Freedom of speech vs Respecting other people's feelings

Post Reply New Topic

According to my research that is simply not the case. Hilter was definitely a queer. Rohms death was orchestrated by Himmler who falsely accused him of conspiracy, and Hitler believed Himmler. Shortly thereafter there became strict LGBT regulations in the ranks (before that many of them engaged in bisexual behaviors.)


And humans are a crime against the planet. We will all die of global warming if sterilization doesn't happen. If sterilization isn't allowed the powers at be will just orchestrate more wars and plagues to reduce the population. Sterilization is the most ethical option that I'm aware of unless you know something better.

Evidence?



Okay, so who gets sterilized then? Human birthrates are actually already going down in most parts of the world, partly due to greater availability of contraception, spread in women's rights, and so forth. The problem now isn't so much the number of humans so much as it is the way resources are being used.

Sterilization is almost always a criminal act done to hurt specific types of people. Maybe you're advocating for a sterilization lottery or something but again, birth rates are already declining. If you want to save the world, look into reducing your consumption.

It was a long time ago and I don't have the website links.


I was thinking a possible penalty for illegal abortion could be sterilization. But sterilization could be used to accomplish eugenics, for instance reducing hereditary disease, improving brain function, improving personality, and improving aesthetics.



Poor nations don't consume much (as individuals) but still have lots of pollution. I have serious doubts that reducing individual consumption will be enough to "save the world", though it may be helpful to at least slow down global warming enough so that they world can be saved. Consumer capitalism needed to be stopped decades ago, and right now what we need to do is save the Rainforest and implement wind, solar and nuclear energy worldwide.

That's not very persuasive.



So you're worried about the human impact on Earth to the point where you want to sterilize people, but you are against abortion?

Sterilization is not actually that effective in eliminating hereditary illness. Ignoring ethical issues, sterilizing everyone with a particular illness won't actually remove said illness from the gene pool. People can still carry the genes causing a particular illness without ever getting sick from it. This means, you'd need to sterilize everyone carrying that gene, regardless of their actual health or other qualities. If you're trying to get rid of all hereditary illnesses, this could mean sterilizing an awful lot of people who are otherwise healthy.

As for personality and aesthetics, who decides which traits are desirable? Not everyone has the same opinion on this sort of thing.



Well, I'm all for renewable power.

Sterilization is not murder so its ethical.


Sterilize the serious diseases that are proven to be hereditary, if there isn't a strong genetic basis for the disease then its not worth sterilization for. The sterilization policy would consider several factors, for example if someone had the genes of a disease but otherwise was very healthy, had good looks and personality then they probably wouldn't fit the criterion for sterilization.




There is often a debate about who is the hottest man or woman, but usually the agreement on ugliness is unanimous. For instance some incels just look ugly and there often isn't anyone saying different.

So something is ethical simply because it's not murder? Is slavery ethical?

Who makes the decisions on sterilization? You understand that there is a lot of history in which these kinds of decisions were used in some of the cruelest possible ways? I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this post is making me think I was wasting my time.

I've seen some photos of self-described incels. They usually look pretty average. Most people do. That's why it's called the average. Aesthetics really should not be a state concern.

Slavery of sentient beings is unethical, its perfectly fine to enslave unconscious beings.


The sterilization would be painless and humane, it would be illegal to painfully sterilize. The decisions would be made by the wisest members of society and with consultation with Ai experts. Additionally, various simulations may be made to assist with prediction of various outcomes.


Average male is not the same as average female.

Last edited by Cornflake on 19 Feb 2023, 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.: Removed sexist generalizing

The fascists were by no means conservatives. It was a peculiar ideology that combined progressivism with nationalism. While I doubt that the Nazis were queer, since they considered sexually deviant people as degenerates and sent them for extermination in concentration camps, still there is some connection to LGBT topic to be found. There was the Italian Regency of Carnaro in 1920. It is considered the progenitor of fascism. Many of the signature tropes of fascism were invented there. Interestingly though they were also very progressive. They legalised gay marriege and drugs. They were a sort of ultranationalist hippies. The Wikipedia article on it used to mention all these things in detail but apparently some people don't like to show the connection of LGBT and socialy progressive ideas to fascism, so they removed these parts from the article.

