this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
409 points (94.6% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

40864 readers
3356 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Supposing none of that is an issue

Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments.

Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra "fuck you" to the human race.

If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they'd bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

documented genetic conditions

Who's to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.

If the parents' families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?

What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?

Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down's Syndrome?

I'd rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

It's definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren't considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it's fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they're generally beneficial for children.

I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.

A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?

While I tend to agree, that's a highly controversial view (see eugenics).

[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don't need to see shit!

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Eugenics isn't inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you're a eugenicist.

Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You're preferring genes again! Don't like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes...

Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won't live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you've practiced eugenics!!

Eugenics itself is not bad. It's the racist fuck desire to want to "cleanse" the "race" of humanity that's bad.

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you're a eugenicist.

Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective imperatives, as far as I know.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as "eugenics" were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.

All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn't have children because you believe their genes are bad. That's it. It's literally just:

Eu: Prefix meaning "good" Gene: Relating to genes ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned "-ition" results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)

It's just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.

Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Why'd you have to bring my potato body into this?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they'll even have a kid.