests in big cities seem large, but like the other commenter was saying, only 1/3 of people really oppose this. And some of that 1/3 don't oppose it particularly strongly if at all. I know lifelong Rs that luckily didn't vote for Trump, but mostly because he doesn't stand on ceremony. They voted Harris, but they legitimately have no problem with rounding up immigrants and attacks on the LGBT community. Local resistance is just not really possible when 1/3 of your neighbors have trump flags in their yard, 1/3 think your resistance is stupid and maybe 25% of the remaining 1/3 care enough to join some of the time. How do you do a work stoppage if only 1/12 of your colleagues would even consider it. I'm not saying resistance is futile, but I don't think it's about the wage slave issue as much as it is that there's no real public will to stop this. Wage slave issue is of course still a problem and likely contributing factor.
Stop trying to talk yourself out of doing something. You clearly believe that something needs to be done so do whatever you can to move us in a positive direction. I'm not saying you're wrong but every time we say stuff like this we help the people hearing it feel more justified in doing less. Let others come up with their own reasons for inaction and work hard to overcome your own.
I'm not talking myself out of doing anything and I am actively doing what I can. I also specifically said that resistance isn't futile. We should all do what we can, but not talking about the problem, especially when other leftists are openly and actively acknowledging it, just leads to the pic above of feeling like their experience is the problem. Their experience is not the problem and they are not crazy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of fascists around. That fact is important to acknowledge because it really does change the kind of resistance that works.
I know the infighting meme is old at this point, but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this comment, but it comes off as obnoxious (to me) and we need less of that. I'm not posting doomer rhetoric. I'm acknowledging a truth already acknowledged in this thread. I don't need a random leftist telling me to work hard to overcome reasons for inaction. I already organize locally. Acknowledging that there's just only so much you can do and it's ok to work in that framework can be helpful.
That's exactly what it sounded like, which is why my reply was worded from that perspective. You may not have intended it to be read that way but it does to me.
I fled the country, so it's been fascinating looking in from the outside while still having a stake vis-à-vis all the people I love back home.
On the inside, the people that matter are terrified. It's easy to tell someone to grab a rifle and "do something", but the average person is now more focused on their own immediate survival than anything else. People are losing access to life saving medicine, they're worried about catching a life threatening illness, and basic costs of living (rent, food, health, etc) are getting more expensive. Even privileged people are starting to feel the screws tightening. The US is a ticking time bomb and something is going to give at some point, but it's going to have to get significantly worse first.
On the outside, everyone understands why we fled. My new country has been so incredibly welcoming and sympathetic, with a hint of curiosity. I realized yesterday while I was reading about the Philly mass shooting that I've yet to hear of a single mass shooting where I am, and I immediately felt a sense of relief.
Edit: wording
"but it’s going to have to get significantly worse first." Unfortunately given what we (the rest of the world are seeing) I think you're right, but it just makes no sense to me (who comes from the middle east, had to flee civil war and lived in the west) how easily it seems to be for this administration to literally dismatle the US as we know it.
"but the average person is now more focused on their own immediate survival than anything else. People are losing access to life saving medicine. They’re worried about catching a life threatening illness, and food costs double what it used to" This, in hindsight has been a strategy that has worked brilliantly in controlling the general population.
Well done for getting out and giving yourself this peace of mind).
The general public will never hear about this, and those that do, won't believe it.
What astounds me is there are more foreigners like me who are so much more knowledgeable about US laws than the average Maga. It's insanity the mental gymnastics they manage. Everyone has this information at their fingertips, sadly facts don't seem to matter anymore.
The average Maga doesn't do any mental gymnastics. If anything contradicts them, it's wrong by default.
All I can tell you is good luck my friend, a lot of people around the world sympathise with those who want change, and we're genuinely hoping to see Trump, Musk, Theil, ice and bullshit barbies and the rest behind bars for treason someday.
Yes we know.
I'm and American and yeah, I figured that one out for myself years ago. A lot of us did. There's just not much we can fucking do about it.
There is actually, unfortunately it's a very hard choice and it will require sacrifice, be it jobs, etc, otherwise you'll end up being the worlds riches failed state.
I came in here to call Americans cowards but it looks like you’re already here making sure it’s covered.
The media is compromised. People are organizing but you're not hearing about it for the most part. No one's talking about it on public forums for obvious reasons. You will start hearing about it when things come to a head.
I'm an Australian. We have a similar phrase with the same translation. In our language, we say: "cunts fucked"
I love the versatility of the way Aussies use the word cunt.
Seems weird that they'd want to go after their voter base so publicly.
Yep, again just following Hitlers Playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Germany
That was one of the first laws that the Nazis enacted...
....soooo Trump voters?
It's so funny that these maga hogs think they're the peak of humanity
So every Trumper should be sterilized? I've been saying!
Many people are saying this is a good idea. Many people!!
I think you will find that it applies to “Trump derangement syndrome” people instead
Like they said...
Playing their same game of redefining words isn’t the way to win.
We already argue enough about the definitions of words and phrases.
Well. Yeah. Because he's a Nazi. Nazis have Nazi opinions. But his version of "low-iq trash" isn't people with "low-iq" it's people that impede the image of the in-group.
Otherwise the majority of conservatives would be sterilized.
Best comment.
IQ does not measure the value of a person.
