The Left is composed of the Anti-Civilization wing and the Technocratic wing. The Anti-civilization wing is more powerful than the technocratic wing, so it got its way on both eugenics and gay rights.
One of the main reasons for the failure of eugenics was the horror of the Third Reich, in which eugenics was openly preached as a virtue and practiced in terrible way.
However, these days the Technocratic wing has been successfully co-opting the Anti-Civilization wing, e.g., using gay rights to promote child selling under the name "surrogacy", using transgenderism to promote transhumanism.
I don't believe that transgenderism is being used to promote transhumanism. I think those are two very different movements, pushed by different people.
It's also notable that the woke identity group pushes that went against transhumanism, e.g., the complaint by parts the of deaf community that hearing implants would lead to "cultural genocide", utterly failed.
What the technocrats ultimately want is to create a system where by kids are birthed via surrogacy, at least until they can create artificial wombs, are moved to full-time nurseries, then pre-school, then public school while living in group homes. All without any involvement of biological parents.
There might be another way. We could transition to a society with more tightly knit communities and allow people to discriminate. You could stipulate that no gay pride parades would be allowed in your neighborhood. Over time, I think most people would actually choose not to allow gays.
Libertarianism would put them “back in their place” in the sense that any state privilege would disappear and freedom of association would be restored.
> The fact the one thing they fear is ‘fascism’ makes me desperately want it.
Becoming a "fascist" won't help. The people we're fighting would don't care what color shirt their enforcers wear they'd be perfectly happy to call themselves "fascists" if it was tactically useful to do so.
It's just not true that the Right was opposed to eugenics. Certain factions of the Right were, true, but certain factions of the Left were too. Central economic planning is a much better example of something the Left was all-in on and lost. Given how bad that turned out, I doubt trans will be much of a hiccup.
I don't think you understand this. It is not Left vs RIght. It is Progessive vs Conservative. The former is on the side of Progress. Progress is the process though which history moves from the past through the present and into the future. When there is an issue under contention, eventually it is resolved. The resolution become defined as progressive *after* the fact. Take eugenics. It was very much a progressive cause at the time it was being debated. But today it is seen as rightwing because it was adopted by the Nazis. Another example is postmodernism. First embraced by progressives, it was a complete failure and today is practiced by the right (e.g. Karl Rove's bit about the Reality-Based community). It hasn't yet been totally reassigned to the right (give it time).
Contemporary progessives do get it right some of the time (you would figure 50-50.
Did you read the post, or did you not understand it?
How is being in favor of eugenics in the 1920's (after which your ideas were implemented by the Nazis) being the good guys? Had Hitler won the war, then Nazism would be "Progressive". He lost and so the powers that defeated him, the Democratic West and Communist East represented Progress.
There were many Soviet fellow travelers among American Progressives. Communism turned out to be the wrong way to go. So here too many people who saw themselves as progressive were on the bad side just as an earlier generation of progressives had been wrt to eugenics. Not to mention the racist progressivism espoused by Woodrow Wilson.
So where are you getting this progressive = good guys thing?
"Progressives" are not the good guys. Calling yourself a "Progressive" is infantile for the same reason that calling yourself "the good guys" is infantile.
As I understand it, the left is dropping the trans surgery thing because a majority of people on the left think it's bad policy. Sure, liberals are more likely to be live and let live than Republicans who prefer more government control of behaviour they don't approve of, but that doesn't mean they are in favour of trans surgery on minors. At least, that's what happened in my country where the Cass Report represents the opinions of mainstream liberals and the incoming left-wing government suspended trans surgery on minors as a result. Same deal with eugenics and paedophilia where a tiny minority of freaks were defeated by the mainstream (left and right).
I wasn't sure what you meant when you said that desegregation might be wrong though. Do you think desegregation might be wrong? Do you have arguments to support your position?
Jaja! The left lost its main bet in the XX century: communism. So nothing inevitable in their victory.
I’m a yokel now . A deplorable!
Why couldn’t the left have won on eugenics, but lost on gay rights?
The Left is composed of the Anti-Civilization wing and the Technocratic wing. The Anti-civilization wing is more powerful than the technocratic wing, so it got its way on both eugenics and gay rights.
One of the main reasons for the failure of eugenics was the horror of the Third Reich, in which eugenics was openly preached as a virtue and practiced in terrible way.
However, these days the Technocratic wing has been successfully co-opting the Anti-Civilization wing, e.g., using gay rights to promote child selling under the name "surrogacy", using transgenderism to promote transhumanism.
