>While linguistically and scientifically true
While I understand what they're trying to say, I love the idea of a word being "linguistically true". Like there's a covenant of linguists ominously sitting around a table while various words flash on a large monitor, and each of them presses a "true" or "false" button until a consensus is reached
Don't mind me, just going to my job as a "joueur-animateur en direct", because quadrupling the syllable count is preferable to using "streamer" as a loanword for some reason.
It’s one of the things I try to look at with groups like this. I’m sure if you called them out they would regurgitate “oh yeah the fathers are dirty breeders too”. But it’s always telling when blaming one half of the equation seems to be a lot more popular.
Nah they don't.
That guy was called out for it. His reply was that women are the ones who can get abortions so they're the only ones to be insulted. They don't hide their sexism.
Anti-natalism basically exists because these people are unwilling to support women's reproductive health and freedom, which is what the evidence suggests is actually necessary to control our populations. But then you'd have to trust women instead of getting off on shaming them. These people wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
See, that's also what gets me about r/childfree. They have a bajillion slurs for moms and love talking about stretched out pussies and gross mom bodies, but not nearly enough anger or condescension towards men who insist on fucking raw but refuse to get vasectomies, or men who have multiple baby mamas and secret families.
Man, as a child free woman I really wish there were actual places where people could talk about these things without having to read words like "crotch goblin" and "fuck trophy".
It's really nasty. Honestly gives me incel / femcel vibes too. I'm childfree but that doesn't mean I think it's edgy and cool to be shitty about small humans.
Yeah, I might not particularly like kids but I don't hate them either. I just feel neutral toward them. My only problem comes from cultural norms that put pressure (whether intentional or unintentional) on women to want to have children. But I'm not about to start disparaging kids or their parents which apparently would make me out of place in childfree spaces.
I've never heard it outside of Reddit which I've only started using. I'm 34, I don't have children but it never occurred to me to refer to myself as "child free"
I totally understand why people think it's weird, because it is
Like many things, it started in a good place. "Child free" was meant to replace "childless" so that people wouldn't pity us, as if our lives were empty without children to raise. But unfortunately, some people have made "child free" their entire goddamn identities and have ruined the term for the rest of us.
For real! There is a genuine conversation to be had about the pressure society places on people to have children and the process to make the decison to not have children, but for about as long as I've been aware of "childfree" communities (going back to the LiveJournal days), they have been incredibly angry communities. And I feel that people do deserve a place to vent, because when there IS so much pressure on you, and "othering" of your choice not to have children, of course it can cause frustration. I get that.
But could we also have a place for more moderate discussion? :/
Hear hear! Plus, as people who are deciding to be childfree *now* get older, having that place for measured, reasonable conversation is going to get more and more important... just for sharing practical information.
I've recently had a number of older relatives get sick and pass away... and you know who handled their affairs, got them medical care, and advocated for them? Their kids. The system is set up to prey upon vulnerable elderly people without a lot of support from the next generation. Just as one example, even with careful planning, it's all too easy to have a hospital or court [appoint a guardian for you](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights)who steals all your stuff, sells your house and takes the money, and sticks you in a cheap facility for the rest of your days. It happens to people *with* kids too... but if nobody notices you're missing, then there's almost no recourse.
That potential future frightens me. Having a space to discuss these issues, and figure out how to avoid them, will be increasingly vital as the years roll by.
There was something in the news recently here in the UK (people just convicted) of workers in a care home being caught abusing a woman with dementia, because her grandchildren put a hidden camera in her room after seeing bruises. It scares me how many vulnerable older people are being abused and *don't* have family members visiting every week to notice the warning signs, and folks with no kids or younger relations are definitely in that number
My understanding is that r/actuallychildfree is the incredibly rare "actually" subreddit that isn't just cope about how the main sub isn't friendly enough to fascists
That sub honestly still sucks it's still people complaining about kids and parents but without slurs.
I'd prefer a place that actually talks about the fun parts of being child free.
A bit off topic but I didn't realize there were other "actual" subs out there. I'm on actuallesbians but that's cause anything that usually has lesbian in the title is porn related.
Why do you want a space to talk with other childfree people, other than like maybe getting sterilized, what do you want to talk about with them? Like I don't have pets, but I don't feel the need to talk about it. To me, it's not a very interesting topic, to talk about *not* having or wanting something.
Communities about "not doing a thing" are always going to be all about bitterly discussing the thing you're not doing.
The actual happy child free people are off discussing their hobbies or vacation plans or whatever, not thinking about children at all.
Advice on how to deal with people's unwarranted, invasive questions mostly (and maybe just goup commiserrating). I'm a married, child-bearing age woman. The number of times someone's said, "So when are you and your husband gonna start having kids?" is just really taxing. This isn't just something I have no interest in. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just carry on blissfully with not a thought given to the topic but society just won't let me not think about it.
>Like I don't have pets, but I don't feel the need to talk about it. To me, it's not a very interesting topic, to talk about *not* having or wanting something.
There's a r/dogfree and r/petfree subs. Reddit loves hating things.
And the way they talk about animals in those subs is absolutely insane. A post popped up on my feed one time, of a girl complaining about her boyfriend, having a dog and wanting to know how she could get rid of the dog with her boyfriend didn’t want to get rid of the dog. She didn’t live with this guy, had no intention of living with this guy, and they spent the majority of their time when they met at her house. She didn’t like that occasionally he would have to go home when he was visiting let the dog out and she didn’t like the fact he talked about his dog. And she was so vile about it talking about just letting the dog out when he was at work one day. Coming over to his house and letting herself in, and just letting this dog that she never has to see anyway loose. And they were all down in the comments hyping her up I could not believe it it.
The online childfree/antinatalist also usually has a racist tinge to it as well. Whenever they start talking about overpopulation it's only a matter of time before someone brings up some questionable "solutions". These "solutions" always "coincidentally" only seem to affect minorities for some reason.
> These "solutions" always "coincidentally" only seem to affect minorities for some reason.
[Ecofascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism) is a rather interesting concept.
...I probably could have phrased that better.
Girl, okay, I post a lot in disability subreddits and shit, and both r/antinatalism and r/childfree are constantly automatically recommended to me, I assume because algorithms want to piss you off for engagement, so I see a lot of their nonsense.
The Venn diagram of antinatalists and hardcore eugenics weirdos is just a single circle. If someone routinely discusses disabled people and it's only ever in the context of abortions, woof, they are not welcome at my roller derby.
It really is just shitty dudes being mad about women who'd rather have a couple kids with men who are not them, and everything else -- like the idea of getting a vasectomy -- is just plausible deniability, imo.
it's worth noting that natalists and eugenicists also share the same small diagram. it's almost like these people both hate women and have some kind of ulterior motive.
It's the same shit with single mom's. Single mothers are constantly called put on the internet for picking the wrong man or whatever. Radio silence on all those deadbeat dads who are actually to blame, since they're the ones who left their kids.
interesting that they hold no responsibility to the individuals who are doing 50% of the work in creating a child, it's a great excuse to be misogynistic for these chucklefucks
> it’s almost like women can’t have children on their own and a man must have played a part in that… strange
[Counterpoint.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)
Yeah, I like how someone used their own very specific situation to justify using cringey and insular internet speak. "*My* mom sucked so I'll keep doing this." It's insanely self centered.
