For some reason people on the internet like very much to come up with lots and lots of complicated rules and half baked "theoretical" justifications for what is good and normal and what isn't, and it gets very weird. Another thing that people do is examine how some pretty fundamental aspect of social interactions came to be the way it is, find something in that process problematic, and decide that it's immoral to do it. Beauty standards is one of those things, yeah, maybe they are problematic and all, but if that's what someone finds attractive, that's normal and cool and it really doesn't matter so much, it is what it is. In 30 years hopefully society will be better. That you try to make it better is all that matters, not what you are attracted to.
It's not bad to be attracted to stuff. And you really shouldn't worry that the way you are attracted to people is "shallow" or "objectifying". It probably only makes everything worse. Now if every time you see a woman that's all you think, that may be a little bit of an issue but you're not gonna fix it just by worrying, neither are Internet weirdos gonna fix it for you. It may just be alienation, repression, lack of sexual contact, etc. But you really really shouldn't hate your attraction to women, that's not where the problem may lie, if there is a problem.
What is annoying to many people sometimes is when dudes are constantly outwardly horny. Like, you see a woman, right? And you think she looks pretty hot. Maybe keep it to yourself if you don't think it will be welcomed. Beyond that it's fiiiine. Don't worry about it. Unless it's so much that it seeps into all your relationships with people and makes you incapable of seeing women any other way. Then it's something you have to work out, but you're not gonna work it out by just blanket hating your attraction, which, again, is super normal and OK. In fact the problem may start and end with you just thinking and worrying about this too much.
For real you might be spending too much time in weird parts of the Internet. That or you had some kind of repressed upbringing if you've ended up hating your sexual attraction. If it's the first maybe you shouldn't pay so much attention to it any more because it is damaging you.
I’ve never gotten the accusation that anti Natalist is Malthusian. Malthus thought that the natural rate of population growth would lead to famine. Clearly that’s not true since improvements in agriculture have raised the max population level a lot over the past few centuries and also it seems birth rates drop with industrialization.
I don’t see how that’s related to thinking perpetuating humanity is a violation of human agency.
Also people who don’t exist can’t have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Let’s say you had the ability to see into the future, and let’s say you meet a couple planning on having a child, and you saw that no matter what these parents did that child would be doomed to a life of misery, and I mean like pretty close to the worst existence you could imagine for a human. You tell the parents this and they go “well this child can NOT consent to being born so fuck it we’re going to have it anyway”. Would you think that was shitty of these parents? If yes then clearly you think persons-not-yet-existing have some rights in terms of what to expect out of life.
Truth is even the best parents ever living under FALGSC can’t eliminate any chance they’re child will live a life of pain and suffering to any child birthing is subjecting a being to a gamble they didn’t consent to.
But you do not have the ability to see the future with certainty. And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
Also until the birth(/conception/however you slice it) that child exists only as a hypothetical a thought experiment. Saying they can't exist is no less of a violation of their hypothetical consent as saying they must.
And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
If this is true why do most leftists support family planning and birth control? If the “wonders of life” are so damn great why isn’t there a moral imperative to pump out as many kids as possible? Isn’t every time someone doesn’t get pregnant when they could them depriving a life of the amazing experience of being?
It's not what I believe as I do not believe that the non-existent have the right to consent however supposing for the sake of argument they do then it is no more respectful of their consent to decide for them that they have no right to exist than it is to decide they must exist. Just as suffering is not more true or important than joy.
The reason many leftists support birth control and family planning has to do with the rights of women rather than the rights of thought experiments.
Another thing that people do is examine how some pretty fundamental aspect of social interactions came to be the way it is, find something in that process problematic, and decide that it’s immoral to do it.
This is like one of the foundations of fucking leftism. Find the sick aspects of human society and calling them out.
Not really, this specific brand of hyper-focused, individualized, shouting at the void moralizing weirdness mostly came out of progressive liberal spaces around the 1980s and it got popular because of the Internet.
No I disagree. In the past leftism was filled with a lot of utopian bs like how the “seas would turn to lemonade” and hedonistic crap like that. After the shit show that was the counter culture of the 60s and 70s a lot of leftists (mostly women and queer people) realized that was just a cover for a bunch of libertarian behavior focused on using others for self gratification. Really leftism is about creating spaces of safety where people can escape the chaos and pain of mainstream society’s sick orgy.
The left before the 60s was definitely not what you portray it to be, you took a quote from an early 19th century utopian socialist that no one cared about any more by the 20th century if not earlier and used it to characterize things completely unrelated, the 60s and 70s were famously horny, there was never really a movement like what you seem to have in mind by the people you have in mind, and this whole "the left is just about creating a safe space to retreat from bad society" thing doesn't have much to do with the left at all, it is 21st century American progressive liberal retreat from meaningful politics.
For some reason people on the internet like very much to come up with lots and lots of complicated rules and half baked "theoretical" justifications for what is good and normal and what isn't, and it gets very weird. Another thing that people do is examine how some pretty fundamental aspect of social interactions came to be the way it is, find something in that process problematic, and decide that it's immoral to do it. Beauty standards is one of those things, yeah, maybe they are problematic and all, but if that's what someone finds attractive, that's normal and cool and it really doesn't matter so much, it is what it is. In 30 years hopefully society will be better. That you try to make it better is all that matters, not what you are attracted to.
