/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>819069
sharty memes suck, yes.

>>818890
The OP could've been posted on r/collapse or a dozen environmental, philosophy, antinatalist subs.

>>819169
well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me for not measuring up to your shitposting standards.

>>819169
Yeah but could he have done it with pornography like he did here?

>>819171
I don't care, I just think it's funny the people who hate reddit tend to have very reddit opinions, unless they're Christian fundies maybe.

>>819172
I don't see any porn in the OP. Reddit has way worse.

>>819195
please identify the reddit opinions that were disseminated here. please explain how they differ from non-reddit opinions. please explain why you have any reason to believe that any opinion expressed here is genuine. please explain how, even if they are genuine, having such opinions, that may also be held by users of reddit, somehow disqualifies someone from hating reddit. the floor is yours.

>>815537
Too many rightoids making babies and too few leftoids making babies.

>>819199
Antinatalism is the one of the most reddit opinions, next to atheism. Non-redditors are natalist, see beauty in life, continuing the human species, even if there's struggle and hardship. It's true, the OP could be trolling, but it's an elaborate one if so. It's possible for someone with reddit opinions to hate reddit, sure, like maybe they don't like the ui or something, but they would fit right in with their views and get lots of updoots.

>>819236
>Antinatalism is the one of the most reddit opinions, next to atheism.
>Non-redditors are natalist, see beauty in life, continuing the human species, even if there's struggle and hardship
sorry to say but you're retarded. the rest of what you said is fine, I can see your point. except for the whole
<I only hate reddit because of the user interface!!!
is just you being retarded again.

>>819236
Most have kids to be like everyone else. It sort of confers normiehood on someone. Their are actually a lot of benefits one gains from being a parent with the big drawback that your life is not your own anymore. Not having kids can actually be seen as a disadvantage because it sort of disconnects you from the wider community even though their are probably more people now who don't have children compared to 50 years ago. Although what's happening more is most adults having kids but settling for about 2 kids or so.

>>819243
>>819261
Antinatalism of the "ermm can yous top having babies, it's inconveniencing me, the world is fucked and we're all gonna die anyway" is a Reddit-tier opinion thoughever.

>>819305
Maybe. But you used an example from the childfree sub reddit instead of the antinatalism sub reddit. People who call themselves childfree are often more likely to be alright with people having children, as long as you can take care of them, yet they often are less tolerant of children themselves. While people who describe themselves as antinatalist are usually more against anyone giving birth but are often somewhat more tolerant of children. That's just my impression from reading both subreddits. Also it seems to me that predominantly women congregate in both subreddits although I think they predominate more in the childfree subreddit. Personally I don't think men are as invested in that that type of thinking because women are most likely to become primary caregivers anyways so they are more likely to worry about that. Men can just deposit their seed and move on or kick back and let the woman worry about running a household. Plus the childfree sub reddit often turns into a place to complain about dating prospects since most people don't seem to subscribe to the idea. Anti natalists probably don't date as much.

telling people what to do with their bodies is some great leftist politics

go back to reddit

>>819305
why did you even post this as an example of antinatalists being evil? shushing someone at a movies is literally the most normal thing ever. TADC isn't for 6-7 year olds anyway, it's a 12A/!"+ etc

>>819324
apparently in the UK it's a 12A but in the USA it's only a PG, in fairness, so maybe my shithole gave it a higher rating for having harmful trans themes

>>819305

1. Climate change is real. If you genuinely deny this, you're retarded and you should kill yourself.
   
2. The increasing human population contributes to said climate change, largely as a result of overconsumption. If you genuinely deny this, you're a retard and you should kill yourself.
   
3. Therefore, if people opt to collectively reduce the global birthrate, this can have an impact on overconsumption, which will ultimately help preserve the environment.
   
   

