|
Ein cooler Typ posted:is this real? No. The person who posted that probably thinks Snopes is too liberal, but http://www.snopes.com/margaret-sanger-weeds/
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Ein cooler Typ posted:is this real? This is extremely not real, considering Margaret Sanger was sympathetic to the plight of black people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Maybe it's an undercover meme designed to get the right to vote for Hillary, because that's the only way it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:This is extremely not real, considering Margaret Sanger was sympathetic to the plight of black people. On the other hand, white text on black background usually means it's legit. The Internet told me so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Yeah, Sanger was a eugenicist, but so were most intellectually-minded people back in the 1920s. I've seen no evidence that she wanted to eugenicize black people, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Tesla was too wasn't he? Something his rabid fanboys tend to wave away with "yeah but Edison was an rear end in a top hat!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
You could remake that same meme with Thomas Jefferson saying some stupid racist poo poo and then every Presidential candidate in the last fifty years fawning over him. Sanger's Venn diagram of beliefs skirted very closely to the goals of a lot of terrible people and her influence is still loving up whole countries (abortion in China), but she was probably less racist than most people back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Yeah, Sanger was a eugenicist, but so were most intellectually-minded people back in the 1920s. I've seen no evidence that she wanted to eugenicize black people, though. The problem with eugenics is that it makes sense in theory but mostly gets used to suggest that particular races be removed entirely rather than genetic disease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem with eugenics is that it makes sense in theory but mostly gets used to suggest that particular races be removed entirely rather than genetic disease. The real issue with eugenics tends to be that we don't really have a good way to remove genetic disease without removing the people who carry the disease, so any way you slice it you are advocating the deaths of people with genetic inferiorities. That's how it gets so easily generalized to race; all you need to do is slightly shift what you consider genetically inferior and the rest of the legwork is done for you. Dogfish has a new favorite as of 17:42 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:The real issue with eugenics tends to be that we don't really have a good way to remove genetic disease without removing the people who carry the disease, so any way you slice it you are advocating the deaths of people with genetic inferiorities. That's how it gets so easily generalized to race; all you need to do is slightly shift what you consider genetically inferior and the rest of the legwork is done for you. Case in point: Tay–Sachs, endemic among the Ashkenazi Jewish community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Case in point: Tay–Sachs, endemic among the Ashkenazi Jewish community. Well, Tay-Sachs is itself generally fatal so it's less like saying "I think it would be better if people with Tay-Sachs died" and more like saying "I think it would be better if people with Tay-Sachs had never been born," which some parents of babies with Tay-Sachs would agree with and many wouldn't. Unless you're saying that the high preponderance of Tay-Sachs in Jewish communities causes anti-Semitism, in which case I'd really like you to show your work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:Well, Tay-Sachs is itself generally fatal so it's less like saying "I think it would be better if people with Tay-Sachs died" and more like saying "I think it would be better if people with Tay-Sachs had never been born," which some parents of babies with Tay-Sachs would agree with and many wouldn't. Stuff like that was used to justify why certain races were inferior. X race comes down with Y condition lead to "remove this race entirely." Every race has its horrible genetic diseases so that's pretty much bullshit. Which is why the "in theory" part; if we could somehow remove the genes that cause Tae-Sachs without exterminating the entire race that'd be just fantastic. But more often than not "we should improve our gene pool" led to "let's just kill everybody that isn't us."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Most people are just plain ol' heterosexual. People that are not heterosexual are getting a lot of attention lately because there's a ton of sociopolitical attention on LGBT rights. People are creating safe spaces for LGBT people because, well, people are often lovely to said demographic and they'd like to have somewhere they can go to feel safe, thanks. Suddenly though being just a plain ol' heterosexual is boring. You don't get a safe space and special attention if you're straight. By definition, because most people are plain ol' heterosexual, being heterosexual is normal. It's standard. More importantly it isn't special. So now you have people that so desperately want to be super special unique snowflakes inventing new sexualities so they can be different and special too. I think a lot of it also comes from the "community" being a bunch of young people, many of whom may suffer depression, so there's a one-two punch of "probably a late bloomer and/or generally picky about partners" plus "may have neurochemical issues preventing them from feeling attraction." You toss someone like that into a setting with hormone-addled peers and a bunch of old people gettin cranky over how much filthy sex the kids today are having, and it's easy for them to get the idea that "Everyone else in my age range is