The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don’t include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.
Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren’t “tech”. This article is paranoia and click-bait.
It’s not an investigative article—it’s a discussion with an author teasing one aspect of her book. I assume the title was meant more as a description of the book than as a claim they were trying to fully substantiate within this particular discussion about the book.
It might be your instance. I know the IKEA shark instance disabled downvotes so if I browse 196, for example, I only see downvotes from other users on my own instance.
Elon runs a nazi bar… someone’s saying Elon isn’t a eugenicist… Nazis are bad and so are eugenicists… if Elon is bad then why say Elon is not ? down vote!
The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don’t include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.
Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren’t “tech”. This article is paranoia and click-bait.
It’s not an investigative article—it’s a discussion with an author teasing one aspect of her book. I assume the title was meant more as a description of the book than as a claim they were trying to fully substantiate within this particular discussion about the book.
This is the kind of comment you have to reply to if you downvote
Mine, not so much, but would be nice to know why four people so far have hit the disagree button
I thought downvotes were gone, but apparently it is just me 😐 This article is problematic.
It might be your instance. I know the IKEA shark instance disabled downvotes so if I browse 196, for example, I only see downvotes from other users on my own instance.
Because being rational and reading the article ruins the rage bait
Maybe a lack of capability for nuance?:
Mother Jones has about as much journalistic integrity as Salon… aka there is none