Anyway, it's very depressing to see a great theorist do a tongue in cheek provocation, and instead of asking ourselves 'how do we keep fit without recreating fascist ideals' everybody just had a kneejerk reaction and told her to shut up. Sure that's a good sign.

You can’t “do a provocation” and then act scandalized when discourse is provoked. An easy way to avoid this dynamic is to avoid saying ridiculous things for purely rhetorical reasons.

Of course the goal of provocation is to provoke discourse (or thinking). Whether the following discourse is a knee-jerk and reactionary or thoughtful is of relevance. Today it is the former by and large and this is not good.

It’s not “reactionary” to criticize someone else’s ideologically maximalist take. It’s being criticized because it was ridiculous.

"Ideologically maximalist" and it is just you taking a reactionary stance to a very reasonable take and not dealing with the substance.

My “reactionary stance” is that it’s ridiculous for a socialist to endorse “dysgenics.” There’s nothing “reactionary” about it.

Which, very obviously, is not what she is saying. Which you would recognize very easily if you were not being reactionary and attempted deal with actual substance:

It’s exactly what she said, verbatim.

What she said is that we should reject disposability in all of it's forms. Which is something you seem to be unable to contend with.

She said lots of things, not all of which is outrageous, but what I took issue with was the use of “dysgenic,” which is a real term, with a real definition, and it would be easy to avoid criticism on the basis of that definition if she hadn’t used it.

Dysgeny is an eugenic category. Eugenics reject all form of non-conformity to a fascist ideal. So a society which tolerates and protects all kinds of people is by definition dysgenic, since it rejects eugenics toto. Is literacy finally dead or are people being obtuse on purpose?