Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

Check out the link I posted earlier from Winston-Salem Journal. They got pie charts, polls, breakdowns and everything about the sterilization project.

ty, good sir

edit: oh shit. it's the definitive source. I'll add it to the OP.

 

[RustyNails]

If I had my way, nobody would have kids. Ever.

I thank fuck everyday you don't have your way. Go back in your loony room now, and don't forget your strait jacket.

 

[unomas]

Eugenics is a branch of science. This is an example of science being used wrongly. State Government of NC is complicit, but it is not the only culprit. There were lots of people funding the Eugenics project, most of them wealthy and racists.

Understood, and my stance is that the current wealthy and elite these days are just as fucked up as those that ran programs like this, and that's why America needs to be bulldozed and built from the ground up. Things just like this article are still going on today, we just don't hear about them, and you have so many government defenders on this forum it's sickening, they'll literally defend the government over anything. I'm not saying that's you, it just disgusts me at how valiantly some posters defend the immorality and wrongdoing of the US government and continue to drink the koolaid.

 

[CornBurrito]

See, you can't just go by a majority vote. If you don't like eugenics, that may only be 1 point of pain for you. But, the kid who grows up in an abusive environment and eventually becomes a criminal? His existence has produced 1,000 points of pain.

Quoting this again because I wanted to add something, but if I add it to my last post you probably won't read it.

Why do I only get 1 point?

I already pointed out that your eugenics system (that punishes criminals) is inherently biased against minorities, and the poor (who are more likely on average to be criminals... hmm maybe we should sterilize all the minorities and poor to be safe!).

Government sponsored racism/classism should mean I earn at least 10000000000000000000000 pain points....

 

[CabbageRed]

I'm surprised so many people are unaware of this program. It carried on from 1948 up till the 70s, for at least two full decades.

No doubt. It's frightening how easy it is hide recent history through simple omission. This certainly highlights the failure of the US public educational system to teach history. Dates and names at every turn but, aside from the teacher I mentioned, no analysis or introspection. After that, it specialization, work, and idol curiosity so, in my opinion, high-school is really the place where these issues need to be addressed.

 

[qcf x2]

Crimes against their own people, sounds familiar. If it were another country we'd have support from the public to go to war. :-\

And of course they aren't going to pay them shit, they don't have to. They'll give X amount of dollars so they say they did something then sweep it under the rug. Nothing surprising here.

It's frightening how easy it is hide recent history through simple omission.

And it becomes exponentially easier to hide/rewrite history the further back you go.

 

[TheSeks]

Have you seen Rabbit Proof Fence?

Nope. I just knew about the Stolen Generation as there was a trial/compensation hearing for them in 2009 or so.

 

[ampere]

I certainly don't subscribe to Eugenics, but what FutureZombie is saying is something I've heard a lot from many, many people. And I'm certain that many gaffers, at some point in their life, have met certain people and thought that they shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

There are definitely terrible people out there who I wish wouldn't procreate, but obviously the horror of a type of fear-driven and law controlled state that would be the result of mandatory sterilization and enforced eugenics would vastly outweigh any potential crime reduction or other claimed benefits of forced sterilization.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Understood, and my stance is that the current wealthy and elite these days are just as fucked up as those that ran programs like this, and that's why America needs to be bulldozed and built from the ground up. Things just like this article are still going on today, we just don't hear about them, and you have so many government defenders on this forum it's sickening, they'll literally defend the government over anything. I'm not saying that's you, it just disgusts me at how valiantly some posters defend the immorality and wrongdoing of the US government and continue to drink the koolaid.

To be fair: objectively speaking, most people haven't received enough of the *full* history of the United States. Some people (many Republican politicians in particular) actively push to silence any negative opinion of or commentary on American history and seek to revise or "sanitize" history books according to the general position that "American is a force for good."

Anything deviating from that position is deemed to be "Anti-American". It's ironic, in that it is more or less "history eugenics". Weeding out the undesirable truths about our nation's past in order to feel good. Like little children who don't want to know just how flawed their heroes really are.