It's just that simple. I don't give a shit if Reddit agrees with me or not, but it's not really a matter of opinion in the first place. I am not an anti-natalist, I don't care if people have children, but I do care about the environment. Meanwhile, the right wing are a bunch of culture-war-brained dipshits who think that having 15 children is some rebellious 'fuck you' to the status quo. They're dumb, and they're not thinking about it reasonably, they're just thinking to themselves
>hurr durr dem dirty libs dun wan yew ta hab cheeldrin?! fuck dat y'all should have 20 cheeldrin jus ta fuk wit em!!!
And if they're not thinking that then they're adherents of 'The 14 Words' aka they're perpetual victims and think they have to procreate to outpace the procreation of brown people, lest they be eradicated, which is fucking stupid.
>b-but there are people who just hate children because they're an inconvenience!!!
And what? Who cares, that's largely inconsequential, and other people's kids do have the potential to be an inconvenience. As for your image, yeah it's cringe, because this presumably 25+ year old person cares so deeply about a cartoon that is arguably intended for children (I'm not going to argue with Disney adults over the themes of their favorite cartoon; think whatever you want, but I doubt it's really that deep), that they just had to have a little melty over a child being a child in a movie theater. However, what you didn't comment on is that this child is so poorly behaved that they can't shut their mouths long enough to appreciate a feature length film, and that is a testament to the poor upbringing they're probably currently receiving, which is something the person who wrote that post laments having to endure.
<Raise your goddamn kids. It's your problem, and I shouldn't have to deal with it
is ultimately the message that the person who wrote this post is conveying, and it's a sympathetic one.

What else is there to say?

>>819198
Wait…reddit is BASED???

>>819362
>And what? Who cares, that's largely inconsequential, and other people's kids do have the potential to be an inconvenience.

So do dogs and partnered adults and disabled and elderly. Yet it’s considered wrong to discriminate against disabled and elderly and romantic partners in the same way we do to children.

Most anti-natalism concerns are rooted in seeing children as leeches. They don’t take into account adult consumption of resources for non-essential purposes.
They even promote shameless adult self-indulgence

>>819316
>Personally I don't think men are as invested in that that type of thinking because women are most likely to become primary caregivers anyways so they are more likely to worry about that. Men can just deposit their seed and move on or kick back and let the woman worry about running a household

You couldn’t be more wrong. Men are more into antinatalism than women. Women are often the ones wanting to have a baby to “seal the deal” in relationships. I swear this place has shallow distorted view of gender just like the rightoids they complain about.

>>815537
>>819362
>>816927
>>818086
It’s amazing that you will complain about “muh eugenics” whenever someone suggests that people with hereditary disabilities shouldn’t be allowed to breed.
But, you have no problem with wanting to kill unborn kids for “moral” convenience.

Also
>shoot every breeder moid in the dick

Yet, there’s no proposal for violence on breeder foids?


>>818890
Reddit doesn’t need to be excessively edgy like imageboards are. Tbh I prefer it being “saccharine/inoffensive”.

>>818086
>>819243
>>819261
>>819362
>>819463
>>819470
>Kill everyone capable of having kids
>Being a parent makes you a fascist chud
>Nobody should be allowed to have kids or else Mother Nature (Peace Be Upon Xer) will hecking die
All Reddit tier views by the way.

>>819463
>You couldn’t be more wrong. Men are more into antinatalism than women. Women are often the ones wanting to have a baby to “seal the deal” in relationships. I swear this place has shallow distorted view of gender just like the rightoids they complain about.
Maybe it's just what I've seen on Reddit but it does seem like more women use the childfree and antinatalist subreddits. Often one of their main complaints is that men often trap women in pregnancies and that seems to be a common sentiment, at least among the female part. Not that they don't blame the female for her part but I feel they tend to put the blame more on the man. Also in the comment your replying to I did try to differentiate between the childfree and antinatalist communities as while there's crossover their is some differences. Or at least that's how they try to portray themselves. I did say that women predominate more in the childfree subreddit. I think antinatalism might be more equal or possibly male dominant, at least on Reddit. Also childfree is more of a dating preference anyways.

>>819463

1. it's considered wrong to discriminate against people in general.
   
2. there are too many people is about as simple as I get it for you. we can't kill people who are already alive, the only way to address overpopulation is by reducing the birthrate. I know that makes you nazi larpers big mad because some of your rhetoric revolves around increasing the white birthrate, but the environment is more important than preserving your genetics, and also brown people should be having less kids, too.
   

>>819470

1. eugenics is pseudoscience hogwash with no basis in reality, and I would not be against the cessation of certain genetic profiles being proliferated via pregnancy if it is scientifically certain that those genetics will result in defects.
   
2. you can't kill a fetus, it's a fetus, and morality doesn't really factor into it unless you're some fundamentalist christian type who already sees the fetus as a person.
   

>>819623
why should I care that some people on reddit might have enough sense to understand that climate change is a result of human activity, and that only humans can make the choice to reduce that activity? good, I'm glad people on reddit understand that. why don't you?

>>820780
>Even if everyone stops having kids right now, it would take centuries for the population to drop from ≈8,5 to just 1 or 2 billion or whatever is the optimal number to not hurt the climate, so you'll have to go on a mass killing campaign.
I.