I know you are joking but somehow I don't think a Nazi style eugenics program is the solution.
No nothing like that. Maybe we just don’t argue with the antivaxxers next time though.
So Republicans?
Yep, where do I sign? Is there a petition or vote?
Same here, you need signatures?, start with me.
Holy shit. What a piece of shit.
Offer MAGA a chance to hunt with Ted Nugent or pit row seats at a NASCAR race, that will get unlimited stupid removed from the gene pool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
So just standard Republican Nazi shit.
The problem is they can't find enough racists who happen to have that background.... So south Africa white people who used to have servants is where they're at. I got German, English, Italian, Netherlands and Spanish friends and they are very nice people.
Genuinely curious, in what way was the greater availability of contraceptives used to further Eugenicist belief or policy?
Wasn't Harvard and such mixed up in it as well? Phrenology and race. If people knew history, we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of the current nightmare.
Wait, wait, wait. I thought they were just bitching that we don’t have enough people, now they want mass sterilization? Can they make up their minds?
Eugenics..
Don’t be suprised if they add gas chambers to RFK’s wellness farms.
The original nazis got eugenics from the US. That's why there were so many sympathizers prior to Pearl Harbor. They faded into the background after WWII got going, but they never went away.
Eugenics was fairly popular worldwide until Hitler, US included.
And they're trying to make it popular again. I have an uncle who is in a word, deranged. and frequentley touts that "1 in 8 kids in America have Autism".
weird uncle story incoming....
so I argued with him and said "Whats the condition? whats the criteria? give me the test that these so called kids are being evaluated on, and I bet you I, a guy in his mid 30s who still collects lego, loves my pets more than people, and is very interested in fiction and art, will come up as being on "the spectrum" because the evaluation is so broad that even being a little odd , eccentric or even just unique... always gets associated with aspergers. autism, etc
he then realized what I was saying and switched it around to say "Oh I dont mean anything like that. I mean kids that are so developmentally disabled they wont be able to take care of themselves their entire lives. literally handicapped
So 1 in 8 kids are special edcuation requirement and will need permanent care because they are developmentally challenged? give me a fucking break.
of course. he also talked about Marin County California, a county full of anti vaxers,
If Politics are peoples personalities, being Anti-Vax is my uncle's personality. The dude 100% believes that there will be a mass murdering purge of all doctors and healthcare workers this year when the "RFK Autism report" comes out.
We're Canadian by the way. I thought this was a funny addition to the context of this story. Though he did live in America for 30 years, refused to start the citizenship process though
I almost agree with his conclusion but for the opposite reason: I worry for the safety of professionals who say Autism is real and can be managed in less severe cases, because there are crazies like your uncle out there and some of them are violent.
...does he not realize that he is also capable of contracting illness? Who does he think is going to take care of him when he breaks his hip or has a stroke?
his own mortality seems to be something that he hasn't thought about much.
The Sympathisers didnt change their tune over Pearl Harbor. PH was a Japanese attack. not a German one
Japan and Germany were aligned with each other, but People who agreed with Hitler didnt just suddenley change their mind because their Asian allies attacked them in the Pacific.
They didn't change their tune, but they went quiet so they wouldn't end up camping with the Japanese Americans.
Eugenics also includes in-vitro sterilization and selecting against horrible illnesses like sickle-cell anemia. Nazism, and what Beattie is proposing, is the dark side of eugenics, but eugenics is not inherently bad. Please try to look past the propaganda.
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here's the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called "eugenics" by opponents without much recourse. What's the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, "it's not eugenics, it's actually ," or is the better move to say "not all eugenics is bad" (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I'm stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say "#notalleugenics."
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (
DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics -- I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you're essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don't necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I'm open to hearing what you have to say.(Regarding sickle-cell -- people who have it generally say it's a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it's just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I'll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
When you say 'right' it sounds like it's a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I'm talking about, or that it's somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
I think the word is tainted beyond usability. I have a visceral negative reaction to someone promoting eugenics.
I say just drop the word and say what you really mean. Something like- I support increased prenatal screenings and new technologies like CRISPR to reduce the suffering of humanity.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says "isn't that eugenics?" Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.
Sadly this was inevitable.
I think it was in the skeptics guide to the universe book, they covered the history of eugenics.
It has a significant history in the US, and loads of ne'er-do-wells were sterilised before eugenics was adopted as a policy by the german nazi party.
All of these "inevitable" thresholds being crossed are picking up incredible speed though. At this rate they will have the civil war they're clearly trying to create in less than a full year tops.
They don't want a civil war; that's just the next best thing for them. What they really want is uncontested fascist rule, and unless Americans grow some spine fast they'll get it.
Oh absolutely; either everyone takes what they dole out lying down, in which case they get their fully fascist state, or people fight back and give them a reason to enact martial law, leading to the same outcome.
3.5% is what it takes to bring the government to it's knees. Aim for it.
What i always wonder happens in these scenarios though... what happens next? Let's say the gov is brought to it's knees by the 3.5%. Who takes charge then? How is it determined?
Have you read Animal Farm? That. Is it conceivable that someday a people's revolution would turn out otherwise? Sure. But I don't see the American people as being the ones to pull it off.
Wait a minute... deep in there he suggested incentivizing smart people to have babies. Like a handout? Susidized childcare, free healthcare for kids? He must be a socialist. Lol.