constantly fuckin anything with a pulse, so obviously I'm different because I don't want that." I probably would've been a candidate for the "asexual community" when I was in high school, but it just turned out I had chronic depression and a generally low sex drive. But yeah, it's easy to see how attractive being special is, particularly if you're a kid when there's the allure of being the oppressed rebel challenging society's norms. I'm just increasingly glad social media wasn't a thing when I was that young. I cringe just thinking what kind of idiocy I'd have preserved for people years later to see and laugh at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Stuff like that was used to justify why certain races were inferior. X race comes down with Y condition lead to "remove this race entirely." Every race has its horrible genetic diseases so that's pretty much bullshit. Which is why the "in theory" part; if we could somehow remove the genes that cause Tae-Sachs without exterminating the entire race that'd be just fantastic. I don't usually ask for citations in casual conversation but I really don't think this is right. Anti-Semitism was flourishing long before Tay-Sachs was discovered, early eugenicists wrote long screeds about the size and shape of the head and distribution of musculature to justify the theory that different races were at different points on an evolutionary spectrum of inferiority/superiority, and nobody suddenly started making arguments to kill all white people after the identification of cystic fibrosis. All this to say, I'm not sure eugenic approaches to disease and the thought that the ultimate perfection of the human race toward which eugenics strives is necessarily a certain kind of whiteness are linked by anything other than their rootedness in the principles of eugenics. If you can offer evidence to the contrary, though, I'm happy to revise that position!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:The real issue with eugenics tends to be that we don't really have a good way to remove genetic disease without removing the people who carry the disease, so any way you slice it you are advocating the deaths of people with genetic inferiorities. That's how it gets so easily generalized to race; all you need to do is slightly shift what you consider genetically inferior and the rest of the legwork is done for you. This might be closer than you think. CRISPR/Cas9 quote:In April 2015, scientists from China published a paper in the journal Protein & Cell reporting results of an attempt to alter the DNA of non-viable human embryos using CRISPR to correct a mutation that causes beta thalassemia, a lethal heritable disorder. Simple explanation: we have the ability to specifically target and snip out DNA sequences, which can include disease alleles. To be fair, there's a bit of an ethical quagmire to wade through here, especially when it comes to working on embryos, but there can be great applications for this technology in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
scorpiobean posted:This might be closer than you think. CRISPR/Cas9 Since I am not a scientist: what's the ethical dilemma with being able to remove disease alleles from embryos? I can't see anything but good from that particular act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
scorpiobean posted:This might be closer than you think. CRISPR/Cas9 Yeah gene editing is something that gets talked about a lot as 'the next big thing' and we are certainly closer now than ever before, but in the meantime I spend way too much of my workday talking to prospective parents about eugenics through selective abortion and I think that's probably how it's going to be for awhile. Even if we can edit genes, then we open up a whole new ethical can of worms, like whether autism, deafness, Trisomy 21, etc. should be edited out or whether they belong on the normal human spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
How is it ethical to willingly let people be born with a disability if the technology gets to the point where it no longer has to happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
goose fleet posted:How is it ethical to willingly let people be born with a disability if the technology gets to the point where it no longer has to happen Well, there are lots of disability advocates who argue that what's actually disabling is that people with genetic or physical difference live in a society that's not organized for them. There are autism advocates who strongly argue against therapies aimed at normalizing the autistic way of being and of thinking for high-functioning autistics, arguing that their thought patterns and ways of understanding the world are part of their identities. There is an entire culture built around being Deaf whose proponents would strongly argue that rendering Deaf people hearing would rob them of their culture and language. From the perspective of human perfectibility, it's clear that autism, Trisomy 21, deafness, etc. should be eliminated. From the perspective of the people who live with these differences and who advocate for themselves, the argument that there's a spectrum of human normalcy that should be protected is much more strongly emphasized. There's also the very real consideration that even with all the gene editing in the world you're never going to eliminate these issues. There are plenty of people who never get prenatal care and don't take their babies to get medical care. There are people who will decline screening and treatment for every condition. There are people who aren't born deaf but instead are deafened later in life so their hearing difference is structural rather than genetic. The fewer people who live with a condition, the harder it is for people with that condition to live because the more society is organized to exclude them. Dogfish has a new favorite as of 18:38 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Since I am not a scientist: what's the ethical dilemma with being able to remove disease alleles from embryos? I can't see anything but good from that particular act. Part of the problem is that genes are much more complicated than gene A causes syndrome A. Gene A may also be important in many other functions of the body, and we don't fully understand the interrelationships. Snipping the disease allele may cause other bad things to happen, and we don't know until we do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
