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.