I used to be on this talking point but then I learned about how antinatalism is the tool of nazis. Like some real eugenics shit. Worth the dive into the topic.
Wtf? It may be A tool of Nazis, but it is certainly not THE tool of Nazis.
Moreover, it is better to adopt a child than to spawn one. You can do whatever you like, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there without families.
At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but mass adoption is a positive for our society.
I have no idea how this is supposed to play into Nazi talking points and I don’t really give a fuck.
I will happily die on the hill that adoption is better for everyone than birthing more children into society. However, these do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to do both, and that may be the best outcome overall.
Prefiguration must go past some vision of mass adoption, abandon the model of society which capitalism has rendered, and land us on something much more equitable. It is lazy, irresponsible…literally erasing entire cultures (the nazi shit), to rely on mass adoption wherein only the privileged have children. Not to mention entirely unrealistic, with the lot of them not interested in the first place.
Allowing the existing class dynamics to persist, along with the greater empire and global system of explotation, can end only as all empires do, in ruin.
So I’ve abandoned the simpler “oh just adopt” and i can see that’s triggered a commenter or too 🤷♀️
Mainly because you’re trying to come off as some pseudo intellectual and I have zero time for your self aggrandizing bullshit. Therefore, we’ll have chatgpt analyze it for us.
The comment seems to be critiquing the notion that adopting children from orphanages is a simple, universally moral solution to systemic issues related to inequality, privilege, and exploitation. Here’s a breakdown:
Key Argument: They’re rejecting the “just adopt” narrative as a solution to broader societal problems. They argue that relying on adoption as a widespread practice might erase cultural identities, perpetuate systemic inequities (like class dynamics and imperialism), and disproportionately benefit the privileged. They also point out that this narrative is unrealistic because most people aren’t inclined to adopt anyway.
Tone and Delivery: While their frustration seems genuine, the comment still reads as unnecessarily combative and self-congratulatory. Phrases like “lazy, irresponsible… literally erasing entire cultures” and “the nazi shit” feel exaggerated and detract from the argument. The shrug emoji caps it off with a dismissive tone, implying they don’t care if others disagree.
Content Validity: There are valid critiques of child adoption as a systemic “fix” for larger issues, such as:
The exploitation of vulnerable families in the adoption industry.
The erasure of cultural identity, especially in cases of transracial or international adoption.
The fact that adoption doesn’t address the root causes of why children are in orphanages in the first place (poverty, war, etc.).
However, the way they present these points muddles the argument and risks alienating readers who might otherwise agree.
Final Thought: Their argument has merit but is undermined by the delivery. A clearer, less confrontational approach would help communicate their concerns more effectively without alienating people. For example:
“Adoption can be a compassionate choice for individuals, but framing it as a universal solution to systemic problems ignores the deeper issues of inequality, exploitation, and cultural erasure. It’s important to address the root causes—like poverty and global inequities—rather than relying on a model that often benefits the privileged.”
And that’s where I disagree. If adoption were pushed as a societal norm, as in something that occurs as often as having a child the old fashioned way, then all of society would benefit massively.
No one is suggesting putting a stop to people having children. What is being suggested is that people be encouraged to adopt as well as have children, or to choose one or the other.
Additionally, it is not being proposed as a universal solution, if that was indeed your intention.
For example, some women may prefer to have children without having their bodies fundamentally altered.
If theres a child out there suffering, its definitely more moral to take them in and give them love and support rather than creating a child that will possibly just end up resenting you for bringing them into such a fucked up world.
Yeah. They address that. In excrucitiating detail. Listen, enough running circles abour it on boards. Just…watch the video, or read, i think the author’s long form written reponse which is even more exhaustive.
Bc you can say that but then when you get into the actual root cause analysis and solutions you recognize you cant simply wave the issue off with “just adopt”, and you begin to recognize the callousness, unrealistic expecration, classism and outright anti-intellectual dismissiveness such a write-off amounts to.
you’re aware this logic applies to any information in any form, yes? that’s why you need to engage critically with a text, not just numbly accept or dismiss them…
Just adopt. Breeding is stupid
I used to be on this talking point but then I learned about how antinatalism is the tool of nazis. Like some real eugenics shit. Worth the dive into the topic.
Wtf? It may be A tool of Nazis, but it is certainly not THE tool of Nazis.
Moreover, it is better to adopt a child than to spawn one. You can do whatever you like, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there without families.
At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but mass adoption is a positive for our society.
I have no idea how this is supposed to play into Nazi talking points and I don’t really give a fuck.