  I don't like wearing sleeves even in cold weather, I'm glad are four fathers gave us this right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
No death penalty, no consequence. Seems logical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:Well, there are lots of disability advocates who argue that what's actually disabling is that people with genetic or physical difference live in a society that's not organized for them. There are autism advocates who strongly argue against therapies aimed at normalizing the autistic way of being and of thinking for high-functioning autistics, arguing that their thought patterns and ways of understanding the world are part of their identities. There is an entire culture built around being Deaf whose proponents would strongly argue that rendering Deaf people hearing would rob them of their culture and language. Under normal circumstances, I would just PM you to congratulate you on a well-written response, but you have no PMs so I will just embarrass you publicly by saying: This is a well-written response. Thank you. Content:  More posts from dumb Canadians, this time my cousin. He's not the brightest bulb, but at least him sharing stuff like this is pretty rare. The comments, though!  Okie doke!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:
Good thing the constitution wasn't written by living organisms, during a snapshot of constantly shifting culture and language. Good thing it's philosophically possible to write words whose meaning is fixed for eternity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:Good thing the constitution wasn't written by living organisms, during a snapshot of constantly shifting culture and language. Good thing it's philosophically possible to write words whose meaning is fixed for eternity. Do these people not know what 'amendment' means?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Dogfish posted:I don't usually ask for citations in casual conversation but I really don't think this is right. Anti-Semitism was flourishing long before Tay-Sachs was discovered, early eugenicists wrote long screeds about the size and shape of the head and distribution of musculature to justify the theory that different races were at different points on an evolutionary spectrum of inferiority/superiority, and nobody suddenly started making arguments to kill all white people after the identification of cystic fibrosis. Racism has existed for quite a long time. Eugenics was just used to justify it. The base idea of eugenics came about when people realized that genetics was like...everything. We can selectively breed crops and animals. Why don't we selectively breed ourselves too? It'd be awesome if we could improve our own gene pool to make humans smarter, faster, prettier, less prone to genetic disease, tougher, and stronger. Once again, that's fine in theory. I think pretty much all of us would agree that "take the bad poo poo out of the gene pool" and "encourage people with good traits to breed" are desirable. The issue came about because, at the time, hardcore nationalism was en vogue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Eugenics really became a thing in the 1920's and 1930's, around the same time that nationalism was really getting into full swing. This was when the futurists were doing their thing, Nazis were coming into power, and people were looking at fascism and saying "yeah let's do that." Foreign people and foreign ideals were wrong and bad. A variety of races decided that they themselves were the peak of humans and all other races were awful filth. They were inferior so to improve our gene pool we needed to exterminate all of them and fill the world with nothing but us because we are awesome and they are not. Really you can just look at the history of stuff like Nazism, the goings on in Italy, and the general history of the period to see it. Here in the States it was used as an argument against miscegenation. White people had to be kept pure and by that they meant white people shouldn't make babies with non-white people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:Good thing the constitution wasn't written by living organisms, during a snapshot of constantly shifting culture and language. Good thing it's philosophically possible to write words whose meaning is fixed for eternity. I can think of nothing more infuriating than 8yr olds with their faces in an tablet or phone while their parents ignore them at dinner. Now YOUR kids are going to rely on MY kids to advance society because your kids are cognitively impared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Racism has existed for quite a long time. Eugenics was just used to justify it. I'm sorry to say this, but none of this explains why you think there's more than a glancing relationship between specific genetic disorders and racist eugenics. I have actually looked quite a bit at "the history of stuff like Nazism, the goings on in Italy, and the general history of the period" but I don't see what you're arguing, which is why I asked for a little more clarity. I'm sorry because I feel like this is a rude response, but your answer is a non-answer. We should probably let this topic go, though, because this is a derail and I think the conversation has moved on. cash crab posted:Thank you. Thanks; that's really nice of you to say!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
