Many people today proclaim their healthy scepticism as a guiding principle, constantly reevaluating their views, absorbing more information and trying to be as objective as possible when taking a stance.
Apparently, at least.
When engaging in conversations on social media, I can’t help but notice how many are still enslaved by their biases to the point of rejecting proven facts, denying history and common sense, not to mention displaying double standards, in order to affirm their complete trust in a public figure, political movement or religious figment.
The enamourment of some leftists with Margaret Sanger runs along these lines.
She is praised as a hero for “championing women’s rights”, when her declared agenda was to rid her country of as many “undesirables” as possible (underprivileged, that is).
Rumour has it the left stands for those same people Margaret Sanger despised; the internet is littered with quotes from her books, praising eugenics as an efficient method of reducing the number of the “unfit”. She showed nothing but disdain for them.
However, since she is pushed forward by the religious as some kind of proof that atheists are utilitarian, some atheists have embraced her as a symbol of women’s liberation. That in itself shows they either know nothing about the woman’s actual views and simply propagate memes, or they don’t mind those views that much, despite adhering to the left side of politics, which now campaigns against these exact views today.
Honestly, it’s a mindfuck.
Propaganda in favour of eugenics has not been mere hateful rhetoric; it has had dramatic, life-altering consequences for large numbers of people, who were subjected to forced sterilisation in the US and elsewhere.
There is probably nothing more degrading to a human being than being told they are so unworthy of life that anyone potentially carrying one of their traits must be prevented, by force, from being born.
Nowhere does the elitist part of the left become more evident than in agreeing with or tolerating eugenics. Some commentators infer the measure was meant to reduce impairing conditions; however, it implies considering those singled out inferior by default, and less or not worthy of existing.
And where would one draw the line once the initial line is crossed? What would be acceptable to some?
Sanger didn’t focus on the passing down of “wrong genes” (those causing impairments), but on limiting the number of poor people, not by reducing poverty but by encouraging the poor to stop breeding.
How that can coexist in someone’s mind with seeking equality and social justice, I’ll never understand.