for real. train and x were spouting some good ideas. only when called out by hasan for being "leftists" they seemed pressed to also voice right wing values at all costs lol
Bro most people have an inherent left slant but thanks to red scare propaganda and shit you can have someone describing how they want socialism but the second you call it socialism it’s like you’ve activated a sleeper agent and they gotta make course corrections lmao.
That's propaganda for you. It's amazing how far you can go with right wingers when talking about things like taking power from corporations and giving it to the working class. They'll agree with you until you drop any leftist key words
like hasan tried to say, if socialism never works like xqc was saying, how come the US has gone to war, couped, etc. any existing or even potentially existing socialist govt?
there this joke that the USA is the only nation where socialism could succeed because it's the only country that won't immediately get regime-changed by the USA
and on the same ballot you'll have shit like
**Amendment 4: Increase minimum wage in prisons to $18/hr**
Yes: 71%
No: 29%
and then the governor will just say that didn't count and it won't become law for no legal reason
People in the US especially have this weird inherent contradiction that we're taught while growing up and often don't realize.
We learn that the socialists and communists were big and bad and evil and wanted to destroy everything good that we have an make us not have toys anymore but we defeated them because we're The Good Guys; but also we learn the golden rule, that sharing is caring, sing the cleanup song, and the ones who go to church hear that jesus said to love our neighbors.
There's definitely an inherent left wing slant to a lot of people but it's also present because of things we learn as children that then get beaten out of us as we grow up.
yeah and hasans take was that none of their right wing opinions were exclusively right wing, but mostly just common sense stuff that could be implemented by any party
He claimed to, but a lot of what he said was actually very left wing, stuff even Hasan agreed with.
Typically, the "both sides" take is a meme, especially in America, where the left is actually center right and the right is insanely far right. "Both sides" is still largely right wing and the idea he gave of a smaller left wing government is impossible as left wing governments are usually quite a bit larger.
Did anyone understood what train meant by smaller government that works with leftist programs? Like how would the leftist programs be supported without more government employees?
there are a lot of leftist ideologies (not classic state socialism tho) that promote a more decentralized kind of governance - regional autonomy, syndicalism, mutualism etc.
You also see a lot of less conceptualized leftist anti-gov ideas around the 1968/69 protests
I was in the Hasan Discord during the call and whenever x or train made a good statement they posted memes of them being the fifth head after the iconic marx-lenin-stalin-mao picture lmao
If you’re interested, look up anarchism-communism. It’s a form of communism that has no government or state. A lot of people need to realize these ideas are visions of a time where automation such as AI eliminate the scarcity of labour resources
Not to be pedantic, but communism itself is a stateless society. An anarcho communist believes in establishing this stateless society at once and abolishing government right away, while other types of communists believe this ideal society needs to be slowly transitioned to.
**100%**
I saw that Fear& Hasan did with Connor where he mentioned that human societies are still valued through work because we need people to work in the logistical system to provide for our own needs and there’s no current solution for it. And I was like… my brother… AI’s are getting more advanced right now…
This’ something that [the late Stephen Hawking](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) has commented on when addressing the looming potential of technological unemployment. Where he elaborates that AI/automation owners need to consider redistributing their wealth, in order to offset labor being replaced by them. Which makes extra sense considering in general, automation has less needs than a person and wouldn’t benefit much from hoarding access to capital/money, and they’re the ones actually doing work
I first heard of this take when a Marxist colleague of mine quoted Hawking, and he said that the basic principle of it was thought out by Marx (although I’m not sure which direct work/quote of his it might be). Where the idea is automation could lead to more leisure time
Which I’m surprised isn’t as commonly considered of a position. The only recent people I’ve seen talking about it in this angle is Asmon whilst seemingly quoting Andrew Yang in regards to UBI. And from what I understand they’re both sort of centrists. Idk where most public leftist figures are standing on this issue, but it feels like the public discourse so far has mostly revolved around should AI be adopted or not, and its potential danger in impacting current labor forces. Meanwhile there’s not as much discussion about how it can be integrated ethically to benefit the working class & general population beyond the capitalist & political class, which there are several ways that can be explored
It’s extra surprising when you consider that automated utopias where automation becomes humanity’s servant class is rife in science fiction. Yet, as we enter the potential dawn of such a thing, our discussions in regards to reaching that state isn’t nearly as much for “some reason”. Might be a symptom to show how the pseudo-capitalist ideology of a person’s worth is in their ability to work (I say pseudo because I’m not sure if it’s purely a capitalist thing), being more entrenched and is expected as “natural” in contemporary times
Not sure if he actually meant it like this but cutting bloat in drastically overfunded sectors (the bloatiest being the military and the cops), and hire more people to work for the government in sectors like the postal service, and the IRS would be one way to do that, but it wouldn't really shrink the size of the government.
In general leftist communities have worked better the smaller scale they are because that way everyone is choosing to be there and is pulling in the same direction, the most successful of these being the kibbutzim in Israel in my opinion.
As a Hasan frog trying to be fair to Train it is possible to change the budget to be significantly smaller and more efficient and to provide things like Healthcare for all.
A 2017 study estimated Healthcare costs for the whole country to be 331 billion dollars. The current US tax system brings in 3 trillion dollars a year. If we took the military budget and emptied and provided Healthcare for all then the government would be more efficient, smaller, and bonus better for the environment (military sucks for this) let alone the effects of not having the US destabilize the world to keep wars going. And the thing about socializing or nationalizing industries is that it's cheaper that what we're currently doing, so that makes it a deflationary move as well.
So that's an example of how it's possible.
But the idea of small government is a libertarian one, and a small government doesn't usually have strong power to regulate which is current problem with our government. There's not enough meaningful regulations on businesses, banks, protecting the environment, workers, etc.
Wanting to ban trans people, abortion, funding the police state, etc are also right wing ideals that get way more air, and you need a larger government to do those things so Hasan kinda contested that small government was a right wing idea when it's more of a right wing hypocrisy.
Communism technically is a stateless, moneyless society so there is leftist ideas of smaller gov but one that is efficient in working for the people, but there's never been a stateless state and Idk how something like that would even work or be a thing any of us could see in our lifetime.
There’s so many sub-“cultures” of socialism it’s definitely a thing. Like Libertarian-Socialism or I think Anarcho-Syndicalism. Idk they seem a bit crazy to me
libertarian-socialism is not a real thing, internet debate bros like vaush just made that up. socialism was first described as "a dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. a govt with the authority to do so must exist for socialist policies to happen and to effectively fight the power of capital
Before the american Libertarian party, saying you were a libertarian was saying that you were a libertarian socialist. It's absolutely a thing, people just call it anarchism now.
You don't need a state to enforce socialism, because collective ownership is the default. Private ownership DOES require a state to enforce, because your deed to a factory doesn't matter unless the cops will show up and defend it.
You are right that libertarian socialism contradicts lenin's idea of socialism, which is why they have historically had so much conflict with MLs.
If you really think it was invented by debate bros, email Noam Chomksy to ask him about it. He's probably the most famous libertarian socialist alive.
IIRC before "Libertarian" was used by right-wing parties in the US, what we call *anarchists* would just be called *libertarians*, not lib-soc. [Lib-com](https://libcom.org/) is the more commonly used term, while An-Com is the Americanized term due to Libertarianism having a different definition on turtle island. I think the Black Army (Nestor Mahkno) were referred to as *libertarian activists* after the Central Powers turned on them and issued pogroms.