 

[Esch]

Clearly to reach our full genetic potential we must snip the testicles of self righteous patronizing people with anime avatars

a foolproof plan, without a doubt

 

[Devolution]

Nope. I just knew about the Stolen Generation as there was a trial/compensation hearing for them in 2009 or so.

Ah well it's about some girls who managed to escape one of the camps and trek around 1,500 miles back home.

 

[ZealousD]

Fuck I feel like talking to FutureZombie is like we are in the Conspiracy movie talking about the Jewish Question....

What you are suggesting/insinuating is that fucking bad.

Go up to many of your friends and ask the following question.

"Would the world be a better place if certain individuals were not allowed to procreate?"

I think you're going to find a lot of them will say "yes". Again, I do not support Eugenics. But the inherent idea is not as radical or as uncommon as you might believe.

 

[Vestal]

Go up to many of your friends and ask the following question.

"Would the world be a better place if certain individuals were not allowed to procreate?"

I think you're going to find a lot of them will say "yes". Again, I do not support Eugenics. But the inherent idea is not as radical or as uncommon as you might believe.

That is one thing that many will answer in jest. However to actively push said ideas in a public forum is a totally different beast.

 

[FutureZombie]

Quoting this again because I wanted to add something, but if I add it to my last post you probably won't read it.

Why do I only get 1 point?

I already pointed out that your eugenics system (that punishes criminals) is inherently biased against minorities, and the poor (who are more likely on average to be criminals... hmm maybe we should sterilize all the minorities and poor to be safe!).

Government sponsored racism/classism should mean I earn at least 10000000000000000000000 pain points....

I didn't respond to your last post because I thought you were being facetious. I don't see anything at all racist about what I've been saying. And if you detect racism in my posts, you're not reading what I intended to put out.

As for the exact math, I'm not sure what it would look like. Maybe you get 1 point, maybe it's more. I was just trying to illustrate that majority votes aren't an accurate barometer for measuring this stuff.





And does it seem odd to anyone else that sterilization is so much more controversial than the death penalty?

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I wonder what we do in medicine and science these days that future generations are going to look back on in horror.

 

[FutureZombie]

I wonder what we do in medicine and science these days that future generations are going to look back on in horror.

It's not medicine or science, but the answer is eating meat. People will be disgusted that humans ate other animals and kept them in terrible conditions for so many years. Some of us are already disgusted by it.

 

[Yaboosh]

"Would the world be a better place if certain individuals were not allowed to procreate?"

.

Phrased in that way, it is clearly true. The world would indeed be a better place if "certain individuals" were not allowed to procreate. Those individuals being those who would produce children that have a negative effect on the world.

The real rub, of course, is that it is impossible to figure out who these individuals are with any amount of certainty. So in your theoretical, the answer is yes. In the real world there are simply too many problems with meting out the punishment.

 

[RustyNails]

Ah well it's about some girls who managed to escape one of the camps and trek around 1,500 miles back home.

It was a great movie by the way. The ending blew my brains. The girls were caught and they re-escaped the camps a few more times. Incredible.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I wonder what we do in medicine and science these days that future generations are going to look back on in horror.

The same we do with blood letting to treat fevers and other junk science that was accepted at the time.

 

[ampere]

We could say Crime is a subjective word.. For the Poor yeah its illegal, for the Rich its called WallStreet

QFT

With a strict good/evil based on law view: investment bankers and hedge fund managers who make $5 billion a year through tax loopholes and lobbying and buy a yacht are "good, law abiding citizens". But the homeless black man who steals a cheeseburger is a menace to society.

People sometimes grow up so fortunate that they have no idea what it's like to be hungry and develop an ignore "all law breakers are bad" state of mind

 

[FutureZombie]

Phrased in that way, it is clearly true. The world would indeed be a better place if "certain individuals" were not allowed to procreate. Those individuals being those who would produce children that have a negative effect on the world.

The real rub, of course, is that it is impossible to figure out who these individuals are with any amount of certainty. So in your theoretical, the answer is yes. In the real world there are simply too many problems with meting out the punishment.

