Eugenics isn't dead—it's thriving in tech
Eugenics isn't dead—it's thriving in tech
www.motherjones.com Eugenics isn't dead—it's thriving in tech
A new book takes on the throughline from the rise of 20th-century eugenics to Silicon Valley.
You're viewing a single thread.
21 comments
-
The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don't include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.
Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren't "tech". This article is paranoia and click-bait.
-
Musk and thiel, two of the worlds richest men who exclusively made their wealth in tech companies, aren't tech related?
-
There are about 9,600,000 people in the US tech industry and this article never even mentions 9,599,998 of them. Even if Musk and Thiel support eugenics (and that's if) they're just talking about it as individuals, not as people who run tech companies associated with eugenics in any way. Musk is an immigrant and Thiel is gay, so you might as well say that eugenics is thriving in the immigrant community and the gay community.
-
Musky has his grubby hands in so many areas of tech that his individual views are no longer individual. He’s a major player in the space scene right now. His exploding cars are so invasive that some people I know refer to any EV as a ‘tesla’. He also has his hand so far up Trumps arsehole that he can tickle his tonsils from behind. I think it might be important to know if this guy has dangerous views on eugenics.
-
Not to mention his following, however shallow, is MASSIVE in the tech sphere, especially among leadership roles. A lot of less informed people automatically lend him at least some amount of credence because he's wealthy, and we've been told that wealth is success.
-
-
-
Wouldn't that be like calling Lee Walton a grocer?
-
-
It’s not an investigative article—it’s a discussion with an author teasing one aspect of her book. I assume the title was meant more as a description of the book than as a claim fully substantiated within this particular discussion about the book.
-
This is the kind of comment you have to reply to if you downvote
Mine, not so much, but would be nice to know why four people so far have hit the disagree button
-
I thought downvotes were gone, but apparently it is just me 😐 This article is problematic.
-
It might be your instance. I know the IKEA shark instance disabled downvotes so if I browse 196, for example, I only see downvotes from other users on my own instance.
-
-
Because being rational and reading the article ruins the rage bait
-
Maybe a lack of capability for nuance?:
Elon runs a nazi bar… someone’s saying Elon isn’t a eugenicist… Nazis are bad and so are eugenicists… if Elon is bad then why say Elon is not
<any kind of bad thing>
? down vote!
-
-
-
Mother Jones has about as much journalistic integrity as Salon… aka there is none
-
21 comments