DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Childcare Issues
By: guest55 Date: November 4, 2021, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I would have preferred spending my childhood in
isolation/quarantine over how I actually spent it: under
tyranny.[/quote]
I'm finding that if you really treasure your privacy and
solitude westerners will attempt to impose themselves on you by
trying to insert themselves in your life even though you never
invited them into your life in the first place. It seems the
more you try to get away from barbarians the more those
barbarians want to be in your life! WTF!?!?!
Here's another Westerner on parenthood:
What Becoming a Parent Really Does to Your Happiness
[quote]Research has found that having children is terrible for
quality of life—but the truth about what parenthood means for
happiness is a lot more complicated.[/quote]
Obviously in a sane world if you were planning on having
children because you thought the children would make you happier
then you are function on nothing more than your own ego, which
is not surprising considering Western civilization is built on
elevating the human ego above all else. See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
[quote]
Few choices are more important than whether to have children,
and psychologists and other social scientists have worked to
figure out what having kids means for happiness. Some of the
most prominent scholars in the field have argued that if you
want to be happy, it’s best to be childless. Others have pushed
back, pointing out that a lot depends on who you are and where
you live. But a bigger question is also at play: What if the
rewards of having children are different from, and deeper than,
happiness?[/quote]
Again, in a sane world if your primary interest in having
children revolves around the impression that a person will be
rewarded for bring kids into this world then should you really
be allowed to reproduce in the first place? DO THESE FUCKEN
WESTERNERS, AND ESPECIALLY RIGHTISTS, EVEN CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE
FACT THAT ANY CHILD BORN ANYWHERE IMPACTS THOSE ALREADY LIVING
HERE ON THE PLANET, AND WHO WERE ALSO FORCED TO DO SO WITHOUT
THEIR CONSENT? IT IS LITERALLY ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED AND A HUMAN
THAT MUST BE CARED FOR BY A STATE!!!
TALK ABOUT SELFISH PEOPLE! SHOULD WE EXPECT DIFFERENT FROM
BARBARIANS THOUGH?
[quote]The early research is decisive: Having kids is bad for
quality of life. In one study, the psychologist Daniel Kahneman
and his colleagues asked about 900 employed women to report, at
the end of each day, every one of their activities and how happy
they were when they did them. They recalled being with their
children as less enjoyable than many other activities, such as
watching TV, shopping, or preparing food. Other studies find
that when a child is born, parents experience a decrease in
happiness that doesn’t go away for a long time, in addition to a
drop in marital satisfaction that doesn’t usually recover until
the children leave the house. As the Harvard professor Dan
Gilbert puts it, “The only symptom of empty nest syndrome is
nonstop smiling.”[/quote]
[quote]After all, having children, particularly when they are
young, involves financial struggle, sleep deprivation, and
stress. For mothers, there is also in many cases the physical
strain of pregnancy and breastfeeding. And children can turn a
cheerful and loving romantic partnership into a zero-sum battle
over who gets to sleep and work and who doesn’t. As the Atlantic
staff writer Jennifer Senior notes in her book, All Joy and No
Fun, children provoke a couple’s most frequent arguments—“more
than money, more than work, more than in-laws, more than
annoying personal habits, communication styles, leisure
activities, commitment issues, bothersome friends, sex.” Someone
who doesn’t understand this is welcome to spend a full day with
an angry 2-year-old (or a sullen 15-year-old); they’ll find out
what she means soon enough.[/quote]
[quote]But, as often happens in psychology, although some
research provided simple findings—in this case, “having children
makes you unhappy”—other efforts arrived at more complicated
conclusions. For one, the happiness hit is worse for some people
than for others. One study finds that fathers ages 26 to 62
actually get a happiness boost, while young or single parents
suffer the greatest loss. And crucially, there are geographic
differences. A 2016 paper looking at the happiness levels of
people with and without children in 22 countries found that the
extent to which children make you happy is influenced by whether
your country has child-care policies such as paid parental
leave. Parents from Norway and Hungary, for instance, are
happier than childless couples in those countries—but parents
from Australia and Great Britain are less happy than their
childless peers. The country with the greatest happiness drop
after you have children? The United States.[/quote]
In a sane world would Norwegians and Hungarians be allowed to
reproduce at all? See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/hungary-v4/
Aren't we all so glad that Westerners in Hungary are creating
more of those types and parents get paid leave for doing so?
