970
Trump State Department official has called for mass sterilization of ‘low-IQ trash’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
970 points (98.9% liked)
politics
23703 readers
2526 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here's the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called "eugenics" by opponents without much recourse. What's the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, "it's not eugenics, it's actually ," or is the better move to say "not all eugenics is bad" (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I'm stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say "#notalleugenics."
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (
DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics -- I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you're essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don't necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I'm open to hearing what you have to say.(Regarding sickle-cell -- people who have it generally say it's a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it's just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I'll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
Fascists will call anything by any name if they think it gives them an advantage. So do you want to limit your ability to do the right thing, just to avoid that unavoidable risk?
When you say 'right' it sounds like it's a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I'm talking about, or that it's somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
I think the word is tainted beyond usability. I have a visceral negative reaction to someone promoting eugenics.
I say just drop the word and say what you really mean. Something like- I support increased prenatal screenings and new technologies like CRISPR to reduce the suffering of humanity.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says "isn't that eugenics?" Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.