First episode I listened to was a justification for Russian nazis and the second I listened to called childless people losers. I don't care to listen to any more of it. Is the name a joke or something? Why would you name your website after these losers? The people on /r/blackwolffeed are nothing but terfs and hate on identity politics and trans people. I don't feel like the brand of leftism chapo is selling is something I want to buy. It's like hey free healthcare but your not a woman and don't mention race exists. If mods are gonna ban me for hating on this podcast than do it, I don't want to be here if they support it. However if you fine people don't like the podcast, I ask you for your support to change the name, because I haven't found a raunchier trans space. I recommend John Waters Fun House, can this thread just be a struggle session of coming up with better names than one of a shitty reactionary podcast? Thank you.
Genocide, but make it woke.
Like, I get that's not your intention, but that's how anti-natalism comes off to me whenever I read it. It warps a narrow view of morality to the point of advocating genocide to prevent potential "suffering."
I mean it's totally legitimate not to agree but choosing to not have children is not genocide
I'm not responding to one's choice to have or not have children.
I'm responding to the perspective that reproduction is immoral because a child cannot consent to existing. That is a genocidal perspective on reproduction.
Imagine being so offended by a moral argument that your immediate response is accusations of genocide. Like what is the reasoning here? Genocide against which group?
This reminds me of the common response to vegan/vegetarian arguments, where it's clear people are just getting defensive and lashing out.
I did not make any "accusation of genocide." I said that anti-natalism is a genocidal worldview. If there's another way to interpret 'reproduction is immoral & a violation of consent', lemme know. I'd say the same thing about anyone spouting Malthusian nonsense here.
Philosophers: This is a violation of consent, and thus immoral. You: That's a genocidal view.
Lmao you don't even deny the claim, just throw out some vague bullshit about how making claims like that is somehow tied to crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, the claim is seriously discussed in academic philosophy but you just repeat to yourself "the only valid response is accusations of genocide".
As far as attempts to shut down discussion go, throwing out the word genocide as a kneejerk response is pretty weak. But you do you, the rest of us will bother with arguments.
Well-respected philosophers on the Left: Assuming “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.” [1]
Me, a fucking idiot: That's pedophilia.
Some philosophy post-grad: These claims are taken seriously in philosophy, you can't just call it pedophilic, you are shutting down important discussions.
The metaphysical nonsense that emotionally damaged philosophers vomit has material implications. I get that some people have weird hang-ups about children. But if you are arguing that "reproduction is a violation of consent & immoral" in a world where the suppression of reproduction is widely used in ongoing genocides, you are arguing for a genocidal worldview.
Feel free to retreat from reality into your own thought experiments, that's generally where philosophers go when they run out of interesting things to say.
These claims are not taken seriously in philosophy. A French interview from the 70s is not evidence that a view is in the contemporary mainstream. If you're looking to strawman the views held by philosophers, why not dig up some misogynistic line from Plato while you're at it?
Kneejerk dismissal of ideas because of some tenuous possible connection with the ideology of your enemies is intellectually lazy. Since you've refused to make a real argument for your core claim, I'll see if I can fill in the blanks.
Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your reasoning. My problem with #1 is personal moral views are not endorsement or advocacy for coersive state action. I may believe that consuming animal products is unethical, but I don't think the government should force people to be vegan. Further, I don't believe antinatalism has actually been the ideological justification for any legislation, because ultimately it's a fringe view. As for #2, the racist application of laws is not an indictment of those laws, unless you believe the only laws that should exist are those that cannot possibly be selectively applied to achieve racist ends.
Environmentalism is another idea that roughly fits this pattern. Environmentalist views lead to environmental legislation, which is enacted and applied in a racist slipshod fashion to further harm the disenfranchised. With the rise of eco-fascism we're going to see environmental concerns used to justify genocide, but I hope that doesn't mean that voicing environmental concerns implicates us in genocide.
deleted by creator
You should just say "I don't want to have kids" if that's what you meant.
That is much different than anti-natalism, which considers reproduction a moral failure.