Oh he's a socialist alright... the "national" kind.
You could say he's some sort of... national socialist, even.
Also, improving sex education and access to contraceptives would almost certainly reduce the number of poor Black (which I'm about 100.2% certain is what he means by "low IQ") children being born, but I doubt he's in favour of that either...
That always did strike me odd that they are against such things. But I guess the greedy ones who want more poor people to exploit win out over the eugenics people onthat one.
It's probably more like Robin Hood: take from the brown, give to the white.
He's a white supremacist. He means black people. Note the bold.
Pretty sure he means anyone not white. That's most people in the world.
He mentions air jordans as an incentive. Literally the only more racist thing would be saying he can have slave eunichs because he gives them watermelon.
Do you really think he doesn't think white people are superior to Asians and native Americans and Jews?
I mean, he of course thinks white people are superior. That's why he's a white supremacist.
But he said the first comment about Air Jordans in Atlanta, then a follow-up talked about low IQ, which is a racist stereotype most closely associated with black people, and low impulse control, which feeds into the racist narrative that black people are more primitive.
Also, white supremacists typically have a hierarchy of hate, and black people are usually at the top of it. In other words, white supremacists hate all non-white races, but they still have priorities.
Anyway, this guy sucks.
How does this interact with male doctors' right to deny women elective sterilizations based on their hypothetical future husband's desire for a kid?
The women are demonstrating too much intelligence (and independence) by seeking control of their own bodies
The problem with abortion/sterilization isn't that we're "killing babies", it's that a certain group of conservatives don't get the opportunity to spike the football over a woman's stomach when the killings happen.
Like, ask any of those Pro-Life Red State Republicans think of the genocide in Gaza and you'll get a whole litany of "Fuck 'dem kids" and "Those were terrorist infants" and "It's actually antisemitic to mention the leveling of Al-Shifa Hospital". Ask them about the bombings in Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan and you'll get a mixed bag of "We were greeted as liberators" and "That never happened but if it did it was good". FFS, ask them about the kids in cages at the US/Mexico border and you'll get the same response.
The very term "Anchor Baby" should be all you need to hear in order to understand what Americans think of infants.
So they're clearing out the current administration?
He can start with himself
Yeah, they don’t want this to happen. It would kill off their base. I guess it wouldn’t matter once they’re in a permanent officialdom, but if you’re trying to run a democracy, that ain’t working.
IQ is determined by test. Guess who will make the test!
A better idea would be to sterilize people of low empathy.
Andy Warhol allegedly had an IQ around 80-90. But contributed a lot to society.
IQ as a measure of the value of people is bullshit, because it's an extremely narrow part of our combined intelligence that is measured.
For instance empathy is not part of an IQ test, but is a crucial feature for societies to work well. As societies with higher social intelligence function relatively better.
Something Trump is actively demonstrating right now. Remove empathy from how society works, and the losses are enormous.
Trump and his ilk do not understand that, because they don't have it.
I don't think there would be much actual measuring of IQ.
-I'm literally under water right now because of climate change
-Climate change is a hoax, you must have low IQ!
gets executed
But empathy is a weakness…
Side note: I’m autistic, so I might be approaching this differently from how others do, but is it so uncommon to know that you might be exploited and not care? I’ve put tampons in every shared bathroom I’ve used with any regularity, and sometimes they all get stolen. That sucks, but I can afford it, and maybe the person who took them all can’t. I once stocked a work bathroom with them four times in a month. Maybe one of my coworkers was getting one over on me, maybe all of my coworkers took two or three extra, maybe I saved one coworker’s budget. It doesn’t really matter to me. My buying tampons for people is a “weakness” in the sense that it is an exploitable tendency, but, like, so? I’ve got lots of exploitable tendencies, but I’m okay with that (and in fact, I prefer it).
I guess what I’m asking, is whether or not it’s just the nutso fascists who think exploitability is automatically a negative or whether that’s a common belief (that they’re expanding to include all forms of empathy) and I’m the odd one out? I don’t know if this can really be answered, lol.
It's only a weakness in a world where those without it have been allowed the same rights to participate in society as the rest of us, and haven't been made extinct. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but I'm saying that's what it would take to actually fix things.
Of course we're not going to do it... because we have too much empathy for them. So they win. Again. As always, and until the bitter end of humanity.
Selfishness and greed are basic human tendencies. You can't breed or cull them out of us. We all do those things every day. The only difference between us and the people you're talking about is scale.
I have no idea why you would do that? But maybe the reason they are taken is because they think it's the administration that puts the there.
To the question, it's obviously not nice to be exploited, and the one doing it is not a nice person. If someone continues to exploit, I definitely wouldn't support that.
I like having tampons in my shared bathrooms, and I don’t like being asked for a tampon and getting stuck taking part in the following chitchat. I paid a couple of bucks to have an amenity I like and to avoid a conversation I don’t like. I don’t see why I wouldn’t.
I don’t think they thought they were from management, because management would never have done that quietly, but that could be it and I might just be a little cynical.
On an individual level, I don’t let myself get exploited, and I agree that intentional exploiters aren’t good people but I guess I’m talking more about the individual’s interaction with society.
