Elon musk and his sons

[Judas Maccabeus]

Worshiping Musk's "superior genes" and applauding him for procreating indiscriminately to spread them ... that's just wrong.

i don’t see anywhere in this topic, including the OP, that suggests anything like this. Worshiping, applauding, etc.
Why bunny trail that way? MDR? Musk Derangement Syndrome?

Are all the young men who more literally go about chasing like dogs, being husband/father to none, fascists?
Elon isn’t doing this, leaving the human results to the welfare system and gov.

I gather you didn't read the article, and perhaps not the entire quote I provided.

First Things had a thoughtful article on this:

Elon’s Family Values

Here's a more complete quote:

Elon Musk embodies the values of the genetic-determinist right. The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and head of DOGE has fathered twelve children with three different women—including, most recently, a colleague with whom he had no intention of forming a family. A fourth woman, the conservative commentator Ashley St. Clair, claims to have given birth to a thirteenth Musk child last year. (Musk has not responded to St. Clair’s claim as of this writing.)

Far from censuring him for ­deviating from traditional norms, parts of the right have ­celebrated Musk, often in eugenic terms. Matt ­Gaetz, the former Republican ­congressman from Florida, hailed St. Clair’s announcement on X: “This child has incredible genetics.” ­Another user declared, “Elon Musk is acting just as one would act if one took behavioral genetics seriously. Post-natal parental impact isn’t that important.”

In the early twentieth century, eugenic ideas gained a wide hearing among American elites. The foundations set up by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller funded research and political advocacy of methods that promised to root out (in the words of Margaret Sanger) “defectives, delinquents and dependents.” The same ­­purportedly scientific rationales for improving the human stock are now used to justify the behavior of Musk and other masters of the universe. The upshot is jarring. When a lower-­class man fathers many children with different women, his behavior is derided as irresponsible. When Elon Musk impregnates woman after woman with no intention of giving the children a stable family, his behavior is celebrated as an act of benevolence, blessing the human race with his great genes.

On this view, Musk is not an erring man, imperfectly pursuing a monogamous ideal. He is advancing a genes-are-king version of right-wing “family values.”

“If each successive generation of smart people has fewer kids, that’s probably bad,” Musk told his biographer Ashlee Vance in 2015. A colleague at his neurotechnology firm, the executive Shivon Zilis, was receptive to this message. “He really wants smart people to have kids, so he encouraged me to,” Zilis told the Musk biographer Walter Isaacson. When she decided to act on Musk’s advice and have a child by means of in ­­vitro fertilization, Musk volunteered to donate his sperm. Zilis agreed. “I can’t possibly think of genes I would prefer for my children,” she said.

Once again, this is “National Socialism “ writ large. Positive eugenics was a foundational principle of that movement. It has given more context to his “salute.” This is unsurprising coming from an Afrikaaner.

[JohnH]

Once again, this is “National Socialism “ writ large. Positive eugenics was a foundational principle of that movement. It has given more context to his “salute.” This is unsurprising coming from an Afrikaaner.

So what are you saying? Anyone who cares about their offspring's genetics is a Nazi? I think it is perfectly fine (for example) to be tested for genetic diseases to make sure before you marry someone, you won't be facing having a horrible genetic disease.

[Bootstrap]

=Bootstrap post_id=264326 time=1742307463 user_id=31174]I gather you didn't read the article, and perhaps not the entire quote I provided.
Bootstrap post_id=264199 time=1742240980 user_id=31174]
First Things had a thoughtful article on this:

Elon’s Family Values

As I said in the prior post, Musk's immorality is reprehensible, and I won't defend that. People may make comments about his genes, but nowhere do I see him push the idea of eugenics on other people.

People can create a hypothetical about Musk, and insinuate he is promoting eugenics by having many children with different women.

Because Musk himself says that's what he is doing, and some of his supporters cheer him for that. Quotes have been provided. I would find it helpful if people would simply acknowledge that fact, clearly, and discuss on that basis. Without that, I have a hard time believing we are having a discussion that is based in the facts. And to me, it will feel like people are deflecting in order to protect Musk and "their side".

Yet those same people will look the other way when their favorite politicians and others strongly promote abortion, which has many aspects of eugenics embedded in the philosophy. Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.

I spent enough time campaigning for Right to Life to show my beliefs on this. And no, I don't excuse promotion of abortion. But I do think abortion is a different subject than the one we are discussing here. No need to change the subject to protect Musk.

Better to be against abortion in abortion threads and against eugenics in eugenics threads. Otherwise, we have a race to the bottom. "Eugenics? What about abortion!" "Abortion, what about eugenics!". That's whataboutism.

[Bootstrap]

This is unsurprising coming from an Afrikaaner.

