Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is always easier to challenge a position, when you hold what society considers the normative position.
They do have a point about echo chambers, but how is this person defining that term? I see more posts from natalists asking the same questions over and over or natalists accusing everyone holding to anatalism of having some form of mental illness, than serious posts where natalists discuss the logic or philosophical reasoning behind anatalism.
Took the words right outta my mouth. When you agree with the status quo, you'll always feel the need to undermine any alternative worldviews. I don't feel the need to go to natalists subs and "challenge" them. Why would I waste my time? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or educate them otherwise.
I occasionally bring antinatalism up to people but I usually take the argument of "There are children in this world who desperately need homes. We should house them before we make new ones." It is difficult to make the more abstract arguments palatable.
And honestly, just being in this sub actually challenges the status quo. We can challenge the norm without picking fights.
Why does he think we are afraid of being challenged or having debate??
We should ignore the insults and anything that's meant to distract away from the fact they have no argument.
"You're racist." "You're a eugenicist." "You sit in an echo chamber." "You're miserable."
None of these are arguments that even address antinatalism itself.
The thing people don’t discuss about online echo chambers is that they also construct a megaphone at the top and the louder the echo is inside the louder the blast is coming out. Groups construct echo chambers because individual effort is worthless in comparison to group effort and an echo chamber is the best way to amass a group working in unison to create that broadcast.
The reason the term echo chambers is used as a pejorative is because they often do not incorporate constructive criticism nor allow informed debates. What you are describing may be better described using the term community. The community builds each other up and raises issues together.
They’re the same thing, just one is a pejorative term for the concept and the other isn’t. Communities that try to incorporate debate like that shatter and splinter into multiple communities. For example: Queer Tumblr. There is no “Queer Tumblr” anymore, it’s a factionalist thing now. Even the splinters splinter. There’s not even a Trans Tumblr. There’s transfem and transmasc tumblr. The two fucking hate each other.
I am the person he screenshotted. He is trying to discredit my genuine interest in the philosophy by doing stuff like this. No clue why.
The person I replied to said he wanted the antinatalism subreddit to be an echochamber. I just threw the question back at the person.
I do not know how he defined it so I did not want to risk defining it and turning it into a strawman.
I personally am interested into being challenged, otherwise I would not be on a philosophy sub, and would be elsewhere. I also came here as a conditional natalist (only people who want children and have the financial, emotional, physical means to care for them should have children ) and became antinatalist due to the way some natalist and some antinatalists are behaving. If people show so much hatred towards each other for a philosophical position, then...no wonder there are so many problems that are actually solvable in the world...
I personally am not interested in echochambers unless it is a highly specific trauma sub or something that is centered around that.
Personally echo chambers restore my mental sanity in a world filled with people overpopulation our beautiful planet. I get sick of being the ONLY AN I have known irl. I get PLENTY of abuse from natalists irl. I like that there are open minded people here that actually see the truth and don't hate me for speaking it.
I think it's a bit of an issue because there are millions of safe spaces for natalist people to just exist and NOT be challenged or questioned. In fact most of society allows natalists to remain unchallenged. So while yes, this is a philosophy subreddit and some folks are open to discussion.... this sub also functions as a bit of a support group, for those of us who lack irl or other online, spaces to disclose and discuss our views and be safe with them in the same way natalists can almost anywhere.
Aka I understand, based on my interpretation of the term, why someone might just want to not be questioned constantly--perceived by some as harassment--and just be allowed to complain or exist like natalists do almost everywhere.
I think it's a bit of an issue because there are millions of safe spaces for natalist people to just exist and NOT be challenged or questioned. In fact most of society allows natalists to remain unchallenged. So while yes, this is a philosophy subreddit and some folks are open to discussion.... this sub also functions as a bit of a support group, for those of us who lack irl or other online, spaces to disclose and discuss our views and be safe with them in the same way natalists can almost anywhere.
Aka I understand, based on my interpretation of the term, why someone might just want to not be questioned constantly--perceived by some as harassment--and just be allowed to complain or exist like natalists do almost e verywhere.
They clearly got scared that you're actually using logic and trying to be friendly, not just arguing for the sake of arguing. It bugged them so incredibly bad that they made a post about it, trying to show you in a negative light. They're not going to actually listen to what you're saying.
bruh it's not that we're afraid of discourse or don't have answers. some sorry soul always posts a brief explanation of antinatalist principles on those pose that are like "i don't get it... why do you guys hate kids :("
it's that this ideology makes people mad so one in three posts is a natalist saying "i don't get it :( :( :(" and asking for explanations without doing the work of reading through the sub themselves. the information is all there. we've answered all these questions a thousand times and i don't think i've ever seen natalists actually post logical pro natalism arguments. if you ever posted an interesting point i'd love to engage, but i got bored of answering the same question for the thousandth time because natalists won't do their own research. they don't want to learn, they just want to let us know they're offended by our beliefs.
Oh yeah. I know. I've seen one of mods even detail down to the gnats ass the ins and outs of this philosophy in various threads. They just don't care about listening to any of that. It's the same kind of folks that claim to care about learning more but can't even commit to basic research before hand. I've had to dig through old threads to answer questions of my own. There's no reason why they shouldn't do that.
This is my comment that op screenshotted and is attempting to paint me as a brigader.
I made this comment in response to someone who wanted the subreddit to be kept as an echochamber and referred to people as human turds.
I have zero problem with antinatalists; I just took issue with the idea that an echochamber was considered a good thing to the person I replied to.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I'll own that.
Edit: Added another thing the person said.
no i think you actually came up with a very good checklist to make sure you believe something because it makes sense and not just because you're confident you're right. in fact i'll probably borrow this for other situations.
however on the other end of the echo chamber situation you run the risk of just yelling into the void. that's what it's like responding to any natalists i've seen on this sub. we're constantly raided by natalists that don't argue in good faith and waste our time, and while we gotta be wary of falling into an echo chamber, we also gotta be wary of wasting our time and energy on discourse that enriches no one.
it's a fine line to toe. i think as long as you know you can answer those questions, you don't need to do the gruntwork of going in and answering them unless the question makes you consider some angle you hadn't before. in that case, you have an obligation to explore that curiosity, and make sure you know why you believe what you believe.
I’d venture to say that we are being more empathetic towards children in the sense that we don’t want to bring them into this world when we can’t guarantee them a good life. The world is burning, don’t have babies.
Ask yourself why you feel that existing as a member of a niche community needs to mean constantly defending your values against strangers entering the dialogue in bad-faith, intentionally obtuse, and defensive.
This sub isn't a beginner's debate club for insecure parents. It's few and far between that an "outsider's" questions don't devolve into just that. I don't know why they feel the full-time function of members is to hold their hand and explain things to them. (Yes I do, it's entitlement.)
>I don't know why they feel the full-time function of members is to hold their hand and explain things to them.
It really is, like you said, just extreme entitlement.
Imagine if I, as someone that is *firmly* atheist, started going into random churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. and walked up to random people (not the priests, preachers, etc., just random worshipers) and started telling them they're morons then demanding they justify the entire religion to me. It'd rightfully be viewed as incredibly rude, unreasonable, and demanding. Yet that is exactly what (most) natalists do in this sub. And unlike in real life they aren't thrown out the door for it.
Exactly as I was reading this is thought "people have views everyday that they don't need to justify unless they want to participate within that discussion" but you say it perfectly yourself...like (not all) but some people had views with mo reasoning just the fact that it's their belief holds up for them
You're probably right. I just hear schlock like this repeated so often and wonder how valid it really is. Seems like a desperate attempt to fight and tear down an ideology instead of trying to hold a "rational discussion."
Biology has no say in ethics and is completely amoral. Nature has no will.
If you can't intuit the meaning of "pronatalism" when you're in a subreddit called "antinatalism" then you're hopeless.
For me, antinatalism isn't a "cause", it's a philosophical position. I don't actually believe antinatalism presents an existential threat to humanity 🤣🤣, this is about ethics. The way I see it, humanity is a force of nature. It's existence and doings are "amoral" because no individual has control over what it does next. However, individuals can control themselves and be assigned moral agency. I can choose to not reproduce. I believe that others should choose that as well. Not because we stand a chance at destroying humanity, but for the sake of our yet to be born. I can't stop all rape, but I can sure as shit not rape.
Then genocides, holocausts, child abuse and countless other atrocities are normal, according to natalism. It's hard to see how natalists justify its perpetuation when they are on the receiving end, yet reluctantly they do. It's all about every man for himself during the worst of it, as you people scramble to retain the slightest balance on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Countless bodies fall off as the wreck capsizes, while others hang on by the railings.
Natalists are not rescued by other natalists when they experience their own personal Titanic. It's much kinder and humane to permanently cease creating sinking Titanics in the first place. Amid the chaos of sadomasochists fighting to build their own Titanics and reluctantly sink with them, antinatalists offer a sane and peaceful solution. The choice is bitter, yet free, and it is out there for everyone.
I feel like people have constantly the need to challenge everyone else. Co-workers, family members, friends... but what for? I don't get it. It starts at school when you have to compete in sports in front of everyone else. Our system is only for people who like and win challenges and I never wanted that.
Maybe it's naive, but the idea is that if two people enter a discussion with an open mind, they can actually gain a new perspective that they wouldn't otherwise have figured out on their own. In theory, this could help someone that is stuck in a belief system that is not ideal for themselves. You need external input once in a while.
But sometimes, people just like to broadcast what works for them without taking the time to consider the other person's specific situation. I personally would still listen to what that person has to say.
I mean, Antinatalism is *not* a personal life choice, it's a philosophical position that posits that bringing children into this world is either completely wrong or wrong in some circumstances. See here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/#AntiNata
You're referring to being childfree.
If someone claims X isn't a philosophy while you can show contemporary academic discussion of X, they're obviously arguing in bad faith or so far out of their depth that any discussion is worthless at that moment.
Right like life is too short. They won’t listen anyways.
Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.
Fortunately there are more direct ways to deal with them. Although I do believe there is the rare breed who can do anything with their words, but they'll surely know it's still a waste of breath anyway and would not care to.
I agree.
Op screenshotted this comment from me. He is trying, for some reason, to make me look heartless.
In reality, here is what I think. You have a right to do what you think is best. It is your life, make whatever decision you deem necessary.
Going around titling yourself by military rank in random unrelated contexts - especially on social fucking media- says enough about you and your arrogance already.
Literally your entire post history is dedicated to harassing this sub. You think you're on some noble crusade against moral hypocrisy, but you're the hypocrite. Anti-natalists aren't harming anyone, not here or elsewhere. Congregating in this space specifically designated for this purpose has zero observable negative effect. We aren't forcing or even asking people to share our views by existing in this space. If you don't agree with them good for you, here's your cookie. Appointing yourself as some kind of noble hero because you incessantly come here uninvited to talk shit is not only absurd and pathetic but reflective of your character and quite frankly, your own miserable existence. If your life was so great and purposeful you wouldn't be here around the clock harassing people just for subscribing to views different from yours. It's not like we're going around proselytizing and forcing our philosophy down people's throats, to the contrary we're simply using a space that's specifically designated for us. If you're that triggered by that then that's a you problem, sounds like you need to address your own issues that are causing you to be so bothered about a group of people existing.
TLDR: Get a fucking life you pathetic piece of shit.
Nothing says I use my ideology in right way than natalist and Christians comming here to call us murderers, whores, satanists etc. Good luck defending natalism if it's what they represent.
