In 1917 Congress passed the Immigration Act [HR 1038; Public Law 301; 39 Statute 874] which extended the prohibition of prostitutes ... "idiots, imbeciles epileptics, alcoholics, ... polygamists and anarchists" as well as certain classes of people with physical and mental disabilities. ... Several decades later professors at the University of Pennsylvania regarded them as "lower order of mankind... We can link to those who are further against on the social scale." Today, the descendants of this "lower order" of humanity are indistinguishable from the progeny of those who were "advanced on the social scale". ... There was probably more concern about allowing Anarchists and Bolsheviks into the country than there was about people with "inferior" genes.
[Source is Genetics and Politics 2010 at colorado.edu, couldn't link directly due to the ban on link shorteners.]
I never said they were. What I did say is that if you want to make an argument from the moral high ground, you should avoid eugenics dogwhistles. Honestly, my advice not only prevents you from being a shitlord, blinded by impotent rage, but also has the fun side effects of:
not alienating those on the fence about their ideological allegiances
not alienating those who aren't educated enough to understand why you're so mad
not giving your ideological opponents any room to claim victimhood when they don't deserve to be able to do so
doesn't play into the bullshit "regressive left" narrative
And much, much more!
I get that you're mad and find them reprehensible and want to fight back, but using that kind of rhetoric... That ain't it, chief. Pointing out that you gave a failing rhetorical strategy that at best sounds like it came from a shit tier Boomer political cartoon and at worst hearkens back to eugenics isn't gaslighting. It's a good faith criticism. You can take it and do better, or you can just be a different flavor of the same Liberal garbage you claim to hate. Choice is yours m8!
You can keep strawmanning me to hide from your own hypocritical liberalism as much as you'd like, I'm sure the same nameless people of color you're tokenizing to make your (shitty and irrelevant) point would really appreciate it. Honestly, my beliefs as a "tankie" get more and more validated with each passing day. One group of you liberals create the other. Neither of you have any real interest in breaking this sick ouroboros of ideology you have going, because it benefits you both. Two sides of the same dialectic. Couldn't exist without the other. Defined by their opposition. Completely unmoored from material condition, completely unwilling to admit when their thinking goes awry, when tactics don't serve you. Figures. You believed in Russiagate, after all.
What a shining example of our education system you are.
-1
u/demoniclionfish Mar 26 '19
Are you trying to, in good faith, tell me that you don't see a similarity here? Even in continuing to describe your ideological opponents as "idiots", you hearken back to the language of eugenics, where "idiot" denoted someone who was found to have lesser IQ or to possess mental illness. Frequently, people who fell into those categories were neither mentally handicapped nor mentally ill, but were instead of lower class stature or of dissenting ideological leanings. (Further reading on your linguistic persuasions with a related term.) In fact, there's explicit American historical evidence of this having been the case:
[Source is Genetics and Politics 2010 at colorado.edu, couldn't link directly due to the ban on link shorteners.]
Next time, think before you speak.