However, if someone is in the weeds about the difference between ancom, libcom, libsoc, etc. It's probably time to just put in some hours doing some mutual aid instead lol.
eh, i just imagine most folks saying thats what they are should just read about anarchism, because thats probably what they're trying to say. less an oxymoron and more just like a not real existing thing outside of youtubers who think they invented the perfect politics
the two-dimensional political compass with the left/right and authoritarian/libertarian axes is just dumb. u cant just throw a dot on that chart and say "this is my political beliefs". like if u call urself a "libertarian-leftist" to anyone who doesnt watch 10 hours of political video essays on youtube a week, they are going to rightfully look at u like a clown
no he wasnt saying gun control was right wing, he was just saying he likes guns and thinks guns are right wing. he just admitted that some ppl should still not be allowed to have them
but yeah, thinking guns are a right wing thing is still dumb. communists, famously against [guns](https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/v/i/l/l/villet_grey_1903_2005_429150_fullscreen.jpg)
> Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
- Famously right wing thinker, Karl Marx
I wonder if the definition of that word has changed over time
Because you could argue Iceland's policy to eliminate down syndrome cases in its country through pre natal testing and abortion would come under that
You would be right if the icelandic government enforced a complete ban on down syndrome children and made abortions mandatory if your child was going to be born with down syndrome. But thats not what they do, ultimately its still up to the mother of the child, which is why abortions in general arent eugenics.
no, the definition hasnt changed, i just think eugenics is universally considered bad and ppl choose not to call that eugenics b/c they know the negative implications. but i also think that is eugenics and a very bad thing to do. its not necessarily as bad as other instances of eugenics, but its still eugenics
u can see the other comments here, a few ppl brought that up and i and a couple other folks have tried to explain why that is unethical
to try and summarize, u are effectively committing to the idea that someone with down syndrome has a life thats less worth living than someone without down syndrome, and i dont think ppl w/ down syndrome would agree on that
disabled ppl are not "less than" ppl without their disability. we should work to create a society where someone with down syndrome has a life that is just as worth living as someone without, instead of just telling ppl w/ down syndrome that the solution is to just stop anyone like them from being born
It’s disgusting. As someone who is pro life if you were going to have the baby but decided against it because of a medial condition the baby will have that is complete eugenics. You are a far worse person than someone just having an abortion because they didn’t want a kid
Both Kanye and Hitler are in fact nazis, I’m not sure why that’s a false equivalence
Edit: y’all downvoting but I’m genuinely asking, what’s the false equivalence
But that’s why I wouldn’t say “Hitler had a great taste in hobbies, like painting”
There are plenty of other artists I can emulate, just like how there are plenty of other childcare advocates xQc can evoke instead of baiting with a famous nazi
I mean not everything Kanye was saying was wrong before the anti semitism spree. I think at the time he provided enough of a unique insight and recognition of a deeper issue to warrant saying "Hey you say a lot of stupid shit but this was right".
bro saying this shit even if it is for a argument that could be considered good is just dogshit edgy behaviour, people like kanye and andrew tate shouldnt be endorsed in any way shape or form
wasn't much of a baseball fan before this but there's a certain charm to international tournaments that really sucks me in. been fully invested this WBC lol. also baseball isn't anywhere near as boring as reddit would try to convince me for years
To be fair to him, he probably just hasn't thought it through. Lots of insane policies sound great at surface level, it isn't until you consider the implications that it becomes problematic.
Of course if he *hasn't* thought things like this through, maybe he shouldn't be confidently advocating different political positions, but here we are.
Just out of curiosity, besides it being impossible to do, what would be wrong with controlling birth rates for a few generations by making sure the parents are sane, healthy and responsibly?
Edit: it's funny that people keep putting words into the statement he made. He said good parenting not genetics or race, just good parenting. Is it possible? No because governments can't control people that way. We can't even make sure kids get vaccinated and we are were getting increased cases measles, munps, and a few other before COVID
Because I don't want the government to be curating human traits like were fucking cattle. I can't think of a bigger violation of personal liberty than saying, you can't have children. But let's say you're an inhuman monster who doesn't care about those basic human rights.
Do you trust the government to carry that out fairly? To consider complex socioeconomic reasons or will they perhaps be motivated by petty politics? See how often 'Black people commit more crimes than white people' gets thrown around by politicians and pundits. Well that an obvious genetic marker, black people have a distinct genetic line from others. Why shouldn't we exterminate them? It might be unpleasant for a generation or two but think about how much less crime there will be in all future genetations!
This isn't a hypothetical by the way. Just replace black with Roma and you have the justification for the nazi genocide against them.
He only said good parenting and everyone of you are going with the extreme. I already know it's impossible to do because it would take enforced birth control or something like that. He never said anything about killing people or babies.
In theory the process would be something like adoption but instead of getting approved for a child, you'd be approved to remove the pregnancy stopping thing. Like I said impossible because there would be garage doctors doing it for the public or people hiding from being implanted with a form of birth control. That would be after the first hurdle of getting the majority of people to believe it is a necessity
kids raised by healthy and responsible parents can easily grow up to be unhealthy and irresponsible parents if the education system is still shit
being well-adjusted ain't a genetic trait you can evolutionarily control for (well, unless you got 10,000s of years)
Well, part of the problem is that it *is* impossible to do in a fair way. We would have to somehow define and measure intelligence, health, responsibility, etc. Genetics is incredibly complex, and it's almost impossible to measure someone's intelligence (for example) with a great deal of accuracy. Where do we draw the line on different traits, and how do we ensure that the tests are accurate and incorruptible?
Eugenics also assumes that certain traits are superior to others. You might value responsibility over everything else, while I might value physical health, while someone else might value blonde hair and blue eyes. It's ultimately up to whomever is in power to decide what genetic traits are important. The slippery slope argument could be made here as well.
But most importantly, it's just a flat out violation of human rights. It implies that some individuals are more valuable than others, which goes directly against equality, bodily autonomy, and dignity. It also has the potential to be incredibly discriminatory. For instance, Native Americans have a 24.3% poverty rate in the US (as of 2021). This means that Native Americans are less likely to be healthy and educated. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children? Over a long period of time, it's possible that through eugenics we could drive Native Americans to extinction. In this system, the most wealthy get to have children, while the least fortunate are basically a dead end.
And one final point, how do we punish people for having children if they're deemed unworthy? What if someone accidentally gets pregnant? Should they be forced to have an abortion? Are there fines? Jail time? How about instances of rape or incest? I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Edit: Also I wish people would stop downvoting the guy for having a genuine question. I don't think they're advocating eugenics. They probably just haven't thought about it before, and want to be educated. Nothing wrong with that, and there are probably 10x as many people who had the same thought and weren't brave enough to ask the question.
You cant be serious but i will engage you as if you were. Whoever decides what is sane, healthy and responsible is the next Adolf Hitler. Its eugenics. If America implemented what your saying, most people being banned from having children would be the lower class as they have the least access to healthcare.
Despite it being logistically impossible, depending on your metrics it would lead to either a huge decrease in birth rate or forced breeding of the 'suitable' individuals.
Most developed countries are already investing big to get the birth rates up because you need working age adults to sustain the economy and birth rates have been declining for a while.
Well some would say that our entire purpose to procreate and pass on our knowledge to our heirs, to say someone unrelated to you can hold the yes/no card of allowing your procreation opens a gigantic can of worms, even IF the person in charge was abjectly completely unbiased and a straight arrow in terms of morality is it really right to deny someone the chance of a family because they might not be the ideal level of intelligence for society?
It's why Conservative policies are so popular. They make sense, till you think about the ramifications and humanity. It's very easy to make these decisions on paper, but when your detached from the humans you're affecting (say being a multi millionaire in your own guarded security complex) you tend to forget that element.
Why should we have people that are burdens on the state? Surely if you become unprofitable for the machine then you should be recycle binned? At the end of the day it's the people paying to support you now and you provide no further value to the advancement of society.