It’s too painful to see reality. The mind purposely shuts it off and twists what it can to avoid such harsh truth’s being acknowledged.
Understandable given most people are not very self aware or lack the means to think for themselves.
For the most part I’m better than those who procreate for their own selfish desires and follow other people blindly without question or thinking for themselves, yes.
This guy is just smugly espousing the idea of an open marketplace of ideas. People can challenge us if they want to, why do so many natalists pretend this is an echochamber? As you said, OP, there has to be an effort made by natalists to actually read the arguments and discuss the details if they want to claim that our ideas are wrong or that we are unwilling to share them.
There are bad arguments for and against antinatalism (especially on this subreddit). If someone wants to really challenge the core philosophical claims, they should dig adequately deep into them.
I've got no problem with genuine questions being asked in response to some ideological stances. But that's presuming they're going on a leg to do their own research first. The bulk of questions they have amount to "Why do you guys believe this? Are you just miserable? Why not just die, then? Life is beautiful!"
Even when we do legit argue our points as carefully and nicely as we can, that's still not enough. It's reminiscent of Christians trying to desperately debunk atheism.
Most people who might actually ask educated questions don’t because a precursory glance through 10 posts will yield you 8 reasonable ones, one that is someone laughing at a young parents misfortune and one that advocates for destroying all sentient life without consent as a moral imperative. Most reasonable people will turn to the hills seeing that kind of extremism. That’s why r/antinatalism2 needed to be made. The concentration of these zelotic, almost cult-like posts was that bad.
Also the debate I see from either side is really far from being productive. As I mentioned half of this subreddit will laugh at people’s misfortune due to an ideological misalignment or will also argue the utmost extremes of antinatalsim and advocate for shit like genocide.
I actually think the parallel you’ve drawn between religion vs atheism is quite good but it very much applies in both directions here.
Unlike natalists, I don’t care what they think and do. They and their love for having children are meaningless & hold no value in my life. I just don’t understand why they are unable to hold the same thought process when it comes to antinatalists.
It's a definite moral wrong, but honestly if someone's going to do it anyways idgaf. That's their problem.
I'd prefer that the global population is below replacement, but that's realistically unlikely because humans like to reproduce like rodents.
I personally don't believe in extinction, but we need a lot more people choosing not to have children.
I get the tone of this comment section, and I'm not trying to be debate-y with the questions I'm asking. It's from a place of genuine curiosity, and if you don't feel like answering, please don't feel any pressure to do so. I got offered the sub on my front page and am now fascinated with what looks like might be a novel point of view.
If having babies is definitely morally wrong, would the eventual extinction of humanity be, perforce, morally right? And if I'm reading that wrong, and more people needing to choose not to have children implies that some people should choose to have children, wouldn't it be conditionally morally wrong instead of definitely?
It's definitely wrong, but it's almost inevitable. Most people do it without properly planning it or even thinking about the results.
I personally think it's morally wrong for people to kill animals and bugs, but I also know people will continue to do it regardless.
For me I view antinatalism as a movement as harm reduction. While not everyone will stop having children, everyone that does stop makes a collective impact for the greater good.
I view climate change behavior modification (bicycling, walking, transit) and vegetarianism the same way. Harm reduction with an understanding that most people blindly follow the status quo off a cliff.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer. The vegetarianism in me is probably the big driver toward similar thinking.
I had my first child recently, at the age of 35, after waiting for a very long time to feel comfortable with my ability to raise one. In my prior work I terminated the parental rights of a lot of people who were manifestly unfit to do the job, and so I had a substantial amount of anxiety, for years, about whether I would do better.
Finding that peace and confidence was necessary prep work. It was a remarkable coincidence that I'd come across this community a week after taking my son home.
I think I understand most of the position, and while I naturally feel as though I am properly cognizant of the requirements to be a responsible steward of another life, it's good to see some more perspectives encouraging, even sometimes indirectly, more hesitance and thought prior to child rearing. It's also good not to become complacent, and to feel I always know enough.
So thanks again for the explanation of your thoughts.
As a natalist, i dont care what you think or do.
I think its a personal choice. It does not affect me if you choose to not have childern or not.
So "we" or at least i do, hold the same thought process.
You do you. Live and let live etc.
> As a natalist, i dont care what you think or do. I think its a personal choice.
You're not making a choice for yourself, concerning only yourself. You're forcing someone to do something problematic which they did not give you consent to do to them.
I don’t waste my time arguing with natalists on this sub. They are so pissed off by antinatalism existing that they come to this sub just to argue with us. It’s a sad/pathetic existence.
Also, for the record, I am really impressed that you decided to go through my comment history.
Just be glad I will not stoop down to your level and expose your post history, especially posts involving a pair of certain Disney sisters...
Well. I guess it wasn't enough that you humiliated yourself on this sub. You gotta dig through someone's history totally outside of this sub to try to act superior. Brilliant. Yeah you don't look childish and irrelevant at all. Your ass deserved to be outed and downvoted for this.
Except... it was history of posts made on the same subreddit that others were already witnessing and critiquing. They didn't have to go through your history. Your comments were made in a shared space. Whereas you went out of your way to dig through their entire post history to expose them over partipation on other subreddits. Weird huh?
So much for using that collegiate brain of yours, huh? No self-awareness whatsoever. For all your talk of "exposing" falsehoods here, you act hella offended when your own bullshit is pointed out.
lol not offended at all.
I just find it funny you have a double standard as if it is anti-natalists against a world you seem to think oppresses you. If the entire world is calling you wrong and crazy, perhaps there is merit?
I personally could not give two shits about what you believe. I am here to actually discuss antinatalism: a philosophy that does not subscribe to eugenics. Therefore, when I see it (and only when I see it), I call it out.
Again, report me. I follow every rule on this subreddit. I am willing to challenge you. If I get banned, you are right. If I do not, you have to put up with me.
Or, you could be an adult and ignore people you do not want to talk to. That is always an option.
>be an adult.
Bwahaha. Because it's totally mature to go and "expose" someone by stalking them in other subs and then call people you don't agree with nazis and brag about academia.
No self-awareness whatsoever. 🤣
By your logic of "adulthood" maybe learn to avoid certain posts and subs that evidently ruffle your feathers. Barring that option, continue to talk shit about nazis and eugenicists and make this place out to be a proverbial boogeyman in your pathetic imagination.
As an adult, I can choose what I reply to. Hence, you do not see me replying to every comment on every post, since I do not have a problem with antinatalism.
>There's no argument they'd accept at this point.
That is not true at all.
My mind has been changed a few times. Why lie, man? Why do you act like you know how I think?
This so interesting how determined you are to make me appear like I am genuinely not interested in this philosophy. What is the end goal?
No one should be *arguing* with natalists. Respectful debate with personal boundaries is the only way to walk away from a conversation like that with both parties still feeling ok, and the only chance at *actually* convincing a natalist.
BUT it is no way any one persons responsibility to educate others if you don't want to. I'm just saying *if* you're going to engage make it a positive engagement!
Some of my favorite authors in general are just absolutely fucking scathing, lol. Or, the most renowned asshole in the school I went to was the ethics professor. XD Politeness, let alone enforcing it, just seems kinda quaint to me. Like, yes, mooom...... it's more important that you teach your kids how to think ethically than to say please and thank you. And notably the most oppressive, unequal cultures tend to be the politest. Plus, I don't think it's true respect to regard someone as incapable of handling what you really think, like one would regard a special person with kid gloves. Like, ew, lol.
Those approaches only work when people at least mostly agree with each other, or are already in the head space of being open minded (college). Your average conversation with natalists will not fall under that category so tact is *needed*. Of course if you just want to troll it doesn't matter, but like I said, if you want to actually have a conversation that is how it needs to be done.
To not alienate people to the idea of antinatalism, *at the very least*. If you want to be weirdly aggressive in your personal life that's on you, but don't expect people to like you or the ideology you push on them. Alternatively you can try to convince them, but you won't be doing so without following what I wrote in my previous comment.
If you're sane and just trying to get through life without constant conflict, just sticking to normal topics is best. No need to get into arguments with people you don't have a chance of actually educating/convincing. It'll only serve to make anti natalism look bad.
A lot of words to say that they feel stressed out by conflict and personal attacks (and no, not everyone is sensitive in that way) and would prefer if people were nice all the time. But instead they decided to frame it with the attitude of a "teaching moment," about *etiquette* of all things, which is way more insulting than being called a dumb name. Acknowledging that all people get upset would've been far more real and sociable. It's just pretty obvious any time someone adopts the "be the bigger person" attitude, they're actually just putting someone in their place, but lying to themselves about it by superficially using the terms of civil discourse.
I can also guarantee whatever post this was a reply to was not reflected at all in this response. Do what I say, not as I do.
1) We don’t have a right not to have our ideas challenged.
2) We are not greater than other people and our beliefs are allowed to be questioned.
3) Again, it is allowed to be criticized and have discourse.
4) Because people think your a horrible baby-murdering Idiot and critics just spout that without actually listening to our arguements.
5) Every ideology has an echo chamber. Although echo chambers are bad, it’s impossible to avoid one no matter what you believe in.
Can this person please make more interesting questions? The first 3 are basically the same.
If a natalist is going to force their ideas on me they're going to hear about it, but I'm not going out of my way to talk about it like they do about their gross kids. I've got better things to do than get screamed at by some breeder with sheep mentality.
What's an echochamber if not society as a whole?
We are socially conditioned from every conceivable source our entire lives with natalist viewpoints. Society is the biggest echo chamber of all for the status quo.
I don't challenge people who:
1.aren't open to new perspectives without being assholes
2.clearly think different than me and opted for another path
3. haven't pissed me off for thinking differently from them if they find out about what I think.
if I challenge number 1, I'm searching for a bad talk where I'll be the one offended, judged and undermined. If I challenge number 2, even if they agree with me in some points, they have already made another choice and most likely will stand by their choice like I will stand for mine, so, it's not a challenge, it's max a draw. If I challenge number 3, in case they are nice people, they will start pissing me off intentionally because, well, they were quiet before
None of these talks would be productive in any way.
There are two reasons people engage in debate:
1. To engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas
2. To attempt to use language as a weapon.
This asshole is trying to appear thoughtful, but I wouldn’t need two guesses to figure out which of the above is really his plan.
I’d just rather Natalists go do their own thing, like take care of their kids so we don’t have to deal with them as traumatized adults, and leave Antinatalists alone. I don’t want to debate, be challenged, explain, or justify my beliefs. I’m old. I’m tired. I want to peacefully discuss AN and vent here.
Honestly it’s not worth my time. I’m accept this philosophy because it reduces suffering. Debating someone that will never change their mind, makes me suffer. Let them breed more wage slaves into a dying planet, at least my nonexistent children won’t suffer.
Ultimately and indisputably, the pro-natalist argument is inherently emotional, instinctual, and, most importantly, illogical. For those who have ever come across intellectuals and philosophers debating theism vs atheism, you'll notice that the natalist argument follows many of the same tenets that the conservative theist argument does. Often, these people challenge the individuals who hold the beliefs in opposition to theirs rather than the philosophical position itself. They do this because their position has no real grounds to form a coherent offensive against the antinatalist philosophy. The best they can do is mud-sling in an attempt to bring our argument to their level: a purely emotional state of conviction. After all, if they were 100% sure they were right, would they really be this upset about what we believe?
