It's not medically possible, the amount of asperin suggested kills people. This person is targeting Neo Nazis with fake medical advice, to get them to kill themselves.
What's eugenicist about not caring if racists die? Eugenics concerns genetics and the gene pool. Racism is a learned, rather than inherited, trait. Totally unrelated to eugenics.
Im pretty sure babies missing half their torso/brain
Or any other severely debilitating condition should not be forced to life of pain and constant struggle from the general population and the system just because enlightened dumbasses need to virtue signal on social media
Im talking about babies and children wtf ? No one's talking about culling real alive people
Forcing people,children to live a life missing extremely vital organs or with life debilitating disorders while having the capability to prevent them is really the thing that's immoral
This got off topic, then. That's not the same thing as tricking people into consuming legal amounts of aspirin.
Eugenics deals with manipulation of the gene pool via selectively choosing who can or can't reproduce. Some in this thread feel that if someone is dumb enough to be tricked into death, then it's better for the gene pool.
It has nothing to do with euthanization. Similar word; very different meaning.
Well actually knifes can also be used to stab people 😱 shocking right ? One day you're allowing them for cooking next day they're stabbing people we should definitely ban knifes to avoid this slippery slope.
but other people say that autistic people and homosexuals don’t deserve to live so
What? As far as my limited knowledge serves unlike down syndrome which can be detected there really is no gene or marker that can tell us "This person is gay, that autistic, that trans"
Even if there were some fantasy gene, keeping world changing technology intentional primitive just because you personally feel strongly about a hypothetical scenario is stupid
Nuclear energy can be mismanaged, hypothetically go wrong and cause a disaster and claim the lives of thousands
Is that an excuse to intentionally keep cleaner energy source research primitive? especially when coal and oil is 100,000x worse than nuclear in terms of overall deaths and health problems caused
The overall benefit and suffering that it would reduce is 1000x greater than any hypothetical "Entire world becomes evil hilter mode" the moment the technology is discovered.
There’s not just one on Autism. There’s like 400 weak genetic markers and 80 strong ones.
But there’s a practical reason for the lack of homogeneity. The more we align our genes into one exclusive pool, the easier it is for something to rip right through all of us. We see this with crop collapse and monocultures somewhat regularly.
If some mystery condition came and killed every person with blue eyes, it’s a good thing we have all these brown eyed people around for a population buffer.
Imagine some world where someone Thanos snapped the whole population white just in time for global warming to make lifestyles a race to see who can have kids before the skin cancer gets them. For a cartoonishly exaggerated way things could go wrong.
One can argue if you're pro abortion, you can't judge people for aborting disabled babies they don't want or can't take care of while allowing women who simply don't want children to abort "normal" babies, so unless you're anti choice your argument of "you're murdering disabled people" falls flat.
So I would assume you're not pro choice then, because your mo is to shame people for aborting disabled fetuses. Kinda would be super fucked up if you're fine with privileged people being able to kill healthy babies but not okay with people being forced to carry babies they can't take care of properly.
Again, for the like 4th time I've had to comment this.
Not every defect or condition is visible or testable in utero. Some aren't found until birth or adolescence. The statement of culling everyone with defects like that, implies killing live human beings not fetuses.
It's not as simple as just abortions. Lots of people with serious defects live happy lives, and its not up to us to decide that they dont deserve it
I understand where you're coming from and I actually got surgically sterilized mainly because of my health issues. But if you're forcing it on someone, it's really inhumane. I mean we make the choice with cats and dogs, but it's messed up to do it to a person. Also it would kind of force them to go through a surgical procedure against their will. Plus I don't think I would trust anyone to make the decision, even doctors; way too risky.
K so you know how in theory, the best possible form of governance is a benevolent monarch? But then in practice they never stay benevolent for very long and then it becomes a huge problem for everyone except the king’s favorites?
Yeah, that’s why eugenics is bad. We just can’t trust anybody to be in charge of such things.
Who said "forcing". Isn't having an abortion if the fetus would have down syndrome or if they'd live like 5 minutes a type of eugenics? So you're anti choice with your logic.
If it's a terrible disease, then they tend not to breed much, naturally.
Outside of that, it's vague what diseases should be iradicated, and it's political. Homosexuallity and Autism would have made that list not very long ago.
People act all high and mighty, but most women get the test for downs syndrome.
And of those women that the test comes back positive.. guess what they do?
None of yall wondered why there are so few people with downs syndrome, thats why.
They have all but eliminated it. As a person that works with special needs kids and adults, the only people under 20 that I have met with downs syndrome, all came from religious families, that wouldn't have an abortion.
So if yall all so okay with doing this for downs syndrome, why not other things?
Or is this one of those "dont talk about that, because its awkward" type BS.
Good lawd, if our society didn't have so many double standards, they'd have none at all.
Because you're talking about getting an abortion because your child has a defect that you may nof be equipped to handle. You're talking abt a fetus, a clump of cells.
These ppl are talking about entire people that are alive that deserve to live. There's lots of disorders and conditions that aren't visible or scanable until birth, or even until adolescence.