1. in 2023 there were roughly 800 million people aged 65+ around the world. according to the data, european and asian countries have the highest concentration of old people on a per country basis. that's something like 1/8th of the population.
   
2. the average human lifespan is roughly 80 years
   
3. if everyone stopped having kids right now, it would take roughly 10-15 years to drop from 8 billion to around 7 billion, because in that time frame it can be safely assumed that at least 80% of those people will have passed.
   
4. in another 30 years, the people who are roughly 50 years old now will be in that same category, so the population would drop even further, though to what extent I'm not sure; you'd have to separate the demographics even further, i.e. find how much time the people aged 40 - 60 have and do the math to see how long it'd take to further reduce the population after the boomers die off.
   
   

this is all to point out that it actually wouldn't take centuries, but probably one (1) century to slash the population by somewhere between 10% and 30%. also climate change is a result of human activity, and the size of the human population is just one factor that can be controlled; seems like this number is only important relative to resource consumption; more people = more mouths to feed = more consumption = more industry that contributes to climate change.

II.
your statement, regardless of whether it's true or not, is defeatist in nature. it's like saying
<welp, I've got stage 1 cancer, might as well drink myself to death
<welp, I'm officially 300 pounds, might as well eat like a pig until I double in size
<welp, she cheated on me, I guess that means I should never have a relationship with another woman in my life ever again
etc.

III.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/
>If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years.
>Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.
>While the effects of human activities on Earth's climate to date are irreversible on the timescale of humans alive today, every little bit of avoided future temperature increases results in less warming that would otherwise persist for essentially forever.
>The benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions occur on the same timescale as the political decisions that lead to those reductions.
>Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5°C to 4.5°C (4.5°F to 8°F) by 2100, according to the latest estimates.
>But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change.
even if long term damage has already been done, we can still take steps toward reducing climate change, including a reduction in the human population. people generally don't like this idea for numerous, political reasons, but fuck that shit. this is bigger than politics.

>It's not the philosophy of antinatalism that invites ridicule, but the way the vast majority of Current Year antinatalists operate; it really is just fedoralords with neckbeards sperging about le normiefags and kids=little monsters and how you're a very heckin evil person if you're a parent or aspire to be. Maybe if the crux of antinatalist rhetoric wasn't "Ugh, why can't everyone see that kids are just parasitic crotch tumors that suck away all joy in life and everyone who pops them out is a low I.Q. breeder Karen, I wish the state would just outlaw breeding and kill all cisheteroids and their demonspawn"
ok, I get your point, but I just don't care. that first image is just whatever. the second image, I largely agree with her reasoning, only she stepped out of line by asking "are you sure you want to go through with it?" because the bitch was already pregnant, like god damn. that's a point of no return, seems like she's pretty committed at that point (or an idiot, but it's their lives to live, not yours). third image is just someone who is mentally ill, and those people exist everywhere, and they inhabit every system of belief.

>>820780
Bro you're clearly just an insane person. You couldn't find anything anywhere near as bad as what you said all antinatalists are like, btw something being "Reddit" doesn't actually make it wrong

>>820821
this baboon meant to say
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband are pregnant
which means that they as a couple are conceiving a child, not that both she and her husband are pregnant. they're not having two kids, just the one. you know this because dudes can't get pregnant. duh.

yes, you're right, she should've just said
>I have a sister who recently announced that she is pregnant
or maybe
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband are expecting (a baby)
or even
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband have conceived
don't think about it too hard though.

I don't think we need any more population growth but you're not gonna manage that through individual shame. Promote sex education and condom use. Also do everything possible to destabilize the Catholic Church so they have no influence.

>>820837
Why the Catholic church? Right now I think it's more the Evangelicals and Muslims.

>>820780
Every thing you said is correct. It’s unfortunate that the replies are taking you out of context.

I’m an antinatalist but I hate how antinatalism is being used to justify misopedia.
“Kids take too much resources” all the while celebrating new adult toys that take up more energy than a few hundred kids

>>819693
>it's considered wrong to discriminate against people in general.

People like to say “we are all one” but yet they only criticize certain forms of discrimination.
This website for example, allows and promotes cishetphobic misandry.




> there are too many people is about as simple as I get it for you. we can't kill people who are already alive, the only way to address overpopulation is by reducing the birthrate. I know that makes you nazi larpers big mad because some of your rhetoric revolves around increasing the white birthrate, but the environment is more important than preserving your genetics, and also brown people should be having less kids, too.

Why do you assume that I’m a white supremacist? Irony is, there’s a lot of white supremacists whom are all for depopulation although only for non-white people.