So… the trump party? That’s the biggest chunk of low iq trash I can think of
The fact that there are Nazis in the US government, and that that fact is met with an attitude of "Oh well!" instead of torches and pitchforks is what makes modern USA sickening.
The US is a fascist state. They are enacting Nazi policies such as:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
RFKs autism list will lead to life unworthy of life.
The nazi's called them "useless eaters."
It's funny, because I've heard anti-natalists use the same turn of phrase.
More proof that their alarmism about declining birth rates is bullshit
Bold emphasis is mine
Wow, just wow.
Sure... some new sneaks for never being able to procreate? Sounds legit (heavy /s obviously)
I have a suspicion where this is being aimed at:
It's the people RFK is targeting - people with Autism, ADHD, other neurodivergent conditions, the physically and mentally disabled. Cull the ones who are already "diseased" and leave the healthier ones to live one and procreate. At least that's my suspicion here - basically they're pushing the discourse towards an acceptance of some form of eugenics. It's terrifying.
The point in the last quote - 'to function properly within a society' is really a veiled form of saying - 'you will work until you die in whatever way we see fit'.
There's a similar push in the UK to get disabled people into any job, seemingly regardless of suitability, workplace accommodations (despite there being legal requirements to make such things) - and the way this is being done is to effectively penalise them financially by sanctioning the disability allowances, refusing PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and forcing those with lifelong conditions to undergo a full review every year. This pretty much can starve out someone into finding a way to live that means the Government pays less and the quality of life the person has is drastically reduced owing to the various stressors inflicted on them. The whole thing is a shitshow and is being argued about a lot at the moment in our Government parties.
Can disabled people work? For sure, and many do. Can all disabled people work? No, but the Government is going to make damn sure that you at least try, and if you fail, then find another job cause we ain't supporting you now we know you can work regardless of how effective you are... From a Govt statement:
In other words, to "function properly within a society".
That's a lot of MAGA to sterilize.
So he doesn't want a future generation of Republican voters?
So I know you're joking but I want to make the point so there's no mistake from you or anyone scrolling by in what this guy means.
He means black people. Like the whole of this statement is targeted at black people in the US. Dude is a hard-r neonazi.
Oh I know that's the dog whistle. But fun fact, what he really means is anyone who's black, brown, or not the right kind of white... Oh, you also have to never disagree, even when it becomes clear that you're the right color, but the wrong class
Thought i was reading the onion for a second
Nazi fucks busting out the calipers?
It's wild that such a typo could slip through. The number, according to the source cited in that article, is 70,000.
They probably intended 70,000 based on the comma placement.
The irony. I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ. But apart from that:
That stance of mass-sterilization is quite a hefty turnaround from "people should have more children", which we heard just a few months ago.
I don't want to be a doomer, but the economic prospects are bad. Lots of people already struggle to make end's meet, and if the mass layoffs of white collar workers due to AI are real, it will be even worse. Notice that it doesn't matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.
I also think that it's politician's job to improve the living conditions of the people, and GOP might actually for once be doing its job if it starts educating people about the socio-economic implications of having kids.
I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there's a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a "support", providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.
Intelligence isn't genetic. Its determined by large set of environmental factors as well as societal ones
It's genetic and environmental (I'd argue that societal is a subset of environment - the society you live in is part of your environment).
IQ is far from a perfect measure for intelligence, but it has a high degree of inheritability - up to 80%.
However
As soon as malnutrition comes into play, IQ is automatically severely diminished. Add in all the other environmental factors too, and - it turns out we do have a lot more we can do to increase peoples intelligence, before resorting to eugenics.
I mean, the validity of IQ tests in general should be questioned when the largest variability in scoring is if you've previously studied for an IQ test followed by what language you speak.
Philosophically I don't really think there's a uniform agreement on what exactly defines general intellect, or if that general intellect even matters considering were a species that relies on specialization.
As far as heritability, I imagine that would be a horribly difficult topic to actually get enough research to rule out variables like socioeconomics and cultural differences. I mean I doubt there's that many twin studies to establish the efficacy any particular theory.
As I recall, studying for an IQ test is able to improve your result by around 7%. That's honestly a pretty impressively low %, indicates to me some level of validity just based on that. What other variables are considered? And can you link me to the language thing? When I look up language, I'm just seeing correlation between language proficiency and IQ, which shouldn't be surprising -- I would imagine that people who measure a higher IQ are better at learning languages.
There is great interest in studying IQ, and people do study that quite seriously.
Agreed, and the person you're replying to said essentially the same thing. IQ itself has correlations with other things, and that alone makes it interesting.
This article does a pretty decent job pointing out some of the variabilities that make IQ test unreliable. Tbh I think the concept of IQ is fruit from the poisoned tree. There are so many people that stake their positions and identities on the efficacy of IQ that the whole data pool is kinda poisoned. For every study that makes a claim, there are other studies rebutting it.
I would have to search for it, i originally read about it when I was in college over a decade ago. Basically the claim was that the vast majority of the tests originate or are interpreted from English or another western language. When certain aspects of the test are interpreted to a different language the sentence structure is modified in a way where it adds an additional barrier for the test taker.
This may be somewhat solved by the different language speakers creating their own test, but that may not overcome the problem due to the need for global standardization, orit may be a barrier to language speakers who's cultures haven't invested the time or resources to the idea of IQ to begin with.
