A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex... by yyuugg on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @11:16AM (#42318939)

The author might be wrong. It can actually be racist in ways beyond "African people are genetically inferior."

I didn't find the author to be particularly deeply invested, they seemed to want to score some points over "social justice warriors" and then backed off pretty quickly with an "it's complicated" footnote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex... by 2099miles on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @11:30AM (#42319108)

When I read that part I also thought they were just trying to pwn the libs, but the rest of the article was so good, and what they said isn’t inaccurate, so now I think I was just projecting that.

Not being super invested and having it just be a small part of the article actually seems right to me so idk.

I’ve hit my fair share, but this article alone in no way makes me think this person is one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex... by animal_spirits on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @02:06PM (#42320814)

I’m not pushing one ideo or another - I just don’t get why it’s flagged. We aren’t making generalizations, just talking about the article

[ Parent | on HN ]