[quote]Children make some happy and others miserable; the rest
fall somewhere in between—it depends, among other factors, on
how old you are, whether you are a mother or a father, and where
you live. But a deep puzzle remains: Many people would have had
happier lives and marriages had they chosen not to have kids—yet
they still describe parenthood as the “best thing they’ve ever
done.” Why don’t we regret having children more?
One possibility is a phenomenon called memory distortion. When
we think about our past experiences, we tend to remember the
peaks and forget the mundane awfulness in between. Senior frames
it like this: “Our experiencing selves tell researchers that we
prefer doing the dishes—or napping, or shopping, or answering
emails—to spending time with our kids … But our remembering
selves tell researchers that no one—and nothing—provides us with
so much joy as our children. It may not be the happiness we live
day to day, but it’s the happiness we think about, the happiness
we summon and remember, the stuff that makes up our life-tales.”
These are plausible-enough ideas, and I don’t reject them. But
other theories about why people don’t regret parenthood actually
have nothing to do with happiness—at least not in a simple
sense.
One involves attachment. [s]Most parents love their
children,[/s] and it would seem terrible to admit that you would
be better off if someone you loved didn’t exist. More than that,
you genuinely prefer a world with your kids in it. This can put
parents in the interesting predicament of desiring a state that
doesn’t make them as happy as the alternative. In his book
Midlife, the MIT professor Kieran Setiya expands on this point.
Modifying an example from the philosopher Derek Parfit, he asks
readers to imagine a situation in which, if you and your partner
were to conceive a child before a certain time, the child would
have a serious, though not fatal, medical problem, such as
chronic joint pain. If you wait, the child will be healthy. For
whatever reason, you choose not to wait. You love your child
and, though he suffers, he is happy to be alive. Do you regret
your decision? [/quote]
Does the author who wrote this article not see the contradiction
in the above paragraph? If the second part of the sentence that
is in bold is true, then can the first part of the sentence also
be true? Only if you realize that if you really loved your
children in the you would never have brought them into this
world in the first place. I think Westerners confuse EGO with
LOVE more often than not!
[quote]That’s a complicated question. Of course it would have
been easier to have a kid without this condition. But if you’d
waited, you’d have a different child, and this baby (then boy,
then man) whom you love wouldn’t exist. It was a mistake, yes,
but perhaps a mistake that you don’t regret. The attachment we
have to an individual can supersede an overall decrease in our
quality of life, and so the love we usually have toward our
children means that our choice to bring them into existence has
value above and beyond whatever effect they have on our
happiness.
This relates to a second point, which is that there’s more to
life than happiness. When I say that raising my sons is the best
thing I’ve ever done, I’m not saying that they gave me pleasure
in any simple day-to-day sense, and I’m not saying that they
were good for my marriage. I’m talking about something deeper,
having to do with satisfaction, purpose, and meaning. It’s not
just me. When you ask people about their life’s meaning and
purpose, parents say that their lives have more meaning than
those of nonparents. A study by the social psychologist Roy
Baumeister and his colleagues found that the more time people
spent taking care of children, the more meaningful they said
their life was—even though they reported that their life was no
happier.
Raising children, then, has an uncertain connection to pleasure
but may connect to other aspects of a life well lived,
satisfying our hunger for attachment, and for meaning and
purpose. The writer Zadie Smith puts it better than I ever
could, describing having a child as a “strange admixture of
terror, pain, and delight.” Smith, echoing the thoughts of
everyone else who has seriously considered these issues, points
out the risk of close attachments: “Isn’t it bad enough that the
beloved, with whom you have experienced genuine joy, will
eventually be lost to you? Why add to this nightmare the child,
whose loss, if it ever happened, would mean nothing less than
your total annihilation?” But this annihilation reflects the
extraordinary value of such attachments; as the author Julian
Barnes writes of grief, quoting a friend, “It hurts just as much
as it is worth.”[/quote]
HTML https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/11/does-having-kids-make-you-happy/620576/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
So, according to this author their final conclusion is that you
must be attached to this world in order to find purpose and
meaning in it, and you should seek attachment through others?
Besides Westerners and their sychophant's, does anyone believe
that this is actually sound advice?
#Post#: 9664--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 4, 2021, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Only if you realize that if you really loved your children in
the you would never have brought them into this world in the
first place."