Ah, right. Yeah, there are some age-old criticisisms of IQ test like translating into a different language can skew the result, or relying on concepts that are cultural but not obviously cultural (like the way buildings are shaped) can skew the result. I'm not generally interested in comparing IQ results between countries or even for people of differing first language though so these don't especially concern me so long as I can be sure a study averts the issue.
From the paper you linked:
Hard agree. IQ cannot be said to measure intelligence. But for instance, it correlates well with success (level of education (eventually) reached, or $ in a capitalist society) and I'd be surprised to find any major journal publishing a paper which disputes that.
My point is the variability between test groups calls into question the reliability of IQ as a concept as a whole. If IQ is an innate measurement of intellect for humans in general, then the reliability of the test shouldn't be culturally constrained.
Yes, but I could make the same claim about a plethora of other correlations with more confidence like having wealthy parents.
IQ is not a measurement of human intellect in general. Also, the fact that the test is flawed does not mean it is not useful in some contexts.
Regarding correlation with success, I should have specified that the correlation still exists even when controlling for birth environment.
Wait, do people actually study for IQ tests? Why? Language makes sense, if I tried doing one in German I would fail because I barely speak it at an A2 level, if that.
I reckon general intellect does matter. In a world where your job might not exist in 5 years because lol AI, it's best to be able to adapt fast. Specialize, yes, but one day your specialization will be useless. Best case scenario, it's after you've retired.
And going back to heritability, there's definitely some heritability there, but the problem with twin studies is that twins tend to have the same socioeconomic backgrounds too. Still, just malnutrition, environmental pollution, etc, are big enough factors that taking care of those on a nationwide scale (since we're talking about a particular nation here), would be much more significant than eugenics. Then we get to education - again, this same particular nation has a lot of gaps in the availability of good quality education.
The same reason mensa is a thing. People like to toot their own horn.
To a certain extent yes, but no one can be an expert at everything. There just isn't enough time, and expertise is really what society rewards people for at the end of the day.
I would say that would be incredibly hard to empirically prove due to the problems you mentioned. At best we could speculate that heritability may be an influence, but that influence is vastly overshadowed by environmental factors.
Fair enough, I've also at one point been 13 and done a bunch of useless online IQ tests. Never studied for them, they seemed like mostly simple pattern recognition and general logic questions, which I've never really thought you could even study for.
Absolutely. But general intellect, as far as I can tell (and maybe my understanding of it is wrong), is what influences your ability to shift to a new field and gain expertise in that. Years alone don't cut it. In my own field, I've seen software engineers who can't program for shit, let alone make any architectural decisions after a decade - and ones that are pretty competent after 2-3 years. Now imagine you're 10 years into a career and it starts becoming less and less relevant due to changes in society. If you're naturally intelligent, you're both 1) more likely to have learned more from your 10 years than others have, so more valuable for longer, and 2) more likely to be able to switch to an unrelated or semi-related career path and become useful in a shorter amount of time.
Of course it gets more complex than that because general intellect doesn't span ALL skills. In fact, it's more like ranges of aptitudes. I have great aptitude for STEM, pretty decent aptitude for languages, and absolutely none for arts. No drawing, no singing, etc. No matter how much practice I get and how much practice I got in my childhood. There's just skills I won't learn in 10 years of practice, and skills I pick up rapidly, and it's been that way since childhood.
Hell, maybe general intellect isn't a thing after all.
I think IQ in particular unfairly prioritizes understanding of language and logic, over artful skills and, e.g emotional intelligence (which is measured by EQ I guess). It's a pointless measure. My main point that I wanted to make was that some people are naturally more gifted, and just faster learners, than others. There's people from good families who have never suffered from malnutrition or emotional abuse and went to good schools, who aren't all that smart, and people from far worse backgrounds who are geniuses. Something must be contributing to that. If not genetics, then what? At the same time, yes, people from emotionally healthy families with no financial issues, are more likely to be successful in school as well as life in general.
There are a few different tests that are supposed to clinically measure IQ. Most of them are more complex than pattern recognition and most all of them are administered by some sort of clinician, which can also influence outcomes.
I would say that the ability to gain expertise is generally hard to differentiate with the motivation to gain expertise. What we can empirically prove is that time spent practicing a skill is how we gain expertise in most any skill.
It could be that you just perceive yourself being at being better at stem because you enjoy practicing the skills required for stem. People generally gain experience faster in skill sets they enjoy or skills they perceive thems to excel at.
Again, this could be self fulfilling process. If you don't think you will excel at something you may not fully engage in the process, or even self sabotage the process.
I think for this to be true your claim would have to be that emotional intellect is devoid of logic or language.....which seems fairly self evidently incorrect.
Or people are better at learning things they are self motivated to learn about, and that society influences what skills we find valuable or "intellectual".
In short, what we can empirically prove about intellect is usually environmental in nature, and what we can only theorize about heritability cannot be differentiated from other variabilities that may correlate with that theory.
One reason people study for IQ tests is to learn to what extent studying for an IQ test affects the result.
There's no evidence it's generic at all. It's very difficult to access 'intelligence' or make usable data about intelligence. You really can't test how intelligent people are, most of what we can test with repeatable results is skills, which famously can be improved over time reliably. To the point there's time estimates on how long it takes to be a skilled person in one ability or another. I work with special needs kids, and let me tell you, you learn real quick working with these kids that there's close to zero differences between them and their same age peers. People are very similar, and even people you'd consider rather foolish on a lot of metrics interacting with them, can be quite brilliant at what they are interested in and skilled in.