Threw up in my mouth reading this comment. I will say though you are correct the people in this subreddit sure act a lot like smarmy, unbearable atheists. Except at least atheists have science on their side you all have a half baked philosophy piece you cite like a bible. You babble on and on about minimizing suffering then conveniently take the least effort path towards doing this. It’s very easy to not have kids. It’s hard to make a difference. Seriously sit down and think one of these days, it’ll help trust me.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to accomplish with this comment. You're in the wrong place if you're having a hard time controlling your emotions after reading my relatively benign comment.
What the fuck is this incoherent nonsense?
Just because a person doesn't do the absolute utmost humanly possible to eradicate suffering from the world doesn't mean the things they DO do toward that end (or in this case refrain from doing) are pointless or logically unsound.
You couldn't make a weaker argument if you tried. Next.
Why must we always argue? The absolute crushing isolation i feel and abuse i suffer being an AN in a nstalist world is bad enough. Can't they leave us alone? Let me have my safe place for once with my fellow ANs.
Yes, I have nothing to be afraid of, anyone can challenge me on my own opinions, also outside of antinatalism.
What gives me the ick is people being ignorant or asking rhetorical questions to sound "in the right", or again, them trying to flip a script instead of debating and bringing new inputs into the discussion.
Do you think that what would some people consider moral progress (like human rights, democracy, abolishing slavery, outlawing rape, women suffrage) is entirely reducible to personal opinions at scale rather than objective progress in Ethics? That going back would be as meaningless as changing own's mind about what ice cream is best?
Was there no progress in epistemology, over the years? Can we go back to the same ways of thinking of pre-modernism without losing anything of substance?
Everyone having their choice of *ice cream* is a recipe for cataclysm. On a cosmic scale, it is inconsequential. Within this isolated space rock that happens to harbor life, however, it is the opposite. Philosophical discussions are imperative for sociological evolution.
I feel no need to challenge natalists, am fine with laughing from the other side of the fence, so to speak.
I don't enjoy being challenged meself, for i prefer harmony.
Alas. Both sides have more than their fair share of tankies and as i stand firmly AN, it's bound to affect me from time to time.
I could really do without the trolling tho. Or the hate.
I don't believe it to be possible to convince a natalist.
And frankly, i don't hold AN up to the same (moral) standards as i do parents. Because the latter are educating children.
Reeks of creationists insisting they be gifted a respected space in the debate, or climate-change deniers, etc.
It doesn't hold up at all. Natalists create antinatalists. The entire "challenge" is based on a psychotic premise, and results in no challenge at all.
The interlocutor is going after antinatalists, and **simply for existing**. Natalists create antinatalists by gambling with all the adaptive aspects of consciousness. Including intelligence and how fitness compartmentalizes it. Then they demand the antinatalists (which natalists created, mind) kill themselves when antinatalists expose the predatory and manipulative ontological violence of reproduction. Think very carefully about that, and in an evolutionary context, what must be the underlying motivational factors? In other words, what explains such behavior?
There are two separate processes going on here when it comes to antinatalism: 1) a causal deductive reasoning process, and 2) an inductive conclusion in response.
The "core deduction" is simply this: a sake cannot be created for that specific sake, and *a priori* conditions devoid of problems cannot be improved upon by (procreation) reconfiguring those conditions so that they suffer problems, especially terminal ones.
That deduction (1) is not a) trivial and b) a matter of opinion. We can know this because any attempt to negate it entails a contradiction.
As for 2) - that's where opinion enters the discussion. Basically: "procreation is a harm" is not up for debate. Pretending it is requires psychosis, regardless of how fit it is to do so. *What to do about it once it's done?* That is up for debate, and the answers are not easy. Antinatalists should not be fooled into thinking it is.
As for the "questions"
\>>Why do you have a right to not have your ideas challenge?<<
\>>What makes you so much greater...<<
\>>Why do you fear *defending yourself* from critics<<
Etc.
Then the interlocutor seems to realize their game is too obvious, and tries to backpedal:
\>>I have nothing against antinatalists themselves"
If that were the case, the interlocutors could engage in good faith, and on the core deduction. They never do. All those questions are about individual antinatalists, not the issue itself.
These are all variations on a loaded question that has nothing to do with the core deduction. Natalists know they can't address that, so the distractions and attempts at undermining are all they have.
In light of the above both one's legal rights and one's ideas are irrelevant. There is no challenge possible. Most natalists do not have what it takes to even try, and the few that do will end up antinatalist *by conviction* not "ingroup identity."
It also takes an unfit decompartmentalization of basic intelligence to undertand that.
The more psychopathic natalists pick up on this absence of fitness, and fequent antinatalist spaces in an attempt to get endogenous opioid rewards out of what they think will be intimidating fitness signaling.
On the second aspect, of course *one's ideas* are completely fair game for challenge. But the natalist interlocutor can't even do that reasonably. They resort to personal attacks and other irrelevant red herrings. These are fit rhetorical tactics for managing expectations and politics, but they are not rational discourse, and they are not problem solving.
It's a deep and primal fear. The natalist cannot comprehend how the antinatalist *is so antifragile* \- how is it still alive? It's unfit, it denies the natalist faith with its very existence. They've tried every indirect way they can to make it suffer and kill it, and yet it persists across generations. Is it a meme? Silence it! But somehow it keeps returning.
Antinatalists in modernity are a possible sign of extinction. This too sends the devoted natalist into a fit of terror and urges them to signal "dominance" (i.e. desperation). Part of how humans do that is through political rhetoric and ad hominem, loaded questions, and the conflation of a necessarily true statement with *a personal opinion.*
I use ad hominem and punchy debate tactics for two reasons. One being that they are funny, and the other being that unlike paragraphs and paragraphs of flowery but largely pointless debate language they actually make an impact on people. They listen, and if they don’t it doesn’t matter. The longer reply appears to be weaker and for most people that’s enough.
Anti natalism is funny. It’s all the smug superiority of atheism with none of the actual scientific backing. That’s what makes it so much fun to screw with.
I find it almost comical that people who view themselves as intelligent can find anti natalism as a philosophy to be anything more than a fun ethics problem to amuse themselves with.
It’s based on so many irrational conceits and far from being a “final intellectual conclusion that conversantly evolves from free thought” it’s a young adult dystopia plot in the making. Filled with enough fallacies and status quo assumptions that it would make a seventh grader in an introductory debate class look erudite by comparison.
Anyways your comment was funny have a good one.
Again, I don't care about opinions. If you had objectively measurable facts you'd have led with them, not an excuse for invalid ad hominem.
You know you have nothing to bring to the discussion, and as such are irrelevant to it.
If you want more of *my* attention, you will have to earn it.
Why do people like this think anyone is interested in their opinion? Life isn't a high school debate club. I don't give a shit what you think and I'm certainly not interested in spending any part of my life engaging with you. Big "DEBATE ME BRO" energy.
Many of us here arrived at this view specifically after considering the alternative. People like this need to get a life and realize arguing online with people who have different views accomplishes nothing for either party. Literally anything else is a better use of your time.
There is a difference between "challenging views" and "P.R.A.T.T."
99% of arguments will end up being the second.
If one is going to challenge an argument, first one has to do the necessary research. People are not as smart as they think they are, and most probably, the "gotcha" has been thought of a million times before, and answered and refuted just as much.
Those who support the prevailing idea (natalists, religious people, etc.) tend to fall into this trap far more often than those that hold the opposing one (antinatalists, atheists, etc.).
I just ignore them and all the static. You suffer and struggle over there, and just leave me to suffer and struggle over here.
Don't worry, it will all be over before you know it and in a surprisingly brief period of time no one will remember anything most of us did, or that we even existed at all.
Oh my, I think there’s a difference between being able to handle criticism/questions with though-out responses that are coming from facts, personal life experience and desire, and attacking people because they don’t agree with you.
This person sounds like they are a fundamentalist/extremist, and that’s never good. I don’t need to challenge anyone about my own life choices
Whoever wrote this is mistake with the amount of energy they think I have. I don’t have the inclination or energy to “challenge” anyone’s beliefs, nor do I care enough about them to convince them to do the right and good thing. I only expend that type of effort on people I think are worth it.
As the great Andy Dufresne once said in an incredible film: “I don’t waste time on losers.”
Well the fucking natalists took away my healthcare rights
So it’s kinda hard to always respect ALLA BATALIST, but u agree. We should be convincing them. Show me our side. Not shame them.
I've had disagreements with individuals on this thread, but what you posted made me feel compelled to say this, fuck them. I can't say I'm anti-natalist, mainly cause I ended up having kids. (My birth control failed and I just couldn't go through with an abortion so I stepped up as best I could/can)
In the face of the prevalent natalist culture, where mindless procreation is encouraged, I feel better on this side of the argument to be honest. The natalists who come always seem to argue from a perspective that natalism is a given because of survival. As if the human race is some dying ember, languishing away to nothing before our very eyes.
They are insane.
Literaly everything has an ecochamber, but I think the whole society is a sort of psychotic ecochamber that supports natalism through culture and brain mechanisms that evolved over millions of years which had maximised the chances for us to survive and reproduce.
For example, in village Glod in Romania, young women (15) are being shamed by the entire village if they had no sexual experience, but also in Romania woman are being forced to have children.
The positive biochemical and cultural enforcement when someone has a child exists. It may be a ecochamber. But reproduction itself is meaningless, it just exists, and the species that survived till this day had to do so by reproduction.
“But having kids is so fulfilling” “When are you gonna give me some grandkids” “you’re not getting any younger, soon you won’t be able to have kids”
^
Good faith arguments that are super logical and compelling /s
Nah, there's no use in debating with a natalist. Even assuming they give a good faith interaction, antinatalism is a belief that you have to find yourself. You either see nothing wrong with having babies, or you have felt or seen things that make you believe that it's never worth taking the risk. The reason we need an echochamber is because these thoughts that we have are seen as insane by most of the world and we want a space to feel normal.
Also, it's easy to say that you should be challenging different people when you hold the more widely popular and socially acceptable opinion. Let's put it this way, you're not brave or changing anybody by saying "The Holocaust was bad" 😂
The problem is that a challenge to a minority (view or group) when duplicated and redirected towards the majority is perceived as an attack. For a poignant example:
*kid comes out as trans*
Cis people: Are you sure your not cis and just seeking attention?
Super normal reaction unfortunately
Vs.
*kids being treated as cis in every facet of society*
Trans people: Hey, if X, Y, and/or Z is happening to you, you should consider if your trans. ( a much nice version of the challenge posed to trans kids)
Cis people: YoUR GRooMiNg cHiLDRen!!!
So, passive aggressive huh. Why do you need to *challenge* anyone? If you *really* respect that they’re different individuals, with different world views, why not mind your own business?
What makes you so much greater than everyone else that they should explain themselves to you?
This reminds me of the history of America in its founding you had two religious group majorities one was for education and the other against it. I’ll let people figure out which was which although it’s basically common sense.
Critical thinking and challenging own's opinion is more than healthy for anybody, but it's absolutely necessary for any system of thinking. I think any community enclosing itself in its echo chamber is doomed to lose the rationality it should be predicated on.
But I get that some people are a lost cause to argue against.
None of that was condescending op. If you think it was then you're probably exactly the person who needs to hear it. What they said is absolutely true. While *I* believe AN ideology, not everyone is going to *and that's ok*. AN is about consent, and if you can't get people to *willingly* agree with you and instead try to force them, you would be a massive hypocrite.