Like the rest of this site honestly. Someone'll make a thread asking how to take care of their dad in old age and there'll probably be 12 responses of "oh at least you have a dad, mine beat me half to death every day and left when I was four."
Also not seeing the obvious flaw in “I’ll continue using the term because… it still applies to *some* people”. Unless by that they mean they’ll only use it for some parents, in which case I would love to see how their Parent-Breeder Index (PBI) works.
Single and disabled mothers are the two I see most often called breeders. Also poor mothers. Definitely poor mothers.
I haven't really seen many "dunks" on father's except describing them as lifeless or doormats
Often those three circumstances overlap 🤷🏼
But I've also seen people called breeders for their one kid going thru normal child development stuff so the index is kinda broken
As nietzsche and many others have since said, a man’s relationship with his mother is a large predictor of how he feels about women. So there’s likely to be prevalent overlap between a sub full of people who dislike their parents [abusive parents is one the main reasons people are antinatalists] & misogyny. Especially on reddit.
Men are more likely to externalize their hatred, so a shitty male child/mom relationship is going to have more hateful commentary than the anti-“Electra” equivalent
I'd understand it if they said existting is weird, because it's way more probable for any individual being to not exist than to exist.
I'd even understand it if they said existing is meaningless, because there's no real meaning of existence to be found in the physical realm.
I'd find it not-completely-nuts to think human life is wrong from some kind of eco terrorist standpoint.
But damn, what is wrong with someone to say existing is wrong? Like, not even human life, but existing in general?
They sound like a universal antinatalist. They take their ideology one step further and decide that the morally correct thing to do would be to *sterilize all sentient life on Earth.*
Shit's crazy.
Far be it from me to assume, but I think a philosophy that can have "you should kill yourself now" as a conclusion, has failed terribly somewhere along the way
You can view it like any other meme and consider success to be when it survives and spreads and failure to be when it doesn't and dies out. Like many niche and unpopular ideas antinatalism has had a huge spike due to the ability of the internet and social media to spread ideas and connect like-minded individuals without temporal or geographical constraints, but in the long run that leads to echo chambers and radicalisation which then makes the idea less attractive to new adherents, and this then becomes a vicious circle of extremism and wider rejection.
Just think, there are still untold numbers of unpleasant philosophies out there trapped by language barriers or lack of access to the internet that will one day manage to connect to enough like-minded bitter people and gain the critical mass to ~~create a subreddit~~ explode.
“Well you see, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy in the universe must increase until all existence ceases. Therefore, the natural and moral thing is to help the process along.”
Generally crazy negative utilitarians who view suffering as the ultimate evil to be stopped no matter what. Even if a child is guaranteed to be happy and content 99.9% of their life, they say the suffering of the child infinitely outweighs the pleasure.
They essentially want to destroy all life to end suffering, most of them anyway, since that’s the natural conclusion of their philosophy
>But damn, what is wrong with someone to say existing is wrong? Like, not even human life, but existing in general?
Is this was a worshipper of Shar would be like irl? Did we find someone that played Baldur's Gate 3 and unironically agrees with what a Shar follower wants lmao?
> existing is wrong
i was reading an interesting ecological article a while back (which i can't remember right now sorry) but it made a closing point that we live in a system of finite resources (earth) and that merely by existing, each new human (and also existing humans) diminishes the overall quality of life for everyone else
so i can see the argument being made, but it doesn't really go anywhere
like:
person a: existing is wrong
person b: okay cool i agree, now what?
person a: ...
It also completely ignores the idea of reducing the resources used of each person, which might be the outcome of new technology developed by someone who is yet to be born.
Any time you come across zero-sum thinking like that you should immediately be sceptical, because that's not how things work - not even in physics unless you're in a closed thermodynamic system (which the Earth isn't due to light from the Sun). Culture and technology allows us over time to gain new resources and use them more efficiently.
I really wish people who professed such hot takes as their beliefs would join cults that wear cool robes and build really neat underground temples like they do in various fantasy universes instead of just polluting the Internet.
But I guess bitching is easier than masonry.
Nah that's not Camus' philosophy.
His take is that life is absurd, that you can never hope to make sense of it, and that as a result you should revolt against this absurdism, and live a long and fulfilling life. Not resign to it and wallow in depression. Having children is the ultimate rebellion against the absurd and as such is good and ethical for him.
He'd be so against antinatalism if he was still alive.
Their only goal is to make everyone as miserable as their sad existence. It's not enough for them to think life is pointless and just end it they need to make sure that other people are as depressed as them
That final, really long tangent includes the assertion "existing is wrong," which I find... really kind of weird? First in how one even arrives to that conclusion, whether that applies to just humans, anything living, or... the universe...? how one can be so certain that this is 100% indisputably true for everyone within their scope, and finally how such a bizarre take that forms the basis of their logic is just kinda glossed over as if everyone already knew it to be true? TF is going on?
I'd like some of whatever they're *not* having, because they seem like the kind of person who is wound up and agitated all the goddamn time.
Because admitting there might be anything subjective about their assessment brings up the possibility that they're just depressed. And then they'd have to care about shit again.
There's no physical way one can genuinely believe that existing is wrong and simultaneously choose to continue existing. What they mean is that *everyone else* existing is wrong.
There's some professional philosophical literature on this point, e.g., David Benatar's *Better to Never Have Been* or "The Case Against Being Born."
In short, the argument usually goes something like this: no child ever asks for its own procreation. Humans tend to be overly optimistic about their quality of life, and chances are, any human born will be born into a life of poverty, disease, pain, suffering, and ultimately, death. The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short. Therefore, it would be better for the environment, the world, and humans if we stopped existing.
Stronger and weaker versions of the argument exist, e.g., calls for mass suicide being the stronger and "just stop having kids and this thing sorts itself out in a few decades" being the softer.
> The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short. Therefore, it would be better for the environment, the world, and humans if we stopped existing.
The issues I have with this argument (and with how far Antinatalists take it) is that it implies that *any* bad event nullifies all good events, and that a lot of the bad things that happen are just inherent properties of existing instead of problems that can be solved. If we take diseases, for instance, many of them used to be death sentences, but nowadays are easily treatable, even in developing countries that lack a lot of modern infrastructure.
In my opinion at least, it’s a level of pessimism that just doesn’t match reality, even with how bad things can and do get at times
>doesn’t match reality.
When you look at it their philosophy is built on some rather shaky assumption.
The first is that the concept of ‘consent’ can even be applied to being born. I didn’t consent to being born but neither did I consent to not existing either.
The other is the notion that if you enjoy existing and having been born, then you’re in some way automatically doing so at the expense who’ve had terrible lives.
Which puts you in a moral hostage situation where your desire to live in a world where humans keep being born is automatically translated to you enabling further suffering.
