We’re going straight to eugenics in under a month? Jesus fuck.
ETA: Also, you chucklefucks, I already got fixed years ago because of the horrific state of affairs in the world. I find it morally reprehensible to bring children into this world given what we know about climate change alone. Political shifts are just icing.
They’re just so eager to pull their masks off, like. Like, there is only so much algorithm manipulation can do to obscure observable reality from their audience.
"Abstract - The first negative eugenic measure passed by the Hitler regime in July 1933 was the forced sterilization law, which primarily targeted neuropsychiatric patients with “feeble mindedness,” schizophrenia, and epilepsy. Also included were Huntington’s chorea, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism, along with other congenital defects.” - https://academic.oup.com/book/40410/chapter-abstract/347295636
Yeah, I paused on that one. It shouldn’t be forced, but it should be encouraged. No loving parent would want to give that to a child and the odds are just so high.
Didn’t say that I did. But most folks with it know how awful and don’t wish it on their children. Tell me, how many folks have you worked with who have/had HD?
I’m not speaking out my arse here.
Let me be clear, I think that the including of HD in this list is to muddy the waters. This is not a genuine concern.
assumes smart people breed smart kids and stupid people breed stupid kids
From a “nature + nurture” point of view in a primitive world, it can be argued that people who strike the combo, are “more likely” to both pass on their own genetic predisposition, and be “more prepared” to raise their kids up to a similar standard.
In a modern world though, I’d still rather have professional teachers take care of the nurture part, and shut up about nature at least until someone can unequivocally point to the “smartness genes”… at which point I’d ask for a GMO cat with a 200 IQ, yay!
Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆
And technically having an IQ that’s 2 or more standard deviations outside the norm makes you neurodivergent, by some definitions of the word. That means everyone who can get into Mensa can be considered neurodivergent by definition.
Heh, that’s a good take on Mensa. IQ tests at the higher difficulty questions, add some aspect of “lateral thinking” to spot a pattern, which is another way of saying “thinking out of the box”, or a type of neurodivergence.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
We’re going straight to eugenics in under a month? Jesus fuck.
ETA: Also, you chucklefucks, I already got fixed years ago because of the horrific state of affairs in the world. I find it morally reprehensible to bring children into this world given what we know about climate change alone. Political shifts are just icing.
How long until the return of phrenology?
At this rate?
Probably next Tuesday.
Not the type of speed run I was hoping for :-/
Destroy the USA any% run
First you need the baseball bat phase … where they beat each other over the head to produce enough bumps so that the phrenologists can analyze them.
No, altering the personality by adding bumps is retrophrenology.
They’re just so eager to pull their masks off, like. Like, there is only so much algorithm manipulation can do to obscure observable reality from their audience.
They tried to rig the game but you can’t fake influence
Or fake social security checks going through when some idiot breaks the COBOL code that runs federal payments system.
So… Trump voters?
They could start with Trump and Musk.
Too late, the bastards have already bred.
Ah, the White Nationalism to Eugenics to Nazism pipeline is alive and well, it seems.
Less of a pipeline and more of… a fetid pool of shit
"Abstract - The first negative eugenic measure passed by the Hitler regime in July 1933 was the forced sterilization law, which primarily targeted neuropsychiatric patients with “feeble mindedness,” schizophrenia, and epilepsy. Also included were Huntington’s chorea, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism, along with other congenital defects.” - https://academic.oup.com/book/40410/chapter-abstract/347295636
I know of no one who has Huntingtons who want to have kids…
Yeah, I paused on that one. It shouldn’t be forced, but it should be encouraged. No loving parent would want to give that to a child and the odds are just so high.
“Parents face choice of having children with Huntington’s Disease” - https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/parents-face-choice-of-having-children-with-huntingtons-disease/
You don’t get to make that choice.
Didn’t say that I did. But most folks with it know how awful and don’t wish it on their children. Tell me, how many folks have you worked with who have/had HD?
I’m not speaking out my arse here.
Let me be clear, I think that the including of HD in this list is to muddy the waters. This is not a genuine concern.
This is about control and eugenics.
We’ll start with whoever’s behind the resolute desk
Not surprised, but didn’t expect to see this quite this early into the Trump regime.
https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2020/11/04/americas-forgotten-history-of-forced-sterilization/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations
Why?
Dingledorf assumes smart people breed smart kids and stupid people breed stupid kids?
Title of article should be “Stupid Person makes Stupid Assumptions”
“Low IQ Person Requests Sterilisation”
More like “known nazi repeats ancient nazi talking points about eugenics”
From a “nature + nurture” point of view in a primitive world, it can be argued that people who strike the combo, are “more likely” to both pass on their own genetic predisposition, and be “more prepared” to raise their kids up to a similar standard.
In a modern world though, I’d still rather have professional teachers take care of the nurture part, and shut up about nature at least until someone can unequivocally point to the “smartness genes”… at which point I’d ask for a GMO cat with a 200 IQ, yay!
Further, assuming intelligence is measurable by an IQ test.
Arguably… kind of, but never with a single number.
From a multidimensional intersectional hypothesis of intelligence point of view, the “IQ” should be a series of several hundred measurements; a single number is meaningless. Even then, we still lack a bottom-up theory of intelligence, so all tests are just sociological comparisons as related to a population at a given moment in time.
There are indications that some “basic capability for developing problem solving skills” may exist, but we’re nowhere close to even defining it, much less measuring it.
Somewhat ironically, as we’ve developed AI systems… the only way to train them, has been to use neural networks and a “spray and pray” approach with extra steps, making them into 99% black boxes… so now we can “reproduce some behaviors associated with intelligence”, without being that much closer to understanding it 😆
I take it he’s at the front of the queue.
I wonder how far they would walk that comment back when they learn how common high intelligence is among people who are neurodivergent.
The real reason they said high IQ probably lies in the fact that it’s an incredibly biased test, with Black and Hispanic students performing worse compared to White and Asian students
And technically having an IQ that’s 2 or more standard deviations outside the norm makes you neurodivergent, by some definitions of the word. That means everyone who can get into Mensa can be considered neurodivergent by definition.
Heh, that’s a good take on Mensa. IQ tests at the higher difficulty questions, add some aspect of “lateral thinking” to spot a pattern, which is another way of saying “thinking out of the box”, or a type of neurodivergence.
But then who’ll vote them back in based on vague promises to fix the price of eggs and absolutely no track record of helping ordinary people?
Unless…
Exactly.
they’re really just spitballing genocide huh
It’s time for me* to get my home a 12 gauge
Oh boy.