[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ craft ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]

A banner for soyjak.party

/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

Politics & countrywars
Catalog
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1769597931794u.jpg 📥︎ (242.59 KB, 1746x1650) ImgOps

 â„–2979451[Quote]


For the second option, assume the state is in favor of eugenics and actively promoting it.

 â„–2979458[Quote]

Realistically liberalization

 â„–2979461[Quote]

Police State where any love interest between 2 different race persons gets caught by the Police

 â„–2979462[Quote]

File: Screenshot 2026-02-27 0004….png 📥︎ (694.19 KB, 1325x730) ImgOps

upper paleolithic eugenics 💀

 â„–2979465[Quote]

liberalization. The best way to carry out any sort of improvement will be related to those who have the real incentives to improve, same goes for education and such. Neither the State or the government have your best interest in mind

 â„–2979472[Quote]

State obviously just make it law to screen babies

 â„–2979493[Quote]

File: 1757886598429i.png 📥︎ (150.16 KB, 720x651) ImgOps

>>2979451 (OP)
The profit motive for eugenics is necessarily selective (eugenic) but the state can carry out negative eugenics better(which is more needed at the moment rather than positive eugenics). I have thought about this before, I would be pro rationalizing eugenics as a form of standard, like, for example, not letting ~<90iq groupings or individuals procreate and necessarily making it illegal for people with disabilities, basically cutting out the lower quantitie entirely, which is a net drain on societym, but still keeping a lower strata that functions in the pyramid, you can't just have autistic >140iqs. Then you can have postive eugenics in the private sector, this being embryo selection and stuff like that.

 â„–2979498[Quote]

>>2979493
nationalizing eugenics*

 â„–2979528[Quote]

>>2979493
any sort of state-promoted eugenics is anti-human, ranging from banning completely innocent individuals from reproducing, individuals which might as well turn out to be great workers, even if not suited for complex tasks, to lighter, but still immoral, coercive measures. Ideally, you remove a lot of welfare for disabilities preventable by abortion and screenable during pregnancies and cut most, if not all, regulations relating to embryo selection and such.
>making it illegal for people with disabilities
we're both autists, autism is a disability, no? Do you believe the State should be allowed to ban you from having kids?

 â„–2979587[Quote]

>>2979451 (OP)
A secular state cannot act free of corruption. I think in the absence of censorship, progressive leftist multicultural Bolshevism can't exist in a meaningful capacity. People will enact eugenics as a matter of biological imperative, if they're allowed to live and grow as intelligent beings with sovereign freedom of thought. If you want to call that, "liberal" so be it, but I think the best way to carry out eugenics is to eliminate censorship and encourage transparent critical thinking.

 â„–2979656[Quote]

File: 20260304_210658.jpg 📥︎ (148.78 KB, 2047x1486) ImgOps

>>2979528
>ant-ihuman
I don't care, half of the planet is filled with zoo animals for all I care. Australian aboriginals are homosapiens too, wiping them out would only improve the world. Same hoes for the populations inhabiting Sub saharan africa
>individuals which might as well turn out to be great workers, even if not suited for complex tasks, to lighter, but still immoral, coercive measures.
Anyone with this type of job is getting automated out of the job market in the future and if their genotypic maximum skill is in that vicinity then they'll be unemployed or on welfare and continuing their subaltern familial line.
We can safely say anyone grouped under 90iq is a net fiscal drain on public resources even with a minimum welfare state. Here's the impact disagregated by race, latinx and blacks in america have never paid more in taxes than they have recieved in welfare, you're basically creating sponges than suck up money on average and have higher fertility rates(for hispanics). You don't know how bad the situation is, in the dating market one of the least selected for traits is >1/2SD intelligence and dumber and poorer people outnumbered smart and rich people in being parents 2/1, it'd full on dysgenics, without even considering global demograpgics. You NEED state guided eugenics, even if you don't believe in negative eugenics.
I'm not a libertarian.
>we're both autists, autism is a disability, no? Do you believe the State should be allowed to ban you from having kids?
I'm not autistic, or i haven't gotten it checked but high functioning autism, adhd, shit like that is not what i mean. I'm talking about sevear disabilities that just render you a state resource sponge like schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, blindness, deafness, physical deformities etc. And yes the state should ban these people from having kids. Do you think removing homelessness pople is good? I do, I'd prefer if they were never alive