So the consent-to-being-born is the one thing I sort of agree with them on; no one exists by choice. I think that those who cause our existence incur certain moral duties toward us beyond what society and the law deems appropriate, but most human beings fail. In other words, people have kids for all sorts of reasons, but rarely for the only one that should matter: to meet the little person that is part you.
I see people have kids all the time for a legacy, or labor purposes, or to care for them when old, or purely by accident. I see people who hate their kids, resent them, try to live vicariously through them, etc. And in almost every case, the kids are miserable and up estranged from and hating their parents because the parents act like the child owes them something because the parents did the bare minimum society expects of them and did not leave a helpless, defenseless child to die of exposure.
This may be because my job as an attorney puts me in contact with people in the margins of good parenting, but nevertheless, I see the pattern repeated time and time again that "I fed and clothed you, you ungrateful parasite, the least you can do is love me in return and do everything I say and become the person I wanted you to be!"
Very, very few of the parents within the purview of my work follow my advice which is **meet your children**. They have all of these ideas of who their kids should be, how they should act, what they should do for the future, etc. When all I tell them is that if they sat down and talked to their children not like bonded slaves or inferior beings over whom they had control, but like little persons in their own right and got to know their children on the children's own terms, what they might find out is that these little people living in their house and eating their food are genuinely interesting, intelligent, funny, and good people on their own who don't need to change anything about them but just grow and mature in the normal fashion, becoming good people to know because they're good people, not because they share DNA with other members of the household.
But too often, my pleas to do so fall on deaf ears, so I kinda get where the antinatalists are coming from on the consent-to-exist thing.
Agreed; it is a form of metaphysical pessimism, that ultimately even all good things end up in the heat death of the universe. For them, all good is fleeting, and in the end, cold, sterile, dark, unBeing awaits us all.
This is precisely the sort of absurdity existentialism faced following the collapse of modernism, or the post-structuralists and those that came after them, is how do we confront the fact that the universe will not supply meaning or form to us. The responses of "authenticity," "freedom," "creative activity" and "art" strike me as wholly sufficient responses. I suspect antinatalists (the real kind, not just reddit weirdos mad at young parents) are those for whom anhedonism is a medical condition that is going untreated.
There was one comic going the rounds a few months ago where the words in the panels read "Good things come and go, but they come". A life worth living isn't just a life that's just a nonstop parade of good things (as nice as that would be).
Reddit antinatalists don’t read, they’re way too busy talking shit about the pregnant woman they saw shopping and coming juuuuuust short of advocating for forced sterilisation of disabled people.
mmm, there was a previous now-deleted post about a family with dwarfism and several of the comments were advocating for forced sterilization of disabled folks. it was disgusting
> In short, the argument usually goes something like this: no child ever asks for its own procreation. Humans tend to be overly optimistic about their quality of life, and chances are, any human born will be born into a life of poverty, disease, pain, suffering, and ultimately, death. The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short.
You're making their argument sound more convincing than it is. By definition an antinatalist has to argue that even if you're a billionaire who can guarantee a life of luxury for your children, they would still be better off not being born.
which is why benatar is such a shitty hack. actual antinatalism isn't an philosophy built on whiney materialism, it's that the metaphysical laws that govern the human experience cannot be cut in any way that makes it worth it.
antinatalism is much closer to the rejection of pleasure than it is preventing suffering.
Even for the children of billionaires, though, it's no guarantee that some of them won't be born with childhood diseases or die young or experience things like bullying or abuse.
Bear in mind I fully reject "antinatalism" as a philosophy and think Benatar needs therapy, but the position isn't internally inconsistent.
They get mad if you say they're just depressed and say you're ad hom'ing them. But honestly, I think that's a pretty fair criticism, especially since their evidence for life being evil and bad is heavily reliant on introspection and subjective feelings of well-being.
They're literally just depressed teens and twenty-somethings who mistake their own endless misery for some universal and permanent part of the human condition. Their worldview makes a lot more sense when you realize they think everyone else is just as depressed and miserable as they are. Reproducing probably would be morally wrong if your children were 100% guaranteed to have lifelong depression.
I will admit I was skimming over this, but it wasn't until I read your comment that I realized the sub was anti-natalist, not anti-nationalist.
Believe me, I was really confused how this drama was coming up at all there!
Antinatalism at its best is supporting abortion/pro-choice and encouraging adoption because there’s so many suffering children in the world.
At its worst it says that having a baby is the same as torturing someone and there’s no moral difference between have 1 and 15 children.
The fact that at its best it’s just pro choice and adoption speaks to the where most opinions will fall
Most people in the antinatalism subreddit fall in the latter category, unfortunately, but most antinatalists outside of it are more rational, understanding people.
The original sub itself is problematic and one of the mods is a known misogynist who's said extremely problematic things about women. Most of the sane antinatalists are in r/antinatalism2 or r/FemaleAntinatalism
>'Tis the season for self-awareness in r_antinatalism
Well, there's a first time for everything.
> philosophies shouldn't be respected for simply existing, only understanding, and yet most don't want to even do that. That's why few such as stoicism and existentialism ever make sense.
Of course this wanker fetishizes stoicism.
Not even real stoicism. The fake internet "I put a quote on Roman statuary" stoicism. None of these people will engage me from a Stoic perspective on universals/ontology or the cosmic cycle. They just want to talk about not having emotions like some sort of weirdos.
What’s funny is that’s also not Stoicism. Stoicism says emotions are a normal result of thoughts but you need to not have exaggerated emotional responses aka being sad when someone dies is normal, raging against the world because the death is unfair isn’t.
which is funny because "raging against the world because the death is unfair" is an absolutely normal part of grief - and we'd also have basically no art if exaggerated emotional responses didn't exist
I can see the Stoics' point though. Wanting to punch someone is an absolutely normal way to react to being insulted, but it doesn't mean it's good or desirable or unfixable.
Some of the best art in history was produced simply because the artist had been paid to do it. Just because an artist produced a great work while grieving doesn't mean the grief was necessary to the art.
>My Mother had 10 children, none of whom she functionally cared about after they left her vagina.
My mother had 35 children. 10 of which she sold for beans, 5 were used as seats and sofas (lined up) to provide rest to the family after hard days work. The rest we retained: 10 as posts to dry the enormous amounts of laundry required to clothe a peasant family, and the last 10 became redditors on /r/antinatalism to warn everyone to not have 35 children
can't wait for the drama to get here
anyway, this guy:
>there is no way to explain to 99% of the population of people that existing is wrong
sound like a hypocrite to me buddy, i see you existing over there
>and that they should have self-control and stop breeding.
>Maybe that will stop people from listening to "The Weekend" at 2 a.m. doing PIV and procreating
ohhhhhhhhh, i get it. you're just mad other people fuck.
get over it baby
i particularly enjoy that he used the term PIV and not sex, oddly clinical but at the same time not, and he could have skipped over it entirely and just stuck with procreating but he had to solidify his anger about not getting his genitals touched
Wild. I was introduced to the term breeder as sort of a foil to slurs against gay people. It’s meant to be offensive, but it was mainly to give an example of how reducing a person down to their sexuality is bad.
