this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5412 readers
1227 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow, this is the least fun group on the internet. These comments...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yikes, you're right. Should've skipped. Fuckin hell guys

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Its the cats that we don't deserve.

They just happen, they adopt us, use us as slaves, indoctrinate us in a cat worshipping cult, ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I, for one, welcome our old feline overlords.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Cats are ancient aliens. That's why Egyptians worshipped them, that's why their pee glows and why their scratches and bites are so toxic. They're not of this earth. Don't trust them! They're trying to take over and they're being allowed to win!!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

This is fiercely wholesome

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

...We've committed a multi-thousand year long genocide against dogs, breeding them for traits that we find useful, and usually killing the puppies that don't possess useful traits...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

So... We've treated them as equals for millennia? That tracks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That last part may need a bit of citation, but yes modern breed standardization has unfortunately crippled many of the poor creatures from birth.

Adopt rescues, people! It's usually super cheap and they're almost always healthier dogs anyway.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I presume you meant to prepend these citations with your own summation, something along the lines of: "It's a spectrum, not a point", etc al?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This might be my favorite rage bait of all time. Lol

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, it's also true, so is it really bait then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Only in very broad strokes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's not genocide, that's eugenics. Just as bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Eugenics is not inherently bad, it's just frequently used as an excuse to do really evil shit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's personal and systemic eugenics. Systemic eugenics will always be bad.

Personal... Well, you're not obligated to have children you don't want either.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Eugenics is bad because it's based on fundamentally incorrect ideas about how genetics plays into personal development. Galton drew specifically upon the fundamentally incorrect ideas of scientific racism, and wrote about Eugenics as being a means to better improve the superior races. Galton argued that things like poverty and mass suffering could have been solved this way, essentially arguing that it was the personal incompetence of the less fortunate which lead them into misfortune (also fundamentally incorrect).

Even if you drop the baggage of scientific racism, Eugenics is still conceptually ableist, choosing to eliminate those we deem disabled rather than finding solutions to better their lives.

On top of that, we were kind of hinging on sequencing the human genome giving us the insight to how genetic diseases work, the single possible case that eugenic thought might have had a use in. This has since fallen through. Further research into genetics has also demonstrated just how unreadable DNA is right now. We are still nowhere near being able to predict most genetic diseases based on the genetics of a couple.

I also cannot think of a single thing that eugenics implies should be done that isn't absolutely evil. I'd argue that things that only encourage evil actions are themselves evil.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The concept of changing the species through genetic manipulation with intention as opposed to wild flailings of evolution (which is why I would consider to be eugenics) is not inherently evil, nor does it require anything horrible. As the poster above said, it is just often used as an excuse to do horrible things.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sorry to disappoint you, but even just picking your partner off of looks is literally a form of eugenics if you preach being attracted to your partner... Parents who decide to abort a fetus with a terminal illness is ALSO literally and directly eugenics.

Eugenics itself isn't bad, it's just certain morons think THEY deserve to decide such things for and about others.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

no that's part of natural selection. it's our biology telling us what we want. eugenics is systemic planned pairing and breeding. it's also had the ideas that a person's quality is defined at birth baked into it from the start. it's based on the concept of a person's worth being defined by the circumstances of their birth and not by their efforts in life.

also, actual science tells us that the best thing to "breed for",if that's the way you want to look at life, is genetic diversity. the healthiest stock has the most diverse gene pool. something every eugenicist also somehow manages to ignore that and deny that if improving or genetics is our goal we should be trying to all become a neutral brown and choose people the most different from us genetically.

cause that's the thing about dog breeds. we can engineer the perfect biological hunting machine... that dies by age 11 at the latest. because breeding for a trait never creates healthy offspring. which makes sense, we weren't breeding for health. the natural desire of most parents is a healthy child. it's what nature optimized for. when we start looking for other traits we tend to fuck it up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing I said was incorrect. Eugenics IS NOT ONLY Nazi-style eugenics. Period. Ever.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

the points i was making in the latter paragraphs is that even if there is nothing morally wrong and you're not forcing anything it's still an inherently flawed view of genetics. breeding the smartest, kindest and most capable people to have those traits you'll still just end up with unhealthy offspring.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I do not defend the practice of attempting to pick "good" genes, but to point out eugenics is very much around and accepted by everyone. It's just a question to what degree, and certain people want to extend their decisions on the matter to others.

OFC you cannot simply pick pretty babies and end up with a "better" species. That is an ignorant, stupid, and Nazi-esque way to look at eugenics.

Stop letting Nazis and other similarly ignorant fucking morons define the world.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

ok, so what is your definition of eugenics?

because the dictionary definition is "the selection of desired inheritable traits to improve future generations". that is what I'm saying is an inherently flawed ideology and practice. if you mean something different you might choose a different word.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

Notice how NOWHERE in the definition is, "kill the undesirables".