Alongside (but independent of) your entirely correct point, it
is also worth pointing out that someone who really loved their
spouse would never want to reproduce with them. I draw attention
to this point because some (unromantic) antinatalists think
antinatalism needs to bash romantic love as they (being too
unromantic to know the difference between romantic love and
Yahwist pair-bonding) wrongly believe it leads to the desire to
reproduce. I, on the other hand, have always defended romantic
love because I understand that it is actually a path to
antinatalism. What we need to do is stop letting the unromantic
get away with mislabelling mere Yahwist pair-bonding as
"romantic love"!
"you must be attached to this world in order to find purpose and
meaning in it, and you should seek attachment through others?"
Without the sugarcoating, the ultimate reason why people
reproduce is to run away from facing the fact that they
themselves were victims of their parents' decision to reproduce.
Lacking the courage to admit the painful truth that they are
victims of initiated violence, they would rather reeanact on a
new generation of victims what was done to themselves. Thus the
cycle replicates itself and the total quantity of initiated
violence and the total number of victims keeps growing. Yet
somehow this is considered more acceptable than retaliatory
violence, which is all it would take to break the cycle.
"Westerners and their sychophant's"
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrKFAAlxO4
#Post#: 9665--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zhang Caizhi Date: November 5, 2021, 12:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html
From Thailand's Criminal Code:
[quote]Section 71 If the offences as provided in Section 334 to
Section 336, first paragraph, and Section 341 to Section 364 are
committed by a husband against his wife, or by a wife against
her husband, the offender shall not be punished.
If the aforesaid offences are committed by an ascendant against
his descendant, or by a descendant against his ascendant, or by
a brother or sister of the same parents against each other, the
offences shall, even though not provided by the law as
compoundable offences, be deemed as compoundable offences.
Moreover, the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent
than that provided by the law for such offences.[/quote]
[quote]Section 289 Whoever commits murder on:
An ascendant;
An official in the exercise of his functions, or by reason of
exercising or having exercised his functions;
A person who assists an official in the exercise of his
functions, or by reason of the fact that such person will assist
or has assisted the said official;
The other person by premeditation;
The other person by employing torture or acts of cruelty;
The other person for the purpose of preparing or facilitating
the commission of the other offence; or
The other person for the purpose of securing the benefit
obtained through the other offence, or concealing the other
offence or escaping punishment for the other offence committed
by him, shall be punished with death.
[/quote]
#Post#: 9696--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zea_mays Date: November 8, 2021, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I, on the other hand, have always defended romantic love
because I understand that it is actually a path to antinatalism.
What we need to do is stop letting the unromantic get away with
mislabelling mere Yahwist pair-bonding as "romantic
love"![/quote]
I recall reading a quote by Oscar Wilde or someone which implied
this way of thinking. I believe quote was defending
"homosexuality" against accusations of being "unnatural" or
degenerate, by replying that he in fact believed it was a higher
form of love than conventional "heterosexual" pairings, with the
implication being it was precisely because the pairing would not
"naturally" produce children. (And, because, especially during
those times, one could be sure a "gay" pair was together out of
real love, rather than being socially forced into a marriage
after an "unexpected" pregnancy or other circumstance).
#Post#: 9766--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: guest55 Date: November 12, 2021, 11:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Lacking the courage to admit the painful truth that they
are victims of initiated violence, they would rather reeanact on
a new generation of victims what was done to themselves. Thus
the cycle replicates itself and the total quantity of initiated
violence and the total number of victims keeps growing. Yet
somehow this is considered more acceptable than retaliatory
violence, which is all it would take to break the cycle.[/quote]
I was contemplating recently one immense disservice ancient
humans did to humanity was allowing freed slaves to reproduce,
because now we all have slavishness in our blood to varying
degrees. This thought then provoked the realization of how evil
a tranquilizer dart actually is, especially when used against
non-humans. One minute you're walking through the grass, blink,
and when your eyes open again you've somehow magically
teleported into a cage, no chance to resist your enslavement and
you're being tormented by humans.
#Post#: 9979--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zea_mays Date: December 4, 2021, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Young adults worry it’s ‘morally wrong’ to have children,
Earth Day study finds
Climate change concerns are influencing Gen Z and millennials’
reproductive decisions, research shows
[...]