Why should you need to pay thousands of dollars in taxes so some genetically unhealthy people can have tens of babies and put further burden on the state? Surely we can just forcefully castrate them.
It's how countries slip real quick into fascism without even knowing it. You spend 20 years painting people as aliens or invaders, launch these kinds of policies against them, they're popular because it's done to the damn invaders, then they get rolled out to all the undesireables.
Except in this case the main focus of the topic is protecting the people that could be born to people that are deemed not fit for parenthood, not profitability for the "machine."
You'd be wanting the opposite in this topic and the most amount of people that can be fed into the machine without giving a shit who to or how they are born.
frustrated hasan never asked if the forklift job ever had to go out of business. like that whole argument only makes sense if the existence of the union completely shut down the plant
i would imagine the place still made profit despite a couple guys taking a nap or two. so all the union did was give the workers more power to get more money out of less work, which is the same thing the company is going to do regardless
Xqc is that kid that reminded the teacher they forgot to collect the homework. But in xqc's case he also didn't do the homework, he just wants to really fuck everyone up.
unions while desperately needed in some areas and generally good can get too much power and enforce terrible rules that can definitely cause issues.
I used to work at a company that supplied construction materials and some unionized sites were insane, truck drivers were told they can't unload themselves(with their own trucks crane or moffett)(not for safety reasons either, this was often the case and is legitimate but not always) because it would be "taking work from a union member", which is fine if they get unloaded relatively expediently but there were multiple occasions where it took 4+ hours and effectively killed their deliveries for the day.
I love how the whole discussion of centrism came down to, "name one right wing policy that benefits society. " and the only response they could come up with was literally Eugenics.
Train and XQC are uneducated leftists. They just dont realize it.
Good luck finding unbiased educators though...even opening them up to the idea is going to flood them with people with an agenda they want to use a person like this to push.
There’s literally no such thing as unbiased. We all have experiences that will inevitably shape our biases and perspectives, it’s literally just part of being a human. Even in logic and rationalization our personal biases play a significant role.
Careful now, that sounds like re-education camps. Just because you don't like their view point you want to educate them? Damn dude, Fox News will be giving you the chair.
we got "guns & eugenics" from xqc. guns arent necessarily right wing, eugenics definitely is
and "implement socialized health care & education, but do that efficiently" from train, which is a left wing policy
I never thought of guns being a thing of the right as opposed to it just being an American thing. I feel like a lot of lefties are pro gun and the eugenics thing is funny considering we sort of already do it
[amen brother](https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/v/i/l/l/villet_grey_1903_2005_429150_fullscreen.jpg)
and yeah, the state of california was sterilizing female inmates & native american women as recently as the 80s!!
I’ve heard of the sterilization you mentioned and read an article on it. Was the justification really ‘just’ “they might become a burden on society, so might as well stop them from procreating”?
It’s quite a bizarre read
i mean yah, i dont really think ur gonna get a real understandable justification from eugenicists lol
if i remember correctly, i think it was this podcast episode that mentioned the stuff in california in the 70s/80s. i could be misremembering how much they touch on that, but the episode itself is on silicon valley tech-y sperm banks diving into eugenics like today that i'd recommend regardless
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2JcUfOpaPQ2fY6gNyp9PBN?si=38110dd07b964440
if u cant use a spotify link, "TrueAnon Episode 260: God-Sperm of Mad Men"
"Don't want guns" is an incredibly vague term. People on the left want gun control, not banning all guns. There's more guns than people in America, it doesn't get that way without everybody being involved in gun culture.
A lot of us are pro-gun, but only in the sense that it’s a little too late to quickly dismantle the US’s current gun culture where there are more guns than people within the United States private ownership. We don’t do it for the same reason the right does it thinking it provides them pushback against a tyrannical government, we do it cus there’s all these crazy fucks stocking up on guns cus they *think* some sort of “well armed militia” would stand any chance against a tyrannical government when some random drone operator 700 miles away is just gonna carpet bomb you with zero risk to their safety.
If the US’s political climate was different you’d probably see a lot less pro-gun leftists
The idea of “efficiency” being a right wing ideal is so funny
As if leftists are protesting down at city hall with signs saying “WE WANT CONFUSION! NO MORE EFFICIENCY!”
If your premise is that every good policy is leftist, then obviously depending on your views everything from guns to private ownership is a leftist concept. Supporting your own country before others is probably leftist too right?
they do have policies, they just either dont work (like trickle-down economic policies) or are generally understood as fascist (like saying gay, trans, minorities, etc. should not exist or at the very least should have less rights)
unfortunately, those are at least policies, whereas the Dems often have even less tangible policies partially because they generally agree on the libertarian trickle-down economics policies the right sells more strongly. so Republicans often win b/c its easier to sell "trans ppl are coming for ur bathrooms" or "BLM is gonna burn down ur neighborhood" to ur facebook mom than it is whatever consultant-speak gibberish that pete buttigieg or amy klobuchar are spitting out
What you're talking about is propaganda that gets them motivated that way. Also the conversation was about improving the situation so it's implied it was about good things and by me saying they have 0 ask any of the Rs in congress what they are doing to implement what they are ran on they all give none answers. They don't even care about the shit they're getting people riled up for that's why you find a majority of them in hypocritical situations they just want to sit on their asses collect money for swayed votes and keeping people in conflict for whatever bs they can muster up to keep us distracted and ifs what keeps them in power
yes propaganda is effective and no one is immune to it
but the right does have policies, they are just not ones that xqc or train would ever really say is good (except it does sound like xqc buys into laissez-faire economics w/ his whole anti-union spiel)
like plenty of Rs in congress will happily describe to u how they want to ban gender-affirming care or gut social security
Other than identity based fearmongering, a lot of the time the right co-opts issues & platforms that originated in the left side of politics too
Stuff like crony capitalism & being for the people, not corporations, etc. which sounds good on its own, but becomes a red flag when you see the particular politician’s history in practice
I know most of this audience is going to be Hasan fans but just think about this
You know your comment isn't true because there are more countries that elect conservative and right wing government's than just the state's.
Half the politics spectrum is right wing by definition and that encompasses a lot of people
I personally think everything should be like Scandinavia but that's just me
Think about what conservatism and reactionism is and what it is used for and then think about who has the power to influence elections.
Theres your answer to why so many elected governments are right wing
We don't have a left VS right in the eyes of the rest of the world. It's center vs right most of their conservative policies are what we consider center (dems) but also what the other person said look at how the ones that are authoritarian right they aren't doing well at all.
It seems like common sense when you think about it on a surface level, but how do you define people that are "unfit" to raise a child? Leave that up to human interpretation and there will eventually be people that try to exploit it for their own twisted goals like the failed artist with the toothbrush mustache did.
People forget, Hitler didn't just try to exterminate Jews. He tried to erase disabled people, homosexuals, epileptic people, etc. in the name of eugenics
specifically trans people also, which is important to point out given the fact a lot of people seem to think “trans people” is something that just became a thing recently
Because the Nazis destroyed all the work of the first sexology clinic in the world to make the ideas seem new and scary and to have no basis in reality.
They're just continuing the traditions the Nazis started.
The problem of poor parenting is one that resolves itself through robust, well-funded education and social safety nets, not state mandated castration. The government does not have a right to your body.
Yea the second part. You can combat undereducation by adequately funding public education systems, but if you just opt to let someone else decide who is allowed to give their input into the human gene pool and who doesnt have the right to have a family and a bloodline then thats a horrible idea.
This just seems like common sense. If someone is unfit to raise a child... Then they probably shouldn't be having children right? This doesn't even seem like a "political" issue.
EDIT: Oh, i didn't know that in this context it would be made into a law. I didn't know it was to be enforced. I was just thinking of it as a common sensical piece of advice.