mng posted:Do these people not know what 'amendment' means? I've met people who think there's shouldn't have been any amendments to the constitution. Ever. At all. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
mng posted:Do these people not know what 'amendment' means? In my experience, they absolutely do, and they ALSO know that amending the Constitution has its own PROCESS which must be followed and can only be instigated by Congress, so attempting to change laws/raise awareness by any other method than the old white people who agree with them actually changing their minds about something is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
mng posted:Do these people not know what 'amendment' means? I considered asking this question in the thread but then I remembered the last time I responded to one of my friend's Libertarian shares. Some post about Rand Paul supporting gay marriage, I post quotes from him and Ron saying something about how they don't like gay marriage or whatever, and some guy responds with a video of both of them talking about something entirely unrelated to what I said then goes "Lol owned." and "Lol Joe owned again." I didn't bother responding anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
I have an Idiots on Social Media story for you fine folks today. Here's some backstory. Last semester in a programming class, I sat next to a guy. Let's call him Goofer. Goofer was a lanky, awkward guy who made several cringeworthy passes at me, despite the fact that he knew I was married. Most of it revolved around his foot fetish. I wore flip-flops to class on a cool day, and somehow we got onto the subject of circulation. I mentioned that I had pretty bad circulation in my hands and feet. He asked if he could touch my foot to see how cold it was. I didn't think anything of it and let him. After that, it got weird. He said, "You can put your feet on my lap if you want," and asked if I'd like to come by his dorm room so he could give me a foot massage sometime. Goofer also invited me to eat lunch with him at the diner. I outright asked him if he had a foot fetish, since I've been though this song and dance with these types before, and he admitted to it. However, that didn't stop him from continuing to annoy me with foot-related requests while simultaneously asking if I was uncomfortable with him. I wanted to tell Goofer that I thought he was a loving creep, but I felt bad because he seemed like he might be autistic or have a mild intellectual disability. Later on in the semester, Goofer contacted me because he forgot to attend the final exam and was trying to get in touch with the professor for a redo. He also told me that he had never finished the two lab assignments which had been due in October and November. He asked if I would send him my code, saying that he would "just change a few things" to make it look like his own work. He also asked if the code would be compiled when I sent it to him. If you know anything about programming, you'll realize from what Goofer said that he doesn't. I told him that I couldn't help him. Goofer also called me a week later in a panic because the final project was due the next day, and he had only just realized it. He said, "You know, if someone just sent me their code, I could just change it around a little and submit it as my own." I figured he was trying to hint that I should acquiesce. I refused, obviously. And now for the actual idiocy on social media. At the beginning of the spring semester, I made a Facebook post about my new job at the university's IT department as a tech support representative, with a picture of my interview outfit. He messaged me and began the conversation with, "I miss you," and said he wished he could work the same job as I did. I told him there were openings available and he asked some more questions about it. At this point I was annoyed because he'd previously tried to get me to spend time with him by implying that he could put in a good word with me at the IT department, but it turned out he wasn't affiliated with them at all. He then segued into asking about the heels I was wearing and requested that I wear them specifically for him sometime. I ignored that and kept talking about my job. He again asked me to wear the heels for him, and I shut him down by reminding him that I had a husband. He went on to whine about how he doesn't have a girlfriend. I sort of got the impression that he was hinting that I should date him or something. He didn't come across as intelligent.  Was being Facebook friends with Goofer a bad idea? Probably, but despite him describing the two of us as "friends," he only spoke to me if he wanted me to do something for him, such as giving him the homework or indulging his foot fetish, and he never posted anything on his wall, so his presence on my friends list didn't really affect me. However, the events that transpired today make me glad I was Facebook friends with him. While looking at my news feed, I noticed that a girl posted on Goofer's Facebook. I want to call her something like Goofher, or Goofgirl, but I'm just going to christen her Lindsay, because that's her name. Lindsay's post was one of those meme-y Valentine's Day e-cards with a picture of Dumbledore with the caption, "I Dumble-adore you," or something. She signed the post with, "Happy 6 months, baby! I love you." It was less than a month ago that Goofer told me that he did not have a girlfriend and wanted one. He didn't have a relationship status shown on his profile, so I assumed he was single. Before I had thought Goofer was a harmless but pervy idiot. Now I was loving furious. I debated the idea with myself and my husband for a while, and finally decided to contact Lindsay. In the meantime, I went back to Goofer's page, and saw that Lindsay's post had disappeared from his wall. I friended her and she accepted almost immediately, and I asked her if she and Goofer were dating, and