The very fact that certain genetic traits are desirable means the entire culture has SOME eugenics built right in. I'm trying to point out how the very concept IS NOT out there weird and abnormal.

This is exactly why and how horrible political ideologies fester: by treating them as if they're abhorrent outliers that "cannot happen here". No. Eugenics is alive and well, even in the US. It is within human nature. To act like entertaining the idea is abnormal, you push people to the extremes.

Are people dumb for being so easily swayed? YES! Though there are a lot of dumb people who can be easily swayed.

Eugenics should NOT be a dirty word, because it DOES exist in normal circles, and that fact can be leveraged by extremists to get people to sign on to their more extreme forms simply because, "anyone who thinks eugenics is good is evil!". That's just purely wrong and misguided.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those "monsters" from the dark were the real heroes back when — braving the orange flickering light that instinctually meant death to sneak scraps from the stabby skin-wearers... Sounds like the original D&D story to me, NGL.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

domesticating wolves by campfire with just body language would be a bad ass RPG VR game

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or from the wolf's perspective as dlc: Domesticate the skin-walker

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

That's what cats've done, TBF. They even taught themselves to sound like our babies! Not to mention, contracted a bio-parasite to further tilt our civilization to their whims...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

all you need to know is that dogs are fluffye! no need to look at the other comments :)!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, that's what we want to believe, that it all started with someone feeding a hungry wolf, but knowing humanity it's just as possible it started with a captured wolf and copious amounts of animal abuse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's most likely that dogs/wolves just kept eating our waste, staying close to us, and after initial fights humans noticed the dogs/wolves are not being a threat, thus letting them do their thing and observing them.

Then humans eventually figured out that by observing dogs and their reactions, they could see if dogs smelled/heard something which they couldn't. And then started to exploit that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

wolves just kept eating our waste

You may wanna edit this to say trash, it sounds like you're saying wolves followed us around eating our shit, which afaik isn't a theory for dog domestication.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Technically garbage rather than trash, if we're being pedantic

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

afaik

Well... it actually is a theory. Like, all modern dogs love to eat human shit, so there's been some evolutionary theories about how wolves/dogs of old have eaten human shit as an easy meal and thus part of their diets, and that might have aided in domestication and all that.

And now that I've already started to discuss dogs eating shit: My personal theory is, that rural dogs in India have human shit as a major source of their nutrition, since the sanitary conditions in many rural areas there are shitting in the bushes, and there's a lot of village dogs...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I didn't invent dogs. I don't deserve dogs. :(

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You are kenough.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you leave out the fact that we also breed them till their eyes pop out of their sockets, their brains don't fit in their skulls, they are in constant fear of suffocating. Then yes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

those breeds are quite new, for the vast majority of our history dogs have been bred to be healthy, since they do important work and having them die on you is annoying after you put in all the work to train them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

They're either this or well built, intelligent, and filled anxiety over the impending collapse of the galaxy into a black hole. "What was that?! A small tear in the fabric of the space time continuum? Demons? Maybe the cat next door is finally going to murder all of us! Ok, probably not. But maybe I should bark at whatever it is just in case. "

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

But then what about, say, cows? They were domesticated too, but to the extent that they subjectively like and trust humans (and I've seen very friendly cows) they have been deceived, with very few exceptions. Maybe we deserve them in the purely material sense since they are the products of our labor, but they don't deserve us...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Perhaps not individually - although even there, what is the average lifespan of a cow in the wild? - but collectively there have been far more cow offspring than there would have been if they had not been domesticated.

Also, looking at every other wild species that we've eradicated, they seem to have decided to get in on our good side, which since they aren't extinct may have worked out well for them.

And even individually, if they live >3x longer, in a more comfortable environment where food is provided routinely... it's arguably not as bad a trade-off as it first appears.

A lifetime of slavery ending in death, or try to outcompete the species that invented guns? We might each make a different choice, but they made theirs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Monsters"

Nope

Did you know that wild wolves make sure the whole pact eats, but when you give dogs in a pen food, it's every doggo for themselves, and the smallest ones can end up going without?

Ofc they're still more sociable towards humans, but yeah, we just changed who their friends were and who they're aggressive against. Gaslighted them into thinking we're good for them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We are talking from the perspective of a cave person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

really just anyone sitting in the wilderness seeing a creature of any kind at the edge of the light cast by a campfire, the creature could be a friendly sheep and i'd still shit myself into low earth orbit

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More like we were kind to the helpless pups that were left over after we slaughtered the adults. Unless we were hungry, of course.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you think people ate wolves lol? yes that certainly sounds appealing and worthwhile.

i definitely wouldn't prefer to trap a rabbit, nope.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

People would not normally eat wolves. But in times of famine you can bet your ass they weren't picky.