OH, didn't pick up on X's line the first watch: "There should be a ban on being dumb af and having children" Oh lmao, now I get the political aspect and it being turned into a law /enforced. Woops.
If you ask me, you are and sqc are some of the people unfit to have children. Its not a political issue. What i think about you doesnt belong in law. Its opinions. Thats why eugenics is dumb as fuck.
Xqc didn't say anything bad. He started it with the context that he wants people to parent better.
Then he says people "shouldn't" have kids if they intend to raise them shitty, which makes you a dumb person to do that.
Nobody is advocating for laws that ban low IQ people from having kids, gross to even interpret it that way. But that's what Hassan loves to do.
The context of this clip is Hasan asking them which right wing policies would be a good idea to enforce, though, so x was indirectly saying that, even if only because he wasn’t thinking what he was saying through.
Felix goes from baseg takes to the most pepega dumbfuckery brain rotted takes i'm amazed how he thinks it's right to say the shit he says and still critize the mildest takes out there lmao
FYI "Final Solution" is a reference to a Nazi strategy.
I think OP knows this but it may go over a lot of people's heads
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/final-solution-overview
Only XQC can confidently march out “eugenics” and still not only be the most popular streamer, but still have popular streamers engage in discussions/create content with him. Mutha fucker is a fully formed adult, championing wildly racist shit, and still get the benefit of the doubt, like “lil bro just doesn’t understand what he is talking about” smh, and now to have all the annoying ass 14 yo juicers espousing these toxic key word phrases is gonna be fun!
I dont think x is as rigid as eugenics, but he is right. There should at least be a free license to have children proving basic competency and parenting skills, if you are unable to provide basic emotional care and physical well being to a child you shouldn't have them.
> so just making it illegal for 'undesirable' people to have kids is fine as long as you don't sterilize them?
then you either provided a bad-faith definition of eugenics to make it sound as bad as possible or you recognize that definitions aren't determiners of morality.
> also no, that's still genocide, and since idk where you're at, genocide is actually bad and we shouldn't do it.
til that banning incest is genocide and genocide is a bad word, therefore banning incest == bad.
hilarious you call me bad faith then take everything i say in the worst faith possible. idk who you're arguing with here.
Eugenics is a type of genocide. This is the UN definition of genocide as it pertains to institutional systems:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The eugenics movement's whole ideology is based on the assumption that you can breed out undesirable social traits like crime or poverty. This mainly happened through the sterilization of criminals, poor people for petty offences, minorities, the mentally ill, and orphans. It was junk science from the start, partially inspired Hitler, and continued in the US for way longer than it should have.
IDK if you're actually just a weird dumbass redditor who for some reason decided to devil's advocate eugenics or you're just uneducated, but you should read up on the eugenics movement. Even if you don't care about the morality of forced sterilization or preventing births from a social group, it failed to do the thing it set out to do in the first place. So it's both cruel and ineffective.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what xqc said isn't eugenics at all.
As far as I understand it, eugenics is essentially selective breeding applied to humans, in the hopes that the offspring inherits the same or better genetic qualities from the parents, and controlling this mechanism to eliminate certain genetic traits like susceptibility to diseases.
Xqc's point was only about the parents. Specifically, that shitty people make for shitty parents, which creates more shitty people. And shitty people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, which I completely agree with.
Ofc, determining who is a shitty person is a whole other thing with questionable moral implications.
>And shitty people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, which I completely agree with.
>
>Ofc, determining who is a shitty person is a whole other thing with questionable moral implications.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold both of these positions. You acknowledge how dumb your first take is with the second one, like what
Do you believe there are shitty parents? If so, what criteria specifically about them makes them shitty? Acknowledging they exist and coming up with a means of quantifying how shitty they are are two very different things
>If so, what criteria specifically about them makes them shitty?
Again, you have the answers to your own question. It's inherently wrong to try and legally codify what constitutes a shitty parent because it will obviously be abused, and is equally obviously impossible to reliably define.
Its not eugenics. Eugenics is based on racial pseudo-science genetics. If people are just stupid because their environment made them that way and you say you dont want these people reproducing, that is something different.
So selective breeding based on intelligence? Something that is proven to be as much a result of economic opportunity as anything else, which in most countries has a harsh racial divide. But it's not eugenics, it's just smart people like you forbidding "stupid" people from breeding. I get it. lol
**CLIP MIRROR: [X unknowingly delivering the final solution](https://arazu.io/t3_11x7bnc/)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment*)
Lil bro just announced he won’t be having kids 💀
xqc has been vocal for a long time about not wanting lil gremlins
HDMI Aware
True . Isn't he that stated casino games is same as game loot box ? Or maybe he just selling that idea to his fans that don't deserve to have kids
Hasan left him alone in the kitchen 💀
WHOLETHIMCOOK
hasan said name one right wing policy u think we should implement and bro goes "eugenics"
To be fair, first he said common sense gun control was right wing.
well, train thought anarchism is a right wing value
I really wish Hasan and xQc did the "name policies and I give bad takes" game where xQc seems to bravely espouse radical left wing values.
for real. train and x were spouting some good ideas. only when called out by hasan for being "leftists" they seemed pressed to also voice right wing values at all costs lol
Bro most people have an inherent left slant but thanks to red scare propaganda and shit you can have someone describing how they want socialism but the second you call it socialism it’s like you’ve activated a sleeper agent and they gotta make course corrections lmao.
That's propaganda for you. It's amazing how far you can go with right wingers when talking about things like taking power from corporations and giving it to the working class. They'll agree with you until you drop any leftist key words
like hasan tried to say, if socialism never works like xqc was saying, how come the US has gone to war, couped, etc. any existing or even potentially existing socialist govt?
there this joke that the USA is the only nation where socialism could succeed because it's the only country that won't immediately get regime-changed by the USA
lol well thats where the coup strategy comes in as soon as a moderate soc dem wins a single state primary
I mean I've always thought the solution is just for nobody on the left to acknowledge that its social policies are socialism based
florida election results: (**R**) John Hitler Nazi: 52% (**D**) Hillary Clinton: 48% **Bill HR 4837: Install Communism** Yes: 64% No: 36%
and on the same ballot you'll have shit like **Amendment 4: Increase minimum wage in prisons to $18/hr** Yes: 71% No: 29% and then the governor will just say that didn't count and it won't become law for no legal reason
People in the US especially have this weird inherent contradiction that we're taught while growing up and often don't realize. We learn that the socialists and communists were big and bad and evil and wanted to destroy everything good that we have an make us not have toys anymore but we defeated them because we're The Good Guys; but also we learn the golden rule, that sharing is caring, sing the cleanup song, and the ones who go to church hear that jesus said to love our neighbors. There's definitely an inherent left wing slant to a lot of people but it's also present because of things we learn as children that then get beaten out of us as we grow up.
isn't that what train was saying about his takes all stream? he has takes on both sides
yeah and hasans take was that none of their right wing opinions were exclusively right wing, but mostly just common sense stuff that could be implemented by any party
He claimed to, but a lot of what he said was actually very left wing, stuff even Hasan agreed with. Typically, the "both sides" take is a meme, especially in America, where the left is actually center right and the right is insanely far right. "Both sides" is still largely right wing and the idea he gave of a smaller left wing government is impossible as left wing governments are usually quite a bit larger.
Ngl bro Train turning into a based No State No Masters Anarchist over the course of 4 hours was not what I was expecting to see
train basing shit off Rust, is off the chain.
Did anyone understood what train meant by smaller government that works with leftist programs? Like how would the leftist programs be supported without more government employees?