Why is it so different from deciding who goes to jail or gets the death penalty?

 

[CornBurrito]

I didn't respond to your last post because I thought you were being facetious. I don't see anything at all racist about what I've been saying. And if you detect racism in my posts, you're not reading what I intended to put out.

As for the exact math, I'm not sure what it would look like. Maybe you get 1 point, maybe it's more. I was just trying to illustrate that majority votes aren't an accurate barometer for measuring this stuff.





And does it seem odd to anyone else that sterilization is so much more controversial than the death penalty?

I do not think YOU are a racist. I didn't say that.

However, consider these two facts.

1. Minorities are far more likely to commit crimes
2. The poor are far more likely to commit crimes

Calling for the sterilization of criminals is nearly the same as calling for the sterilization of those two groups. Look at the bigger picture.

If you want to decrease the amount of crime by making the people most likely to beget criminals unable to reproduce, you should support the sterilization of minority groups and the poor.

And yes, it does strike me as odd. The death penalty also disgusts me.

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

Wow, I had absolutely no idea shit like this took place. This is horrible and frightening stuff.

 

[ampere]

And does it seem odd to anyone else that sterilization is so much more controversial than the death penalty?

Is it? I'd have trouble ranking them on a scale, but they're both horrifically inhumane, unfortunately the latter is very accepted by most of society.

I've found from experience that a lot of religious people seem to be fine with the death penalty, but I don't have any hard data on that.

 

[RustyNails]

Why is it so different from deciding who goes to jail or gets the death penalty?

Tell me, are you an idiot or not? People who go to jail or face death penalty are usually accused of horrendous crimes. How is it comparable to innocent mothers of four living on welfare?

 

[Hylian7]

The fuck?! I had no idea this happened. Oh my god that's the most horrible thing I've read today.

Holy shit I can't get over how terrible that is. Fuck. FUCK.

 

[CornBurrito]

I've found from experience that a lot of religious people seem to be fine with the death penalty, but I don't have any hard data on that.

Probably because the Big 3 all have holy books that mandate the death penalty for certain crimes.

 

[FutureZombie]

I do not think YOU are a racist. I didn't say that.

However, consider these two facts.

1. Minorities are far more likely to commit crimes
2. The poor are far more likely to commit crimes

Calling for the sterilization of criminals is nearly the same as calling for the sterilization of those two groups. Look at the bigger picture.

If you want to decrease the amount of crime by making the people most likely to beget criminals unable to reproduce, you should support the sterilization of minority groups and the poor.

The problem with that is most poor people and most people who have committed crimes are not bad or unfit to parent. We just have to target the ones who are unfit to parent. Rapists=unfit to parent. Child molesters=unfit to parent.

I don't think being poor is reason enough to sterilize someone. Being poor and having four kids you can't afford and are unable to properly raise? Quite possibly.

 

[FutureZombie]

Tell me, are you an idiot or not? People who go to jail or face death penalty are usually accused of horrendous crimes. How is it comparable to innocent mothers of four living on welfare?

If you have four kids and are on welfare, you are an unfit parent. Those kids are not getting the upbringing they need. And I would bet any amount of money that mother comes from an abusive background, only dates abusive men, and may be abusive herself.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Phrased in that way, it is clearly true. The world would indeed be a better place if "certain individuals" were not allowed to procreate. Those individuals being those who would produce children that have a negative effect on the world.

The real rub, of course, is that it is impossible to figure out who these individuals are with any amount of certainty. So in your theoretical, the answer is yes. In the real world there are simply too many problems with meting out the punishment.

I agree that it isn't simply black and white. The problem rests in the inherent and inevitable corruption of an established systematic/governmental method of forced sterilization. I have no doubt what would be imagined as a mechanism for utopia, would quickly be used to oppress and persecute select groups. Though I think we could agree upon particular individuals deserving of such a punishment (say, convicted child molesters) in spite of corrupt forces -- it's still too risky.