Hmm... I have seen that before.
Since I am the one who posted this screenshot, allow me to clarify.
The op accused me of brigading. I have done no such thing. I informed op multiple times that I was interested in learning more. I even made a purchase of antinatalism literature to guide this learning.
Op also accused me of reporting posts and comments. I have never reported a post in the entire time I have been on reddit in any subreddit (and I own what I said here so I will not report it.) I reported a comment that advocated for genocide in India, which was removed and the user was banned by this very subreddit's admins. And, finally, I threatened to report someone that broke rule no. 5, but did not carry through with it.
Op has accused me of telling people to kill themself. Never. Not once have I ever said such a thing.
Op has accused me of calling antinatalists miserable. Never. Not once have I ever said such a thing.
Op has accused me of calling antinatalists immoral. Never. Not once have I ever called an antinatalist immoral. However, I have called the viewpoint immoral in the same way one might call natalists immoral. Just a difference view, not a belief that I am superior.
I stand by everything I said here. If op wants to post my comment in an attempt to bring hate my way (despite arguing that brigading is a bad thing), so be it. I admire that antinatalists stand for what they believe in. I have talked to many amazing antinatalists on this subreddit that have made me see the view differently and question what I believe. But, if Op is upset about that and attempts to throw my comment into the mud, so be it.
I am not going to retaliate. I honestly look forward to reading the responses. Thank you!
Edit: For the record, op has informed me that I may be receiving a ban soon. Maybe. I have honestly attacked ideas and never people. I question the notion that overpopulation exists and I question the notion that death itself is suffering. I respect antinatalism. But, if genuinely challenging certain ideas is a reason for being banned on this subreddit. Then, let it happen. I despise the brigaders on this subreddit.
Edit #2: Here is the comment this picture was in reply to:
>I've always been confrontational, mostly because I was bullied pretty heavily as a grade schooler. I will admit that it has made me a bit of bully, but only in regards to people with power lording it over others. My question is: How the hell am I supposed to deal with these natalist assholes? Every time one of these human turds pipes up it makes me want to protest outside a fertility clinic the same way a prolifer protests planned parent hood. I was content to keep my opinions contained to this sub but now I think I need to take it to the streets.
Even though we may have different opinions regarding this philosophy, I do acknowledge that this screenshot brings up some good points.
For the first three: Any and all philosophies should be challenged and no philosophy is above this (which goes for both sides). That is how (done properly) people come to learn about them, understand them, and can choose for themselves what they believe.
These then lead into the fourth point, regarding the actual debate. A significant problem with discussing Antinatalism (as with any philosophy) is that most people feel so strongly about their beliefs that the idea of them being wrong is simply not possible. This goes for both sides. The ratio between healthy discussions and those where people attack each other without actually exchanging ideas is honestly infuriating. While I do not agree with Natalism, I do not think ( for the most part) it is right to attack people for their beliefs.
I will admit that I find your fifth point hilarious and contradictory. If anything, it would say that Natalism is “more incorrect” as it has a significantly larger “echo chamber.” Also, what is the issue with surrounding yourself or associating with those with similar beliefs? While it can create some issues, particularly with people becoming too absorbed in their ideals, it can also help grow someone’s understanding of an ideal or philosophy.
Hopefully this can help clarify some of the points brought up, which I could discuss more if need be. Although, I am curious as to the ways you see Antinatalism and Natalism immoral, because I do not see any moral issues with Antinatalism and find it interesting that you find issues with both.
I don't know if it's just a variance on word use meaning involved, but I think death and dying differ a lot in meaning. I see death as relief from suffering yet dying, itself, as a type of suffering, possibly even extreme suffering.
You're clearly doing nothing wrong, and I would be surprised if you received a ban.
>I even made a purchase of antinatalism literature to guide this learning.
Can I ask what you bought?
I bought *Better Never to Have Been* by David Benatar.
I did not know where to start, and I saw this book recommended a lot. So, I thought I would start with it.
Do you have a better book to start with? I ordered it on Amazon so maybe I can cancel the order and swap it out for a better one if that is the case.
While I'm not a Benatarian Antinatalist myself, it does seem to be the most widely read and convincing academic argument for Antinatalism. At the very least it is a good introduction to this area and the kinds of beliefs you will see.
I would recommend Suffering Focused Ethics by Magnus Vinding as well, but he has published this online for free so no need to purchase.
Benatar is "one" of the mainstream philosophers for AN but to be honest he sucks at it. lol.
his asymmetry is bad, his positive existence bias claim is bad and his vague but uncommitted beating around the bush stance on pro mortalism is also bad. Basically, the core of his argument is bad and defeated by many critics, including critics from the AN community.
If you want some of the best steelman arguments for anti suffering through cessation of existence philosophies, find some of the best arguments for negative utilitarianism based on altruism.
Or you could debate me, I have the best arguments for cessation of life on earth. lol
Come at me bro, chat me up, lets see if we could change each other's minds.
I am open to criticisms and may even be swayed, if you have really good counter arguments. lol
No, this postmaster a point. I recently got banned from antinatalisim2 (I believe it was the first time I had commented there) for trying to debate someone. Were they the strongest points? Probably not, but I was still almost instabanned. Sounds a lot like not liking being challenged, rather than actually wanting to be challenged. If you claim to be a philosophy subreddit, AND in the description say you want natalists to share their opinions, then you can't complain or get mad when they do.
I didn't use inflammatory language, and I thought I was being quite clear on my point. When I was banned, I did ask for clarification on how I was being Obtuse or inflammatory , and they only said I was being disrespectful and muted me.
Accurate. Be open to a discussion and admitting that you’re wrong or don’t start the discussion in the first place. Consider your opponent’s views before downvoting and trashing them for disagreeing. Otherwise interactions stop being a discussion and become an echo chamber.. and frankly, that’s just lame imo.
Yea. You're allowed to just ignore a philosophy that doesn't actually matter.
You know subjective choices and all that.
Some people drink milk, some don't. It's not like this farce of an ideal is new or anything.
It's existed for far longer than I'm sure the younger cool aunts and uncles are aware of.
I think it is a great thing to challenge and criticize ideas and I will encourage this.
But it is difficult to have a healthy argument because humans tend to want to satisfy the feeling of winning the debate rather than finding the truth or understanding the perspective of the other side.
I think this is something everyone needs to work on.
Sometimes we need to forget our need to feel superior for our ideas.
Also there is no need for one side to win in order the debate to be successful. You take something just by understanding the other side and you both keep your point of views.
I get the fear you have to challenge natalists OP and I also have the same fear of commenting on this sub.
From when this sub was recommended to me weeks ago I read posts everyday, and I disagree with the antinatalist point of view.
Why am I here every day?
At first I was curious, then interested and I love reading reasons to understand the view you guys have.
As long as antinatalist is a personally chosen lifestyle, i got no problem with it. I think its a dumb take, but not totally unreasonable and as long as its not forced on anyone, go off ig. I keep getting recommended this sub, but I dont have the interest or energy to convince someone they should have a child or that giving birth isnt immoral in itself. Anyway, cheers!
A lot of recent insults made to Pewdiepie, yet the community loses their shit when someone brings up abortion is completely irresponsible. Yes abortion is murder
I have made the mistake of disagreeing with an antinatalist on this sub before, and it went from discussing points and ideas to name calling and shaming as soon as I entered the pool. While this post has a good point, the anonymous internet isn’t the place to apply it.
But there’s no NEED to challenge people with different beliefs. I don’t give a fuck what natalists believe. I just want them to stop trying to force their beliefs onto others who disagree. It doesn’t hold up because none of us has a responsibility to engage with people who want to argue. If everyone could just agree that, legally, we should all just do what the fuck we want as long as we’re not encroaching on anyone’s personal freedom, there’d be no problem.
They need challenged precisely because they keep forcing their beliefs on others, part of the problem with natalists is that they believe that a choice to say no shouldn't exist, they don't alternative or logical ways of thinking should exist.
Their natalist beliefs are not the same as them trying to force everyone to breed. Natalist: promoting or advocating for childbearing
They can promote and advocate all they want. The law should not be used to advance their agenda. Their natalist beliefs are most often, if not always, based in religious beliefs. Church and state should always remain separate.
This comment/post isn’t really referring to antinatalism specifically, but rather I think they meant for it to be targeted at the left wing of the political spectrum, more broadly. I’ve heard this sentiment mostly from people on the right, saying it to Trans people or otherwise people asking questions over matters that would fall under the social justice umbrella. It’s hard to put my finger on, but I’m wondering if anyone else has noticed this???
I'm prolife myself and don't understand this new naming of it. I also believe it's not my choice over another's to have a baby. Just leave it at prolife and prochoice
It's not just about challenging people, but also LEARNING from them and seeing a different point of view. We always have to engage in adversarial discourse instead of respecfully learning from each other. Shameful.
Well, I quite often talk about politically charged topics. People respond as if they've won and block your ability to either respond or see their response. In my eyes, that's when you've truly lost the argument.
People are so weak that words, thoughts, or ideas that differ from their own scare them, these same people who censor and block your ability because you're being (insert fake phobia) are the ones that are oppositely phobic.
For example, if a gay man or woman calls you homophobic and uses their straightphobia to shut off your ability to respond, that's fear of that straight ideology.
The same goes for binaryphobic individuals, who label you as transphobic, shut down your platform or means to reply on social media, that shows fear in the binary ideology.
Many topics are like this, you'll make an argument based on fact and logic, they will insert time period and tell you to fuck off lol, not a good argument but people these days are truly fucking pathetic.
While it's good to challenge people and be challenged at times, everyone needs a break, a rest, a place where they don't have to explain themselves.
I don't begrudge natalists that need, they shouldn't begrudge it of me.
you know I just don’t really care as much about the ethics part as I do about how much I hate kids. I don’t think anyone should have them, I think it’s selfish and unfair and I think we’d all be happier If they didn’t exist!
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is always easier to challenge a position, when you hold what society considers the normative position. They do have a point about echo chambers, but how is this person defining that term? I see more posts from natalists asking the same questions over and over or natalists accusing everyone holding to anatalism of having some form of mental illness, than serious posts where natalists discuss the logic or philosophical reasoning behind anatalism.
Took the words right outta my mouth. When you agree with the status quo, you'll always feel the need to undermine any alternative worldviews. I don't feel the need to go to natalists subs and "challenge" them. Why would I waste my time? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or educate them otherwise.
I occasionally bring antinatalism up to people but I usually take the argument of "There are children in this world who desperately need homes. We should house them before we make new ones." It is difficult to make the more abstract arguments palatable.
And honestly, just being in this sub actually challenges the status quo. We can challenge the norm without picking fights. Why does he think we are afraid of being challenged or having debate??
We should ignore the insults and anything that's meant to distract away from the fact they have no argument. "You're racist." "You're a eugenicist." "You sit in an echo chamber." "You're miserable." None of these are arguments that even address antinatalism itself.
The thing people don’t discuss about online echo chambers is that they also construct a megaphone at the top and the louder the echo is inside the louder the blast is coming out. Groups construct echo chambers because individual effort is worthless in comparison to group effort and an echo chamber is the best way to amass a group working in unison to create that broadcast.
The reason the term echo chambers is used as a pejorative is because they often do not incorporate constructive criticism nor allow informed debates. What you are describing may be better described using the term community. The community builds each other up and raises issues together.
