"Intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms, and should be referred to instead as "intellectual monopoly grants". To say that person A has a property right to X is to say that he should win any conflict over the use of X. Intellectual monopoly grants give IMG owners partial rights of control ownership over the tangible property of everyone else. because he can prohibit them from performing certain actions with their own property. Author X, for example, can prohibit a third party, Y, from inscribing a certain pattern of words on Y’s own blank pages with Y’s own ink.
Intellectual monopoly grant owners refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear terms (source).
"Wokeism" is just leftism, say that instead. "Woke" just sounds silly you goofballs.
Eugenics is the selection of socially desirable heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations. Eugenics doesn't mean you murder poor or disabled people, although it certainly can take place in that way. Eugenics was quite popular among both the left and the right (e.g Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, etc) but after the second world war, eugenics acquired a negative connotation.
Socially acceptable implementations of Eugenics come in the form of:
If you want to convey similar ideas but not use the dreaded "eugenics" word, try "human genetic enhancement".
The terms, “racism” and “racist” are dishonest slander terms. It is not harmful to investigate group differences, so don’t worry about whether or not something is “racist”. Instead, worry about whether or not something is correct.
The term racism is used to shut down honest dialogue, and this makes sense when considering what the term really means. James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix in DNA, is called a racist for his claims about race and intelligence. This conflates him with Adolf Hitler, who is also called a racist, but Watson and Hitler hold very different positions. Watson isn’t into policy while Hitler was a dictator who was the sole determinant of policy in multiple countries. Watson was focused on descriptive claims about reality while proponents of eugenics like HItler are focused on prescriptive ideals or actions that they want carried out.
Here is a conundrum for “anti-racists”, if some racist beliefs are correct, then incorrect things would need to be believed in order to not be racist. On the other hand, if proclaimed that all racist beliefs are incorrect, then suddenly everybody needs to constantly reassess their definitions of racism as new evidence comes to light.
Consider. Which boxes in this table are racist?
| Negative but incorrect generalization about whites | Positive but incorrect generalization about whites |
| Negative but correct generalization about whites | Positive but correct generalization about whites |
| Negative but incorrect generalization about non-whites | Positive but incorrect generalization about non-whites |
| Negative but correct generalization about non-whites | Negative but correct generalization about non-whites |
Some people may say that calling asians smart is, oddly enough, unintentionally harmful to Asians, but rarely do they say that people who believe this are either anti-non-asians or that they are Asian supremacists. On the flip side, saying that Whites are smart is called White supremacy and is thought of as being against everybody except for Whites.
Suffers from the same problems as "racism", not only that its not even etymologically correct. When someone says "antisemitism", they are referring to some claim made about the Jewish people, but not all semitic people are Jewish.
Intersex is not a "third sex" and does not destroy the well established sex binary, intersex people are still either male or female. I expand upon this here.