The most common concern in the new University of Arizona report
was overconsumption, with the Gen Z and millennial respondents
worrying about how their children would contribute to climate
change by adding to the carbon footprint, as well as overusing
resources like food and water that could become more scarce in
the future. Indeed, the World Health Organization warned last
July that almost 690 million people went hungry in 2019 — up by
10 million from 2018, and by nearly 60 million over the previous
five years. And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic of the
past year, which could push 130 million more people into chronic
hunger.
Overpopulation was another popular concern among those surveyed
in the new report, with some young adults saying they felt that
having more than two children would be selfish because they
would be “over-replacing” themselves and their partner. What’s
more, many were considering adoption as a “low-carbon
alternative” to starting a family.
Finally, many of the young adults choosing to go childless said
that uncertainty over the future was also discouraging them from
starting families. Many expressed feelings of guilt, as if they
would be doing something “morally or ethically wrong” if they
brought babies into a world with such a possibly bleak future,
the paper added. But some subjects did express optimism that
future generations could make things better, although that would
be a heavy burden to place on the next generation.
[...]
To have babies, or not to have babies, is a question that Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) infamously raised in an
Instagram live stream in 2019. “Basically, there’s a scientific
consensus that the lives of children are going to be very
difficult,” she said. “And it does lead, I think, young people
to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have
children?”
Her comments drew backlash, particularly among conservative
pundits like Fox News host Steve Hilton, who referred to it as a
“no-child policy” and called it “disturbingly authoritarian,
even fascistic.”[/quote]
HTML https://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-adults-worry-its-morally-wrong-to-have-children-earth-day-study-finds-11619110785
This suggests they would be fine with having kids if it wasn't
for the factors above. But, at least we're on the correct track
for people to eventually figure out it is always morally wrong
to bring a child onto the planet, no matter what the material
circumstances are.
[quote]I can see why some might think this way, but it seems
like it will end up being a losing strategy for the environment.
A child who has a deep respect for the environment could go on
to make meaningful changes to help in their life. Right-wingers
will be popping out 10 kids. I don't know about you, but I want
smart people to be the ones raising children.[/quote]
HTML https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/r5tltj/young_adults_worry_its_morally_wrong_to_have/hmpdyqq/
Which, of course, is why the state must be in control of
reproduction.
#Post#: 10305--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zea_mays Date: December 29, 2021, 7:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the antinatalist Reddit forum has one of the
strongest overlaps with the (left-wing) antiwork Reddit forum:
HTML https://i.redd.it/5eeqz250yi881.png
HTML https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antiwork
"Birth strike" and "I'm not going to create a future generation
of corporate slaves" are common things people say on the
antiwork forum.
#Post#: 10419--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 6, 2022, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I told you Francis is a False Leftist. Yes, he superficially
supports taking in refugees, but then he supports natalism (even
though every new child born will mean fewer resources for
refugees who already exist):
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371579/Pope-Francis-hits-selfish-couples-pets-instead-children.html
[quote]Pope Francis today hit out at 'selfish' couples who have
pets instead of children as he called for parents to have more
offspring to solve the West's 'demographic winter'.
Speaking on parenthood during a general audience at the Vatican,
Francis lamented that pets 'sometimes take the place of
children' in society.
'Today... we see a form of selfishness,' said the pope. 'We see
that some people do not want to have a child.[/quote]
The absolute opposite is true. There is literally nothing more
selfish than wanting to reproduce:
HTML https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1403140008i/10046084.jpg
[quote]'Sometimes they have one, and that's it, but they have
dogs and cats that take the place of children. This may make
people laugh but it is a reality.'[/quote]
Taking in already-existing homeless dogs and cats is a good
thing (assuming you can give them a better life than they would
have by remaining homeless). Breeding dogs and cats for the
purpose of them becoming pets is as unethical as reproducing
humans (though not as dangerous, as dogs and cats are incapable
of building machines).
[quote]The practice, said the head of the world's 1.3 billion
Catholics, 'is a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and
diminishes us, takes away our humanity'.[/quote]
Jesus himself did not reproduce, you moron. Jesus taught us to
be like children. Children do not reproduce.
HTML https://media.ldscdn.org/images/media-library/bible-images-the-life-of-jesus-christ/picture-quotes/meme-bible-matthew-children-1341997-gallery.jpg
[quote]He said couples should have more children to address the
'demographic winter' in much of the West and called for couples
who can't have children to be open to adoption.[/quote]
Adopting children who already exist is definitely better than
adding even more children. Same as with dogs/cats. (If I can
choose between adopting human children vs dog/cat children,
though, I would choose the latter, as I probably don't have to
worry about dog/cat children growing up to become machinists. If
I had to adopt human children, I would adopt children from
civilizations with the least history of machinism. (Which
civilization has the most history of machinism? Hint: the one
Francis is worried about!))