I don't know about intelligence, but it's well-known that IQ results are partially heritable genetically. (Yes, even when controlling for environment one is raised in.) Did you actually research this or did you make that up because it sounded nice?
That's not true at all. No biologist will agree that IQ tests produce usable data that shows anything of the sort, IQ tests are a skills test and the biggest skills it tests are studying for an IQ test and speaking English fluently.
I don't know if you know this, but Eugenics was bunk science and it's been shown to be nothing more than academic racism that holds no validity
You're misinformed about eugenics (with a lower-case e, if you don't mind). Easily-measurable traits like height and weight are well known to have heritable components, as do diseases. Eugenics is an effective way to prevent genetic diseases. You probably don't realize that eugenics is a wider subject than the racist and ableist practices of nazis and other ethno-supremacists. You only think eugenics is bad because when people say "eugenics," what the nazis did is what comes to mind, rather than important and good technologies like IVF and selecting against zygotes with alleles associated with negative traits. (And yes, negative traits and positive traits are both heritable, though I'll freely admit that what makes a trait positive or negative is subjective.) See this discussion elsewhere in this thread.
I have a hypothesis that there are three camps of people: (1) those who generally get the science and limitations of IQ; (2) those who are racist bigots and use IQ to justify genocide; (3) those who assume that any attempt to measure intelligence is inherently racist and so IQ must be pseudoscience. (2) and (3) both assume that anyone purporting to be in camp (1) must actually be in camp (3)/(2) respectively.
Getting rid of negative traits gets out of control really fast. I would say more than AI.
How does AI factor into this? Also I'm interested to hear your scenario in which voluntarily getting rid of negative traits gets out of control. It's certainly plausible that we might have some kind of runaway evolution. Still, I think it's imperative we prevent genetic diseases.
AI is a modern problem, getting rid of negative traits is a potential problem. Getting rid of negative traits incur that something about the person or being is a disorder. That could be schizophrenia or autism, that are more considered like problems, even though these are problems that are at the core of society, not problems with the people themselves. Getting rid of these might seem logical, but they also meddle with what a person is at its core. Now moving on to things that are more accepted by the literature as non deviant genetic 'traits' would be homosexuality and transness. What if this defiant and deviant mode of living was to be erased by genetic modification? I'm sure the parents would be proud, but you just got rid of something that is at the core of what that person is. That is against diversity by itself. Genetic modification in the sense of eugenics or getting rid of negative traits is the same as eliminating diversity and difference, which is why Hitler picked at it so much.
I'll elaborate even more: Arjun Appadurai implies at his "Fear of Small Numbers" that at the core of eliminating difference there is a deep desire for oneness. That those who are different are such small steps away from complete oneness and national identity. That is, I exist in the society which I identify as real, and anything against that is so close to inexistant that I could just wipe them out and be in my happy place. So close to it, but not quite. Something that Appadurai calls the state of "incompleteness".
It does not seem obvious to me that we should get rid of autism. I don't know any studies that suggest that people with autism have a lower quality of life. Autism is a form of being different -- neurodivergent. There may be disadvantages to being autistic, but there are likely advantages too. That is different from other more severe disorders that are genetic. (Is autism even genetic?)
Similarly, being LGBTQ+ is not a disadvantage in a sane society. In fact, being bisexual is an advantage I would argue. Regardless, it's not genetic, so why even bring that up?
But there are genetic disorders nearly everyone agrees should be eradicated.
Read like any sci-fi novel ever...
How about Brave New World off the top of my head? GATTACA as well.
I love GATTACA -- obviously a terrifying dystopian world. Cautionary tales exist to tell you to proceed with caution, not to avoid proceeding at all.
Genetics are only a small fraction of what makes up intelligence. Is far more important as other commenters pointed out to have enough nutrition and the right type of education the right type of social environment.
That's why I said partially.
It's also known by the MIT that race can be identified on X-rays using AI, and that doesn't mean much, does it?
I am clueless about what you're trying to imply. Are you saying that because one heritable thing which has a test for it is unimportant, that means all heritable things that can be measured are unimportant? I think that is what you're saying.
The importance of IQ isn't even what I was arguing over; I was just rebutting top-level comment that IQ is heritable. (I am aware they referred to intelligence, not IQ; but thread is about IQ.)
If there is no proper definition for what IQ is, it's just another fallacy for normative thought. I mean by this that going through classical logic seamlessly does not incur into intelligence, even though it might incur into intellectual fitness. And then it's all again why we have a certain model of thought of what is considered normal. This needs to exist if we are to assert "Intellectual Quality".
Now, if we assert what is "normal" we also have to assert what is a "disorder" or "deviance", which is what's treated as "dumbness" here. If it is a desired "heritable" quality, that means to be included or fit to the current intellectual state.
Next to relate as to why I have compared this to the AI results. AI could predict race based on X-rays - but that means as much as IQ being heritable. A normative study for normative thought with no valid conclusions using formal logic as an excuse.
