Antinatalism position in the left. Anonymous 10-01-23 20:33:41 No. 14251 [View All]
Serious discussion.
420 posts and 70 image replies omitted. Anonymous 16-03-23 08:48:12 No. 14673
>>14366 >hurr durr kys Horrible takes on antinatalism is the intersection of /pol/ and /leftypol/.
No one wants to touch it. They devote the least amount of critical consideration possible, find a nice slogan, and call it a day.
Anonymous 15-04-23 22:24:25 No. 14676
>>14545 im a rape victim and don't find this analogy insulting at all.
in fact I find it very accurate.
Anonymous 30-04-23 13:53:23 No. 14678
>>14265 >I am le chad pepe xdxd Imagine unironically posting weird, self-aggrandizing stuff like this.
>>14674 Little weeaboo was so proud of his Japanese studying and was peeing himself waiting to show it to the class.
Anonymous 28-05-23 23:29:10 No. 14682
>>14252 >For me, this question comes down to a personal ethical judgement. Yea but you see me and you making a personal choice abstaining from procreation doesn't help our cause any does it now?
if the breeders aren't convinced by argument and "reason" we still have take it upon ourselves to extinguish suffering one way or another.
Anonymous 28-05-23 23:35:27 No. 14683
>>14681 completely irrelevant to the subject of antinatalism.
it's about extinction not just "low births"
Anonymous 29-05-23 01:58:25 No. 14691
>>14689 Start shooting up preschools like adam lanza then, another antinatalist "efilist"
Your misanthropy and self-hatred is just fuel for bloodshed
Anonymous 29-05-23 02:00:15 No. 14692
>>14690 Yes
You are a redditor and a nihilist who unironically posts on r/nihilism about how angry you were that you saw a happy couple carrying their baby in a park, hoping to get upvotes
Anonymous 29-05-23 02:02:43 No. 14693
>>14688 procreation on a case by case basis isn't the problem, I don't expect people to stop breeding even if 100% of the population were convinced antinatalists.
it's procreation being socially and "morally" accepted that's the problem.
Anonymous 29-05-23 02:06:41 No. 14695
>>14691 still doesn't solve the problem.
Lanza was the kind of person that was going to mass shoot anyways, regardless of philosophical belief.
Anonymous 29-05-23 02:11:26 No. 14696
>>14695 You hate the concept of life - he killed life.
Its a job well done, no?
Are you also happy about climate change and mass pollution turning earth into a sterile wasteland? I would be in your situation.
Whats the point of "ideas" if ideas still require brains to receive them? Isnt praxis war and terrorism, until all organic matter is annihilated?
Whats your perfect strategy?
Anonymous 29-05-23 02:19:04 No. 14697
>>14696 no and no.
you wouldn't be happy about these if you took antinatalism seriously.
lets use the example of conflict
there is no sense in winning the battle if you lose the war. least of all battles that make you look bad in the long run (Lanza).
>Whats your perfect strategy? no idea, that's the puzzle.
Anonymous 29-05-23 03:11:17 No. 14699
>>14694 That's my point, procreation is too deeply ingrained in our nature that even in an antinatalist society it would still happen.
so it doesn't make much sense to punish individuals too much for that. what matters is that everyone gets why procreation is bad then we could all be on board to extinct the rest of the planet.
Anonymous 29-05-23 04:09:50 No. 14701
>>14251 > most antinatalists are overwhelmingly pessimists (or cynics) and when politically active they tend to be leftist socialists (Think Thomas Ligotti, David Benatar, Philipp Mainländer… etc). antinatalism is very underground, even more so than veganism and is mostly perceived in a negative light even by the left. it's seen as reactionary and extreme and therefore dismissed. Antinatalism IS reactionary and also bourgeois. I have never heard of any socialist anti-natalism but they'd still be wrong. The world is full of suffering, not because of "selfish parents who, unethically, did not consider whether their child would like to have been born" but because Capitalist imperialism cannot provide for human need, only for the private accumulation of capital for a select few
framing. see above.
framing, see above.
and there it is: guys, guys, guys let's fixate on this totally made up bourgeois ethical quandary and work tirelessly to abolish natalism instead of the real material root cause of suffering
I would not ever argue that antinatalists are genocidal, except that they clearly seem to believe that poverty is the result of too many selfish parents choosing to have children against the wishes of their *checks notes* unborn children. in that sense, it is basically rebranded malthusianism
antinatalists don't actually care about suffering. they don't want to address the actual material root cause of suffering. rather, they want to distract from the issue of the exploitative nature of imperialist capitalism by fixating on bourgeois moral debate
Anonymous 29-05-23 04:19:17 No. 14702
>>14701 >Antinatalism IS reactionary and also bourgeois see pic rel
I am socialist antinatalist
Anonymous 05-06-23 15:00:53 No. 14713
>>14578 That implies that rationality only cares for profit, the very definition of which we cannot pinpoint in our objective reality (simply because of it's inexistance).
Rational thinking and emotional are the ultimate spooks.
Anonymous 08-06-23 00:45:56 No. 14714
>Antinatalism Oh, so eugenics isn't called "reproductive health" anymore?
https://corbettreport.com/gates/ https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pp-exterminating-idUSL2N2X11YN I keep losing track with all this newspeak, there should be dictionaries for this kind of shit.
Unique IPs: 28