I don't believe that transgenderism is being used to promote transhumanism. I think those are two very different movements, pushed by different people.
There's a great deal of overlap.
It's also notable that the woke identity group pushes that went against transhumanism, e.g., the complaint by parts the of deaf community that hearing implants would lead to "cultural genocide", utterly failed.
What the technocrats ultimately want is to create a system where by kids are birthed via surrogacy, at least until they can create artificial wombs, are moved to full-time nurseries, then pre-school, then public school while living in group homes. All without any involvement of biological parents.
There might be another way. We could transition to a society with more tightly knit communities and allow people to discriminate. You could stipulate that no gay pride parades would be allowed in your neighborhood. Over time, I think most people would actually choose not to allow gays.
It’s a shame it will take many decades to rebuild what they have desecrated and destroyed.
Libertarianism would put them “back in their place” in the sense that any state privilege would disappear and freedom of association would be restored.
What place is that?
You sound secretly gay.
No straight man is that obsessed with gay people.
Classic gay propaganda tactic.
'Anybody against us is secretly gay themselves'.
Yeah, basically. Being against gay people is a fucking bizarre obsession. There is no rational reason to be against gay people, so....
> The fact the one thing they fear is ‘fascism’ makes me desperately want it.
Becoming a "fascist" won't help. The people we're fighting would don't care what color shirt their enforcers wear they'd be perfectly happy to call themselves "fascists" if it was tactically useful to do so.
Eugenics is possibly worse. Hint: consider the kind of bureaucracy that would inevitably end up implementing it.
Bureaucracy prior to WW2 was at least oriented towards the biologically healthy rather than the biologically sick.
I believe it would create a better world.
All bureaucracy is subject to Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
I don’t believe so. I believe this is a cultural disease.
And I don’t think it would be as bureaucratic as you think.
Have you actually read anything about bureaucracy from the period? Hint: the bureaucracy went bad long before it went woke.
https://archive.is/fJck
Who or what represented the anti-civilization wing on the Left during the era of eugenics?
Margaret Mead and her ilk, e.g. Ruth Benedict and Franz Boaz.
Stephen Jay Gould is a latter day example.
It's just not true that the Right was opposed to eugenics. Certain factions of the Right were, true, but certain factions of the Left were too. Central economic planning is a much better example of something the Left was all-in on and lost. Given how bad that turned out, I doubt trans will be much of a hiccup.
I don't think you understand this. It is not Left vs RIght. It is Progessive vs Conservative. The former is on the side of Progress. Progress is the process though which history moves from the past through the present and into the future. When there is an issue under contention, eventually it is resolved. The resolution become defined as progressive *after* the fact. Take eugenics. It was very much a progressive cause at the time it was being debated. But today it is seen as rightwing because it was adopted by the Nazis. Another example is postmodernism. First embraced by progressives, it was a complete failure and today is practiced by the right (e.g. Karl Rove's bit about the Reality-Based community). It hasn't yet been totally reassigned to the right (give it time).
Contemporary progessives do get it right some of the time (you would figure 50-50.
Calling yourself a "progressive" is a ridiculously self-congratulatory term. It's like calling yourself "the good guys." It's infantile.
Did you read the post, or did you not understand it?
How is being in favor of eugenics in the 1920's (after which your ideas were implemented by the Nazis) being the good guys? Had Hitler won the war, then Nazism would be "Progressive". He lost and so the powers that defeated him, the Democratic West and Communist East represented Progress.
There were many Soviet fellow travelers among American Progressives. Communism turned out to be the wrong way to go. So here too many people who saw themselves as progressive were on the bad side just as an earlier generation of progressives had been wrt to eugenics. Not to mention the racist progressivism espoused by Woodrow Wilson.
So where are you getting this progressive = good guys thing?
"Progressives" are not the good guys. Calling yourself a "Progressive" is infantile for the same reason that calling yourself "the good guys" is infantile.
As I understand it, the left is dropping the trans surgery thing because a majority of people on the left think it's bad policy. Sure, liberals are more likely to be live and let live than Republicans who prefer more government control of behaviour they don't approve of, but that doesn't mean they are in favour of trans surgery on minors. At least, that's what happened in my country where the Cass Report represents the opinions of mainstream liberals and the incoming left-wing government suspended trans surgery on minors as a result. Same deal with eugenics and paedophilia where a tiny minority of freaks were defeated by the mainstream (left and right).
I wasn't sure what you meant when you said that desegregation might be wrong though. Do you think desegregation might be wrong? Do you have arguments to support your position?
I just subscribed; this is very wise commentary
Thank you Dan!