if the relationship was monogamous. She replied in the affirmative to both. I explained to her the situation: that while they were together, Goofer had flirted with me, attempted to get me to indulge his foot fetish, and denied having a girlfriend. Lindsay reacted very well. She thanked me for telling her and explained that she figured Goofer would do this eventually. He wanted to keep their relationship a secret and wouldn't let her log onto his account. She seemed almost resigned. I felt awful for her. She again sincerely thanked me for telling her. Then, of course, Goofer started messaging me. What followed was a conversation that made me want to bang my head against my computer. Goofer blamed me for telling Lindsay what he'd done while simultaneously denying any wrongdoing. He claimed that a foot fetish wasn't sexual and that it was my fault for not telling him that foot fetishes were sexual (even though we'd had that exact conversation about the theory that the signals for feet and genitals are located in the same area of the brain). I asked why he'd explicitly told me that he didn't have a girlfriend, and he said he had to hide his relationship with Lindsay from his parents. He didn't address why he felt the need to lie to me when I don't even know his parents. He went on to insist that since he never "got with another girl" it wasn't "technically cheating."   Goofer was blowing my mind with this poo poo. I pointed out that if he hadn't cheated or tried to cheat, he shouldn't have a problem with Lindsay knowing exactly what he'd done. I told him that he was going to have a hard time with life if he continued to behave in this manner (to which he responded "I already do"), and he was fooling himself if he thought asking married women to titillate him with high heels while in a relationship wouldn't get him into any hot water. He tried to use his depression, anxiety, and the fact that he'd been bullied in the past as excuses. Throughout the conversation, he repeatedly asked if we could still be friends and if he was in trouble, which lends credence to my theory that he might have an intellectual disability. Finally, Goofer said, "The damage is done. Can we still be friends?" and I went off on him and told him how I really thought of him, that he was creepy and I didn't appreciate him trying to get me to commit academic dishonesty. There was nothing I could do to get through to Goofer, so I blocked him. An hour later, Lindsay made a status suggesting that she and Goofer broke up. Moral of the story: be really loving careful with your Facebook settings, I guess. Clochette has a new favorite as of 23:28 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
bit late for the party, but here's a healthy helping of idiots on social media relating to outspoken internet asexuals plenty more on it under different tags, but I didn't want to just link the main page because there's also a whole lot of posts about fandoms and otherkin (which is good material in its own right, but not related)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Clochette posted:I have an Idiots on Social Media story for you fine folks today. E/N is over there --->
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Clochette posted:I have an Idiots on Social Media story for you fine folks today. Must say we stayed up here in the UK to watch it but my husband went to bed when that woman started banging on about black lives. Yeah, she's a real joke!!! Yes she is racist, black piece of garbage who wears a wig blonde hair. She must be pissed that she's not white, we're not we don't want her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
FlyinPingu posted:bit late for the party, but here's a healthy helping of idiots on social media relating to outspoken internet asexuals Even though I'm sympathetic to the asexual identity for reasons another poster mentioned relating to teenager identities (in high school I identified as 'androgynous' because I didn't feel like traditional masculinity fit me, and then later discovered feminism and realized I could be a dude who wasn't macho or whatever) that tag is absolutely brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Clochette posted:I have an Idiots on Social Media story for you fine folks today. Why did you continue interacting with, let alone humoring, this creepy (and possibly disabled) guy? Especially once the foot thing came up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:E/N is over there ---> Don't send her away. I hear she has sexy feet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Scratch-O posted:Why did you continue interacting with, let alone humoring, this creepy (and possibly disabled) guy? Especially once the foot thing came up. He didn't bother me all that frequently and stopped attending class towards the end of the semester, so he was more of a funny annoyance than anything until I found out about his girlfriend. Krispy Kareem posted:Don't send her away. The thing is... not really. I didn't have my toes painted or anything and my flip-flops were kind of dirty. Now I'm worried that I was in a Peggy Hill-esque situation where the guys are attracted to ugly feet. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
FlyinPingu posted:bit late for the party, but here's a healthy helping of idiots on social media relating to outspoken internet asexuals That person actually seems like an rear end in a top hat. People they've got under that tag are talking about things like corrective rape and sexual harassment, marriages not being legal due to non-consummation, and being told throughout their life even by professionals that there's something wrong or broken with them or their bodies. So they've chosen to mock them. The first post is even someone saying that while asexual people may not face the same levels as LGBT people, there are still issues. What an idiot, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:41
|
|