There is no proper definition for what intelligence is. IQ is well-defined -- it's the number that comes out of an IQ test. This number correlates with many concretely measurable things, such as success (income and/or education level). I don't desire kids, but if I did have kids, I would do what I could to increase their expected IQ, such as through genetics, since that correlates with success and ease of living. These are valid conclusions. Formal logic is not used, only statistics.
"You got a vasectomy because it was forced on you for having low IQ. I got a vasectomy because I refuse to subject another human to this batshit world. We are not the same."
Which begs the question, how are they going to juxtapose this bullshit with the "nobody is having babies to sustain my precious system!1!32!@!!"
The barely unsaid part is they want to sterilize the out-groups and breed the in-groups. Did you catch the "Air Jordans" comment?
They can start in the Oval Office.
Do we start with the Whitehouse?
Start with Congress. There is a glut over there.
The soap boxes, ballot boxes, and jury boxes didnt work.
the Nazis are laughing that you're calling them Nazis, all while they're making plans to kill you.
Harbor freight got the boxes you need for like $3 a piece. It's on you to fill them though
So, they'll start with red state Trump voters, yes?
Americans can’t even be bothered to get off their ass and vote against this shit, they ain’t rising up against nothing.
Correct.Zero of my friends were interested in protesting. I've been and will continue. I expect I'll be "disappeared". I wonder if that'll wake them up?
You won’t be disappeared for doing a cute little protest with the consent of the people you’re protesting against.
Or, my lawn sign. Or, our LGBT+ flag sign showing support as allies. And of course voting Dem.
So, nothing really.
Piss off, you lousy Cunt. I served my country in the Army. My actions absolutely put me & my GF in direct line of being grabbed and shipped to a concentration camp.
We are the absolute opposite of "cowards".
Take your BS and choke on it.
So defensive.
Let’s stop pretending that wearing a uniform automatically means someone served their country. If you signed up to enforce what the US military has been doing for decades, you didn’t serve your country, you served the machinery that exploits it.
Thankfully, you now have the opportunity to prove it counted for something. If not- well, not only are you not fighting back, you’re a veteran that isn’t fighting back.
So maga folks. Lol
FASCISM STATS +1
Seems they don't expect people to vote anymore.
tRump said this outloud. There are recordings.
Is this why they're getting a list of neurodivergent people together? Not that that has anything to do with IQ, but merely their perceived warped reality of it.
As a proud person who is riddled with adhd, depression and anxiety , I welcome the looks on their face when my I. Q is demonstrably far higher than the yahoos in office.
Maybe we should change the low I. Q part to, " moraly bankrupt greedy criminals" and we can get some improvements
The look will be, "shut the fuck up, hands above your head, get in the plane"
Not sure I'd be looking forward to that.
I am different too, but it doesn't stop me (unless I fall behind on self care lmao).
If Bobo, Margie, Jim J, etc. aren't on this list, you know its a bullshit list.
So uhhh
When is their entire political party to be lobotomized?
well they just said they are thinking about it, those things takes time, let things start to roll
So they gonna set up radiation booths at rallies?
Let a nazi into a bar. He brings his friends. And it becomes a nazi bar.
That's free speech absolution In a nutshell. This is what it leads to.
The right to debate the merits for eugenics, genocide, ethnocide, and just straight up murder of those people I dont like, has turned into this, the rise of another Nazi Regime in all but name.
The sad thing is they aren't even the first. The argument can be made about a number of Regimes big and small, Russia and El Salvador for example. and they got to where they were long before Trump was back in the WH
I did Nazi that coming.
So, themselves?
Yet the idea of publicly funded contraception and sex education is verbotten
Nice of you to use their native German so they'd understand.
Dah
Ich sehe, was du da gemacht hast
That's going to cost them votes in the long run, if their base can't reproduce.
I think the USA is taking a turn to the right more than americans care to admit. It's hard to believe some of these news.
Also, peace on Europe depends on those 1945 treaties. Things can't go wrong. Something needs to be thought up, and the destruction of universities don't help. Duke University and others work hard but guess what? A lot of them are on the United States.
This symbol of freedom won't go out without a bang. Who will support the world in these trying times? Which philosophers will bring the glue that holds us together? We need that.
Sounds like he needs to get sterilized by his own logic.
Oh look.
Eugenics.
Advocate mass sterilizing republicans? Thats a bold move cotton, lets see how it plays out.
Seriously. Red states about to get a lot of even cheaper real estate...
…so the Trump supporters, then?
Has he never heard of the Child Tax Credit?
I think he's literally talking about making a credit that's contingent on a certain IQ test score, or something along those lines. He seems to be a straight-up, unabashed eugenicist.
You know when they say they, they mean the people they disagree with.
soooooo...... basically themselves?
Cool so there isn't a population shortage then? Abortion should be allowed legally nationally then?
It took this admin only 18 weeks to get all the way to openly discussing eugenics programs.
Nazis gonna do nazi shit.
I have a feeling he does not mean the ones with the red hats...
you're assuming intents and that is MEAN
There are neurodivergant people who I personally know that need extra help and some of them even have a mental disability. Some of them are my friends and some not (like any other group of people), however I would defend all of them with my life.
(I have ADHD and Autism so im not sure if hes referring to me as well)
If you're not a rich white male in the ruling class (but I repeat myself) you are, or will be someone they are referring to.