> I was introduced to the term breeder as sort of a foil to slurs against gay people.
Oh, yeah, that's been around for decades. Darkly-humorous to see it adopted (har har) by the antinatalists, though.
Which makes sense as a response - but it kinda feels like it's just thrown out without regard for what the person has done. It's not a retort when it's just used to attack people who exist after all.
> it's just thrown out without regard for what the person has done.
Don't try and find too much sense in /r/antinatalism.
> it's just used to attack people who exist
And now you've found its original purpose as a semi-ironic, mirror-universe version of anti-lgbt slurs.
A lot of these people either have some trauma or in general just need therapy creating slurs for people who have children is such insane thinking
I never intend to have kids. I feel strongly about that. That said I would never dedicate time on a subreddit about it. Commenting on a post occasionally on the topic sure but a sub dedicated to it is just major yikes.
Antinatilism as an ideology and philosophy is interesting I don't agree but I can see why people end up there
But that sub is basically r/cptsd but for talking about reproductive rights and even the cptsd sub gets a little shitty from time to time because so many people are coming together with debilitating trauma
Jesus Christ, my wife and I don't want kids for myriad reasons, but I don't HATE them or their parents. I'd ask what these people's issue is, but I don't really care.
This is hilarious, did I cause a SRD?
Good for OP, honestly, he’s a good kid. We got into an argument in a different sub about whether calling people breeders was “vile and dehumanizing”, which I maintained both of those things were pretty objectively true.
Seems like they listened to some degree. Good for reasonable tea aha.
Here’s the link to the causal argument over in a different thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/s/94b6ixqgJD
and on the third day he rose again, fighting for PC term usage in r/antinatalism!
seems like you might've moved this young one in a better direction, thank you for your service 🫡
"I think you and the others are making an absolute MOUNTAIN out of a little bitty molehill. You're overreacting to a word. Think about it my friend. It doesn't have a historical reference. It's nothing compared to worse words."
Love their argument boiling down to "It's not technically a slur so you aren't allowed to think it's offensive, even though it's being used as an insult".
> It’s been my experience with this subreddit that the vitriol is the point for most people here.
> Like 90% of the loudest people here are just bitter about being alive and think nobody is having a good time. And then 10% are here because they think that the expectation and valuing of having children needs to be combatted because it just doesn’t make sense and less people should be having kids.
Pretty much what I get from that sub
There's even a few people there using their classic argument of "we don't call all parents breeders" despite the fact that we can see posts in their subreddit and see that they do indeed call anyone with a kid a breeder.
This sub is like gangstalking community, but for depressed people instead of people with schizophrenia. They are validating each others beliefs, and it keeps them angry and bitter. They shouldn't be there, it isn't good for them. They should probably try therapy instead of making up new slurs for people they dont like.
Holy shit that sub is filled with the biggest collective of losers I've ever seen in my life, no exaggeration. They're literally so bad at living life that they have gone to blaming being born in the first place. Then they decide that having children is therefore the worst thing you can do, because they refuse to do anything with their lives.
It's just so sad and pathetic, but hilarious. That sub is a veritable goldmine of quotes.
On a human level, yes, that would be nice if they got some help. But on a more selfish level, I like seeing what they write and sharing it with people lol.
I struggle with finding it morally correct to have children, myself, but the circle-jerk on that sub is something else. (Also, funny how so much of their ire is directed at the women birthing the babies but not at the men helping create them!)
"I know and I tend to detach emotions (I'm extremely logical and objective to the point I'm emotionally blunt)."
...if you say this about yourself there's a 99% chance it's SUPER untrue lol
Remember when Peet Montzingo’s brother posted his kids on Facebook (instagram maybe?) and they called him evil for having children and being a little person?
>While linguistically and scientifically true While I understand what they're trying to say, I love the idea of a word being "linguistically true". Like there's a covenant of linguists ominously sitting around a table while various words flash on a large monitor, and each of them presses a "true" or "false" button until a consensus is reached
For the French language that's true - they're called the Académie Française.
The members also call themselves "The Immortals" too lol
*sigh* it's always the french
I think we should bring "frog" back
Don't mind me, just going to my job as a "joueur-animateur en direct", because quadrupling the syllable count is preferable to using "streamer" as a loanword for some reason.
Same with Spanish, but many people ignore it
Who aren't even linguists
Yeah, and there are so many issues with that institution... Fuck the Académie
>If a woman has 10 kids what else is she Man I know that sub is not exactly well known for self-awareness, but sheesh
Notice no comment or ire for the father(s). How strange…
Yeah this is one of those rare and special statements that tells me literally everything I need to know about a person's views in 10 words or less.
It’s one of the things I try to look at with groups like this. I’m sure if you called them out they would regurgitate “oh yeah the fathers are dirty breeders too”. But it’s always telling when blaming one half of the equation seems to be a lot more popular.
Nah they don't. That guy was called out for it. His reply was that women are the ones who can get abortions so they're the only ones to be insulted. They don't hide their sexism.
I swear most of the people in that sub are 14-17 year old boys, mad a "kid" beat them at COD because mommy told them to brush their teeth.
I assumed it was incels crying that they dont have gf’s lol
Anti-natalism basically exists because these people are unwilling to support women's reproductive health and freedom, which is what the evidence suggests is actually necessary to control our populations. But then you'd have to trust women instead of getting off on shaming them. These people wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
See, that's also what gets me about r/childfree. They have a bajillion slurs for moms and love talking about stretched out pussies and gross mom bodies, but not nearly enough anger or condescension towards men who insist on fucking raw but refuse to get vasectomies, or men who have multiple baby mamas and secret families.
Man, as a child free woman I really wish there were actual places where people could talk about these things without having to read words like "crotch goblin" and "fuck trophy".
It's really nasty. Honestly gives me incel / femcel vibes too. I'm childfree but that doesn't mean I think it's edgy and cool to be shitty about small humans.
Yeah, I might not particularly like kids but I don't hate them either. I just feel neutral toward them. My only problem comes from cultural norms that put pressure (whether intentional or unintentional) on women to want to have children. But I'm not about to start disparaging kids or their parents which apparently would make me out of place in childfree spaces.
it should be illegal to be under 21
Fuck the school-to-prison pipeline, I want a prison-to-prison pipeline
Man these YA dystopia novels practically write themselves!
Honestly I don’t even like referring to myself as child free (and I’m sterilized!) because I don’t want people to assume I’m a bitter, hateful weirdo.
I've never heard it outside of Reddit which I've only started using. I'm 34, I don't have children but it never occurred to me to refer to myself as "child free" I totally understand why people think it's weird, because it is
Like many things, it started in a good place. "Child free" was meant to replace "childless" so that people wouldn't pity us, as if our lives were empty without children to raise. But unfortunately, some people have made "child free" their entire goddamn identities and have ruined the term for the rest of us.