It's not bad to be attracted to stuff. And you really shouldn't worry that the way you are attracted to people is "shallow" or "objectifying". It probably only makes everything worse. Now if every time you see a woman that's all you think, that may be a little bit of an issue but you're not gonna fix it just by worrying, neither are Internet weirdos gonna fix it for you. It may just be alienation, repression, lack of sexual contact, etc. But you really really shouldn't hate your attraction to women, that's not where the problem may lie, if there is a problem.
What is annoying to many people sometimes is when dudes are constantly outwardly horny. Like, you see a woman, right? And you think she looks pretty hot. Maybe keep it to yourself if you don't think it will be welcomed. Beyond that it's fiiiine. Don't worry about it. Unless it's so much that it seeps into all your relationships with people and makes you incapable of seeing women any other way. Then it's something you have to work out, but you're not gonna work it out by just blanket hating your attraction, which, again, is super normal and OK. In fact the problem may start and end with you just thinking and worrying about this too much.
For real you might be spending too much time in weird parts of the Internet. That or you had some kind of repressed upbringing if you've ended up hating your sexual attraction. If it's the first maybe you shouldn't pay so much attention to it any more because it is damaging you.
if by weird parts of the internet, you mean this site, where woke fatwahs are issued if you ironically mention AOC's feet, then yes.
Yes
They're right to shout at you for obsessively being outwardly horny about AOC or whomever else, yes.
i would never, but i stand with my horny brothers and sisters, even if they're only doing a bit.
deleted by creator
Allow me to explain: it’s normal and healthy to be horny but do it somewhere else
It’s not don’t do it anywhere
Ah go spout neo-malthusianism and whine about the pain of being born
I’ve never gotten the accusation that anti Natalist is Malthusian. Malthus thought that the natural rate of population growth would lead to famine. Clearly that’s not true since improvements in agriculture have raised the max population level a lot over the past few centuries and also it seems birth rates drop with industrialization.
I don’t see how that’s related to thinking perpetuating humanity is a violation of human agency.
It's the fact that they keep proposing the same things like for example mass sterilisation
Also people who don't exist can't have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Let’s say you had the ability to see into the future, and let’s say you meet a couple planning on having a child, and you saw that no matter what these parents did that child would be doomed to a life of misery, and I mean like pretty close to the worst existence you could imagine for a human. You tell the parents this and they go “well this child can NOT consent to being born so fuck it we’re going to have it anyway”. Would you think that was shitty of these parents? If yes then clearly you think persons-not-yet-existing have some rights in terms of what to expect out of life.
Truth is even the best parents ever living under FALGSC can’t eliminate any chance they’re child will live a life of pain and suffering to any child birthing is subjecting a being to a gamble they didn’t consent to.
But you do not have the ability to see the future with certainty. And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
Also until the birth(/conception/however you slice it) that child exists only as a hypothetical a thought experiment. Saying they can't exist is no less of a violation of their hypothetical consent as saying they must.
If this is true why do most leftists support family planning and birth control? If the “wonders of life” are so damn great why isn’t there a moral imperative to pump out as many kids as possible? Isn’t every time someone doesn’t get pregnant when they could them depriving a life of the amazing experience of being?
It's not what I believe as I do not believe that the non-existent have the right to consent however supposing for the sake of argument they do then it is no more respectful of their consent to decide for them that they have no right to exist than it is to decide they must exist. Just as suffering is not more true or important than joy.
The reason many leftists support birth control and family planning has to do with the rights of women rather than the rights of thought experiments.
This is like one of the foundations of fucking leftism. Find the sick aspects of human society and calling them out.
Not really, this specific brand of hyper-focused, individualized, shouting at the void moralizing weirdness mostly came out of progressive liberal spaces around the 1980s and it got popular because of the Internet.
Edit: oh I just noticed the username, good bit.
No I disagree. In the past leftism was filled with a lot of utopian bs like how the “seas would turn to lemonade” and hedonistic crap like that. After the shit show that was the counter culture of the 60s and 70s a lot of leftists (mostly women and queer people) realized that was just a cover for a bunch of libertarian behavior focused on using others for self gratification. Really leftism is about creating spaces of safety where people can escape the chaos and pain of mainstream society’s sick orgy.
This is the most idiotic summary of the history of leftism I have ever read lol
It’s true tho
Almost every single thing you said in that comment is factually wrong.
Wanna break it down for me? From where I sit that looks to be where the left is at rn
The left before the 60s was definitely not what you portray it to be, you took a quote from an early 19th century utopian socialist that no one cared about any more by the 20th century if not earlier and used it to characterize things completely unrelated, the 60s and 70s were famously horny, there was never really a movement like what you seem to have in mind by the people you have in mind, and this whole "the left is just about creating a safe space to retreat from bad society" thing doesn't have much to do with the left at all, it is 21st century American progressive liberal retreat from meaningful politics.
deleted by creator