I'm trying to point out that antinatalism isn't about pointing out who should and who wouldn't have kids. It's the idea that no one should have kids out of concern of those kids.
I genuinely don't understand how that can be construed as eugenics.
Because as far as I know antinatalism in general is only really discussed in the West. With everything you know about Western governments do you honestly believe any actual mass implementation of antinatalism is going to be done to them? Fuck no antinatalism is going to be used as an excuse to stop brown people (who tons of Western people already believe are using too many resources) from having babies
Eh, it's an extremely fringe idea hardly compatible with any mainstream "western" ideology. You see a lot of leftists showing their disdain to antinatalist ideas, image what chuds and conservatives think about it. Talking about how MyPillow guy would implement it is nonsensical. By this logic any environmentalism in the west is inheritely ecofascism.
image what chuds and conservatives think about it.
They think it's a great idea and will implement it on the global south, which was my main point. Obviously nothing is inherently ecofascist, but you can at least see how a position like antinatalism is so vague and devoid of actual structure that it could absolutely be absorbed into a fascist framework right? And as material conditions get worse that is most likely how it will be implemented?
The thing is what you're describing isn't antinatalism. That's like saying communism is fascism, actually, because when you say "abolish private property", the obvious implementation you'll see in US is taking away property rights of minorities. And sure, NazBols are kinda a thing, but if some lib tells you that communism is antisemitic you'd laugh in their face.
Why?
Because at that point it crosses the line from "I don't think me having kids is a good idea" into "I don't think you having kids is a good idea."
But like the point is that anyone having a kid is bad idea. The subject here is the (potential) kid, not the parent.
I'm sorry, I honestly do not understand what you mean here, could you phrase it differently?
I'm trying to point out that antinatalism isn't about pointing out who should and who wouldn't have kids. It's the idea that no one should have kids out of concern of those kids.
I genuinely don't understand how that can be construed as eugenics.
Because as far as I know antinatalism in general is only really discussed in the West. With everything you know about Western governments do you honestly believe any actual mass implementation of antinatalism is going to be done to them? Fuck no antinatalism is going to be used as an excuse to stop brown people (who tons of Western people already believe are using too many resources) from having babies
Which is eugenics.
Eh, it's an extremely fringe idea hardly compatible with any mainstream "western" ideology. You see a lot of leftists showing their disdain to antinatalist ideas, image what chuds and conservatives think about it. Talking about how MyPillow guy would implement it is nonsensical. By this logic any environmentalism in the west is inheritely ecofascism.
They think it's a great idea and will implement it on the global south, which was my main point. Obviously nothing is inherently ecofascist, but you can at least see how a position like antinatalism is so vague and devoid of actual structure that it could absolutely be absorbed into a fascist framework right? And as material conditions get worse that is most likely how it will be implemented?
The thing is what you're describing isn't antinatalism. That's like saying communism is fascism, actually, because when you say "abolish private property", the obvious implementation you'll see in US is taking away property rights of minorities. And sure, NazBols are kinda a thing, but if some lib tells you that communism is antisemitic you'd laugh in their face.