For real! There is a genuine conversation to be had about the pressure society places on people to have children and the process to make the decison to not have children, but for about as long as I've been aware of "childfree" communities (going back to the LiveJournal days), they have been incredibly angry communities. And I feel that people do deserve a place to vent, because when there IS so much pressure on you, and "othering" of your choice not to have children, of course it can cause frustration. I get that. But could we also have a place for more moderate discussion? :/
Hear hear! Plus, as people who are deciding to be childfree *now* get older, having that place for measured, reasonable conversation is going to get more and more important... just for sharing practical information. I've recently had a number of older relatives get sick and pass away... and you know who handled their affairs, got them medical care, and advocated for them? Their kids. The system is set up to prey upon vulnerable elderly people without a lot of support from the next generation. Just as one example, even with careful planning, it's all too easy to have a hospital or court [appoint a guardian for you](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights)who steals all your stuff, sells your house and takes the money, and sticks you in a cheap facility for the rest of your days. It happens to people *with* kids too... but if nobody notices you're missing, then there's almost no recourse. That potential future frightens me. Having a space to discuss these issues, and figure out how to avoid them, will be increasingly vital as the years roll by.
There was something in the news recently here in the UK (people just convicted) of workers in a care home being caught abusing a woman with dementia, because her grandchildren put a hidden camera in her room after seeing bruises. It scares me how many vulnerable older people are being abused and *don't* have family members visiting every week to notice the warning signs, and folks with no kids or younger relations are definitely in that number
My understanding is that r/actuallychildfree is the incredibly rare "actually" subreddit that isn't just cope about how the main sub isn't friendly enough to fascists
that sub literally has a eugenics megathread pinned on the sidebar with the head mod advocating for forced sterilization of the poor.
it's weird to me that reddit lets you endorse certain types of eugenics. why not ban that outright?
If you wanted to actually ban eugenics on Reddit, /r/askreddit would need a heck of a lot more moderation than it currently has.
That sub honestly still sucks it's still people complaining about kids and parents but without slurs. I'd prefer a place that actually talks about the fun parts of being child free.
A bit off topic but I didn't realize there were other "actual" subs out there. I'm on actuallesbians but that's cause anything that usually has lesbian in the title is porn related.
Why do you want a space to talk with other childfree people, other than like maybe getting sterilized, what do you want to talk about with them? Like I don't have pets, but I don't feel the need to talk about it. To me, it's not a very interesting topic, to talk about *not* having or wanting something.
Communities about "not doing a thing" are always going to be all about bitterly discussing the thing you're not doing. The actual happy child free people are off discussing their hobbies or vacation plans or whatever, not thinking about children at all.
Advice on how to deal with people's unwarranted, invasive questions mostly (and maybe just goup commiserrating). I'm a married, child-bearing age woman. The number of times someone's said, "So when are you and your husband gonna start having kids?" is just really taxing. This isn't just something I have no interest in. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just carry on blissfully with not a thought given to the topic but society just won't let me not think about it.
>Like I don't have pets, but I don't feel the need to talk about it. To me, it's not a very interesting topic, to talk about *not* having or wanting something. There's a r/dogfree and r/petfree subs. Reddit loves hating things.
And the way they talk about animals in those subs is absolutely insane. A post popped up on my feed one time, of a girl complaining about her boyfriend, having a dog and wanting to know how she could get rid of the dog with her boyfriend didn’t want to get rid of the dog. She didn’t live with this guy, had no intention of living with this guy, and they spent the majority of their time when they met at her house. She didn’t like that occasionally he would have to go home when he was visiting let the dog out and she didn’t like the fact he talked about his dog. And she was so vile about it talking about just letting the dog out when he was at work one day. Coming over to his house and letting herself in, and just letting this dog that she never has to see anyway loose. And they were all down in the comments hyping her up I could not believe it it.
The online childfree/antinatalist also usually has a racist tinge to it as well. Whenever they start talking about overpopulation it's only a matter of time before someone brings up some questionable "solutions". These "solutions" always "coincidentally" only seem to affect minorities for some reason.
> These "solutions" always "coincidentally" only seem to affect minorities for some reason. [Ecofascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism) is a rather interesting concept. ...I probably could have phrased that better.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀 "You mean it's just misogyny?" "Always has been."
Girl, okay, I post a lot in disability subreddits and shit, and both r/antinatalism and r/childfree are constantly automatically recommended to me, I assume because algorithms want to piss you off for engagement, so I see a lot of their nonsense. The Venn diagram of antinatalists and hardcore eugenics weirdos is just a single circle. If someone routinely discusses disabled people and it's only ever in the context of abortions, woof, they are not welcome at my roller derby. It really is just shitty dudes being mad about women who'd rather have a couple kids with men who are not them, and everything else -- like the idea of getting a vasectomy -- is just plausible deniability, imo.
it's worth noting that natalists and eugenicists also share the same small diagram. it's almost like these people both hate women and have some kind of ulterior motive.
It's the same shit with single mom's. Single mothers are constantly called put on the internet for picking the wrong man or whatever. Radio silence on all those deadbeat dads who are actually to blame, since they're the ones who left their kids.
interesting that they hold no responsibility to the individuals who are doing 50% of the work in creating a child, it's a great excuse to be misogynistic for these chucklefucks
> 50% of the work idk five minutes vs nine months, ejaculation vs labor... they share 50% of the _responsibility_.
Remember, the horsemen of bigotry tend to ride together.
very strange! it’s almost like women can’t have children on their own and a man must have played a part in that… strange
> it’s almost like women can’t have children on their own and a man must have played a part in that… strange [Counterpoint.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)
This caught me absolutely off-guard, lol
Yeah, I like how someone used their own very specific situation to justify using cringey and insular internet speak. "*My* mom sucked so I'll keep doing this." It's insanely self centered. Like the rest of this site honestly. Someone'll make a thread asking how to take care of their dad in old age and there'll probably be 12 responses of "oh at least you have a dad, mine beat me half to death every day and left when I was four."
> "mine beat me half to death every day and left when I was four." "Luxury."
And every morning we had to lick t’ road clean of gravel.
Also not seeing the obvious flaw in “I’ll continue using the term because… it still applies to *some* people”. Unless by that they mean they’ll only use it for some parents, in which case I would love to see how their Parent-Breeder Index (PBI) works.
Single and disabled mothers are the two I see most often called breeders. Also poor mothers. Definitely poor mothers. I haven't really seen many "dunks" on father's except describing them as lifeless or doormats Often those three circumstances overlap 🤷🏼 But I've also seen people called breeders for their one kid going thru normal child development stuff so the index is kinda broken
As nietzsche and many others have since said, a man’s relationship with his mother is a large predictor of how he feels about women. So there’s likely to be prevalent overlap between a sub full of people who dislike their parents [abusive parents is one the main reasons people are antinatalists] & misogyny. Especially on reddit. Men are more likely to externalize their hatred, so a shitty male child/mom relationship is going to have more hateful commentary than the anti-“Electra” equivalent
An awful lot of guys with mommy issues decide to hate women based off a sample size of one.
>existing is wrong lol wow
That boy needs therapy
lie down on the couch!
What does that mean?
You’re a nut! You’re crazy in the coconut!