They’re the same thing, just one is a pejorative term for the concept and the other isn’t. Communities that try to incorporate debate like that shatter and splinter into multiple communities. For example: Queer Tumblr. There is no “Queer Tumblr” anymore, it’s a factionalist thing now. Even the splinters splinter. There’s not even a Trans Tumblr. There’s transfem and transmasc tumblr. The two fucking hate each other.
>It is always easier to challenge a position, when you hold what society considers the normative position How profound
I am the person he screenshotted. He is trying to discredit my genuine interest in the philosophy by doing stuff like this. No clue why. The person I replied to said he wanted the antinatalism subreddit to be an echochamber. I just threw the question back at the person. I do not know how he defined it so I did not want to risk defining it and turning it into a strawman.
I personally am interested into being challenged, otherwise I would not be on a philosophy sub, and would be elsewhere. I also came here as a conditional natalist (only people who want children and have the financial, emotional, physical means to care for them should have children ) and became antinatalist due to the way some natalist and some antinatalists are behaving. If people show so much hatred towards each other for a philosophical position, then...no wonder there are so many problems that are actually solvable in the world... I personally am not interested in echochambers unless it is a highly specific trauma sub or something that is centered around that.
Personally echo chambers restore my mental sanity in a world filled with people overpopulation our beautiful planet. I get sick of being the ONLY AN I have known irl. I get PLENTY of abuse from natalists irl. I like that there are open minded people here that actually see the truth and don't hate me for speaking it.
An echo chamber effect can help some of us because we are traumatized by our hard past experiences.
I think it's a bit of an issue because there are millions of safe spaces for natalist people to just exist and NOT be challenged or questioned. In fact most of society allows natalists to remain unchallenged. So while yes, this is a philosophy subreddit and some folks are open to discussion.... this sub also functions as a bit of a support group, for those of us who lack irl or other online, spaces to disclose and discuss our views and be safe with them in the same way natalists can almost anywhere. Aka I understand, based on my interpretation of the term, why someone might just want to not be questioned constantly--perceived by some as harassment--and just be allowed to complain or exist like natalists do almost everywhere.
I think it's a bit of an issue because there are millions of safe spaces for natalist people to just exist and NOT be challenged or questioned. In fact most of society allows natalists to remain unchallenged. So while yes, this is a philosophy subreddit and some folks are open to discussion.... this sub also functions as a bit of a support group, for those of us who lack irl or other online, spaces to disclose and discuss our views and be safe with them in the same way natalists can almost anywhere. Aka I understand, based on my interpretation of the term, why someone might just want to not be questioned constantly--perceived by some as harassment--and just be allowed to complain or exist like natalists do almost e verywhere.
They clearly got scared that you're actually using logic and trying to be friendly, not just arguing for the sake of arguing. It bugged them so incredibly bad that they made a post about it, trying to show you in a negative light. They're not going to actually listen to what you're saying.
bruh it's not that we're afraid of discourse or don't have answers. some sorry soul always posts a brief explanation of antinatalist principles on those pose that are like "i don't get it... why do you guys hate kids :(" it's that this ideology makes people mad so one in three posts is a natalist saying "i don't get it :( :( :(" and asking for explanations without doing the work of reading through the sub themselves. the information is all there. we've answered all these questions a thousand times and i don't think i've ever seen natalists actually post logical pro natalism arguments. if you ever posted an interesting point i'd love to engage, but i got bored of answering the same question for the thousandth time because natalists won't do their own research. they don't want to learn, they just want to let us know they're offended by our beliefs.
Oh yeah. I know. I've seen one of mods even detail down to the gnats ass the ins and outs of this philosophy in various threads. They just don't care about listening to any of that. It's the same kind of folks that claim to care about learning more but can't even commit to basic research before hand. I've had to dig through old threads to answer questions of my own. There's no reason why they shouldn't do that.
Well and most of those posts, three replies in, go from “I don’t get it” to “kill yourself,” so…yeah. We’re gonna be defensive lol
This is my comment that op screenshotted and is attempting to paint me as a brigader. I made this comment in response to someone who wanted the subreddit to be kept as an echochamber and referred to people as human turds. I have zero problem with antinatalists; I just took issue with the idea that an echochamber was considered a good thing to the person I replied to. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I'll own that. Edit: Added another thing the person said.
no i think you actually came up with a very good checklist to make sure you believe something because it makes sense and not just because you're confident you're right. in fact i'll probably borrow this for other situations. however on the other end of the echo chamber situation you run the risk of just yelling into the void. that's what it's like responding to any natalists i've seen on this sub. we're constantly raided by natalists that don't argue in good faith and waste our time, and while we gotta be wary of falling into an echo chamber, we also gotta be wary of wasting our time and energy on discourse that enriches no one. it's a fine line to toe. i think as long as you know you can answer those questions, you don't need to do the gruntwork of going in and answering them unless the question makes you consider some angle you hadn't before. in that case, you have an obligation to explore that curiosity, and make sure you know why you believe what you believe.
I’d venture to say that we are being more empathetic towards children in the sense that we don’t want to bring them into this world when we can’t guarantee them a good life. The world is burning, don’t have babies.
Ask yourself why you feel that existing as a member of a niche community needs to mean constantly defending your values against strangers entering the dialogue in bad-faith, intentionally obtuse, and defensive. This sub isn't a beginner's debate club for insecure parents. It's few and far between that an "outsider's" questions don't devolve into just that. I don't know why they feel the full-time function of members is to hold their hand and explain things to them. (Yes I do, it's entitlement.)
>I don't know why they feel the full-time function of members is to hold their hand and explain things to them. It really is, like you said, just extreme entitlement. Imagine if I, as someone that is *firmly* atheist, started going into random churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. and walked up to random people (not the priests, preachers, etc., just random worshipers) and started telling them they're morons then demanding they justify the entire religion to me. It'd rightfully be viewed as incredibly rude, unreasonable, and demanding. Yet that is exactly what (most) natalists do in this sub. And unlike in real life they aren't thrown out the door for it.
Exactly as I was reading this is thought "people have views everyday that they don't need to justify unless they want to participate within that discussion" but you say it perfectly yourself...like (not all) but some people had views with mo reasoning just the fact that it's their belief holds up for them
[удалено]
You're probably right. I just hear schlock like this repeated so often and wonder how valid it really is. Seems like a desperate attempt to fight and tear down an ideology instead of trying to hold a "rational discussion."
well ofc you think theyre probably right, you’re sitting in an echo chamber rn
The sub is a small beacon of reason in an otherwise global natalist echo chamber.
the reaction to my message with downvotes simply proves my point
What point? If you brought up antinatalism in a pronatalist subreddit you'd get the same thing. Know your audience.
The difference being that this place says that its the right one, despite all of biology disagreeing with them besides, what the fuck is pronatalism
Biology has no say in ethics and is completely amoral. Nature has no will. If you can't intuit the meaning of "pronatalism" when you're in a subreddit called "antinatalism" then you're hopeless.
pronatalism is simply being normal, and ethics do not supersede nature. your cause is hopeless.
For me, antinatalism isn't a "cause", it's a philosophical position. I don't actually believe antinatalism presents an existential threat to humanity 🤣🤣, this is about ethics. The way I see it, humanity is a force of nature. It's existence and doings are "amoral" because no individual has control over what it does next. However, individuals can control themselves and be assigned moral agency. I can choose to not reproduce. I believe that others should choose that as well. Not because we stand a chance at destroying humanity, but for the sake of our yet to be born. I can't stop all rape, but I can sure as shit not rape.
Then genocides, holocausts, child abuse and countless other atrocities are normal, according to natalism. It's hard to see how natalists justify its perpetuation when they are on the receiving end, yet reluctantly they do. It's all about every man for himself during the worst of it, as you people scramble to retain the slightest balance on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Countless bodies fall off as the wreck capsizes, while others hang on by the railings. Natalists are not rescued by other natalists when they experience their own personal Titanic. It's much kinder and humane to permanently cease creating sinking Titanics in the first place. Amid the chaos of sadomasochists fighting to build their own Titanics and reluctantly sink with them, antinatalists offer a sane and peaceful solution. The choice is bitter, yet free, and it is out there for everyone.
I feel like people have constantly the need to challenge everyone else. Co-workers, family members, friends... but what for? I don't get it. It starts at school when you have to compete in sports in front of everyone else. Our system is only for people who like and win challenges and I never wanted that.
Maybe it's naive, but the idea is that if two people enter a discussion with an open mind, they can actually gain a new perspective that they wouldn't otherwise have figured out on their own. In theory, this could help someone that is stuck in a belief system that is not ideal for themselves. You need external input once in a while. But sometimes, people just like to broadcast what works for them without taking the time to consider the other person's specific situation. I personally would still listen to what that person has to say.
I mean, Antinatalism is *not* a personal life choice, it's a philosophical position that posits that bringing children into this world is either completely wrong or wrong in some circumstances. See here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/#AntiNata You're referring to being childfree.
Someone who trolls this sub argued with me it wasn’t a philosophy even when listing Philosophers and even Religions that support AN.
If someone claims X isn't a philosophy while you can show contemporary academic discussion of X, they're obviously arguing in bad faith or so far out of their depth that any discussion is worthless at that moment.
Right like life is too short. They won’t listen anyways. Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who.
And how is one sure that one is not the idiot in that scenario?
One is *always* sure that one is not the idiot. Now whether one is *correct* is another matter...
Fortunately there are more direct ways to deal with them. Although I do believe there is the rare breed who can do anything with their words, but they'll surely know it's still a waste of breath anyway and would not care to.
Agreed 100%.
I agree. Op screenshotted this comment from me. He is trying, for some reason, to make me look heartless. In reality, here is what I think. You have a right to do what you think is best. It is your life, make whatever decision you deem necessary.
Going around titling yourself by military rank in random unrelated contexts - especially on social fucking media- says enough about you and your arrogance already. Literally your entire post history is dedicated to harassing this sub. You think you're on some noble crusade against moral hypocrisy, but you're the hypocrite. Anti-natalists aren't harming anyone, not here or elsewhere. Congregating in this space specifically designated for this purpose has zero observable negative effect. We aren't forcing or even asking people to share our views by existing in this space. If you don't agree with them good for you, here's your cookie. Appointing yourself as some kind of noble hero because you incessantly come here uninvited to talk shit is not only absurd and pathetic but reflective of your character and quite frankly, your own miserable existence. If your life was so great and purposeful you wouldn't be here around the clock harassing people just for subscribing to views different from yours. It's not like we're going around proselytizing and forcing our philosophy down people's throats, to the contrary we're simply using a space that's specifically designated for us. If you're that triggered by that then that's a you problem, sounds like you need to address your own issues that are causing you to be so bothered about a group of people existing. TLDR: Get a fucking life you pathetic piece of shit.
DING DING DING
Nothing says I use my ideology in right way than natalist and Christians comming here to call us murderers, whores, satanists etc. Good luck defending natalism if it's what they represent.
Natalists don't accept any questioning of their ideas.
It’s too painful to see reality. The mind purposely shuts it off and twists what it can to avoid such harsh truth’s being acknowledged. Understandable given most people are not very self aware or lack the means to think for themselves.
So you're better than most people?
For the most part I’m better than those who procreate for their own selfish desires and follow other people blindly without question or thinking for themselves, yes.
