Every single one of those is either a bold-faced lie about the content or shows no reading comprehension on your part. You're behaving like a phrasal affect model that simply checks for the presence of words and whether the surrounding context is more positive or negative rather than actually reading and understanding sentences.

Aside: They are also from the past 12 months out of 1000 comments in that period.

First one is "eugenics is an ill-defined term that means different things to different people, some meanings such as offering free embryo screening are things that have mainstream debate about whether they are good or not".

Second one is "eugenics was not the reason for the Holocaust", which is basically true as far as I know. It was racism, hatred and jealousy.

Third one is a complaint about confusing "AI not embarrassing corporations" with "AI not killing everyone". With an example of an embarrassing thing to say being answering questions about IQ distributions.

Fourth one is using "supremacist" as an example of a general problem where people conflate every form of bad all together with no nuance or understanding.

Fifth one is about the limits of science and whether some research should be banned.

My most important goal in almost every case is teaching people how to think. To substitute in a word for the specific meaning intended in that instance and stop thinking in terms of word affect and tribal signalling. Sure, I could use less contentious examples but then the lessons lose a lot of impact and people shrug and go "Oh, no one would be so stupid as to confuse being in the same superset with the identity function", but people actually do this all the time whenever politics or tribalism comes into play!

That said, I'm sufficiently unsure on what dang's intent is that I'm going to try to come up with other examples... It's just really bloody hard when the main thing that triggers people to stop thinking clearly is strong emotion and politics, so every example that people will recognize as a real example that I can think of has... strong emotions and politics. Probably something about the word "family" is the best I can do.

---

I find it very irksome how you seem to have the idea that anyone who has not subordinated every single principle of honesty, specificity and reason in favor of ensuring bad guys are always labelled maximally bad is also bad. If someone says "Hitler really enjoyed kicking puppies!" and someone else said "That's incorrect, Hitler was a dog lover" you'd probably assume the latter person is a Nazi rather than thinking they're an xkcd 386. An assumption which is very likely going to be factually incorrect (and if it wasn't then the local environment's discourse norms would have degenerated sufficiently that they can no longer self correct, with every statement that signals the right direction/allegiance being perpetuated regardless of accuracy in a manner that will purity spiral aggressively as the body of common knowledge distorts).

I don't know if the fact you're still making these same mistakes is because I'm a bad teacher or because you literally aren't reading what I'm writing. Not assessing sentences for meaning/truth but instead trying to understand motivations and allegiances, rounding every statement to the most similar sounding one you recall seeing before and assuming your models of people's personalities and motivations is correct and complete based on your bubbled experience.