 

[devilhawk]

Because the only time American History is discussed in negative terms is when discussing slavery and the Trail of Tears. And even then, discussion is minimal.

Most nations try to hide from the bad things they've done to themselves or to others.

I was taught both the Trail of Tears and eugenics in America in middle and high school. This was in Kansas by the way. Your schooling experience is hardly true for all.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I was taught both the Trail of Tears and eugenics in America in middle and high school. This was in Kansas by the way. Your schooling experience is hardly true for all.

Actually, it's pretty much the standard rather than the exception.

I'm probably older than you. I'd like to think people who have gone through K-12 lately are getting a little more perspective...but this thread suggests otherwise.

Enjoy being the exception, but understand that's exactly what you are. There's always a few.

 

[Zoe]

You went to a shitty school then.

edit:Assuming you meant in schools.

I had never heard of this before, and I was in the IB program.

 

[CornBurrito]

If you have four kids and are on welfare, you are an unfit parent. Those kids are not getting the upbringing they need. And I would bet any amount of money that mother comes from an abusive background, only dates abusive men, and may be abusive herself.

If you have X children and do not make above Y a year you are an unfit parent. Those children aren't getting the upbringing they need.

How do you objectively determine how much money a person needs to provide a child with the upbringing they need?

The main problem with your position (ethics aside) is that it fails to be objective.

The problem with that is most poor people and most people who have committed crimes are not bad or unfit to parent. We just have to target the ones who are unfit to parent.

How do you expect to get an objective measure of what crime makes one unfit to parent, or how poor one must be to be unfit to parent?

Why do you think most people that have committed crimes are unfit? Why do you place the line at rapists? What if someone can rationalize setting the bar lower?

Since your system already lacks objectivity it is doomed to be abused, and a total failure.

 

[Devolution]

I had never heard of this before, and I was in the IB program.

Certain states probably have it conveniently left off of the curriculum for required topics.

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

If you have four kids and are on welfare, you are an unfit parent. Those kids are not getting the upbringing they need. And I would bet any amount of money that mother comes from an abusive background, only dates abusive men, and may be abusive herself.

You assume a lot. People are not black and white and a lot of factors comes into play when it comes to their future.

By your logic I wouldn't be born and it's disheartening that you would sit on your high horse and judge people based on social status and possible tendencies.

 

[ampere]

The problem with that is most poor people and most people who have committed crimes are not bad or unfit to parent. We just have to target the ones who are unfit to parent. Rapists=unfit to parent. Child molesters=unfit to parent.

I don't think being poor is reason enough to sterilize someone. Being poor and having four kids you can't afford and are unable to properly raise? Quite possibly.

Just to make you think about what you're saying...

The 'solution' you pose for an individual with 4 children and no money is sterilization. Forced sterilization would probably traumatize the individual, I can't see a way in which it would increase their productivity either. The 4 kids would still be there, not in a better situation.

The children probably need to be taken by child services (or a similar service, relative, I can't really think of a good solution to that dilemma) and the irresponsible parent needs to be given help. Irreversibly surgery being forced on them doesn't really fix anything in the scenario.

 

[FutureZombie]

Just to make you think about what you're saying...

The 'solution' you pose for an individual with 4 children and no money is sterilization. Forced sterilization would probably traumatize the individual, I can't see a way in which it would increase their productivity either. The 4 kids would still be there, not in a better situation.

The children probably need to be taken by child services (or a similar service, relative, I can't really think of a good solution to that dilemma) and the irresponsible parent needs to be given help. Irreversibly surgery being forced on them doesn't really fix anything in the scenario.

Well it's only a solution if we think they are going to have more kids. If they aren't going to have more kids, than I agree with you 100%.

 

[FutureZombie]

If you have X children and do not make above Y a year you are an unfit parent. Those children aren't getting the upbringing they need.

How do you objectively determine how much money a person needs to provide a child with the upbringing they need?

The main problem with your position (ethics aside) is that it fails to be objective.

We can argue forever over the criteria. The main point I wanted to make with my first post is that some people should be sterilized. Some should.