Such as the Uyghurs?

I asked because you said sterilization was ethical because it wasn't murder. What are you standards for ethics?



That doesn't matter. Sterilization is only humane if someone chooses, by their own free will, to be sterilized. Otherwise it's coercion of the worst kind.



Average isn't ugly, either. Most people are average. If you go outside, you'll see a lot of couples that are average.

Again: that's why it's called the average.



Absolutely.

Whatever results in the least amount of suffering overall is usually the most ethical.


Fallacy. Choice does not equal ethics always. Anarchy is not always the most ethical option, sometimes it is more ethical to not have anarchy.


If they are couples they are not incels, you claimed that incels are average.

You're right that fascists aren't conservatives, but they aren't progressives either.

Fascists are too utopian and radical to be conservatives, but they're defined by being reactionary so they're not progressive even if they might have been willing to attempt to triangulate popular left-wing positions. Triangulation is common in politics.

One of the major differences between revolutionary leftists and reactionaries is what informs the utopia they believe they can build. Reactionaries always look towards the past for what they seek to achieve. Their utopia is the imaginary past. This is why these sorts of movements can have appeal to conservative-leaning individuals, even though the movement itself is too radical to be conservative.

Historically, some portion of conservatives have remained skeptical of radical reactionary movements, but that doesn't mean those movements didn't find significant support among conservatives. Generally people who have benefited from the establishment are more likely to be skeptical of movements that seek to disrupt or replace it, after all.

Ultranationalist hippies is as much of an oxymoron as flesh-eating vegans. Hippies were usually defined by being strongly anti-authoritarian, anarchism and left-libertarianism were big influences on a lot of them. Nationalism is almost antithetical to everything the average hippie stands for.

Pointing out that a few high ranking members of the NSDAP held some New Age views or were vegetarian doesn't amount to a case that they were progressive even if you associate those things with progressives. For starters, most progressives aren't new agers or vegetarian.

Also, can you provide any source for your claims about the Italian Regency of Carnaro and gay marriage?

I've come across:



But that doesn't sound like gay marriage to me, that sounds like it was a bunch of proto-fascist weirdos having a party.

Honestly, they sound more like the forerunners to Q-Anon - fringe movements attract people who don't feel like they fit into society but that doesn't mean that a given fringe movement is inherently progressive. Even these days, look at how there's people who don't fit the stereotype of the alt-right but associate with it regardless.

I used the wrong words by saying "legalized gay marriege and drugs", I'm guilty of that, I rushed there. I should have used "normalised" and "promoted" instead. You sould read more about the Free State of Fiume, its one of the most fascinating stories and the least known in history. There are a lot of parallels with the 60's hippie movement. Fiume was the San Francisco of the 20's but short lived. All sorts of upper class and upper-middle class eccentric youth descended to take part in the utopia. Anarchists, marxists, syndicalists, liberals, libertines, artists, naturalists, esoterics, new-age types who followed oriental spiritual practices. All misfits who rejected the traditional morality of their parents. It was radically experimental and progressive.

I definitely see some strong similarities with the hippies, at least when it comes to the libertine behaviour. I'm just saying that people "flying their freak flag" aren't inherently synonymous with progressives. Keep in mind how much Q-Anon attracts outcasts and people who in some ways resemble hippies.

It seems like this drew in all sorts of misfits, but it's more like a coalition of misfits than a progressive entity. It's not as though political and social misfits all come from a certain direction after all.

Let's put it this way, if some hypothetical brown/red/yellow coalition suddenly had power over an area, you'd see policies that try to appeal to all blocs and you'd see people who want political power engage in triangulation to gain support from all blocs.

Outsiders would be able to point to different parts of their policies as progressive or libertarian in areas, but at the end of the day there'd be a mix of policies and ideologies and some policies might ultimately just be pragmatic, both in terms of solutions as well as in terms of building a base of support.