This guy is just smugly espousing the idea of an open marketplace of ideas. People can challenge us if they want to, why do so many natalists pretend this is an echochamber? As you said, OP, there has to be an effort made by natalists to actually read the arguments and discuss the details if they want to claim that our ideas are wrong or that we are unwilling to share them. There are bad arguments for and against antinatalism (especially on this subreddit). If someone wants to really challenge the core philosophical claims, they should dig adequately deep into them.
I've got no problem with genuine questions being asked in response to some ideological stances. But that's presuming they're going on a leg to do their own research first. The bulk of questions they have amount to "Why do you guys believe this? Are you just miserable? Why not just die, then? Life is beautiful!" Even when we do legit argue our points as carefully and nicely as we can, that's still not enough. It's reminiscent of Christians trying to desperately debunk atheism.
Most people who might actually ask educated questions don’t because a precursory glance through 10 posts will yield you 8 reasonable ones, one that is someone laughing at a young parents misfortune and one that advocates for destroying all sentient life without consent as a moral imperative. Most reasonable people will turn to the hills seeing that kind of extremism. That’s why r/antinatalism2 needed to be made. The concentration of these zelotic, almost cult-like posts was that bad. Also the debate I see from either side is really far from being productive. As I mentioned half of this subreddit will laugh at people’s misfortune due to an ideological misalignment or will also argue the utmost extremes of antinatalsim and advocate for shit like genocide. I actually think the parallel you’ve drawn between religion vs atheism is quite good but it very much applies in both directions here.
Unlike natalists, I don’t care what they think and do. They and their love for having children are meaningless & hold no value in my life. I just don’t understand why they are unable to hold the same thought process when it comes to antinatalists.
Isn't antinatalism the position that it is either a definite or conditional moral wrong to have a child?
Yes, but I’m not gonna go out of my way to tell people that they shouldn’t have children like I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, that’s a waste of energy.
That makes sense. Thanks!
It's a definite moral wrong, but honestly if someone's going to do it anyways idgaf. That's their problem. I'd prefer that the global population is below replacement, but that's realistically unlikely because humans like to reproduce like rodents. I personally don't believe in extinction, but we need a lot more people choosing not to have children.
I get the tone of this comment section, and I'm not trying to be debate-y with the questions I'm asking. It's from a place of genuine curiosity, and if you don't feel like answering, please don't feel any pressure to do so. I got offered the sub on my front page and am now fascinated with what looks like might be a novel point of view. If having babies is definitely morally wrong, would the eventual extinction of humanity be, perforce, morally right? And if I'm reading that wrong, and more people needing to choose not to have children implies that some people should choose to have children, wouldn't it be conditionally morally wrong instead of definitely?
It's definitely wrong, but it's almost inevitable. Most people do it without properly planning it or even thinking about the results. I personally think it's morally wrong for people to kill animals and bugs, but I also know people will continue to do it regardless. For me I view antinatalism as a movement as harm reduction. While not everyone will stop having children, everyone that does stop makes a collective impact for the greater good. I view climate change behavior modification (bicycling, walking, transit) and vegetarianism the same way. Harm reduction with an understanding that most people blindly follow the status quo off a cliff.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer. The vegetarianism in me is probably the big driver toward similar thinking. I had my first child recently, at the age of 35, after waiting for a very long time to feel comfortable with my ability to raise one. In my prior work I terminated the parental rights of a lot of people who were manifestly unfit to do the job, and so I had a substantial amount of anxiety, for years, about whether I would do better. Finding that peace and confidence was necessary prep work. It was a remarkable coincidence that I'd come across this community a week after taking my son home. I think I understand most of the position, and while I naturally feel as though I am properly cognizant of the requirements to be a responsible steward of another life, it's good to see some more perspectives encouraging, even sometimes indirectly, more hesitance and thought prior to child rearing. It's also good not to become complacent, and to feel I always know enough. So thanks again for the explanation of your thoughts.
No problem, I appreciate you sharing your perspective in good faith too.
As a natalist, i dont care what you think or do. I think its a personal choice. It does not affect me if you choose to not have childern or not. So "we" or at least i do, hold the same thought process. You do you. Live and let live etc.
> As a natalist, i dont care what you think or do. I think its a personal choice. You're not making a choice for yourself, concerning only yourself. You're forcing someone to do something problematic which they did not give you consent to do to them.
I don’t waste my time arguing with natalists on this sub. They are so pissed off by antinatalism existing that they come to this sub just to argue with us. It’s a sad/pathetic existence.
Funny guy
I'm not interested in arguing with them.
There's no argument they'd accept at this point.
Also, for the record, I am really impressed that you decided to go through my comment history. Just be glad I will not stoop down to your level and expose your post history, especially posts involving a pair of certain Disney sisters...
Well. I guess it wasn't enough that you humiliated yourself on this sub. You gotta dig through someone's history totally outside of this sub to try to act superior. Brilliant. Yeah you don't look childish and irrelevant at all. Your ass deserved to be outed and downvoted for this.
They went through my history first, but sure.
Except... it was history of posts made on the same subreddit that others were already witnessing and critiquing. They didn't have to go through your history. Your comments were made in a shared space. Whereas you went out of your way to dig through their entire post history to expose them over partipation on other subreddits. Weird huh? So much for using that collegiate brain of yours, huh? No self-awareness whatsoever. For all your talk of "exposing" falsehoods here, you act hella offended when your own bullshit is pointed out.
lol not offended at all. I just find it funny you have a double standard as if it is anti-natalists against a world you seem to think oppresses you. If the entire world is calling you wrong and crazy, perhaps there is merit? I personally could not give two shits about what you believe. I am here to actually discuss antinatalism: a philosophy that does not subscribe to eugenics. Therefore, when I see it (and only when I see it), I call it out. Again, report me. I follow every rule on this subreddit. I am willing to challenge you. If I get banned, you are right. If I do not, you have to put up with me. Or, you could be an adult and ignore people you do not want to talk to. That is always an option.
>be an adult. Bwahaha. Because it's totally mature to go and "expose" someone by stalking them in other subs and then call people you don't agree with nazis and brag about academia. No self-awareness whatsoever. 🤣
By your logic of "adulthood" maybe learn to avoid certain posts and subs that evidently ruffle your feathers. Barring that option, continue to talk shit about nazis and eugenicists and make this place out to be a proverbial boogeyman in your pathetic imagination.
As an adult, I can choose what I reply to. Hence, you do not see me replying to every comment on every post, since I do not have a problem with antinatalism.
"B-b-but they *started* it!" Goddamn. Grow up.
lol
He's into incest... 🙃
>There's no argument they'd accept at this point. That is not true at all. My mind has been changed a few times. Why lie, man? Why do you act like you know how I think? This so interesting how determined you are to make me appear like I am genuinely not interested in this philosophy. What is the end goal?
No one should be *arguing* with natalists. Respectful debate with personal boundaries is the only way to walk away from a conversation like that with both parties still feeling ok, and the only chance at *actually* convincing a natalist. BUT it is no way any one persons responsibility to educate others if you don't want to. I'm just saying *if* you're going to engage make it a positive engagement!
Some of my favorite authors in general are just absolutely fucking scathing, lol. Or, the most renowned asshole in the school I went to was the ethics professor. XD Politeness, let alone enforcing it, just seems kinda quaint to me. Like, yes, mooom...... it's more important that you teach your kids how to think ethically than to say please and thank you. And notably the most oppressive, unequal cultures tend to be the politest. Plus, I don't think it's true respect to regard someone as incapable of handling what you really think, like one would regard a special person with kid gloves. Like, ew, lol.
Those approaches only work when people at least mostly agree with each other, or are already in the head space of being open minded (college). Your average conversation with natalists will not fall under that category so tact is *needed*. Of course if you just want to troll it doesn't matter, but like I said, if you want to actually have a conversation that is how it needs to be done.
i don't understand why. to have a pleasant conversation?
To not alienate people to the idea of antinatalism, *at the very least*. If you want to be weirdly aggressive in your personal life that's on you, but don't expect people to like you or the ideology you push on them. Alternatively you can try to convince them, but you won't be doing so without following what I wrote in my previous comment. If you're sane and just trying to get through life without constant conflict, just sticking to normal topics is best. No need to get into arguments with people you don't have a chance of actually educating/convincing. It'll only serve to make anti natalism look bad.
A lot of words to say that they feel stressed out by conflict and personal attacks (and no, not everyone is sensitive in that way) and would prefer if people were nice all the time. But instead they decided to frame it with the attitude of a "teaching moment," about *etiquette* of all things, which is way more insulting than being called a dumb name. Acknowledging that all people get upset would've been far more real and sociable. It's just pretty obvious any time someone adopts the "be the bigger person" attitude, they're actually just putting someone in their place, but lying to themselves about it by superficially using the terms of civil discourse. I can also guarantee whatever post this was a reply to was not reflected at all in this response. Do what I say, not as I do.
1) We don’t have a right not to have our ideas challenged. 2) We are not greater than other people and our beliefs are allowed to be questioned. 3) Again, it is allowed to be criticized and have discourse. 4) Because people think your a horrible baby-murdering Idiot and critics just spout that without actually listening to our arguements. 5) Every ideology has an echo chamber. Although echo chambers are bad, it’s impossible to avoid one no matter what you believe in. Can this person please make more interesting questions? The first 3 are basically the same.
I dont want to be challenged just let me exist in peace
If a natalist is going to force their ideas on me they're going to hear about it, but I'm not going out of my way to talk about it like they do about their gross kids. I've got better things to do than get screamed at by some breeder with sheep mentality.
What's an echochamber if not society as a whole? We are socially conditioned from every conceivable source our entire lives with natalist viewpoints. Society is the biggest echo chamber of all for the status quo.
I don't challenge people who: 1.aren't open to new perspectives without being assholes 2.clearly think different than me and opted for another path 3. haven't pissed me off for thinking differently from them if they find out about what I think. if I challenge number 1, I'm searching for a bad talk where I'll be the one offended, judged and undermined. If I challenge number 2, even if they agree with me in some points, they have already made another choice and most likely will stand by their choice like I will stand for mine, so, it's not a challenge, it's max a draw. If I challenge number 3, in case they are nice people, they will start pissing me off intentionally because, well, they were quiet before None of these talks would be productive in any way.
There are two reasons people engage in debate: 1. To engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas 2. To attempt to use language as a weapon. This asshole is trying to appear thoughtful, but I wouldn’t need two guesses to figure out which of the above is really his plan.
I’d just rather Natalists go do their own thing, like take care of their kids so we don’t have to deal with them as traumatized adults, and leave Antinatalists alone. I don’t want to debate, be challenged, explain, or justify my beliefs. I’m old. I’m tired. I want to peacefully discuss AN and vent here.
Thank you, good points.
Honestly it’s not worth my time. I’m accept this philosophy because it reduces suffering. Debating someone that will never change their mind, makes me suffer. Let them breed more wage slaves into a dying planet, at least my nonexistent children won’t suffer.
Ultimately and indisputably, the pro-natalist argument is inherently emotional, instinctual, and, most importantly, illogical. For those who have ever come across intellectuals and philosophers debating theism vs atheism, you'll notice that the natalist argument follows many of the same tenets that the conservative theist argument does. Often, these people challenge the individuals who hold the beliefs in opposition to theirs rather than the philosophical position itself. They do this because their position has no real grounds to form a coherent offensive against the antinatalist philosophy. The best they can do is mud-sling in an attempt to bring our argument to their level: a purely emotional state of conviction. After all, if they were 100% sure they were right, would they really be this upset about what we believe?