 

[Devolution]

We can argue forever over the criteria. The main point I wanted to make with my first post is that some people should be sterilized. Some should.

That's the point there is no structure or person objective enough for a sterilization program. It will be abused by the whims of whomever is running it. Just like it has in the past.

 

[Yaboosh]

We can argue forever over the criteria. The main point I wanted to make with my first post is that some people should be sterilized. Some should.

The part you are glossing over, the choosing of the candidates for this, is the biggest thing that makes the idea so idiotic. It is so impossible to choose correctly that doing it at all is a crime against human rights.

 

[RustyNails]

If you have four kids and are on welfare, you are an unfit parent. Those kids are not getting the upbringing they need. And I would bet any amount of money that mother comes from an abusive background, only dates abusive men, and may be abusive herself.

Before that, I would like you to explain in more detail your comparison of deathrow inmates getting the chair with the innocent welfare mom being forcibly sterilized. One of the more outrageous comparisons I've witnessed on this forum and I've seen many involving Nazis.

 

[FutureZombie]

That's the point there is no structure or person objective enough for a sterilization program. It will be abused by the whims of whomever is running it. Just like it has in the past.

I don't think that is necessarily true. As long as we base it solely on people's actions, it would be fair.

 

[Devolution]

I don't think that is necessarily true. As long as we base it solely on people's actions, it would be fair.

You still don't get it do you.

 

[FutureZombie]

Before that, I would like you to explain in more detail your comparison of deathrow inmates getting the chair with the innocent welfare mom being forcibly sterilized. One of the more outrageous comparisons I've witnessed on this forum and I've seen many involving Nazis.

We have developed a set of criteria that determines who gets set to die. We can develop a set of criteria to determine who cannot breed.

We do this for everything. You want to drive? Pass a test. Same idea here.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1435215 (click where it says "Windows" with the speaker symbol)

Short interview with the author of the book War Against the Weak (the book on these issues in America).

A necessary listen, GAF. Go for it.

They thought poverty and immorality were GENETIC TRAITS and designated such people as "feeble minded", then sent them off to sterilization camps to end their bloodlines. In the US of fucking A.

I am in fucking awe, friends. I'm in shock and awe.

 

[FutureZombie]

You still don't get it do you.

Then explain it to me. Right now, it sounds like you think people would abuse this program to get rid of minorities. I say, we can eliminate that as being a possible abuse of the program.


We do this with everything else. Why not with reproduction?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Before that, I would like you to explain in more detail your comparison of deathrow inmates getting the chair with the innocent welfare mom being forcibly sterilized. One of the more outrageous comparisons I've witnessed on this forum and I've seen many involving Nazis.

Well there is an issue of what is to be done in situations like that. As I wrote earlier:

My concern is more for people who keep having kids (similar to the cited article) and with no means to support them. That said you can deal with it other than sterilization, like a ceiling on how much you can get in benefits, but then you get called out for being cruel to the child, if you say fine we'll give you the extra money but you have to have your tubes tied (and same with the husband), but we won't force you, you get called out for forcing people to be sterilized. It's a Catch-22. At the same time how do you set limits or standards? Is it something vague (number varies by area) or is it something locked down (which can be just as unfair).

 

[Devolution]

We have developed a set of criteria that determines who gets set to die. We can develop a set of criteria to determine who cannot breed.

We do this for everything. You want to drive? Pass a test. Same idea here.

So the right to my bodily autonomy should be a privilege? No. Thanks.

Then explain it to me. Right now, it sounds like you think people would abuse this program to get rid of minorities. I say, we can eliminate that as being a possible abuse of the program.

You can't guarantee shit.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Just saw this on TV.

this isn't taught in the american school system?

If you think that bullshit in American history only extends to the poor treatment of women and minorities, Native American killings, and the forefathers being slave owners, then you're in for a wide awakening.

Here's a fun fact that I've heard from some people (can someone confirm this for me?): prior to the American Revolution, the British very very rarely collected taxes from the colonies. Many towns didn't even pay them.