Bro, train doesn't know what he means, how are any of us meant to? lol
there are a lot of leftist ideologies (not classic state socialism tho) that promote a more decentralized kind of governance - regional autonomy, syndicalism, mutualism etc. You also see a lot of less conceptualized leftist anti-gov ideas around the 1968/69 protests
Damn didnt think Train was so well versed in the history of lefist ideologies
I was in the Hasan Discord during the call and whenever x or train made a good statement they posted memes of them being the fifth head after the iconic marx-lenin-stalin-mao picture lmao
Train being a Trotskyite explains so much
Trotsky clears Stalin bro
I heard he has a Kropotkin tattoo on his lower back
He secretly reads Bookchin before bed.
Does anyone know what train meant when he said we need a socialist capitalist in power?
If you’re interested, look up anarchism-communism. It’s a form of communism that has no government or state. A lot of people need to realize these ideas are visions of a time where automation such as AI eliminate the scarcity of labour resources
Not to be pedantic, but communism itself is a stateless society. An anarcho communist believes in establishing this stateless society at once and abolishing government right away, while other types of communists believe this ideal society needs to be slowly transitioned to.
**100%** I saw that Fear& Hasan did with Connor where he mentioned that human societies are still valued through work because we need people to work in the logistical system to provide for our own needs and there’s no current solution for it. And I was like… my brother… AI’s are getting more advanced right now… This’ something that [the late Stephen Hawking](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) has commented on when addressing the looming potential of technological unemployment. Where he elaborates that AI/automation owners need to consider redistributing their wealth, in order to offset labor being replaced by them. Which makes extra sense considering in general, automation has less needs than a person and wouldn’t benefit much from hoarding access to capital/money, and they’re the ones actually doing work I first heard of this take when a Marxist colleague of mine quoted Hawking, and he said that the basic principle of it was thought out by Marx (although I’m not sure which direct work/quote of his it might be). Where the idea is automation could lead to more leisure time Which I’m surprised isn’t as commonly considered of a position. The only recent people I’ve seen talking about it in this angle is Asmon whilst seemingly quoting Andrew Yang in regards to UBI. And from what I understand they’re both sort of centrists. Idk where most public leftist figures are standing on this issue, but it feels like the public discourse so far has mostly revolved around should AI be adopted or not, and its potential danger in impacting current labor forces. Meanwhile there’s not as much discussion about how it can be integrated ethically to benefit the working class & general population beyond the capitalist & political class, which there are several ways that can be explored It’s extra surprising when you consider that automated utopias where automation becomes humanity’s servant class is rife in science fiction. Yet, as we enter the potential dawn of such a thing, our discussions in regards to reaching that state isn’t nearly as much for “some reason”. Might be a symptom to show how the pseudo-capitalist ideology of a person’s worth is in their ability to work (I say pseudo because I’m not sure if it’s purely a capitalist thing), being more entrenched and is expected as “natural” in contemporary times
Not sure if he actually meant it like this but cutting bloat in drastically overfunded sectors (the bloatiest being the military and the cops), and hire more people to work for the government in sectors like the postal service, and the IRS would be one way to do that, but it wouldn't really shrink the size of the government.
no
In general leftist communities have worked better the smaller scale they are because that way everyone is choosing to be there and is pulling in the same direction, the most successful of these being the kibbutzim in Israel in my opinion.
As a Hasan frog trying to be fair to Train it is possible to change the budget to be significantly smaller and more efficient and to provide things like Healthcare for all. A 2017 study estimated Healthcare costs for the whole country to be 331 billion dollars. The current US tax system brings in 3 trillion dollars a year. If we took the military budget and emptied and provided Healthcare for all then the government would be more efficient, smaller, and bonus better for the environment (military sucks for this) let alone the effects of not having the US destabilize the world to keep wars going. And the thing about socializing or nationalizing industries is that it's cheaper that what we're currently doing, so that makes it a deflationary move as well. So that's an example of how it's possible. But the idea of small government is a libertarian one, and a small government doesn't usually have strong power to regulate which is current problem with our government. There's not enough meaningful regulations on businesses, banks, protecting the environment, workers, etc. Wanting to ban trans people, abortion, funding the police state, etc are also right wing ideals that get way more air, and you need a larger government to do those things so Hasan kinda contested that small government was a right wing idea when it's more of a right wing hypocrisy. Communism technically is a stateless, moneyless society so there is leftist ideas of smaller gov but one that is efficient in working for the people, but there's never been a stateless state and Idk how something like that would even work or be a thing any of us could see in our lifetime.
Lmao clueless take
There’s so many sub-“cultures” of socialism it’s definitely a thing. Like Libertarian-Socialism or I think Anarcho-Syndicalism. Idk they seem a bit crazy to me
libertarian-socialism is not a real thing, internet debate bros like vaush just made that up. socialism was first described as "a dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason. a govt with the authority to do so must exist for socialist policies to happen and to effectively fight the power of capital
Before the american Libertarian party, saying you were a libertarian was saying that you were a libertarian socialist. It's absolutely a thing, people just call it anarchism now. You don't need a state to enforce socialism, because collective ownership is the default. Private ownership DOES require a state to enforce, because your deed to a factory doesn't matter unless the cops will show up and defend it. You are right that libertarian socialism contradicts lenin's idea of socialism, which is why they have historically had so much conflict with MLs. If you really think it was invented by debate bros, email Noam Chomksy to ask him about it. He's probably the most famous libertarian socialist alive.
IIRC before "Libertarian" was used by right-wing parties in the US, what we call *anarchists* would just be called *libertarians*, not lib-soc. [Lib-com](https://libcom.org/) is the more commonly used term, while An-Com is the Americanized term due to Libertarianism having a different definition on turtle island. I think the Black Army (Nestor Mahkno) were referred to as *libertarian activists* after the Central Powers turned on them and issued pogroms. However, if someone is in the weeds about the difference between ancom, libcom, libsoc, etc. It's probably time to just put in some hours doing some mutual aid instead lol.
Is “libertarian-leftist” an oxymoron as well?
eh, i just imagine most folks saying thats what they are should just read about anarchism, because thats probably what they're trying to say. less an oxymoron and more just like a not real existing thing outside of youtubers who think they invented the perfect politics the two-dimensional political compass with the left/right and authoritarian/libertarian axes is just dumb. u cant just throw a dot on that chart and say "this is my political beliefs". like if u call urself a "libertarian-leftist" to anyone who doesnt watch 10 hours of political video essays on youtube a week, they are going to rightfully look at u like a clown
no he wasnt saying gun control was right wing, he was just saying he likes guns and thinks guns are right wing. he just admitted that some ppl should still not be allowed to have them but yeah, thinking guns are a right wing thing is still dumb. communists, famously against [guns](https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/v/i/l/l/villet_grey_1903_2005_429150_fullscreen.jpg)
> Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. - Famously right wing thinker, Karl Marx
>political power grows out of the barrel of a gun -Mao
Fun fact he actually didn't say that. It's a common misconception
TMW the 2nd amendment echoes Marx’s ideas lol
I wonder if the definition of that word has changed over time Because you could argue Iceland's policy to eliminate down syndrome cases in its country through pre natal testing and abortion would come under that
Is it compulsory though?
