[flagged]
But regardless: it is well studied that fascism is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Neither Italian fascism nor German nazism were rational or grounded in science. They were pseudoscientific and appealed to notions of blood, purity, sacrifice and nationalism -- that is, they appealed to emotion. They clouded the reason.
Just part of what terrifies me about the leadership of the world’s superpower from next year being a toss up between two guys who would have been taught that eugenics was settled fact in school.
https://nordics.info/show/artikel/eugenics-in-the-nordic-cou... https://www.aier.org/article/j-m-keyness-dreams-of-a-eugenic... https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-forgotten-le...
The belief was that behavioral stereotypes (like, for example, frugality, trustworthiness, and work ethic) were inextricably linked to physical phenotypes (like skin color and hair texture) that, via some hand wavy magic around nationality and cultural origin, determined your race.
Eugenics isn’t the same as (or even a straightforward extension of) selective breeding in animals / plants, since no other known organism has ever organized around the entirely cultural artifacts of borders and tribes, nations and races.
Just take a look at the current state of democracy... and let me know where the science is hiding.
No, I don't subscribe to this.
All of these solutions, however, make people feel like “someone is doing something”, which is an emotional appeal even though those methods are empirically ineffective.
I personally am not, I like personal freedom. However, there are actually many people in the world who would feel fine living in Singapore-level authoritarianism.
I’m… not sure that these policies are proven to make most peoples’ lives better. Where are you getting that? Historically, places which pursue these sorts of extremely draconian policies tend to be very, very nasty places to live.
Prove it.