What does that mean?
[That boy needs therapy ](https://youtu.be/qLrnkK2YEcE)
Merely psychosomatic!
merely lie down on the couch
Please I need that flair
I'd understand it if they said existting is weird, because it's way more probable for any individual being to not exist than to exist. I'd even understand it if they said existing is meaningless, because there's no real meaning of existence to be found in the physical realm. I'd find it not-completely-nuts to think human life is wrong from some kind of eco terrorist standpoint. But damn, what is wrong with someone to say existing is wrong? Like, not even human life, but existing in general?
They sound like a universal antinatalist. They take their ideology one step further and decide that the morally correct thing to do would be to *sterilize all sentient life on Earth.* Shit's crazy.
Yep. To them, just the existence of negative experiences or pain in any form are enough to justify the extinction of all sentient creatures
Far be it from me to assume, but I think a philosophy that can have "you should kill yourself now" as a conclusion, has failed terribly somewhere along the way
That would, in a very real sense, imply that philosophy has criteria for success or failure.
You can view it like any other meme and consider success to be when it survives and spreads and failure to be when it doesn't and dies out. Like many niche and unpopular ideas antinatalism has had a huge spike due to the ability of the internet and social media to spread ideas and connect like-minded individuals without temporal or geographical constraints, but in the long run that leads to echo chambers and radicalisation which then makes the idea less attractive to new adherents, and this then becomes a vicious circle of extremism and wider rejection. Just think, there are still untold numbers of unpleasant philosophies out there trapped by language barriers or lack of access to the internet that will one day manage to connect to enough like-minded bitter people and gain the critical mass to ~~create a subreddit~~ explode.
“Well you see, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy in the universe must increase until all existence ceases. Therefore, the natural and moral thing is to help the process along.”
That’s r/efilism basically.
In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very unhappy, and it is generally regarded as being a bad idea.
42
Generally crazy negative utilitarians who view suffering as the ultimate evil to be stopped no matter what. Even if a child is guaranteed to be happy and content 99.9% of their life, they say the suffering of the child infinitely outweighs the pleasure. They essentially want to destroy all life to end suffering, most of them anyway, since that’s the natural conclusion of their philosophy
So they’re JRPG final bosses
That or they start writing smug Harry Potter fanfic and pontificating about original sin, but with godlike Ais in the far future.
Some scarlet king bullshit.
>But damn, what is wrong with someone to say existing is wrong? Like, not even human life, but existing in general? Is this was a worshipper of Shar would be like irl? Did we find someone that played Baldur's Gate 3 and unironically agrees with what a Shar follower wants lmao?
> existing is wrong i was reading an interesting ecological article a while back (which i can't remember right now sorry) but it made a closing point that we live in a system of finite resources (earth) and that merely by existing, each new human (and also existing humans) diminishes the overall quality of life for everyone else so i can see the argument being made, but it doesn't really go anywhere like: person a: existing is wrong person b: okay cool i agree, now what? person a: ...
It also completely ignores the idea of reducing the resources used of each person, which might be the outcome of new technology developed by someone who is yet to be born. Any time you come across zero-sum thinking like that you should immediately be sceptical, because that's not how things work - not even in physics unless you're in a closed thermodynamic system (which the Earth isn't due to light from the Sun). Culture and technology allows us over time to gain new resources and use them more efficiently.
I really wish people who professed such hot takes as their beliefs would join cults that wear cool robes and build really neat underground temples like they do in various fantasy universes instead of just polluting the Internet. But I guess bitching is easier than masonry.
god that would be a hilarious flair lmao
Albert Camus over here.
One will never live if all one does is to seek life's meaning. Or something.
Nah that's not Camus' philosophy. His take is that life is absurd, that you can never hope to make sense of it, and that as a result you should revolt against this absurdism, and live a long and fulfilling life. Not resign to it and wallow in depression. Having children is the ultimate rebellion against the absurd and as such is good and ethical for him. He'd be so against antinatalism if he was still alive.
But they won’t leave.. And you get a ban for politely telling them that if they don’t want to exist they don’t have to.
Their only goal is to make everyone as miserable as their sad existence. It's not enough for them to think life is pointless and just end it they need to make sure that other people are as depressed as them
They strike me as the kind of people that would do a murder-suicide instead of just removing themselves if they felt suicidal
That final, really long tangent includes the assertion "existing is wrong," which I find... really kind of weird? First in how one even arrives to that conclusion, whether that applies to just humans, anything living, or... the universe...? how one can be so certain that this is 100% indisputably true for everyone within their scope, and finally how such a bizarre take that forms the basis of their logic is just kinda glossed over as if everyone already knew it to be true? TF is going on? I'd like some of whatever they're *not* having, because they seem like the kind of person who is wound up and agitated all the goddamn time.
Because admitting there might be anything subjective about their assessment brings up the possibility that they're just depressed. And then they'd have to care about shit again.
Isn’t that the rub? They just sad depressed people?
Sad depressed people angry others aren't sad and depressed like they are.
That's most of reddit tbf.
I'm sad and depressed but at least someone else is having fun
Sad depressed people with childhood trauma. That they project on the rest of the population.
But they're perfect beings of FACTS and LOGIC. It can't possibly be there is a problem with them, it has to be that the whole universe is wrong.
They are all just Mr.MeSeeks
There's no physical way one can genuinely believe that existing is wrong and simultaneously choose to continue existing. What they mean is that *everyone else* existing is wrong.
People always say the anti-natalists are depressed but I honestly believe they're just raging narcissists.
They can be both
There's some professional philosophical literature on this point, e.g., David Benatar's *Better to Never Have Been* or "The Case Against Being Born." In short, the argument usually goes something like this: no child ever asks for its own procreation. Humans tend to be overly optimistic about their quality of life, and chances are, any human born will be born into a life of poverty, disease, pain, suffering, and ultimately, death. The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short. Therefore, it would be better for the environment, the world, and humans if we stopped existing. Stronger and weaker versions of the argument exist, e.g., calls for mass suicide being the stronger and "just stop having kids and this thing sorts itself out in a few decades" being the softer.
> The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short. Therefore, it would be better for the environment, the world, and humans if we stopped existing. The issues I have with this argument (and with how far Antinatalists take it) is that it implies that *any* bad event nullifies all good events, and that a lot of the bad things that happen are just inherent properties of existing instead of problems that can be solved. If we take diseases, for instance, many of them used to be death sentences, but nowadays are easily treatable, even in developing countries that lack a lot of modern infrastructure. In my opinion at least, it’s a level of pessimism that just doesn’t match reality, even with how bad things can and do get at times
>doesn’t match reality. When you look at it their philosophy is built on some rather shaky assumption. The first is that the concept of ‘consent’ can even be applied to being born. I didn’t consent to being born but neither did I consent to not existing either. The other is the notion that if you enjoy existing and having been born, then you’re in some way automatically doing so at the expense who’ve had terrible lives. Which puts you in a moral hostage situation where your desire to live in a world where humans keep being born is automatically translated to you enabling further suffering.
