Yeah… so, recognizing that population competition is one of the ways that dominance can be exerted, China choosing to limit birth rates of the most populous ethnicity, which happens to be the dominant one, would be the opposite of eugenics used for reinforcing dominance. It’s actually an incredible defense of China because it shows that not only are they nothing like the West, the West can’t even conceive of what would motivate the dominant people to restrict their own privileges to reverse historical trends caused by dominance of their forebears.
You’ve got to be kidding comparing the One Child Policy of the dominant ethnic group, which the government itself was predominately composed of, and literal genocide and cultural genocide of white supremacists against the people they violently colonized.
That doesn’t make it not definitionally eugenics. It is definitionally eugenics. I have trouble dancing around this topic because I CAN understand the benefits of limiting population growth, and I even understand what you’re saying about “dominant ethnic groups”.
But at the end of the day, eugenics is eugenics is eugenics. Feel free to make an argument about how this is morally acceptable eugenics. It’s still eugenics.
Edit: and no, you don’t get to decide what is an “incredible defense of China”. I do. The neutral party leftist who hates America and is interested in Chinese policies but is also not stupid enough to fall into a new propaganda sinkhole to cope with the fact that I was propagandized my whole life. This is a bad defense of China.
You people are determined to reduce every single word used to describe a crime against humanity to meaninglessness, aren’t you? You did it first with genocide (genocide is now when you implement jobs training programs and enshrine cultural protections into law, but you do it while being Asian and not capitalist) and it seems like you’re hellbent on doing it with eugenics too
Lmfao “it’s not eugenics to have specific breeding programs which specifically limit specific ethnic backgrounds” 😭 yeah dude I’m totally being reductive and you’re not just defending literal eugenics by using mental gymnastics.
You are the one being reductive.
edit: “i love licking boots and believe all the propaganda of other governments because america government is the only bad one!!! I have no ability to read between lines and critically analyze when human rights violations are taking place!! But none of that matters because what about America??? What about America??”
No matter how many times you compare antonyms nonsensically, it won’t change that eugenics is eugenics.
You conveniently worded it as “not breeding is a breeding program”, which is intellectually dishonest and dances around reality. Nice.
So no, “not breeding” is not a breeding program. Government mandated restrictions on who can breed and how much is a breeding program.
Try not to do that bullshit again, I’m not stupid, in fact it seems I’m a million times smarter than you if that’s the best you got. Why don’t you try being honest?
Sure, it’s totally not a breeding program. It just controls several key factors about who is allowed to breed and how much and when. It’s not a breeding program! It’s a “selective” breeding program, which is somehow better.
“China did eugenics” “These other places did eugenics, too, though”
This is not a good defense of China. Lmfao.
Yeah… so, recognizing that population competition is one of the ways that dominance can be exerted, China choosing to limit birth rates of the most populous ethnicity, which happens to be the dominant one, would be the opposite of eugenics used for reinforcing dominance. It’s actually an incredible defense of China because it shows that not only are they nothing like the West, the West can’t even conceive of what would motivate the dominant people to restrict their own privileges to reverse historical trends caused by dominance of their forebears.
You’ve got to be kidding comparing the One Child Policy of the dominant ethnic group, which the government itself was predominately composed of, and literal genocide and cultural genocide of white supremacists against the people they violently colonized.
That doesn’t make it not definitionally eugenics. It is definitionally eugenics. I have trouble dancing around this topic because I CAN understand the benefits of limiting population growth, and I even understand what you’re saying about “dominant ethnic groups”.
But at the end of the day, eugenics is eugenics is eugenics. Feel free to make an argument about how this is morally acceptable eugenics. It’s still eugenics.
Edit: and no, you don’t get to decide what is an “incredible defense of China”. I do. The neutral party leftist who hates America and is interested in Chinese policies but is also not stupid enough to fall into a new propaganda sinkhole to cope with the fact that I was propagandized my whole life. This is a bad defense of China.
You people are determined to reduce every single word used to describe a crime against humanity to meaninglessness, aren’t you? You did it first with genocide (genocide is now when you implement jobs training programs and enshrine cultural protections into law, but you do it while being Asian and not capitalist) and it seems like you’re hellbent on doing it with eugenics too
Lmfao “it’s not eugenics to have specific breeding programs which specifically limit specific ethnic backgrounds” 😭 yeah dude I’m totally being reductive and you’re not just defending literal eugenics by using mental gymnastics.
You are the one being reductive.
edit: “i love licking boots and believe all the propaganda of other governments because america government is the only bad one!!! I have no ability to read between lines and critically analyze when human rights violations are taking place!! But none of that matters because what about America??? What about America??”
Yup, there you go doing it again. War is peace, ignorance is strength, not breeding is a breeding program
No matter how many times you compare antonyms nonsensically, it won’t change that eugenics is eugenics.
You conveniently worded it as “not breeding is a breeding program”, which is intellectually dishonest and dances around reality. Nice.
So no, “not breeding” is not a breeding program. Government mandated restrictions on who can breed and how much is a breeding program.
Try not to do that bullshit again, I’m not stupid, in fact it seems I’m a million times smarter than you if that’s the best you got. Why don’t you try being honest?
Sure, it’s totally not a breeding program. It just controls several key factors about who is allowed to breed and how much and when. It’s not a breeding program! It’s a “selective” breeding program, which is somehow better.
Nice.
Get a job