Most Afrikaaners are not like that, of course. Not the ones I work with, at any rate.

And the South African ambassador has been expelled because he called the Trump Administration out for what he saw as supremacism.

[Robert]

South Africa is in the middle of some ethnic cleansing right now, so you might be careful about jumping to some assumptions.

I am mostly seeing quotes of others. The article is behind a pay wall so I could not see it all. I could just read your clip. There were no quotes from Musk. I could not get an idea of how he thinks from it.

I never heard of "First Things" before. Not sure what they are about. Some random website is not a real strong source. If Musk feels that way, I would disagree with it as I disagree with his having 14 children from multiple women and not in a nuclear family.

[Grace]

=Bootstrap post_id=264326 time=1742307463 user_id=31174]I gather you didn't read the article, and perhaps not the entire quote I provided.
Bootstrap post_id=264199 time=1742240980 user_id=31174]
First Things had a thoughtful article on this:

Elon’s Family Values

Because Musk himself says that's what he is doing, and some of his supporters cheer him for that. Quotes have been provided. I would find it helpful if people would simply acknowledge that fact, clearly, and discuss on that basis. Without that, I have a hard time believing we are having a discussion that is based in the facts. And to me, it will feel like people are deflecting in order to protect Musk and "their side".

I am not defending Musk's choices. My comments were about insinuating that Musk is promoting and pushing eugenics on the nation by policies etc. It is true Musk is spreading his own genes through his many children. Although it is weird and immoral, that is his choice. I have yet to see where Elon Musk is pushing his beliefs on the nation, through policies.

I spent enough time campaigning for Right to Life to show my beliefs on this. And no, I don't excuse promotion of abortion. But I do think abortion is a different subject than the one we are discussing here. No need to change the subject to protect Musk.
Better to be against abortion in abortion threads and against eugenics in eugenics threads. Otherwise, we have a race to the bottom. "Eugenics? What about abortion!" "Abortion, what about eugenics!". That's whataboutism.

The subject was brought up about eugenics. If someone brings up the subject of eugenics, it is only logical to bring up one of the worst forms of eugenics, which is the killing of the disabled unborn, simply because the baby is disabled. Abortion is part of eugenics. One can't expect to talk about the one without the other. The two are intrinsically connected.

[JohnH]

Better to be against abortion in abortion threads and against eugenics in eugenics threads. Otherwise, we have a race to the bottom. "Eugenics? What about abortion!" "Abortion, what about eugenics!". That's whataboutism.

No they aren’t. Abortion is tightly interlinked with eugenics, ranging from Sanger founding Planned Parenthood with a goal to abort away “undesirable” people to the claims in Freakonomics that the high rate of abortion amongst black people led to lower crime rates. I find this reprehensible.

We can add IVF to the duo, as eugenics, abortion, and IVF cannot be separated. IVF is an attempt to practice eugenics - achieving an outcome with better fitness than natural means alone. Sometimes this means overcoming infertility (which is not on its face morally reprehensible), to doing bizarre things like Musk does which are morally dubious. IVF often involves abortion, which is morally repugnant.

[Bootstrap]

South Africa is in the middle of some ethnic cleansing right now, so you might be careful about jumping to some assumptions.

Another example of a Big Lie, I think.

I talked to two Afrikaners yesterday at work, we have an office in South Africa. One of them was weirded out by the claims of ethnic cleansing he is hearing from America. He asked me what these people are thinking.

But maybe if these people can scare us to death, they can succeed in their power grab.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Once again, this is “National Socialism “ writ large. Positive eugenics was a foundational principle of that movement. It has given more context to his “salute.” This is unsurprising coming from an Afrikaaner.

So what are you saying? Anyone who cares about their offspring's genetics is a Nazi? I think it is perfectly fine (for example) to be tested for genetic diseases to make sure before you marry someone, you won't be facing having a horrible genetic disease.

No, genetic testing is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the idea that rhe genetically “superior “ should have the mandate to reproduce as much as possible, in any way possible to produce a superior “race.” That is national socialism.

[JohnH]

Once again, this is “National Socialism “ writ large. Positive eugenics was a foundational principle of that movement. It has given more context to his “salute.” This is unsurprising coming from an Afrikaaner.

So what are you saying? Anyone who cares about their offspring's genetics is a Nazi? I think it is perfectly fine (for example) to be tested for genetic diseases to make sure before you marry someone, you won't be facing having a horrible genetic disease.

No, genetic testing is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the idea that rhe genetically “superior “ should have the mandate to reproduce as much as possible, in any way possible to produce a superior “race.” That is national socialism.

No, it isn’t; it’s eugenics. I think we would agree Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, but she certainly wasn’t a “national socialist” as you seem to be using the term.