Also as I told Talib, I do not go in for the worldview that says people have only one "real" name, and also "Malachite Tiger" or some variation on it is the *least* anonymous name for me to go by. The one the largest number of people would know me by.
My government name would be *more* anonymous.

And I'll add, I don't make it particularly hard to find out what my chosen name is. I credit myself as it in games with "chimerror" being in quotes if it does show up.

And that's partially luck but also because I try to make sure to maintain the branding.

This account was originally nothing more than me claiming the name so someone else didn't because I didn't trust the Bluesky mods. (And boy I wasn't wrong to do so either...)

if “science” only refers to what’s currently believed then it has no history; it’s a thin line of apparent lone geniuses rather than a socially and culturally embedded activity that has grown, changed and absorbed and lost elements over time. And everyone doing it now is Darwin, Einstein or Galileo

and then, perhaps, “the problem with eugenics back then was that they dehumanized the wrong set of traits” doesn’t sound so compelling

They did this through things like eugenic marriage laws, better baby contests, and fitter family contests. Some of this is certainly about preventing disease, but most of it is about preserving & supporting white supremacy. Only white protestant babies, for example, could win a better baby contest.

More commonly, American eugenicists believed in what some scholars call "positive eugenics." Not "positive" as in "good," but rather encouraging the "right" people to have more babies and trying to encourage the "right" genetic traits to be passed down.

Others were even worse! Some people I study advocated for what they called "eugenic euthanasia," or killing people who could not support themselves because of medical conditions. Many eugenicists disagreed with both of these!

2. Focusing on the where I said scientists & others believed in "some form of eugenics." That's key to another problem with OPs post. Eugenicists had a WIDE spectrum of eugenic beliefs & often disagreed! Some eugenicists believed in OPs version: forced & coerced sterilization.

NOW, it's a pseudoscience because it's been debunked & is no longer mainstream scientific thinking. Calling historical eugenics a pseudoscience lets science & scientists of the past off the hook (Also, PS is more of a modern-day term. We had terms like "quackery" but eugenics was not that)

1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!