You can pick your weaponized instrument of choice… we’ll write songs about marxism and theory in the 20th century.
5 Likes
Some erotic goal is an accurate description of all bands. It took less than four months after forming my band in highschool before every one of us was in our first real relationship. Just as math is a manipulation of symbols that has evolved to model things in the real world, music is a manipulation of sounds that has evolved to get us laid.
Are those… song lyrics?!?
5 Likes
5 Likes
Welp! I think we found our lead singer/lyricist!!! Welcome to Some Erotic Goal!
1 Like
I love that song.
1 Like
A little disappointed not to see “The Marxists over at bOINGbOING” or at least The Frankfurt School in this bathroom reader excerpt on Neatorama: The Paranoids Field Guide to Secret Societies, but alas the narrative hasn’t reached the required fever pitch…yet.
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure it’s because the real conspirators would never let themselves be put on such a list.
3 Likes
Their consciousness of ‘class’ is inversely proportionate to the length of time the ‘party’ has been ongoing.
1 Like
“Because my intersectionality…is greater than yours”?
3 Likes
A bit like reading Nietsche and then inventing the term ‘Untermensch’ to bolster your partial and idiotic interpretation? Except that eugenics is already bullshit.
Wow, did you spy on me in third year? (to be fair, I never used the term ‘untermensch’).
Don’t misunderstand me, I wasn’t aiming a shot at you (or anyone in the thread). It’s just that turning the supposedly positive concept of ‘eugenics’ (creating better, healthier, morally superior people through good breeding) around to an attack on the unmentioned ‘inferior’ through ‘dysgenics’ is awfully similar to taking the theory of the ‘Uebermensch’, the heroic ideal human, and deciding to crudely plaster on its opposite (the ‘untermensch’ of Nazi ideology).
Yeah, yeah, someone will pipe up about Godwins blah blah - but we’re talking about negative eugenics. If not then, when?
1 Like
I didn’t expect you were aiming at me, but you happened to hit the bullseye!
And yes, if any discussion can safely mention the Nazi’s, I would think it would be a discussion of Eugenics.
2 Likes
I didn’t know that anyone really took eugenics to be either serious or positive anymore. Anyone who wasn’t a crackpot or highly misinformed?
Not what I meant - I saw the ambiguity but didn’t correct it for brevity. By ‘positive’ I mean ‘focussed on positive outcomes’ - regardless of whether you think it is misinformed, misguided, or just plain wrong, eugenics is focussed upon the improvement of your own group, however that group or ‘improvement’ is defined. That it has become associated with the practice of anti-dysgenic activity rather than positive eugenic activity is by-the-by. Dysgenics, on the other hand, is conceptually limited to the perceived inherent shortcomings of ‘The Other’. Basically anyone who uses is pitching to be more reprehensible than you-know-who…
1 Like
My question was who takes eugenics seriously anymore, positive or negative?
1 Like
We were talking about Richard Lynn, from @jerwin, post 452 (I think). He appears to be alive and to think the Eugenics is a tip-top idea (or at least that we ought to avoid “Dysgenics”).
Ah… yeah. No. Eugenics = pseudoscience, at best.
Compulsory sterilization is still an issue.
I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction between eugenics and dysgenics. Eugenics is basically the idea of applying animal husbandry techniques to humans. Animal breeders basically breed for the characteristics they want by making sure that only breeding that features those characteristics occurs. Breeding for and breeding against are inseparable.
The big conceptual failure of eugenics is that in animal husbandry, we deliberately control the reproduction of animals, to improve them in terms of human interests, which are not those of the animals. Animals have their own ideas about reproduction, and breed for good offspring by their standards, not ours. Humans already control their own reproduction. Any eugenics program would mean controlling reproduction for the interests of some central authority, against the interests of humanity in general; there’s no way it could be anything but utterly authoritarian.
6 Likes