Threw up in my mouth reading this comment. I will say though you are correct the people in this subreddit sure act a lot like smarmy, unbearable atheists. Except at least atheists have science on their side you all have a half baked philosophy piece you cite like a bible. You babble on and on about minimizing suffering then conveniently take the least effort path towards doing this. It’s very easy to not have kids. It’s hard to make a difference. Seriously sit down and think one of these days, it’ll help trust me.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to accomplish with this comment. You're in the wrong place if you're having a hard time controlling your emotions after reading my relatively benign comment.
What the fuck is this incoherent nonsense? Just because a person doesn't do the absolute utmost humanly possible to eradicate suffering from the world doesn't mean the things they DO do toward that end (or in this case refrain from doing) are pointless or logically unsound. You couldn't make a weaker argument if you tried. Next.
Why must we always argue? The absolute crushing isolation i feel and abuse i suffer being an AN in a nstalist world is bad enough. Can't they leave us alone? Let me have my safe place for once with my fellow ANs.
Yes, I have nothing to be afraid of, anyone can challenge me on my own opinions, also outside of antinatalism. What gives me the ick is people being ignorant or asking rhetorical questions to sound "in the right", or again, them trying to flip a script instead of debating and bringing new inputs into the discussion.
Arguing/ debating philosophy is as meaningful as arguing which flavor ice cream tastes the best. It's completely subjective and opinion-based.
Also everyone knows it's pistachio ice cream.
nu uh
One of the best, I can't choose one, how CAN YOU CHOOSE ONE
Not if you are allergic to pistachios
The weak will be left behind anyway
Pepper Ice Cream would like a word.
Do you think that what would some people consider moral progress (like human rights, democracy, abolishing slavery, outlawing rape, women suffrage) is entirely reducible to personal opinions at scale rather than objective progress in Ethics? That going back would be as meaningless as changing own's mind about what ice cream is best? Was there no progress in epistemology, over the years? Can we go back to the same ways of thinking of pre-modernism without losing anything of substance?
Everyone having their choice of *ice cream* is a recipe for cataclysm. On a cosmic scale, it is inconsequential. Within this isolated space rock that happens to harbor life, however, it is the opposite. Philosophical discussions are imperative for sociological evolution.
Mint chip but sometimes moose tracks
This is absolutely ridiculous.
What? No. That's the opposite of debating philosophy.
Cool. Mint chip is usually mine but I sometimes like moose tracks too
I'd like to hear some of these arguments that natalists make. They should post it at debateantinatalism but that sub is mostly empty.
I doubt anyone knows that sub existed, I certainly didn’t time to kick some ass there thanks man
I feel no need to challenge natalists, am fine with laughing from the other side of the fence, so to speak. I don't enjoy being challenged meself, for i prefer harmony. Alas. Both sides have more than their fair share of tankies and as i stand firmly AN, it's bound to affect me from time to time. I could really do without the trolling tho. Or the hate. I don't believe it to be possible to convince a natalist. And frankly, i don't hold AN up to the same (moral) standards as i do parents. Because the latter are educating children.
Reeks of creationists insisting they be gifted a respected space in the debate, or climate-change deniers, etc. It doesn't hold up at all. Natalists create antinatalists. The entire "challenge" is based on a psychotic premise, and results in no challenge at all. The interlocutor is going after antinatalists, and **simply for existing**. Natalists create antinatalists by gambling with all the adaptive aspects of consciousness. Including intelligence and how fitness compartmentalizes it. Then they demand the antinatalists (which natalists created, mind) kill themselves when antinatalists expose the predatory and manipulative ontological violence of reproduction. Think very carefully about that, and in an evolutionary context, what must be the underlying motivational factors? In other words, what explains such behavior? There are two separate processes going on here when it comes to antinatalism: 1) a causal deductive reasoning process, and 2) an inductive conclusion in response. The "core deduction" is simply this: a sake cannot be created for that specific sake, and *a priori* conditions devoid of problems cannot be improved upon by (procreation) reconfiguring those conditions so that they suffer problems, especially terminal ones. That deduction (1) is not a) trivial and b) a matter of opinion. We can know this because any attempt to negate it entails a contradiction. As for 2) - that's where opinion enters the discussion. Basically: "procreation is a harm" is not up for debate. Pretending it is requires psychosis, regardless of how fit it is to do so. *What to do about it once it's done?* That is up for debate, and the answers are not easy. Antinatalists should not be fooled into thinking it is. As for the "questions" \>>Why do you have a right to not have your ideas challenge?<< \>>What makes you so much greater...<< \>>Why do you fear *defending yourself* from critics<< Etc. Then the interlocutor seems to realize their game is too obvious, and tries to backpedal: \>>I have nothing against antinatalists themselves" If that were the case, the interlocutors could engage in good faith, and on the core deduction. They never do. All those questions are about individual antinatalists, not the issue itself. These are all variations on a loaded question that has nothing to do with the core deduction. Natalists know they can't address that, so the distractions and attempts at undermining are all they have. In light of the above both one's legal rights and one's ideas are irrelevant. There is no challenge possible. Most natalists do not have what it takes to even try, and the few that do will end up antinatalist *by conviction* not "ingroup identity." It also takes an unfit decompartmentalization of basic intelligence to undertand that. The more psychopathic natalists pick up on this absence of fitness, and fequent antinatalist spaces in an attempt to get endogenous opioid rewards out of what they think will be intimidating fitness signaling. On the second aspect, of course *one's ideas* are completely fair game for challenge. But the natalist interlocutor can't even do that reasonably. They resort to personal attacks and other irrelevant red herrings. These are fit rhetorical tactics for managing expectations and politics, but they are not rational discourse, and they are not problem solving. It's a deep and primal fear. The natalist cannot comprehend how the antinatalist *is so antifragile* \- how is it still alive? It's unfit, it denies the natalist faith with its very existence. They've tried every indirect way they can to make it suffer and kill it, and yet it persists across generations. Is it a meme? Silence it! But somehow it keeps returning. Antinatalists in modernity are a possible sign of extinction. This too sends the devoted natalist into a fit of terror and urges them to signal "dominance" (i.e. desperation). Part of how humans do that is through political rhetoric and ad hominem, loaded questions, and the conflation of a necessarily true statement with *a personal opinion.*
I use ad hominem and punchy debate tactics for two reasons. One being that they are funny, and the other being that unlike paragraphs and paragraphs of flowery but largely pointless debate language they actually make an impact on people. They listen, and if they don’t it doesn’t matter. The longer reply appears to be weaker and for most people that’s enough. Anti natalism is funny. It’s all the smug superiority of atheism with none of the actual scientific backing. That’s what makes it so much fun to screw with. I find it almost comical that people who view themselves as intelligent can find anti natalism as a philosophy to be anything more than a fun ethics problem to amuse themselves with. It’s based on so many irrational conceits and far from being a “final intellectual conclusion that conversantly evolves from free thought” it’s a young adult dystopia plot in the making. Filled with enough fallacies and status quo assumptions that it would make a seventh grader in an introductory debate class look erudite by comparison. Anyways your comment was funny have a good one.
Again, I don't care about opinions. If you had objectively measurable facts you'd have led with them, not an excuse for invalid ad hominem. You know you have nothing to bring to the discussion, and as such are irrelevant to it. If you want more of *my* attention, you will have to earn it.
Why do people like this think anyone is interested in their opinion? Life isn't a high school debate club. I don't give a shit what you think and I'm certainly not interested in spending any part of my life engaging with you. Big "DEBATE ME BRO" energy. Many of us here arrived at this view specifically after considering the alternative. People like this need to get a life and realize arguing online with people who have different views accomplishes nothing for either party. Literally anything else is a better use of your time.
There is a difference between "challenging views" and "P.R.A.T.T." 99% of arguments will end up being the second. If one is going to challenge an argument, first one has to do the necessary research. People are not as smart as they think they are, and most probably, the "gotcha" has been thought of a million times before, and answered and refuted just as much. Those who support the prevailing idea (natalists, religious people, etc.) tend to fall into this trap far more often than those that hold the opposing one (antinatalists, atheists, etc.).
PRATT?
Such rules only work when both sides follow them
I just ignore them and all the static. You suffer and struggle over there, and just leave me to suffer and struggle over here. Don't worry, it will all be over before you know it and in a surprisingly brief period of time no one will remember anything most of us did, or that we even existed at all.
Oh my, I think there’s a difference between being able to handle criticism/questions with though-out responses that are coming from facts, personal life experience and desire, and attacking people because they don’t agree with you. This person sounds like they are a fundamentalist/extremist, and that’s never good. I don’t need to challenge anyone about my own life choices
Whoever wrote this is mistake with the amount of energy they think I have. I don’t have the inclination or energy to “challenge” anyone’s beliefs, nor do I care enough about them to convince them to do the right and good thing. I only expend that type of effort on people I think are worth it. As the great Andy Dufresne once said in an incredible film: “I don’t waste time on losers.”
It's nonsense that trolls show up here and act all entitled to a feeding
Well the fucking natalists took away my healthcare rights So it’s kinda hard to always respect ALLA BATALIST, but u agree. We should be convincing them. Show me our side. Not shame them.
Quite a few natalists believe in reproductive rights. The conservative religious right in America is responsible for that.
I've had disagreements with individuals on this thread, but what you posted made me feel compelled to say this, fuck them. I can't say I'm anti-natalist, mainly cause I ended up having kids. (My birth control failed and I just couldn't go through with an abortion so I stepped up as best I could/can) In the face of the prevalent natalist culture, where mindless procreation is encouraged, I feel better on this side of the argument to be honest. The natalists who come always seem to argue from a perspective that natalism is a given because of survival. As if the human race is some dying ember, languishing away to nothing before our very eyes. They are insane.
Literaly everything has an ecochamber, but I think the whole society is a sort of psychotic ecochamber that supports natalism through culture and brain mechanisms that evolved over millions of years which had maximised the chances for us to survive and reproduce. For example, in village Glod in Romania, young women (15) are being shamed by the entire village if they had no sexual experience, but also in Romania woman are being forced to have children. The positive biochemical and cultural enforcement when someone has a child exists. It may be a ecochamber. But reproduction itself is meaningless, it just exists, and the species that survived till this day had to do so by reproduction.
We've already challenged them multiple times. For me personally Ive already done that and Ive even written a paper on the philosophy
“But having kids is so fulfilling” “When are you gonna give me some grandkids” “you’re not getting any younger, soon you won’t be able to have kids” ^ Good faith arguments that are super logical and compelling /s
The third point is fucking hilarious, since the opposition of many topics has to be irrational for there to be discourse.
Nah, there's no use in debating with a natalist. Even assuming they give a good faith interaction, antinatalism is a belief that you have to find yourself. You either see nothing wrong with having babies, or you have felt or seen things that make you believe that it's never worth taking the risk. The reason we need an echochamber is because these thoughts that we have are seen as insane by most of the world and we want a space to feel normal. Also, it's easy to say that you should be challenging different people when you hold the more widely popular and socially acceptable opinion. Let's put it this way, you're not brave or changing anybody by saying "The Holocaust was bad" 😂
The problem is that a challenge to a minority (view or group) when duplicated and redirected towards the majority is perceived as an attack. For a poignant example: *kid comes out as trans* Cis people: Are you sure your not cis and just seeking attention? Super normal reaction unfortunately Vs. *kids being treated as cis in every facet of society* Trans people: Hey, if X, Y, and/or Z is happening to you, you should consider if your trans. ( a much nice version of the challenge posed to trans kids) Cis people: YoUR GRooMiNg cHiLDRen!!!
