Lmao complaining about my reading comprehension when you confused 'sterilize' with 'euthanize' is a whole other level of hypocrisy.
Keeps complaining after claiming after you're 'done responding to this thread'.
Words just don't mean anything to you. You like to say whatever soothes your precious little ego and then backtrack when you get called out on it.
Removing humans? Again, shows how little you understand about anti-natalism. There is no 'removing humans' involved if they aren't born in the first place.
I love how you substituted 'sterilize' with 'euthanize' as if they were the same thing, and then claim that I was the one who didn't try to engage.
If you don't care to learn you should have said so earlier. Anti-intellectuallism, bad faith arguments, pronatalism, false attribution, deflection, and projection are all hallmarks of conservatism. Go and take your conversative shit somewhere else.
That's wild of you to think that not wanting kids is facism. Read up on the Cross of the Honour of the German Mother.
Anti-natalism is pro-working class because it goes against pronatalist ideologies. Working class women without affordable access to birth control are often trapped in a cycle of poverty, lack of higher education access, and financial dependency. Pronatalism is often presented under the guise of family values but actually aims to encourage the birth of more minimum wage workers and cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.
I'm not the one advocating the Great Man theory here, I'm merely emphasizing the ridiculous of your claim that one can only improve the world by birthing kids and raising them to do good. You don't have to birth kids to do that, just fuckin do it yourself.
Your arguments are not written in good faith because to go as far as claiming that anti-natalism is facist shows how little you care to learn about the topic. You don't actually care about anti-natalism, you care about being called out because you can't emotionally handle the idea of being wrong.
There's a certain degree of arrogance in thinking that you are contributing to a greater cause by potentially birthing and raising the next Einstein.
On paper, we may have enough resources to sustain the world population. In practice, we are no where nearly socially and politically progressive enough yet to support said population. Social progress doesn't happen overnight. Birthing the next Nobel prize winner doesn't instantly resolve climate change or end world hunger.
Of every person born, there will be far more people putting strain on a system that isn't able to adequately distribute resources to those who need it. Most people make for dog shit parents.
Nothing about anti-natalism rejects the possibility of improving the world.
To iterate a Buddhist belief, suffering is an inevitable part of existing. The point of anti-natalism is to avoid causing more people to suffer than necessary.
We are no where near the threat of extinction if most of us stop having children. The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.
Think of why we sterilize cats and dogs. It's not because we are absolving ourselves the responsibility of improving their lives, it's because we do not want them to create more just to suffer on the streets.
Anti-natalism is a response to natalism, a popularly held religious belief that one should have as many children as possible. It's about rejecting social and cultural pressures to have kids on people who don't want to.
You are misinterpreting a crucial point. It's not about remedying your own shitty living conditions, it's about not creating one for others.
I don't know how to state this more simply, but anti-natalism isn't centered around improving the quality of life for yourself, it's about not giving the opportunity to suffer for others.
I think you're misunderstanding anti-natalism if you believe it's about envisioning the end of the world. It's not that grand, nor that pessimistic. It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions. It's not a tool for embettering society, it's a philosophical exercise that questions one's right to create a person and subject them to sentience and suffering.
Imagining non-existence is anything but lacking imagination because it so abstract to our minds. To be anti-natalist, you must first have attempted to imagine that in order to compare it to existence before asking if you feel it is right to subject a human to that.
It's a philosophical exercise that challenges social conventions about child-rearing. Don't forget that it's an excruciating ordeal for women too. There is suffering involved for all parties. Not all kids are born healthy, secure, and provided for.
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you'll find that it was never about a lack of imagination. We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place that we ask if not being born is necessarily any worse. That isn't a statement made with just pessimism, it's made with genuine curiosity towards thinking back what 'life' was like before being born, and deciding that it is the greatest gift you can give to your hypothetical children.
People when women's boobs are small: -scoffs-
People when women's boobs are big: 'Attention whore.'
People women's boobs are implants: 'Fake ass hoe.'
People when women: 'You shouldn't be like that because it's unattractive to me and that's the only thing you're good for.'
Let me introduce you to the concept of girl dinner.
Why be a misandrist when you clearly know the boy isn't being given a choice because people like you and the mom don't give a damn about what boys as long as the toy 'matches' the kid's penis?
Yeah I'm calling you out for being a creep.