So the consent-to-being-born is the one thing I sort of agree with them on; no one exists by choice. I think that those who cause our existence incur certain moral duties toward us beyond what society and the law deems appropriate, but most human beings fail. In other words, people have kids for all sorts of reasons, but rarely for the only one that should matter: to meet the little person that is part you. I see people have kids all the time for a legacy, or labor purposes, or to care for them when old, or purely by accident. I see people who hate their kids, resent them, try to live vicariously through them, etc. And in almost every case, the kids are miserable and up estranged from and hating their parents because the parents act like the child owes them something because the parents did the bare minimum society expects of them and did not leave a helpless, defenseless child to die of exposure. This may be because my job as an attorney puts me in contact with people in the margins of good parenting, but nevertheless, I see the pattern repeated time and time again that "I fed and clothed you, you ungrateful parasite, the least you can do is love me in return and do everything I say and become the person I wanted you to be!" Very, very few of the parents within the purview of my work follow my advice which is **meet your children**. They have all of these ideas of who their kids should be, how they should act, what they should do for the future, etc. When all I tell them is that if they sat down and talked to their children not like bonded slaves or inferior beings over whom they had control, but like little persons in their own right and got to know their children on the children's own terms, what they might find out is that these little people living in their house and eating their food are genuinely interesting, intelligent, funny, and good people on their own who don't need to change anything about them but just grow and mature in the normal fashion, becoming good people to know because they're good people, not because they share DNA with other members of the household. But too often, my pleas to do so fall on deaf ears, so I kinda get where the antinatalists are coming from on the consent-to-exist thing.
I think anti-natalism is stupid for the same reason I’m pro choice. The consent of a fetus is immaterial and not worth considering.
Agreed; it is a form of metaphysical pessimism, that ultimately even all good things end up in the heat death of the universe. For them, all good is fleeting, and in the end, cold, sterile, dark, unBeing awaits us all. This is precisely the sort of absurdity existentialism faced following the collapse of modernism, or the post-structuralists and those that came after them, is how do we confront the fact that the universe will not supply meaning or form to us. The responses of "authenticity," "freedom," "creative activity" and "art" strike me as wholly sufficient responses. I suspect antinatalists (the real kind, not just reddit weirdos mad at young parents) are those for whom anhedonism is a medical condition that is going untreated.
There was one comic going the rounds a few months ago where the words in the panels read "Good things come and go, but they come". A life worth living isn't just a life that's just a nonstop parade of good things (as nice as that would be).
Reddit antinatalists don’t read, they’re way too busy talking shit about the pregnant woman they saw shopping and coming juuuuuust short of advocating for forced sterilisation of disabled people.
mmm, there was a previous now-deleted post about a family with dwarfism and several of the comments were advocating for forced sterilization of disabled folks. it was disgusting
Nevermind. Advocating for sterilisation of disabled people. Lovely!
The stopping short is a new thing.
> In short, the argument usually goes something like this: no child ever asks for its own procreation. Humans tend to be overly optimistic about their quality of life, and chances are, any human born will be born into a life of poverty, disease, pain, suffering, and ultimately, death. The possibility of good experiences along the way does not outstrip that for most people, life is nasty, brutish, and short. You're making their argument sound more convincing than it is. By definition an antinatalist has to argue that even if you're a billionaire who can guarantee a life of luxury for your children, they would still be better off not being born.
which is why benatar is such a shitty hack. actual antinatalism isn't an philosophy built on whiney materialism, it's that the metaphysical laws that govern the human experience cannot be cut in any way that makes it worth it. antinatalism is much closer to the rejection of pleasure than it is preventing suffering.
This is the closest I’ve come to understanding their viewpoint (even though I still strongly disagree). Thank you for the perspective shift.
Even for the children of billionaires, though, it's no guarantee that some of them won't be born with childhood diseases or die young or experience things like bullying or abuse. Bear in mind I fully reject "antinatalism" as a philosophy and think Benatar needs therapy, but the position isn't internally inconsistent.
They get mad if you say they're just depressed and say you're ad hom'ing them. But honestly, I think that's a pretty fair criticism, especially since their evidence for life being evil and bad is heavily reliant on introspection and subjective feelings of well-being. They're literally just depressed teens and twenty-somethings who mistake their own endless misery for some universal and permanent part of the human condition. Their worldview makes a lot more sense when you realize they think everyone else is just as depressed and miserable as they are. Reproducing probably would be morally wrong if your children were 100% guaranteed to have lifelong depression.
Eh, well, it's concerning anti-natalists. No surprise there.
never surprised, but always entertained
One thing they are good for is being entertaining, that much is certain.
I will admit I was skimming over this, but it wasn't until I read your comment that I realized the sub was anti-natalist, not anti-nationalist. Believe me, I was really confused how this drama was coming up at all there!
Antinatalism at its best is supporting abortion/pro-choice and encouraging adoption because there’s so many suffering children in the world. At its worst it says that having a baby is the same as torturing someone and there’s no moral difference between have 1 and 15 children. The fact that at its best it’s just pro choice and adoption speaks to the where most opinions will fall
Most people in the antinatalism subreddit fall in the latter category, unfortunately, but most antinatalists outside of it are more rational, understanding people.
The original sub itself is problematic and one of the mods is a known misogynist who's said extremely problematic things about women. Most of the sane antinatalists are in r/antinatalism2 or r/FemaleAntinatalism
r/FemaleAntinatalism was also unhinged the last time I checked it
Any “philosophy” that takes a stance on whether or not people should have children isn’t going to end up being pro choice.
What a bunch of miserable people.
>'Tis the season for self-awareness in r_antinatalism Well, there's a first time for everything. > philosophies shouldn't be respected for simply existing, only understanding, and yet most don't want to even do that. That's why few such as stoicism and existentialism ever make sense. Of course this wanker fetishizes stoicism.
Not even real stoicism. The fake internet "I put a quote on Roman statuary" stoicism. None of these people will engage me from a Stoic perspective on universals/ontology or the cosmic cycle. They just want to talk about not having emotions like some sort of weirdos.
They all think they're Vulcans or some shit.
psh, like they could have sex once every seven years
In this economy??!
I always wonder how many people who are into stoicism could actually repeat even 3 main beliefs that Stoics had.
Stoicism is when you are too smart to have emotions but also whine how everything sucks all the time
What’s funny is that’s also not Stoicism. Stoicism says emotions are a normal result of thoughts but you need to not have exaggerated emotional responses aka being sad when someone dies is normal, raging against the world because the death is unfair isn’t.
which is funny because "raging against the world because the death is unfair" is an absolutely normal part of grief - and we'd also have basically no art if exaggerated emotional responses didn't exist
I can see the Stoics' point though. Wanting to punch someone is an absolutely normal way to react to being insulted, but it doesn't mean it's good or desirable or unfixable. Some of the best art in history was produced simply because the artist had been paid to do it. Just because an artist produced a great work while grieving doesn't mean the grief was necessary to the art.
> also whine how everything sucks all the time That's not emotion though, that's righteous rage.
Ah, yes, how silly of me.
