• MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    I get why that term is used, but eugenics is eugenics. At least soft eugenics has the word in it, but it really isn’t soft it’s just normal eugenics. I can’t wait for them to rebrand labor camps as soft prisons or whatever because technically the people there aren’t prisoners so they can call it something else.

    • bampop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      rebrand labor camps as soft prisons

      Not ironic enough. My money is on “freedom camps”. After all, work makes you free, as the saying goes.

    • huppakee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree, but also something can be said about there being different levels of intensity. Like prisons, there is gradation in the regime. You might need a different prison for hardened criminals constantly trying to break out and elderly criminals who long gave up on ever getting out and just watch tv all day. This being called soft eugenics doesn’t make it less eugenics, it has the word in it and you could argue there is a difference between this and hard eugenics where you actually slaughter people with ‘undesirable’ traits. Not saying there is good eugenics and bad eugenics, but i guess i were a victim I rather go through soft eugenics than just be executed on sight.

      • creamlike504@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s like first vs second degree murder. It soundsless intense to the jury, but if you’re the victim… you’re still dead.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yea. I totally understand that. And like I said I understand and appreciate that it at least has eugenics in the term, but it’s very much still eugenics and the fact we have to delineate between hard and soft is just silly in my opinion. Eugenics is still eugenics regardless of if executed on site or just left to starve or die. It is technically not as “direct” I guess but it is still 100% eugenics. I wasn’t explicitly criticizing the use of the term just that we live in a society where we now have that distinction and have to make it clear so a bunch of bad faith actors don’t point to the fact there’s no gun to peoples head and say therefore no eugenics.