Someone's been enjoying Josh Johnson's shows.
You're a kind soul for helping these animals
Men were able to work 40 hours back then because women were relegated to unpaid domestic labor and childcare.
When women entered the workforce, these expectations were slow to change. So now, everyone gets to work 40+ hours and a few dozen more at home. And that's the best case scenario where both partners shared the mental load. Bonus points if they have a kid which is a 24/7 job.
In a sane world, with double the people working you would expect their hours to be halved. But that will never happen so long as corporations continue to disguise the exploitation of workers as 'feminism'.
If you don't experience autism symptoms to a degree that hinders your quality of life then you don't have autism. Sit the fuck down and stop deciding how autistic people should feel.
Peeing is also normal behavior. But it's not normal if you have to pee every 30 minutes.
What's with this new trend of invalidating ADHD and autism symptoms simply because you don't experience it to a degree that impacts your quality of life?
ADHD and autism don't have one specific symptom. It's a thousand little things that drive you insane from having to conform to neurotypical behavior.
Let patients share their experiences without normalizing and invalidating their condition.
It's always 'everyone has ADHD these days' just like how people day 'everyone is LGBTQ these days. It's never 'underserved and underdiagnosed ADHD patients are finally getting recognition these days'.
Boys are 16x more likely to get an ADHD diagnosis than girls. The vast majority of backlash against ADHD patients on social media are against women and PoC who are finally speaking out against the medical neglect. Women traditionally present different symptoms because girls are punished more heavily for exhibiting ADHD behaviors than boys are. Same goes for autism.
Remember that a lack of diagnosis does not indicate the lack of ADHD and autism. Modern medicine is rife with systemic inequality. Undiagnosed ADHD and autism patients are frequently penalized and not rewarding for concealing their symptoms. The more effort they put into concealing them, the more heavily criticized they are for 'faking' it.
Do you want to institute change, or do you just want to give trump voters an 'I told you so' because it feels good?
Not extending sympathy is how we got into this shithole to begin with. You cannot convince over trump voters with facts and logic. The best you can do is wait for leopards to eat their faces, or pacify their egos until they are emotionally invested enough to vote for someone other than trump. Trump voters do not respond to reason. But they will respond by voting trump again if they feel alienated.
Yes, it's shitty and they deserve so much worse. However, we deserve better, and we won't get anything better until we coddle trump voters into doing the right thing.
Permanently Deleted
Not that simple. When you've been abused all your life, you cease to understand what is abuse and what's normal. Parents can do the most fucked up things and claim that it is all because they love you.
This is why childhood abuse can make one vulnerable to abusive relationship as an adult. When you've been taught as a child that you are the cause for your parent's explosive temper, you normalize this behavior in your partner.
Yes. I'm going to cut to the point here.
You are likely conflating the phrase 'toxic masculinity' with 'men'. Toxic masculinity is a systemic problem, not a gender. It's the cultural norms we grow up with that instill poor notions of what it means to be a man. It's the widespread shaming and dismissal of men's mental health. It's the normalization of anger as the only acceptable emotion for men, making it the only outlet for their grief and pain. It's the preclusion of men from caretaking roles and the expectation of men being breadwinners, and so much more.
Men are raised by people, and people, men and women alike, in their ignorance, instill outdated ideas of masculinity in their kids uphold the expectations of their peers and elders.
The honest truth is that toxic masculinity is perpetuating an environment of hostility towards showing the need for emotional support and giving fellow men who need it.
Women receive emotional support from other women because they have been socialized to give and receive it without shame.
If you are a man, ask yourself when was the last time you were able to express emotional vulnerability with other men without feeling judged.
This isn't an issue of 'value in females'. It's an issue of valuing men's emotion vulnerability as a critical part of healthy masculinity.
It's clear from the moment you called anti-natalism fascism that words don't mean anything to regressive fuckwits like you anymore.
How about you "go join q-anon and suck Charlie Kirk's decomposing dick while you tout your 'family values' and pump out kids with room temperature IQ."? See? I can also use words the same way you use 'fascism' to make a meaningless word salad.
Just because you can't handle valid criticism it doesn't make others fascist for calling you out. Go sit down and think of something original to write instead of copying everything I said with a flimsy ass 'no u'. Everything you deflect is just another projection of yours.