this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
651 points (98.8% liked)
Actually Infuriating
926 readers
2 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People should have to get breeding licenses.
Under the present administration, this family would have been first in line to receive their "breeding license."
Breeding the "Trump Youth" and next generation of MAGAts.
Eugenics is fascist, end of.
Note: positive eugenics is also fascist.
For clarification - negative eugenics = preventing certain groups from reproducing. Positive eugenics = promoting certain groups to reproduce.
Fascists use both.
Imperfect implementation isn't a reason not to adopt a good idea.
No. Just no. That's fucking eugenics. No.
Theyre practising their own eugenics right now. In a way that can cause harm to others.
So? Does that make eugenics a good thing? No it doesn't.
Yes, it’s apparently a human right for evil subhumans to bring children into the world and abuse them. The anti-eugenics crowd speed-running idiocracy.
Eugenics is fascist. You are defending a fascist ideology. Take a step back to consider that please.
Also curious to know how you would decide who gets to reproduce.
We place moral restrictions on decisions that have a potential to hurt others. Bringing children into this world is one such decision.
False equivalency. Also waiting on your criteria for a reproduction permit.
Again, eugenics is fascist.
Also, even with the best effort to restrict reproduction in a "good" way, the instant your administration changes, those restrictions will change too. Do you want the Trump admin to choose who can reproduce?
Education is the answer. Always has been, always will be.
This applies to a lot of things. It's a reason why you don't want too much infrastructure in place that can be used for oppression, even if such infrastructure is put into place by a benevolent administration.
Yes, and in the case of restrictions on reproduction, I do not see any way to implement that without having that gigantic oppressive infrastructure.
Also, "benevolent" eugenics is still eugenics, still fascist.
Getting to "fascist" seems to be your only endgame here. It's a label. Paved roads and running water are "fascist".
Please explain to me how you would go about selecting who can reproduce and who can't then. I've asked this question multiple times and so far none of you "eugenics are good when it favors me" seem to want to answer it.
Eugenics is about purity of your population. That is a textbook component of fascism, whether you like it or not.
All of the "problems" they're pointing out against letting stupid/evil people have a dozen kids are problems that still exist without such a restriction. Inability to isolate variables and saying we shouldn't do anything because "the system is imperfect" defines conservatism.
If you bothered to read the whole thread, I do propose a solution. Education.
But the current administration would not properly implement education
Unfortunately true, I agree. There would be an enormous amount of work to be done, starting with replacing that admin, and it would take time and effort. Still, I don't see a way, even with all the benevolence in the world, to restrict reproduction in a positive way. Also, I honestly believe that it would end up having a similar effect to banning alcohol for example: people wouldn't stop reproducing, they would hide it, which in turn means no access to healthcare or education for those children, as they would have to be hidden from the government, thus complicating things even further.
Once thought like that, but actually think through it and it's not possible without being evil: what are the criteria, who makes the call, who watches those making such calls to ensure it's fair (and who watches them and so on because this kind of thing would immediately attract people seeking power over others and therefore corruption), how does one appeal, etc etc etc.
It just isn't possible without being a fascist (evil).
Also it's been done before even in "nonfascist" states - see forced sterilization of indigineous peoples and African Americans in the US.
Having a child is something a pair of consenting adults can do with their own bodies. How the state can get involved in that without it being a major incursion on personal liberty should cause one to pause.
I'm convinced that in this part of the world most supporters are either active or latent white supremacists. In other parts it's often based on subjugation of a more specific ethnic group, which isn't any better. It's all fascism at the end of the day.
Very conservative mindset. lol
This has been considered at various points in history and, at least in the Western world, it often comes down to white people being given permission (regardless of preparedness) and people of color being forcibly sterilized. Also known as eugenics.
White supremacy is a hell of a scourge and the Western world is still trying to shake it, over the course of centuries.