Interesting! Based on the headline I thought this was maybe like a 2d version of The Guild games, but this appears to learn closer to something like Recettear, maybe?
redhorsejacket
joined 2 years ago
Boy, I knew Alan Moore has some strong opinions, but this seems beyond the pale.
There's less of a difference than you believe there to be. In principle, you've said the biker that rides without a helmet has proven themselves too dumb to live. You state that you believe we should allow more stupid people die, because our society has A) limited resources and B) removed or lessened the natural filter (risk of death) that accompanies stupid activity. You state that this has led to a situation where stupid people are procreating and the stupid offspring of stupid people are showing up in ERs, demonstrating new and heretofore unseen misunderstandings of physics. If we let more stupid people die, hopefully some of them will not have bred yet, and we, as society, can course correct back to nature, where stupid critters tend to die more frequently than intelligent critters (which is a huge assumption in and of itself).
To be clear, despite my facetious comment earlier, I don't actually think you're a Nazi, or a racist, or any of the other things that proponents of this pseudoscience were back in the day. The tricky thing about eugenics is that, devoid of context, it sounds pretty fucking good. And, despite no one using the term anymore (thanks, Hitler), there are absolutely eugenics advocates out there today, and many of them aren't even necessarily bad people! A few years back, FDA approved gene therapy treatments for folks afflicted by sickle cell anemia. This is, essentially, eugenics in action, and, other than the most die-hard slippery slopers, you've not got folks distributing torches and pitchforks because of some light genetic editing, especially when the tech has allowed eugenicists to bypass the most ornery methods of gene manipulation that previous advocates used: namely sterilization of certain populations.
So, I get it. You're not advocating preemptive death camps for idiots, or a sterilization device on motorcycle fuel tanks if you start moving without a helmet on. Therefore, you don't feel like your argument is based on eugenics. However, it is, and you can either become comfortable with that notion, or you can reexamine your line of thought and come up with a different hypothesis. Neither option is any better or worse than the other.
As an aside, to continue using your asshole biker example, there are tertiary benefits to attempting to save their life to best of our society's ability, if you're looking for silver linings. Skills practice in a "live-fire" environment for the folks trying to save him, for one. Sure, maybe, in your estimation, this biker didn't deserve all the effort to save him, but maybe the sweet old lady with a TBI the week following does deserve to live, and the surgical team noted some process improvements during their work on the asshole earlier.
Congratulations, you've just talked yourself into being a proponent of eugenics. Speak with Goebbels for your welcome packet and fashionable armband.
Legit had half the onion wedged between my jaws before I remembered to check the community.
Okay? Again, who are you serving by choosing this specific forum to shout that messaging? I know you aren't OP, so consider that the royal "you".
It's just tiresome is all, and I'm on the "boo, capitalism" side of things. It's like the folks who turn every thread tangentially related to Microsoft into a Linux advertisement. Or the involuntary ejaculation of a vegetarian when the subject of diet comes up. Like, yes, these folks are probably correct about the things they are saying; you're never going to be wrong to consider the angle being worked by a corp. However, it's infantilizing to suggest that people are unaware that a corporation wants their money. That's a given, and without additional commentary, it's a positively useless statement that only serves to make people tune out the messaging, even in contexts where it IS desirable to bring it up (such as when a company is doing shady shit in pursuit of your money). Releasing a mediocre graphical remaster of a title that people have nostalgia for hardly qualifies as "shady shit" in my book. Lazy, sure, but not shady.