[quote]Thus, 'civilisation grows old without humanity because we
lose the richness of fatherhood and motherhood, and it is the
country that suffers', the pontiff said at the Paul VI
Hall.[/quote]
HTML https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/400x/61100690/if-any-man-come-to-me-and-hate-not-his-father-and-mother-and-wife-and-children-and-brethren-and-sist.jpg
Francis is no Christian.
[quote]Francis has been photographed petting dogs, allowed a
baby lamb to be draped over his shoulders during Epiphany in
2014 and even petted a tiger and a baby panther.[/quote]
Did any of them consent? Here is a picture from the article:
HTML https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/01/05/14/52575647-10371579-image-a-12_1641392632605.jpg
Note how the lamb's legs are being restrained. The lamb
obviously didn't want to be on Francis' shoulders. Here is a
video of the tiger who also clearly didn't want to be petted:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdwuYoqtDxU
Francis, who does not even see a problem with initiating
violence on those who already exist, would obviously see no
problem with the initiated violence of bringing children into
existence by reproduction. And one more thing:
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/soul-searching-within-the-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-147035
[quote] For the record, I consider Francis utterly evil, and if
we were in government he would be executed in as slow and
painful a manner as possible:
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity[/quote]
Francis worships Yahweh. Even our enemies have noticed that
Francis and another Yahweh-worshipper are in agreement on this
issue:
HTML https://vdare.com/posts/pope-francis-and-elon-musk-call-for-more-babies
HTML https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/56644/VDARE-musk-pope-baby.jpg
(Of course, Musk is more dangerous because he is a machinist.)
#Post#: 10449--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: guest55 Date: January 8, 2022, 12:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This person is known as the "pope" is so effing disgusting!!!
Anyone who believes he is a follower of Jesus is a bigger fool
than he himself even is!
[quote]The leader of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics, Pope
Francis, has caused a stir with his remarks on falling birth
rates, warning people not to choose pets over having children.
During his weekly general audience at the Vatican he said:
“Today … we see a form of selfishness. We see that some people
do not want to have a child. Sometimes they have one, and that’s
it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of
children.”
The pope claimed that having pets is “a denial of fatherhood and
motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity”,
resulting in a civilisation that grows old without humanity
because of the absence of “richness” from parenthood.
He also urged couples who face trouble having biological
children to consider adoption and not to be afraid. “Having a
child is always a risk, but there is more risk in not having a
child,” he added.
The leader’s comments attracted criticism on social media with
many arguing that having children is a personal choice, and some
pointing out the irony that priests are not permitted to marry
or have children. Photo: Reuters[/quote]
[img]
HTML https://yt3.ggpht.com/dtgvDEdHlYfR16uqe7_9WksKOYLvmqyQh5pGYcTUvZRwTPfjbFbyl19jiNzS4BFxSyt0t2I-IfD4Lg=s640-nd-v1[/img]
When will the world finally wake up and realize we should have
stopped listening to old "white" men especially a long long time
ago!?!? This man is sick!
Here's a thought Westerner, maybe if you people weren't such
sick people more good people would feel comfortable trying to
raise a child in this world? Of course that thought will never
cross a Westerner's mind....
#Post#: 11315--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Killthebank Date: February 16, 2022, 9:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/02/16/whos-behind-the-portland-billboards-demanding-people-stop-having-kids/
Willamette Week is a "left" leaning tabloid (it's in Portland
after all). The first few paragraphs let you know the author is
discomforted with this. "First amendment", "white supremacists",
and "not a sick joke" give it away. This false leftism is why
concentration camps are not being built to house and truly
rehabilitate the homeless littering the streets.
Interestingly, the name Goldberg is behind these signs.
Unfortunately, the best article comment I could find is:
[quote]If you don't have the million dollars it takes to get a
kid from birth through a great college, don't have kids. You're
just adding to the problem otherwise! America does not need more
of an army of willfully ignorant imbeciles who will willingly
become members of q-anon. If you can't afford to educate and
enlighten your children for the future, don't have kids![/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page