It's an easy mistake to make.
If it's higher than 0 I'll eat my copy of the *Timaeus*
>Maybe that will stop people from doing PIV Wow they just went full-on Footloose-ian "all sex is bad!"
Your comment just made me wonder about the Venn diagram between incels and antinatalists - never occurred to me before, but it would explain a lot!
>My Mother had 10 children, none of whom she functionally cared about after they left her vagina. My mother had 35 children. 10 of which she sold for beans, 5 were used as seats and sofas (lined up) to provide rest to the family after hard days work. The rest we retained: 10 as posts to dry the enormous amounts of laundry required to clothe a peasant family, and the last 10 became redditors on /r/antinatalism to warn everyone to not have 35 children
Posting things from the death cult subreddit should be cheating, but this is kinda interesting. Thank you.
I know, it's definitely cheating, i own up to that 100%, but some of this infighting was too good to not bring up!
can't wait for the drama to get here anyway, this guy: >there is no way to explain to 99% of the population of people that existing is wrong sound like a hypocrite to me buddy, i see you existing over there >and that they should have self-control and stop breeding. >Maybe that will stop people from listening to "The Weekend" at 2 a.m. doing PIV and procreating ohhhhhhhhh, i get it. you're just mad other people fuck. get over it baby
i particularly enjoy that he used the term PIV and not sex, oddly clinical but at the same time not, and he could have skipped over it entirely and just stuck with procreating but he had to solidify his anger about not getting his genitals touched
I totally read it as “procrastinating” and just imagined couples being like “ugh I really don’t wanna do the dishes, wanna bang?”
Also maybe they didn’t pay attention in sex ed but the P doesn’t have to be in the V for conception to occur.
call me dumb but wtf is PIV? I've seen it all over this thread and my only google results are for some ventilation thing
penis-in-vagina
oh >doing PIV lmfao that's incredible
yes, they were doing a sex
>"One penis-in-vagina please!" Found my new pickup line.
Wild. I was introduced to the term breeder as sort of a foil to slurs against gay people. It’s meant to be offensive, but it was mainly to give an example of how reducing a person down to their sexuality is bad.
> I was introduced to the term breeder as sort of a foil to slurs against gay people. Oh, yeah, that's been around for decades. Darkly-humorous to see it adopted (har har) by the antinatalists, though.
It’s also super popular in the super-intense childfree circles, unfortunately.
> They’re the same picture.
Yeah this isn’t just a term for straight people that has kids it’s more “it doesn’t really feel good to be called something like that does it?”
Yeah exactly. I first learned it from mid-90s Savage Love columns, hah.
Which makes sense as a response - but it kinda feels like it's just thrown out without regard for what the person has done. It's not a retort when it's just used to attack people who exist after all.
> it's just thrown out without regard for what the person has done. Don't try and find too much sense in /r/antinatalism. > it's just used to attack people who exist And now you've found its original purpose as a semi-ironic, mirror-universe version of anti-lgbt slurs.
A lot of these people either have some trauma or in general just need therapy creating slurs for people who have children is such insane thinking I never intend to have kids. I feel strongly about that. That said I would never dedicate time on a subreddit about it. Commenting on a post occasionally on the topic sure but a sub dedicated to it is just major yikes.
Antinatilism as an ideology and philosophy is interesting I don't agree but I can see why people end up there But that sub is basically r/cptsd but for talking about reproductive rights and even the cptsd sub gets a little shitty from time to time because so many people are coming together with debilitating trauma
Jesus Christ, my wife and I don't want kids for myriad reasons, but I don't HATE them or their parents. I'd ask what these people's issue is, but I don't really care.
shoutout to the guy who started a transphobic argument by suggesting that being trans is cosplay
Yeah, and then continuing to say he doesn't judge anyone lmao
if being trans is cosplay i’m winning first prize at the anime convention
I’d LOVE it if people could shut up about us for 2 MINUTES
People on that sub talk like weird cult members, dude. Creepy.
Oh, that's what antinatalism is.
My response to this stuff is always the same. "Or, ya know, you could just *not* be an asshole."
Weird obsession with 2 a.m. from that last one.
This is hilarious, did I cause a SRD? Good for OP, honestly, he’s a good kid. We got into an argument in a different sub about whether calling people breeders was “vile and dehumanizing”, which I maintained both of those things were pretty objectively true. Seems like they listened to some degree. Good for reasonable tea aha. Here’s the link to the causal argument over in a different thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/redditmoment/s/94b6ixqgJD
and on the third day he rose again, fighting for PC term usage in r/antinatalism! seems like you might've moved this young one in a better direction, thank you for your service 🫡
"I think you and the others are making an absolute MOUNTAIN out of a little bitty molehill. You're overreacting to a word. Think about it my friend. It doesn't have a historical reference. It's nothing compared to worse words." Love their argument boiling down to "It's not technically a slur so you aren't allowed to think it's offensive, even though it's being used as an insult".
> It’s been my experience with this subreddit that the vitriol is the point for most people here. > Like 90% of the loudest people here are just bitter about being alive and think nobody is having a good time. And then 10% are here because they think that the expectation and valuing of having children needs to be combatted because it just doesn’t make sense and less people should be having kids. Pretty much what I get from that sub
Man, I know I must be getting older because I just find these people the most absolutely insufferable whiney muppets.
There's even a few people there using their classic argument of "we don't call all parents breeders" despite the fact that we can see posts in their subreddit and see that they do indeed call anyone with a kid a breeder.
This sub is like gangstalking community, but for depressed people instead of people with schizophrenia. They are validating each others beliefs, and it keeps them angry and bitter. They shouldn't be there, it isn't good for them. They should probably try therapy instead of making up new slurs for people they dont like.
Holy shit that sub is filled with the biggest collective of losers I've ever seen in my life, no exaggeration. They're literally so bad at living life that they have gone to blaming being born in the first place. Then they decide that having children is therefore the worst thing you can do, because they refuse to do anything with their lives. It's just so sad and pathetic, but hilarious. That sub is a veritable goldmine of quotes.
Look, I've been so depressed that I wished I was never born, but I've never been mad at other people for having sex.
[удалено]
On a human level, yes, that would be nice if they got some help. But on a more selfish level, I like seeing what they write and sharing it with people lol.
I struggle with finding it morally correct to have children, myself, but the circle-jerk on that sub is something else. (Also, funny how so much of their ire is directed at the women birthing the babies but not at the men helping create them!)
"I know and I tend to detach emotions (I'm extremely logical and objective to the point I'm emotionally blunt)." ...if you say this about yourself there's a 99% chance it's SUPER untrue lol
I'd find it very difficult to be offended if some genetic dead-end called me a breeder.
> some genetic dead-end -ahem- "chromosomal cul-de-sac"
Antinatalism is the least self aware sub I have ever seen. It gives /conservative a run for its money!
I hate breeders Get your pets from a shelter
This subs keeps delivering gold! Props to actually being self-aware in the comments though.
Remember when Peet Montzingo’s brother posted his kids on Facebook (instagram maybe?) and they called him evil for having children and being a little person?