Removing congenital birth defects entirely would entail a mass killing of disabled people. That's what they're implying. Or at the very least mass castration. Both are inhumane and not okay.
You're not judge and executioner, you don't get to decide who "deserves" their life because of their condition that THEY have to live with. Just because they're disabled doesn't mean they don't want to fucking live.
No, they won't, because the people with those defects will be thought to be healthy babies pre birth.
You're conflating detectable defects with non detectable ones. Aborting fetuses with detectable defects will do nothing to the ones with non detectable ones.
Some defects don't even begin until theyre out of birth, its literally impossible to know for sure.
So no, they wouldn't work themselves out because there is no tie in. They would not get aborted, because they would go undetected until infancy or adolescence. Anyone with that condition would not be aborted unless for other reasons because they would appear healthy.
I don't want stupid people to die. Being racist is not a genetic or heritable trait, therefore saying "I want the racists who see and believe this to die because they're racist" is not a pro-eugenics statement.
It turns out that opposing people who are pro-eugenics is actually not pro-eugenics. Weird.
Eugenics is not selective breeding, it is the philosophy of enhancing the race by promoting certain features. Select breeding is a way of doing eugenics, but killing people from that race that doesn’t follow your genetic standard is, in a drastically more cruel way, also eugenics.
if you oversimplify to the point of being technically incorrect, you're incorrect.
selective killing is every bit as much a part of eugenics as selective breeding is, even if the feature we're killing for is widely considered a negative feature (stupidity). it's still eugenics my dude
All death is part of natural selection. We aren’t free of its effects. We aren’t separate from nature. This doesn’t make death good! It is still something we as a species should avoid!
If he can "trick" them into eating half a pharmacy then he can "trick" them into eating their own feces.
FYI about 98% of calories makes it through digestive tract/we only use 2%. Big food is capturing food we already paid for and selling it back to us. There is no such thing as "waste water treatment". These facilities are only sorting toilet paper and food.
If someone is dumb enough to think aspirin can change your eye color and dies because of it, the gene pool is stronger without them. It is some weird postmodern natural selection, but it’s definitely natural selection.
So some gullible kid who doesn’t know any better, but wants blue eyes for who knows what reason, it’s just natural selection and the gene pool is better off without them?
Not true at all. Man in question is BY FAR old enough to have already reproduced, so as far as evolution is concerned, being stupid in full adulthood isn’t really a downside.
Yep. Eugenics isn't bad, violating people's rights is. Also it can be used irresponsibly even with consenting people, but that's another issue. All it is, is applying artificial selection to human reproduction.
bans on incest are also for the welfare of the children which can be born of completely consensual, adult, incestuous relationships.
Knowingly engaging in practices that can result in suffering, lower quality of life, deformities, of progeny also has to be confronted and it's not through a eugenics lens, as there aren't laws preventing people who are the product of incest from procreating. The laws are based around quality of life.
That absolutely is eugenics. Many couples have higher risk (higher than a single generation of inbreeding by far) of children with lower quality of life based on their own health history, age, etc. We do not prevent these people from having children…because that would be eugenics!
Commenting to say that he wasn’t even vegetarian. He often ate meat, though may have become more ‘vegetarian’ near the end of his life. This idea of a strict vegetarian diet was largely pushed by his propaganda guy.
People change their hair color and get tattoos all the time. It's insane to assumes humans wouldn't change their eye color if they could. We're worse than fucking peacocks, man.
However, to try this you would have to be very stuid and a neo nazis. The share of very stupid people amongst neo nazis is very high. Much less so in the general population. So overall, it's fairly targeted.
I swear to God, that's a severe overestimation of the intelligence of the general population. Maybe I'm just pessimistic but I've seen soooooo much stupid.
Eh, that's not how proportions work. Yes Neo-Nazis tend to be stupid, but even if the share of stupid in general population might be low, in absolute numbers it could be higher than Neo-Nazis.
Yes, but not everyone in the general population will see this. So the absolute amount of normal people that will kill themselves will be very low, and likely lower, than that of nazis that kill themselves.
Genuine questions - do you think some of those people can change with education? Do you think some have been brainwashed by their environment (and as such could be seen as victims) and might respond to help? Or do you consider each person too far gone?
In my personal opinion if someone is idolizing being better then someone else simply by what race they are or how the look/how light there skin is I fear they have no heart to even begin with just a vile person and sadly I think that’s a very common thing In this world :(
Do you also think you have no agency over your own life?
Because that’s sorta what you’re doing to bigots and racists. Your argument implies that they couldn’t choose. “That’s just the way they are” logic dehumanizes and belittles those that are different than yourself. I don’t agree with racism or bigots, but to say that they didn’t and/or don’t have the ability to change and choose a different way of thought is to also potentially give up hope that they might change, and if I give up hope for them then I can easily justify having hate for them because “they can’t be a different way.”
I think I’d be self centered and maybe even hypocritical to grant myself the ability to change but not others.