>eugenics is pseudoscience hogwash with no basis in reality, and I would not be against the cessation of certain genetic profiles being proliferated via pregnancy if it is scientifically certain that those genetics will result in defects.

So there should be no qualms about people wanting to abort their fetuses if they find out they’re autistic.


> you can't kill a fetus, it's a fetus, and morality doesn't really factor into it unless you're some fundamentalist christian type who already sees the fetus as a person.

Fetuses are people though. Without fetuses, there’s no people.
Do you believe people gain sentience the moment they pop out of the womb?
You’re seriously ignorant of you think that.
Granted, fetuses don’t start out sentient, they do gain heartbeat and nerves after a certain developmental stage.

But okay then, by your logic, if people started aborting fetuses for certain ethnicities or genders, then there’s no problem, because fetuses aren’t people.

I would be more in favor of strong contraceptives. Such as egg harvesting or spermicide.


>>819623
why should I care that some people on reddit might have enough sense to understand that climate change is a result of human activity, and that only humans can make the choice to reduce that activity? good, I'm glad people on reddit understand that. why don't you?

Don't listen to all those pronatalist chuds and breeder cultists, OP. You're 100% correct. Antinatalism is the only way to go through life. We hold the moral high ground (even though being a moralfag is bad and reactionary). Antinatalism VVIL WIN and the normiefags and the chuds VVIL stop popping out crotch parasites.
>dibs bedora ebigly

>>820839
Catholic Church is still the biggest anti-birth control organization in the world, especially in Africa and South America.

>>820837
You can actually get the normoids to stop breeding and shoving dick in pussy if you get enough people to shame them. Let's be real, we'd have to discourage people from being cishets to get to stop spawning clones.

>>821565
The way it's going now it's good enough. People are just producing 1 or 2 kids generally which is really all you need. It's just that people would generally go overboard in having children in the past which is why we're stuck with so much people today. That and improved conditions and childhood vaccinations helped swell the population. A gradual and managed decline would be for the best at this point.

Every time I see one os these
threads I will puncture 100 condoms at the local pharmacy.
>>821565
Fucking pussies will always be better than fucking a mentally ill man's asshole, sry not sry.

>>815537
In 50 years people like OP will go extinct. Why did I even get mad about this?

>>818089
joke does not work on any level

>>821569
It's not enough, we need to stop the breeding completely, nobody should have kids at all.
>>821995
>>821997
Kill yourself fascist.

>>815537
No need to preach the gospel of not having children. Industrial pollution does the work for you.

>>819362
>hurr durr dem dirty libs dun wan yew ta hab cheeldrin?! fuck dat y'all should have 20 cheeldrin jus ta fuk wit em!!!
Gigachad does this.

>>815551
wages actually increase after pandemics because the supply of labor power is much lower.

>>822466
I know multiple couples who wanted multiple children but settled with just having 1 after their first child turned out autistic. What's remarkable is that the "smart" couples who wait until they are 30 and have a stable career to have kids are finding out that it doesn't matter how "smart" they were. The people who don't use contraception will just keep pumping them out no matter how fucked up things get.

The global birth rate is going to keep going down however because more and more societies are getting access to contraception and more men and women are rejecting the idea of starting a family altogether.

>>821995
i think the most baffling thing about your post is that you were able to find a getty stock image of someone puncturing a condom with a baby pin.

So it looks like another woman is pregnant at my workplace that makes 3 for this school year. They're all teachers. I wonder if they wanted the kids more or their husbands wanted them more? I bet at least one more chick at my workplace will get pregnant. I think I heard that one of those chicks didn't even like kids that much. Although she's the only one that's going to be a new mother. She was also the best looking of the three. She has a big thick ass, very lustworthy.

>>819198
every progressive is sex positive and says yes to fetishes until its no longer busting balls and revenge pegging, they turn puritan on the moids

dear librals, you claim you want less humans, yet you focus on preaching less children than going mongol style on the humans

curious

>>815885
>I guess what one could do is establish state regulated child rearing
>And of course, there'd have to be punishments for unauthorized procreation
>It's no more authoritarian than the hoops that people have to go through to maintain their driver's license
Barely anyone requires you to see a psychiatrist if you want to get a driver's license and nobody punishes you Medieval style for failing the test or driving without passing it.
What, do we throw everyone having kids without a loicense in a labor (hehe) camp? If the woman is already pregnant, does she get a trip to a makeshift abortion clinic?

>>820799
The person in the third pic is the OP in the second, she thought about poisoning her sister for not being persuaded by her arguments.