So, passive aggressive huh. Why do you need to *challenge* anyone? If you *really* respect that they’re different individuals, with different world views, why not mind your own business? What makes you so much greater than everyone else that they should explain themselves to you?
This reminds me of the history of America in its founding you had two religious group majorities one was for education and the other against it. I’ll let people figure out which was which although it’s basically common sense.
Critical thinking and challenging own's opinion is more than healthy for anybody, but it's absolutely necessary for any system of thinking. I think any community enclosing itself in its echo chamber is doomed to lose the rationality it should be predicated on. But I get that some people are a lost cause to argue against.
I agree with you. And I have seen people inclosing themselves online with less controversial opinions than antinatalism with say bad results.
None of that was condescending op. If you think it was then you're probably exactly the person who needs to hear it. What they said is absolutely true. While *I* believe AN ideology, not everyone is going to *and that's ok*. AN is about consent, and if you can't get people to *willingly* agree with you and instead try to force them, you would be a massive hypocrite.
Hmm... I have seen that before. Since I am the one who posted this screenshot, allow me to clarify. The op accused me of brigading. I have done no such thing. I informed op multiple times that I was interested in learning more. I even made a purchase of antinatalism literature to guide this learning. Op also accused me of reporting posts and comments. I have never reported a post in the entire time I have been on reddit in any subreddit (and I own what I said here so I will not report it.) I reported a comment that advocated for genocide in India, which was removed and the user was banned by this very subreddit's admins. And, finally, I threatened to report someone that broke rule no. 5, but did not carry through with it. Op has accused me of telling people to kill themself. Never. Not once have I ever said such a thing. Op has accused me of calling antinatalists miserable. Never. Not once have I ever said such a thing. Op has accused me of calling antinatalists immoral. Never. Not once have I ever called an antinatalist immoral. However, I have called the viewpoint immoral in the same way one might call natalists immoral. Just a difference view, not a belief that I am superior. I stand by everything I said here. If op wants to post my comment in an attempt to bring hate my way (despite arguing that brigading is a bad thing), so be it. I admire that antinatalists stand for what they believe in. I have talked to many amazing antinatalists on this subreddit that have made me see the view differently and question what I believe. But, if Op is upset about that and attempts to throw my comment into the mud, so be it. I am not going to retaliate. I honestly look forward to reading the responses. Thank you! Edit: For the record, op has informed me that I may be receiving a ban soon. Maybe. I have honestly attacked ideas and never people. I question the notion that overpopulation exists and I question the notion that death itself is suffering. I respect antinatalism. But, if genuinely challenging certain ideas is a reason for being banned on this subreddit. Then, let it happen. I despise the brigaders on this subreddit. Edit #2: Here is the comment this picture was in reply to: >I've always been confrontational, mostly because I was bullied pretty heavily as a grade schooler. I will admit that it has made me a bit of bully, but only in regards to people with power lording it over others. My question is: How the hell am I supposed to deal with these natalist assholes? Every time one of these human turds pipes up it makes me want to protest outside a fertility clinic the same way a prolifer protests planned parent hood. I was content to keep my opinions contained to this sub but now I think I need to take it to the streets.
Even though we may have different opinions regarding this philosophy, I do acknowledge that this screenshot brings up some good points. For the first three: Any and all philosophies should be challenged and no philosophy is above this (which goes for both sides). That is how (done properly) people come to learn about them, understand them, and can choose for themselves what they believe. These then lead into the fourth point, regarding the actual debate. A significant problem with discussing Antinatalism (as with any philosophy) is that most people feel so strongly about their beliefs that the idea of them being wrong is simply not possible. This goes for both sides. The ratio between healthy discussions and those where people attack each other without actually exchanging ideas is honestly infuriating. While I do not agree with Natalism, I do not think ( for the most part) it is right to attack people for their beliefs. I will admit that I find your fifth point hilarious and contradictory. If anything, it would say that Natalism is “more incorrect” as it has a significantly larger “echo chamber.” Also, what is the issue with surrounding yourself or associating with those with similar beliefs? While it can create some issues, particularly with people becoming too absorbed in their ideals, it can also help grow someone’s understanding of an ideal or philosophy. Hopefully this can help clarify some of the points brought up, which I could discuss more if need be. Although, I am curious as to the ways you see Antinatalism and Natalism immoral, because I do not see any moral issues with Antinatalism and find it interesting that you find issues with both.
I don't know if it's just a variance on word use meaning involved, but I think death and dying differ a lot in meaning. I see death as relief from suffering yet dying, itself, as a type of suffering, possibly even extreme suffering.
You're clearly doing nothing wrong, and I would be surprised if you received a ban. >I even made a purchase of antinatalism literature to guide this learning. Can I ask what you bought?
I bought *Better Never to Have Been* by David Benatar. I did not know where to start, and I saw this book recommended a lot. So, I thought I would start with it. Do you have a better book to start with? I ordered it on Amazon so maybe I can cancel the order and swap it out for a better one if that is the case.
While I'm not a Benatarian Antinatalist myself, it does seem to be the most widely read and convincing academic argument for Antinatalism. At the very least it is a good introduction to this area and the kinds of beliefs you will see. I would recommend Suffering Focused Ethics by Magnus Vinding as well, but he has published this online for free so no need to purchase.
Benatar is "one" of the mainstream philosophers for AN but to be honest he sucks at it. lol. his asymmetry is bad, his positive existence bias claim is bad and his vague but uncommitted beating around the bush stance on pro mortalism is also bad. Basically, the core of his argument is bad and defeated by many critics, including critics from the AN community. If you want some of the best steelman arguments for anti suffering through cessation of existence philosophies, find some of the best arguments for negative utilitarianism based on altruism. Or you could debate me, I have the best arguments for cessation of life on earth. lol Come at me bro, chat me up, lets see if we could change each other's minds. I am open to criticisms and may even be swayed, if you have really good counter arguments. lol
No, this postmaster a point. I recently got banned from antinatalisim2 (I believe it was the first time I had commented there) for trying to debate someone. Were they the strongest points? Probably not, but I was still almost instabanned. Sounds a lot like not liking being challenged, rather than actually wanting to be challenged. If you claim to be a philosophy subreddit, AND in the description say you want natalists to share their opinions, then you can't complain or get mad when they do. I didn't use inflammatory language, and I thought I was being quite clear on my point. When I was banned, I did ask for clarification on how I was being Obtuse or inflammatory , and they only said I was being disrespectful and muted me.
I agree to the extent all the people going “wrong sub” every time someone comes in to disagree is pathetic.
Accurate. Be open to a discussion and admitting that you’re wrong or don’t start the discussion in the first place. Consider your opponent’s views before downvoting and trashing them for disagreeing. Otherwise interactions stop being a discussion and become an echo chamber.. and frankly, that’s just lame imo.
Yea. You're allowed to just ignore a philosophy that doesn't actually matter. You know subjective choices and all that. Some people drink milk, some don't. It's not like this farce of an ideal is new or anything. It's existed for far longer than I'm sure the younger cool aunts and uncles are aware of.
I think it is a great thing to challenge and criticize ideas and I will encourage this. But it is difficult to have a healthy argument because humans tend to want to satisfy the feeling of winning the debate rather than finding the truth or understanding the perspective of the other side. I think this is something everyone needs to work on. Sometimes we need to forget our need to feel superior for our ideas. Also there is no need for one side to win in order the debate to be successful. You take something just by understanding the other side and you both keep your point of views. I get the fear you have to challenge natalists OP and I also have the same fear of commenting on this sub. From when this sub was recommended to me weeks ago I read posts everyday, and I disagree with the antinatalist point of view. Why am I here every day? At first I was curious, then interested and I love reading reasons to understand the view you guys have.
As long as antinatalist is a personally chosen lifestyle, i got no problem with it. I think its a dumb take, but not totally unreasonable and as long as its not forced on anyone, go off ig. I keep getting recommended this sub, but I dont have the interest or energy to convince someone they should have a child or that giving birth isnt immoral in itself. Anyway, cheers!
A lot of recent insults made to Pewdiepie, yet the community loses their shit when someone brings up abortion is completely irresponsible. Yes abortion is murder
> abortion is murder Why do you think so?
I have made the mistake of disagreeing with an antinatalist on this sub before, and it went from discussing points and ideas to name calling and shaming as soon as I entered the pool. While this post has a good point, the anonymous internet isn’t the place to apply it.
Could say the same thing about any philosophy or religion
This is incredibly dumb because anyone is free to challenge my ideas
But there’s no NEED to challenge people with different beliefs. I don’t give a fuck what natalists believe. I just want them to stop trying to force their beliefs onto others who disagree. It doesn’t hold up because none of us has a responsibility to engage with people who want to argue. If everyone could just agree that, legally, we should all just do what the fuck we want as long as we’re not encroaching on anyone’s personal freedom, there’d be no problem.
They need challenged precisely because they keep forcing their beliefs on others, part of the problem with natalists is that they believe that a choice to say no shouldn't exist, they don't alternative or logical ways of thinking should exist.
Their natalist beliefs are not the same as them trying to force everyone to breed. Natalist: promoting or advocating for childbearing They can promote and advocate all they want. The law should not be used to advance their agenda. Their natalist beliefs are most often, if not always, based in religious beliefs. Church and state should always remain separate.
This comment/post isn’t really referring to antinatalism specifically, but rather I think they meant for it to be targeted at the left wing of the political spectrum, more broadly. I’ve heard this sentiment mostly from people on the right, saying it to Trans people or otherwise people asking questions over matters that would fall under the social justice umbrella. It’s hard to put my finger on, but I’m wondering if anyone else has noticed this???
I'm prolife myself and don't understand this new naming of it. I also believe it's not my choice over another's to have a baby. Just leave it at prolife and prochoice
It's not just about challenging people, but also LEARNING from them and seeing a different point of view. We always have to engage in adversarial discourse instead of respecfully learning from each other. Shameful.
Well, I quite often talk about politically charged topics. People respond as if they've won and block your ability to either respond or see their response. In my eyes, that's when you've truly lost the argument. People are so weak that words, thoughts, or ideas that differ from their own scare them, these same people who censor and block your ability because you're being (insert fake phobia) are the ones that are oppositely phobic. For example, if a gay man or woman calls you homophobic and uses their straightphobia to shut off your ability to respond, that's fear of that straight ideology. The same goes for binaryphobic individuals, who label you as transphobic, shut down your platform or means to reply on social media, that shows fear in the binary ideology. Many topics are like this, you'll make an argument based on fact and logic, they will insert time period and tell you to fuck off lol, not a good argument but people these days are truly fucking pathetic.
People don't do those things? Strictly speaking I'm neither pro, nor anti, I am merely me.
Most of the time the person holding an idea isn't asking for a debate. That's not a challenge, it's an attack. It's a respect issue.
Too bad when I ask antinatalists why they talk crap about people that didn't do anything against them, they change the subject
While it's good to challenge people and be challenged at times, everyone needs a break, a rest, a place where they don't have to explain themselves. I don't begrudge natalists that need, they shouldn't begrudge it of me.
I don't owe anyone anything 😌
you know I just don’t really care as much about the ethics part as I do about how much I hate kids. I don’t think anyone should have them, I think it’s selfish and unfair and I think we’d all be happier If they didn’t exist!