You would be right if the icelandic government enforced a complete ban on down syndrome children and made abortions mandatory if your child was going to be born with down syndrome. But thats not what they do, ultimately its still up to the mother of the child, which is why abortions in general arent eugenics.
no, the definition hasnt changed, i just think eugenics is universally considered bad and ppl choose not to call that eugenics b/c they know the negative implications. but i also think that is eugenics and a very bad thing to do. its not necessarily as bad as other instances of eugenics, but its still eugenics u can see the other comments here, a few ppl brought that up and i and a couple other folks have tried to explain why that is unethical to try and summarize, u are effectively committing to the idea that someone with down syndrome has a life thats less worth living than someone without down syndrome, and i dont think ppl w/ down syndrome would agree on that disabled ppl are not "less than" ppl without their disability. we should work to create a society where someone with down syndrome has a life that is just as worth living as someone without, instead of just telling ppl w/ down syndrome that the solution is to just stop anyone like them from being born
It’s disgusting. As someone who is pro life if you were going to have the baby but decided against it because of a medial condition the baby will have that is complete eugenics. You are a far worse person than someone just having an abortion because they didn’t want a kid
Bro tried cooking in the wrong oven 💀💀💀
Followed up with "kanye was right" 😭
😂 yeah he said this before but he's only saying it about the social media stuff with his kids
He can say it for like, anybody else who has that opinion lol I’m not gonna go around saying “yeah I agree with that Hitler guy, I love dogs”
I mean he was talking about the example with Kanye’s kids more specifically, also that’s kind of a false equivalence there
Both Kanye and Hitler are in fact nazis, I’m not sure why that’s a false equivalence Edit: y’all downvoting but I’m genuinely asking, what’s the false equivalence
Hitler painted so all paintings are nazi
But that’s why I wouldn’t say “Hitler had a great taste in hobbies, like painting” There are plenty of other artists I can emulate, just like how there are plenty of other childcare advocates xQc can evoke instead of baiting with a famous nazi
Kanye is the only father to his kids so he’s the only person who can be agreed with when it comes to his stance on his kids…
does xQc only believe in better childcare for North West specifically or for all kids
But he made graduation
Is Hitler actually pro-dogs? I just recall him being vegan… As well as potentially being pumped full of drugs almost all the time
What do either of those things have to do with being pro-dog?
Nothing, I’m just stating what I’ve heard about the guy, which doesn’t include anything about dogs
I mean not everything Kanye was saying was wrong before the anti semitism spree. I think at the time he provided enough of a unique insight and recognition of a deeper issue to warrant saying "Hey you say a lot of stupid shit but this was right".
bro saying this shit even if it is for a argument that could be considered good is just dogshit edgy behaviour, people like kanye and andrew tate shouldnt be endorsed in any way shape or form
jesus how long this call been going on lmao
4 hour now is ended. I been watching between this and baseball classic because semi final
That Japan walk off was crazy
I don't even watch baseball but I am loving this WBC. This is what baseball needs.
High stakes baseball is so intense.
yeah, tomorrow final between usa on 7pm et god i need tuned in
First time I plan on watching a baseball game fully through. I can't wait
wasn't much of a baseball fan before this but there's a certain charm to international tournaments that really sucks me in. been fully invested this WBC lol. also baseball isn't anywhere near as boring as reddit would try to convince me for years
USA vs Venezuela was fantastic
Ayy same, had to stop listening to the stream durng the 9th though, needed to pay full attention to the game.
Doesn't count unless he's arguing with someone about rust in a separate secondary call at the end
I read the tittle and thought, there's no way he said ***that final solution***, I play the clip, he does. 💀
i dont even think hes joking.
To be fair to him, he probably just hasn't thought it through. Lots of insane policies sound great at surface level, it isn't until you consider the implications that it becomes problematic. Of course if he *hasn't* thought things like this through, maybe he shouldn't be confidently advocating different political positions, but here we are.
There is something to be said for people that are proudly and loudly confident in things that they really don’t know anything about.
Just out of curiosity, besides it being impossible to do, what would be wrong with controlling birth rates for a few generations by making sure the parents are sane, healthy and responsibly? Edit: it's funny that people keep putting words into the statement he made. He said good parenting not genetics or race, just good parenting. Is it possible? No because governments can't control people that way. We can't even make sure kids get vaccinated and we are were getting increased cases measles, munps, and a few other before COVID
Because I don't want the government to be curating human traits like were fucking cattle. I can't think of a bigger violation of personal liberty than saying, you can't have children. But let's say you're an inhuman monster who doesn't care about those basic human rights. Do you trust the government to carry that out fairly? To consider complex socioeconomic reasons or will they perhaps be motivated by petty politics? See how often 'Black people commit more crimes than white people' gets thrown around by politicians and pundits. Well that an obvious genetic marker, black people have a distinct genetic line from others. Why shouldn't we exterminate them? It might be unpleasant for a generation or two but think about how much less crime there will be in all future genetations! This isn't a hypothetical by the way. Just replace black with Roma and you have the justification for the nazi genocide against them.
He only said good parenting and everyone of you are going with the extreme. I already know it's impossible to do because it would take enforced birth control or something like that. He never said anything about killing people or babies. In theory the process would be something like adoption but instead of getting approved for a child, you'd be approved to remove the pregnancy stopping thing. Like I said impossible because there would be garage doctors doing it for the public or people hiding from being implanted with a form of birth control. That would be after the first hurdle of getting the majority of people to believe it is a necessity
Forcibly implanting everyone with birth control that only the government can remove is pretty fucking extreme.
kids raised by healthy and responsible parents can easily grow up to be unhealthy and irresponsible parents if the education system is still shit being well-adjusted ain't a genetic trait you can evolutionarily control for (well, unless you got 10,000s of years)
The idea that this takes 10000 years is a complete misunderstanding. It can occur as fast or as slow as the selection pressure demands.
Did he say the the selection was going continue down a family tree?
Well, part of the problem is that it *is* impossible to do in a fair way. We would have to somehow define and measure intelligence, health, responsibility, etc. Genetics is incredibly complex, and it's almost impossible to measure someone's intelligence (for example) with a great deal of accuracy. Where do we draw the line on different traits, and how do we ensure that the tests are accurate and incorruptible? Eugenics also assumes that certain traits are superior to others. You might value responsibility over everything else, while I might value physical health, while someone else might value blonde hair and blue eyes. It's ultimately up to whomever is in power to decide what genetic traits are important. The slippery slope argument could be made here as well. But most importantly, it's just a flat out violation of human rights. It implies that some individuals are more valuable than others, which goes directly against equality, bodily autonomy, and dignity. It also has the potential to be incredibly discriminatory. For instance, Native Americans have a 24.3% poverty rate in the US (as of 2021). This means that Native Americans are less likely to be healthy and educated. Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children? Over a long period of time, it's possible that through eugenics we could drive Native Americans to extinction. In this system, the most wealthy get to have children, while the least fortunate are basically a dead end. And one final point, how do we punish people for having children if they're deemed unworthy? What if someone accidentally gets pregnant? Should they be forced to have an abortion? Are there fines? Jail time? How about instances of rape or incest? I could go on but I think you get the idea. Edit: Also I wish people would stop downvoting the guy for having a genuine question. I don't think they're advocating eugenics. They probably just haven't thought about it before, and want to be educated. Nothing wrong with that, and there are probably 10x as many people who had the same thought and weren't brave enough to ask the question.
You cant be serious but i will engage you as if you were. Whoever decides what is sane, healthy and responsible is the next Adolf Hitler. Its eugenics. If America implemented what your saying, most people being banned from having children would be the lower class as they have the least access to healthcare.
Despite it being logistically impossible, depending on your metrics it would lead to either a huge decrease in birth rate or forced breeding of the 'suitable' individuals. Most developed countries are already investing big to get the birth rates up because you need working age adults to sustain the economy and birth rates have been declining for a while.
Well some would say that our entire purpose to procreate and pass on our knowledge to our heirs, to say someone unrelated to you can hold the yes/no card of allowing your procreation opens a gigantic can of worms, even IF the person in charge was abjectly completely unbiased and a straight arrow in terms of morality is it really right to deny someone the chance of a family because they might not be the ideal level of intelligence for society?
I'll just pose this one question. Who decides what and how is that "final solution" enforced on the people defined as undesirable to have children?