 â„–2979682[Quote]

File: 20250429_081815.jpg 📥︎ (147.89 KB, 2488x1441) ImgOps

File: Screenshot_20260304_211859….jpg 📥︎ (343.49 KB, 800x885) ImgOps

File: 2018-reeve-1.pdf 📥︎ (328.91 KB)

>>2979587
>People will enact eugenics as a matter of biological imperative
Yeah let's see those epic NATURAL eugenics WOMEN:
and those dysgenic tremd lines:

 â„–2979825[Quote]

>>2979656
just cut welfare and abandon that collectivist, utilitarian mindset of yours. You're punishing people based on the fact they leech by using the entity that allowed them to do that in the first place - why not just stop allowing it?
As for the female part, that's nonsense. People select for those with similar intelligence, so obviously >2sd isn't sought after, mainylo considering the fact that women's iq stay around the mean, but neither is <2sd, and things that correlate well with high IQ are indeed sought after by women. The average IQ keeps rising, it's not dysgenics.
>we should ban these people from breeding because we give them free stuff
how about not giving them free stuff
>but then they'll be homeless
no, not all of them, many would have families who'd help and such. You think like a commie. I'd like to see you argue with an anti-natalist, considering your arguments

 â„–2979972[Quote]

File: 20260304_215843.jpg 📥︎ (53.58 KB, 1406x921) ImgOps

File: 20260304_215908.jpg 📥︎ (188.67 KB, 1531x744) ImgOps

File: 20260304_220518.jpg 📥︎ (279.88 KB, 2048x1331) ImgOps

File: substack-8553933e-259c-446….png 📥︎ (224.53 KB, 1140x1047) ImgOps

>>2979825
I'm not interested in arguing against "LE ABOLISH LE WELFARE STATE within democracy SOMEHOW", fiest, i'm not for abolishing the welfare state entirely and second this is never happening. This may be convincing arguments in Mentiswave's discord server or something.
>As for the female part, that's nonsense. People select for those with similar intelligence, so obviously >2sd isn't sought after, mainylo considering the fact that women's iq stay around the mean, but neither is <2sd, and things that correlate well with high IQ are indeed sought after by women.
Consult the graph >>2979682. It's not just women, it's most people. It's not the SELECTION, tard, everyone knows people assortatively mate, it's the BIRTHRATES, smart people don't have children, dumb people do, twice as much, within demographic, comparing smartest to dumbest. And when people assortatively mate and more dumb people are having children than rich people, what do you think happens?
>The average IQ keeps rising
This is just not true. First of all there's a GLOBAL decline in IQ by 1.1 point per decade. Second, some groups have better breedinf patterns, whites have better fertility than blacks for example. Third, "improvementz in iq" are on specific abilities only, not on g, which is actual general intelligence. That's why you see people doing better on block design rather than math for example.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000121
It lacks measurement invariance but i'm not gonna argue psychometrics on here.

 â„–2979984[Quote]

all clittycells are pro eugenics until they realise they would be the first ones to get castrated becouse of their gigantic levels of autism

 â„–2979986[Quote]

File: Lobster Roll - Nova Scotia.PNG 📥︎ (972.67 KB, 1130x1694) ImgOps

>>2979972
>i'm not for abolishing the welfare state entirely
For encouraging white fertility?

 â„–2979995[Quote]

Grok will decide who lives and who does

 â„–2979999[Quote]

>>2979986
From what i've seen, positive natalidt policy doesn't seem to work too much. Orabn tried it and it didn't work, but maybe that one was faulty since his's was superficially designed to not effect gypsies making it very regulated.

 â„–2980001[Quote]

>>2979451 (OP)
Through liberalization

 â„–2980002[Quote]

File: Crab Cake - Maryland.PNG 📥︎ (721.11 KB, 1130x1799) ImgOps

>>2979999
Then why maintain a welfare state?

 â„–2980003[Quote]

>>2979984
Autism is nothing but the purest manifestation of the nordid soul.

 â„–2980011[Quote]

We are literally under the liberalization state, go figure geg



[Return][Catalog][Go to top][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ craft ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]