You know the problem with not outright saying that what you are advocating is actually eugenics is that eventually someone else will do it for you.
Hopefully if their use of the world differs from expectations casual observers won't catch up, I mean...
We want to increase average human cognitive abilities by granting all the children with access to better education.
Wouldn't raise many eyebrows, but if you heard...
We want to increase average human cognitive abilities by discouraging lower IQ people from having children.
...then I can't help the feeling that e-word may crop up a lot. I would probably be inclined to use it myself, for all honesty.
A long blog post explains why the author, a feminist, is not comfortable with the rationalist community despite thinking it is "super cool and interesting". It's directed specifically at Yvain, but it's probably general enough to be of some interest here.
http://apophemi.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/why-im-not-on-the-rationalist-masterlist/
I'm not sure if I can summarize this fairly but the main thrust seems to be that we are overly willing to entertain offensive/taboo/hurtful ideas and this drives off many types of people. Here's a quote:
The author perceives a link between LW type open discourse and danger to minority groups. I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Take race. Many LWers are willing to entertain ideas about the existence and possible importance of average group differences in psychological traits. So, maybe LWers are racists. But they're racists who continually obsess over optimizing their philanthropic contributions to African charities. So, maybe not racists in a dangerous way?
An overly rosy view, perhaps, and I don't want to deny the reality of the blogger's experience. Clearly, the person is intelligent and attracted to some aspects of LW discourse while turned off by other aspects.