Im a poor Transfem born to a family of strong Jewish Unionists :3
Well, I've signed a petition to allow my trans homies to claim refugee status here in canada. So I'm hoping y'all can come here and be safe!
Im a New Yorker, if Canada starting allowing Trans refugees I would immediately become Canadian :3
You're a hop skip and a jump already!
I do hope that goes through, I want out of here
I'd be happy to have you
Yeah they'll probably go after neurodivergent people eventually.
‘Laughable, if it weren’t so dangerous’: your responses to RFK Jr’s autism stance https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/rjk-jr-autism-guardian-readers
There is no eventually.
talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
*sterelilsed
Fine with me... That's the entire MAGA constituency
Remember how so many so-called leftists, centrists, and most especially the corporate media kept chastising people and playing Tone Police for anyone calling the Republicans what they actually are? I mean, "both sides" are just as bad, amirite? Because something something "genocide Joe", he's even older than donvict, and having the worst economy ever or something?
And make no mistake, donvict is not some kind of weird outlier among the qons, this is who and what so very many Republicans are...with so many douchebags like this among us, it's hard to believe how we ever fought the Nazis.
Steve Bannon referred to Trump as an "Empty vessel" and the absolute worst fucking scum this country has to offer are pouring themselves into him...
Basically, Darren is referring to the fucking MAGA voters.
Eugenic at its finest. Galton would be proud of them.
Does this guy think IQ is heritable? Hundreds of genes contribute to intelligence, so it's a genetic lottery. They certainly won't create conditions that stimulate intelligence in the people they govern. I suppose it's all mumbo jumbo to decimate black and brown people and get rid of unsettling white people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
But for sure this is about black, brown and unsettling white people.
The article states in the first paragraph that there is a significant controversy on this topic in the scientific community. It's clearly more complicated than what a correlation coefficient could prove. Moreover, intelligence is also correlated with a good educational environment, which is what they are trying to rob from the people.
Definitely. Also nutritions.
The goal is to set a precedent on an intangible factor than can be used to detain a person and invade their bodily right.
IQ isn't a real thing. Yes, there are IQ tests, and there is a correlation between IQ and intelligence, but for the most part, they want to be able to say "GEOTUS is smart, if you disagree with him then you are dumb, if you are dumb, then we will detain and sterilize you, and if you resist, we will execute you in the street."
Then who would vote Republican besides the rich? Not enough of you to do it alone.
They did this in India in the 70s! Forced the poors to get snipped
Orrr we could sterilize fascists while the rest of us work towards egalitarianism and protecting the sanctity of life unlike these degenerates.
No, really, people like this should get a maximum of three comments on racial purity per lifetime before they get a guillotine to the nutsack.
That's eugenics just the same.
Best case would be for Thanos to come and we convince him to snap his fingers and sterilize a random 90% of the human population. That would solve the majority of our problems
Fascists are a threat to all life, including those that they define as their ingroup. They just feed them into the military machine in perpetuity. Totally on board with an antifascist Thanos.
What the hell does 'feral' mean? Does he think there are actually feral people in the USA in any double-digit quantity in this day and age? Seems insane.
Anyway, Project Prevention already exists to pay meth addicts to voluntarily sterilize themselves (reversably). That's actually a good cause, because the children of meth addicts have serious disabilities that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cause a painful and unpleasant life -- much better that that child be born to somebody else. We don't need this lunatic saying insane shit about feral children and mass sterilization.
'feral' is a dog whistle for poor urban black folks.
Thanks for explaining, I didn't catch that.
It means dogs are barking because they hear a high pitched whistle...
They are paid to NOT sterilize themselves? Reversibly?
My bad! Typo. They are paid to reversibly sterilize themselves. (Actually, any method of sterilization is paid for, and they can choose reversible or non-reversible ones.)
Damn. I need to get a vasectomy anyway, I should start smoking meth!
I never looked at it from this angle before... hmm, I'm not sure people would be willing to become meth addicts for free sterilization.
We need another and many more Luigis
I hate this guy as much as anyone, but you're really rounding what he's saying down. He is calling for "voluntary" mass sterilization via incentivization. It's not responsible to misquote racist trash like him when what he's saying is already so villainously evil.
Do it! No more republican wins.
Anyone happen to tell Republicans that those are their voters?
So…the cabinet?
So they stop funding education and now they can want to sterilise low IQ individuals. Seems like a well thought out strategy
Yeah! Musk, JD Vance and Trump have had enough kids!
Well, at least this should save the jews.
Is he talking about Musk?
Shouldn't he be former? I thought they axed him after he went to a white nationalist rally?
But then who will fill in for the Republican Party and white staff?
what to do with workers after automation don't need voters if you are dictator
So, genocide.
Ask norway how they did.
Evil AND stupid. There goes all your future voters.
He's not talking about giving everyone an IQ test. He's talking about black people... That's why he suggests incentives to participate being Air Jordans. Hes making racial stereotypes and insinuating that it's easy to tell which people are "low-IQ".
I think i played league of legends with that guy
Then who would vote for them?
Is he talking about the Trump Administration?!?
So that would be most of the administration then
eugenics
He should prolly sterilize himself then
I think you should have to do an test to reproduce, or pass in high, something, before being able to have a kid. But its impossible to institute.
some kind of sterilization for about 50% of the population would be an improvement.