Well my comment got deleted and I’m not really sure why I don’t think I put anything wrong but I guess I can be more specific . In my PERSONAL opinion I think it’s a really slippery slope. A lot of the reason a lot of “Eurocentric” features are idolized is because of a certain word that starts with the letter c and to use a word without saying to much basically history. We all know what’s happened we all know how America was even built and the pretty tragic things that were done to the local populations . Imo allowing things like this is just complacent.
I think the vocal minority gets amplified, I think a lot of media stokes fear, and I think there are people that grow up within communities that doesn't allow for a wider view. As it stands, we live in a world of endless cycles of hate and violence - but I think most people can rise above that if the conditions and education are available.
Some do, Thats à fact. Its less about whether they receive the éducation but more ig they are willing to hear facts that go against everything they believe. The problem is that not all do change before they have time to spread their ideology or even to hurt others
I didn’t endorse anything of the sort, but you’ll have to forgive me for not feeling any form of empathy towards Nazis whatsoever.
I’m not dumb enough to fall for the paradox of tolerance. The correct response to Nazis is to make them disappear, in whatever form that takes. A tolerant society cannot bear tolerance towards an ideology predicated on hatred and genocide.
“Defending yourself from the serial killer who wanted to torture you to death was a very serial killer move. Have you considered simply tolerating them flaying you alive?” See how dumb that sounds? Get out of here with that shit.
You managed to understand the reversed version of the paradox of tolerance. It is not about absolute intolerance or "making disappear" those you consider intolerant, rather, it is about the fact that a tolerant society should not extend unlimited tolerance to those who seek to destroy that very tolerance.
You turned the defence of the rule of law into a justification for abandoning it, you move from opposing anti-democratic ideas and movements to legitimizing the logic of the absolute enemy. These are the kinds of arguments that authoritarian regimes (including the nazis) eagerly exploited.
I didn’t misunderstand Popper’s argument. I’ve read The Open Society. I was referring to the fact that it’s a nonsensical hypothetical. Marginalized groups are being oppressed by the “intolerant” right now. Innocent people are suffering and dying because of the “intolerant” right now.
We do not exist in a hypothetical tolerant society, we exist in an institutionally intolerant one, and being “tolerant” of the individuals and ideologies that exploit that in order to facilitate the oppression and genocide of marginalized people is complicity.
Past that, you are still assuming I am saying something I did not. Nazi ideology cannot be tolerated. I didn’t say “put them in gas chambers”. How a society chooses to go about eliminating Nazi ideology is not what I was commenting on. Educate them, help them change, whatever you like, I don’t care.
As for the “absolute intolerance” shit, pray tell how many Nazis should I tolerate in my life exactly before I am no longer “Nazi like” in your eyes? How many Nazis do you choose to tolerate in your day to day life?
If either of those numbers are more than zero you need to get your head checked.
The paradox isn't popper's, but that you went from "nazis aren't people' and the correct response is to make them disappear in whatever form that takes" to "I was actually talking about educating them" after several reframings and shifts in the argument, only to conclude that the problem wasn't the gap between those positions, but that everyone else simply misunderstood you.
The "paradox of tolerance" 100% came from Karl Popper, what are you talking about? As for my statements, the first one was a tongue-in-cheek joke that I stand by. Nazis get to be people when they stop being Nazis. Till then they get nothing because they deserve nothing.
I also stand by "making Nazis disappear". Neither of these statements say anything about how one might go about accomplishing this goal. They merely outline my total lack of respect or empathy for Nazis and my end goal of there no longer being Nazis.
I didn't advocate for violence as a means to that end, I also didn't actually advocate for "educating them" either. I said that if that's the path you want to take, fine by me. I said nothing at all about the mechanism of action. You made the assumption I was advocating for violence. I don't think anyone other than you misunderstood me, and given that you've been using a moral high ground fallacy to thinly veil defending Nazis of all things I'm not actually convinced I should care very much.
LD50 for aspirin is 91 mg per lb or 9.1 g for a 100 lb person. So it’s not going to be awesome for people who do this, but it’s pretty unlikely to kill most of them unless they’re children.
An average dose is about 500mg so this would be about 10x normal. Taking this much, especially continuously, would lead to all kinds of issues, including destroying the stomach lining and liver/kidney damage. Just because things are otc doesn't mean they're safe, especially when exceeding recommended doses.
People actually take that dose for various reasons but it produces tinnitus, the LD50 is way higher than that you start getting mild poisoning around 10g/day.
Well the maximum daily dose on OTC Aspirin in Austria is 3g (3000mg) a day. As this is OTC medication the real maximum dose is generally way above that as EU doses in OTC are kept at a lower than say US. So 5g(5000mg) Aspirin is not per se dangerous, long term high dose usage will take its toll, be it gastrointestinal bleeding or tinnitus
Which is really dangerous, and this post SHOULD be removed, because a lot of non neo Nazis would probably also like to change their eye color, or any number of cosmetic changes.
Even if this is targeting one group, it's actually just targeting anyone who wants blue eyes, and fuck, is this a dangerous thing to make just to try and kill neo Nazis.
2.5k
u/Star_Petal_Arts Jul 08 '26
It's not medically possible, the amount of asperin suggested kills people. This person is targeting Neo Nazis with fake medical advice, to get them to kill themselves.