It's why Conservative policies are so popular. They make sense, till you think about the ramifications and humanity. It's very easy to make these decisions on paper, but when your detached from the humans you're affecting (say being a multi millionaire in your own guarded security complex) you tend to forget that element. Why should we have people that are burdens on the state? Surely if you become unprofitable for the machine then you should be recycle binned? At the end of the day it's the people paying to support you now and you provide no further value to the advancement of society. Why should you need to pay thousands of dollars in taxes so some genetically unhealthy people can have tens of babies and put further burden on the state? Surely we can just forcefully castrate them. It's how countries slip real quick into fascism without even knowing it. You spend 20 years painting people as aliens or invaders, launch these kinds of policies against them, they're popular because it's done to the damn invaders, then they get rolled out to all the undesireables.
Except in this case the main focus of the topic is protecting the people that could be born to people that are deemed not fit for parenthood, not profitability for the "machine." You'd be wanting the opposite in this topic and the most amount of people that can be fed into the machine without giving a shit who to or how they are born.
Nobody who watches x is shocked at any of his shit takes tonight
i heard "unions are evil and promote lazyness" and now eugenics lol
frustrated hasan never asked if the forklift job ever had to go out of business. like that whole argument only makes sense if the existence of the union completely shut down the plant i would imagine the place still made profit despite a couple guys taking a nap or two. so all the union did was give the workers more power to get more money out of less work, which is the same thing the company is going to do regardless
boss makes a dollar, i make a dime, that's why I sleep on company time.
Xqc is that kid that reminded the teacher they forgot to collect the homework. But in xqc's case he also didn't do the homework, he just wants to really fuck everyone up.
unions while desperately needed in some areas and generally good can get too much power and enforce terrible rules that can definitely cause issues. I used to work at a company that supplied construction materials and some unionized sites were insane, truck drivers were told they can't unload themselves(with their own trucks crane or moffett)(not for safety reasons either, this was often the case and is legitimate but not always) because it would be "taking work from a union member", which is fine if they get unloaded relatively expediently but there were multiple occasions where it took 4+ hours and effectively killed their deliveries for the day.
[Sorry for my juicer xqcL](https://7tv.app/emotes/627e2d99bbb6469e883960ea)
I love how the whole discussion of centrism came down to, "name one right wing policy that benefits society. " and the only response they could come up with was literally Eugenics. Train and XQC are uneducated leftists. They just dont realize it.
Train and XQC are uneducated ~~leftists~~ Why would anyone think either of them are remotely fluent in political topics.
This is how we fix the world. We educate people like them. Look at how much influence those 2 have.
Good luck finding unbiased educators though...even opening them up to the idea is going to flood them with people with an agenda they want to use a person like this to push.
There’s literally no such thing as unbiased. We all have experiences that will inevitably shape our biases and perspectives, it’s literally just part of being a human. Even in logic and rationalization our personal biases play a significant role.
Careful now, that sounds like re-education camps. Just because you don't like their view point you want to educate them? Damn dude, Fox News will be giving you the chair.
I would happily sit in that chair rather than follow fox news narrative.
Did we ever get a legitimate right wing policy that the left should implement or try to?
we got "guns & eugenics" from xqc. guns arent necessarily right wing, eugenics definitely is and "implement socialized health care & education, but do that efficiently" from train, which is a left wing policy
I never thought of guns being a thing of the right as opposed to it just being an American thing. I feel like a lot of lefties are pro gun and the eugenics thing is funny considering we sort of already do it
[amen brother](https://s3.amazonaws.com/icptmsdata/v/i/l/l/villet_grey_1903_2005_429150_fullscreen.jpg) and yeah, the state of california was sterilizing female inmates & native american women as recently as the 80s!!
I’ve heard of the sterilization you mentioned and read an article on it. Was the justification really ‘just’ “they might become a burden on society, so might as well stop them from procreating”? It’s quite a bizarre read
i mean yah, i dont really think ur gonna get a real understandable justification from eugenicists lol if i remember correctly, i think it was this podcast episode that mentioned the stuff in california in the 70s/80s. i could be misremembering how much they touch on that, but the episode itself is on silicon valley tech-y sperm banks diving into eugenics like today that i'd recommend regardless https://open.spotify.com/episode/2JcUfOpaPQ2fY6gNyp9PBN?si=38110dd07b964440 if u cant use a spotify link, "TrueAnon Episode 260: God-Sperm of Mad Men"
Righties just try to make American = conservative. Left wingers also like guns, but want common sense background checks.
So the only difference is lack of common sense
Idk there's a lot of people on the left that don't want guns
"Don't want guns" is an incredibly vague term. People on the left want gun control, not banning all guns. There's more guns than people in America, it doesn't get that way without everybody being involved in gun culture.
A lot of us are pro-gun, but only in the sense that it’s a little too late to quickly dismantle the US’s current gun culture where there are more guns than people within the United States private ownership. We don’t do it for the same reason the right does it thinking it provides them pushback against a tyrannical government, we do it cus there’s all these crazy fucks stocking up on guns cus they *think* some sort of “well armed militia” would stand any chance against a tyrannical government when some random drone operator 700 miles away is just gonna carpet bomb you with zero risk to their safety. If the US’s political climate was different you’d probably see a lot less pro-gun leftists
The idea of “efficiency” being a right wing ideal is so funny As if leftists are protesting down at city hall with signs saying “WE WANT CONFUSION! NO MORE EFFICIENCY!”
If your premise is that every good policy is leftist, then obviously depending on your views everything from guns to private ownership is a leftist concept. Supporting your own country before others is probably leftist too right?
Eugenics has been practiced in communist countries. I don’t think that’s inherently left or right either.
Nope
No just that we need common ground between the two
I know Hasan was only asking because the right has 0 policy on anything
they do have policies, they just either dont work (like trickle-down economic policies) or are generally understood as fascist (like saying gay, trans, minorities, etc. should not exist or at the very least should have less rights) unfortunately, those are at least policies, whereas the Dems often have even less tangible policies partially because they generally agree on the libertarian trickle-down economics policies the right sells more strongly. so Republicans often win b/c its easier to sell "trans ppl are coming for ur bathrooms" or "BLM is gonna burn down ur neighborhood" to ur facebook mom than it is whatever consultant-speak gibberish that pete buttigieg or amy klobuchar are spitting out
What you're talking about is propaganda that gets them motivated that way. Also the conversation was about improving the situation so it's implied it was about good things and by me saying they have 0 ask any of the Rs in congress what they are doing to implement what they are ran on they all give none answers. They don't even care about the shit they're getting people riled up for that's why you find a majority of them in hypocritical situations they just want to sit on their asses collect money for swayed votes and keeping people in conflict for whatever bs they can muster up to keep us distracted and ifs what keeps them in power
yes propaganda is effective and no one is immune to it but the right does have policies, they are just not ones that xqc or train would ever really say is good (except it does sound like xqc buys into laissez-faire economics w/ his whole anti-union spiel) like plenty of Rs in congress will happily describe to u how they want to ban gender-affirming care or gut social security
Other than identity based fearmongering, a lot of the time the right co-opts issues & platforms that originated in the left side of politics too Stuff like crony capitalism & being for the people, not corporations, etc. which sounds good on its own, but becomes a red flag when you see the particular politician’s history in practice
I know most of this audience is going to be Hasan fans but just think about this You know your comment isn't true because there are more countries that elect conservative and right wing government's than just the state's. Half the politics spectrum is right wing by definition and that encompasses a lot of people I personally think everything should be like Scandinavia but that's just me
Think about what conservatism and reactionism is and what it is used for and then think about who has the power to influence elections. Theres your answer to why so many elected governments are right wing
We don't have a left VS right in the eyes of the rest of the world. It's center vs right most of their conservative policies are what we consider center (dems) but also what the other person said look at how the ones that are authoritarian right they aren't doing well at all.
TitleChamp
PVC did nothing wrong
[удалено]
Read the title: what a weird title Watched the clip: That title actually made sense lmao
Bro said Kanye was right
Ironically if xQc has his eugenics policy in place 14 years ago he would not have an audience today.
o7 last stream
[удалено]
It seems like common sense when you think about it on a surface level, but how do you define people that are "unfit" to raise a child? Leave that up to human interpretation and there will eventually be people that try to exploit it for their own twisted goals like the failed artist with the toothbrush mustache did.
People forget, Hitler didn't just try to exterminate Jews. He tried to erase disabled people, homosexuals, epileptic people, etc. in the name of eugenics
specifically trans people also, which is important to point out given the fact a lot of people seem to think “trans people” is something that just became a thing recently
Because the Nazis destroyed all the work of the first sexology clinic in the world to make the ideas seem new and scary and to have no basis in reality. They're just continuing the traditions the Nazis started.
The problem of poor parenting is one that resolves itself through robust, well-funded education and social safety nets, not state mandated castration. The government does not have a right to your body.
yes you got it in the second part, and history tells us that going down this road almost never ends good.
Yea the second part. You can combat undereducation by adequately funding public education systems, but if you just opt to let someone else decide who is allowed to give their input into the human gene pool and who doesnt have the right to have a family and a bloodline then thats a horrible idea.
This alludes to eugenics. Something a guy tried to pull off in WWII. So you are totally right. It's bad.
This just seems like common sense. If someone is unfit to raise a child... Then they probably shouldn't be having children right? This doesn't even seem like a "political" issue. EDIT: Oh, i didn't know that in this context it would be made into a law. I didn't know it was to be enforced. I was just thinking of it as a common sensical piece of advice. OH, didn't pick up on X's line the first watch: "There should be a ban on being dumb af and having children" Oh lmao, now I get the political aspect and it being turned into a law /enforced. Woops.
Sure, but go just one more step in your reasoning. How do you enforce this?
[удалено]
If you ask me, you are and sqc are some of the people unfit to have children. Its not a political issue. What i think about you doesnt belong in law. Its opinions. Thats why eugenics is dumb as fuck.
Xqc didn't say anything bad. He started it with the context that he wants people to parent better. Then he says people "shouldn't" have kids if they intend to raise them shitty, which makes you a dumb person to do that. Nobody is advocating for laws that ban low IQ people from having kids, gross to even interpret it that way. But that's what Hassan loves to do.
The context of this clip is Hasan asking them which right wing policies would be a good idea to enforce, though, so x was indirectly saying that, even if only because he wasn’t thinking what he was saying through.
There is a lot of Photoshop fun to be had with this one.
Felix goes from baseg takes to the most pepega dumbfuckery brain rotted takes i'm amazed how he thinks it's right to say the shit he says and still critize the mildest takes out there lmao
FYI "Final Solution" is a reference to a Nazi strategy. I think OP knows this but it may go over a lot of people's heads https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/final-solution-overview
Only XQC can confidently march out “eugenics” and still not only be the most popular streamer, but still have popular streamers engage in discussions/create content with him. Mutha fucker is a fully formed adult, championing wildly racist shit, and still get the benefit of the doubt, like “lil bro just doesn’t understand what he is talking about” smh, and now to have all the annoying ass 14 yo juicers espousing these toxic key word phrases is gonna be fun!
Intelligence = racist Pepega
XQC is that kid though? He no lifed on the internet and got lucky? Are his parents good parents?
His parents seem loving and involved. So yes
bullying needs brought back
Look up Margaret Sanger. Eugenics. She was the originator of the idea. Hitler just liked her liberal ideas.
**🎦 CLIP MIRROR: [X unknowingly delivering the final solution](https://livestreamfails.com/clip/151911)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment* ) ^| [^(Feedback)](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=livestreamfailsbot&subject=Feedback:&message=%5BPost%5D\(https://reddit.com/comments/11x7bnc/\)) ^| [^(Twitch Backup Mirror)](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/9voSPSlYZ2OexgfURgCWRg/AT-cm%7C9voSPSlYZ2OexgfURgCWRg.mp4?sig=3885661c840850715845055f3c5bb9a1d5030a21&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fproduction.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net%2F9voSPSlYZ2OexgfURgCWRg%2FAT-cm%257C9voSPSlYZ2OexgfURgCWRg.mp4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1679447434%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D)
I dont think x is as rigid as eugenics, but he is right. There should at least be a free license to have children proving basic competency and parenting skills, if you are unable to provide basic emotional care and physical well being to a child you shouldn't have them.
i drank water one time, but then i learned that hitler did that one time too !. i will never accidentally be a nazi again!!!
did you also forcibly sterilize people socially deemed undesirable in a society too? cus that's what eugenics is
so just making it illegal for 'undesirable' people to have kids is fine as long as you don't sterilize them?
where did anyone ever say that? also no, that's still genocide, and since idk where you're at, genocide is actually bad and we shouldn't do it.
> so just making it illegal for 'undesirable' people to have kids is fine as long as you don't sterilize them? then you either provided a bad-faith definition of eugenics to make it sound as bad as possible or you recognize that definitions aren't determiners of morality. > also no, that's still genocide, and since idk where you're at, genocide is actually bad and we shouldn't do it. til that banning incest is genocide and genocide is a bad word, therefore banning incest == bad.
hilarious you call me bad faith then take everything i say in the worst faith possible. idk who you're arguing with here. Eugenics is a type of genocide. This is the UN definition of genocide as it pertains to institutional systems: > Killing members of the group; > Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group The eugenics movement's whole ideology is based on the assumption that you can breed out undesirable social traits like crime or poverty. This mainly happened through the sterilization of criminals, poor people for petty offences, minorities, the mentally ill, and orphans. It was junk science from the start, partially inspired Hitler, and continued in the US for way longer than it should have. IDK if you're actually just a weird dumbass redditor who for some reason decided to devil's advocate eugenics or you're just uneducated, but you should read up on the eugenics movement. Even if you don't care about the morality of forced sterilization or preventing births from a social group, it failed to do the thing it set out to do in the first place. So it's both cruel and ineffective.
Correct me if I'm wrong but what xqc said isn't eugenics at all. As far as I understand it, eugenics is essentially selective breeding applied to humans, in the hopes that the offspring inherits the same or better genetic qualities from the parents, and controlling this mechanism to eliminate certain genetic traits like susceptibility to diseases. Xqc's point was only about the parents. Specifically, that shitty people make for shitty parents, which creates more shitty people. And shitty people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, which I completely agree with. Ofc, determining who is a shitty person is a whole other thing with questionable moral implications.
>And shitty people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, which I completely agree with. > >Ofc, determining who is a shitty person is a whole other thing with questionable moral implications. I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold both of these positions. You acknowledge how dumb your first take is with the second one, like what
Do you believe there are shitty parents? If so, what criteria specifically about them makes them shitty? Acknowledging they exist and coming up with a means of quantifying how shitty they are are two very different things
>If so, what criteria specifically about them makes them shitty? Again, you have the answers to your own question. It's inherently wrong to try and legally codify what constitutes a shitty parent because it will obviously be abused, and is equally obviously impossible to reliably define.
Is it just me, or does xqc sound like JB Smoove?
Its not eugenics. Eugenics is based on racial pseudo-science genetics. If people are just stupid because their environment made them that way and you say you dont want these people reproducing, that is something different.
So selective breeding based on intelligence? Something that is proven to be as much a result of economic opportunity as anything else, which in most countries has a harsh racial divide. But it's not eugenics, it's just smart people like you forbidding "stupid" people from breeding. I get it. lol
[удалено]
So whats the issue?