I will happily die on the hill that adoption is better for everyone than birthing more children into society. However, these do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to do both, and that may be the best outcome overall.
Obligatory: Fuck Nazis
Prefiguration must go past some vision of mass adoption, abandon the model of society which capitalism has rendered, and land us on something much more equitable. It is lazy, irresponsible…literally erasing entire cultures (the nazi shit), to rely on mass adoption wherein only the privileged have children. Not to mention entirely unrealistic, with the lot of them not interested in the first place.
Allowing the existing class dynamics to persist, along with the greater empire and global system of explotation, can end only as all empires do, in ruin.
So I’ve abandoned the simpler “oh just adopt” and i can see that’s triggered a commenter or too 🤷♀️
That’s a lotta words. To bad I’m not… Readin’ em.
Mainly because you’re trying to come off as some pseudo intellectual and I have zero time for your self aggrandizing bullshit. Therefore, we’ll have chatgpt analyze it for us.
The comment seems to be critiquing the notion that adopting children from orphanages is a simple, universally moral solution to systemic issues related to inequality, privilege, and exploitation. Here’s a breakdown:
Key Argument: They’re rejecting the “just adopt” narrative as a solution to broader societal problems. They argue that relying on adoption as a widespread practice might erase cultural identities, perpetuate systemic inequities (like class dynamics and imperialism), and disproportionately benefit the privileged. They also point out that this narrative is unrealistic because most people aren’t inclined to adopt anyway.
Tone and Delivery: While their frustration seems genuine, the comment still reads as unnecessarily combative and self-congratulatory. Phrases like “lazy, irresponsible… literally erasing entire cultures” and “the nazi shit” feel exaggerated and detract from the argument. The shrug emoji caps it off with a dismissive tone, implying they don’t care if others disagree.
Content Validity: There are valid critiques of child adoption as a systemic “fix” for larger issues, such as:
The exploitation of vulnerable families in the adoption industry.
The erasure of cultural identity, especially in cases of transracial or international adoption.
The fact that adoption doesn’t address the root causes of why children are in orphanages in the first place (poverty, war, etc.).
However, the way they present these points muddles the argument and risks alienating readers who might otherwise agree.
Final Thought: Their argument has merit but is undermined by the delivery. A clearer, less confrontational approach would help communicate their concerns more effectively without alienating people. For example:
“Adoption can be a compassionate choice for individuals, but framing it as a universal solution to systemic problems ignores the deeper issues of inequality, exploitation, and cultural erasure. It’s important to address the root causes—like poverty and global inequities—rather than relying on a model that often benefits the privileged.”
And that’s where I disagree. If adoption were pushed as a societal norm, as in something that occurs as often as having a child the old fashioned way, then all of society would benefit massively.
No one is suggesting putting a stop to people having children. What is being suggested is that people be encouraged to adopt as well as have children, or to choose one or the other.
Additionally, it is not being proposed as a universal solution, if that was indeed your intention.
For example, some women may prefer to have children without having their bodies fundamentally altered.
If theres a child out there suffering, its definitely more moral to take them in and give them love and support rather than creating a child that will possibly just end up resenting you for bringing them into such a fucked up world.
Yeah. They address that. In excrucitiating detail. Listen, enough running circles abour it on boards. Just…watch the video, or read, i think the author’s long form written reponse which is even more exhaustive.
Bc you can say that but then when you get into the actual root cause analysis and solutions you recognize you cant simply wave the issue off with “just adopt”, and you begin to recognize the callousness, unrealistic expecration, classism and outright anti-intellectual dismissiveness such a write-off amounts to.
Its three hours long no thanks.
Ok.
If someone’s thinking about a lifelong decision, it’s well worth that 3 hours of being spoonfed the dozens hours of research that went into it.
(That’s just for whoever passes by to read this. I do not care what you do personally.)
Being spoonfed dozens of hours of cherry-picked research is exactly the problem with lots of “youtube research” like this.
One could do another 3 hour video on the subject “Natalism is the tool of the nazis” also rooted in cherry-picked sources.
you’re aware this logic applies to any information in any form, yes? that’s why you need to engage critically with a text, not just numbly accept or dismiss them…
In response to a link to a creator who has litterally dedicated a video to grapple with the dynamic that we as audiences need to consume information with care
Idk what to tell ya. A lot of people enjoy learning in this format. You do know a person can read in addition to watching a video, dont be silly ✨️
did you read the rest of the comment? this is a topic worth taking seriously rather than be flippantly dismissive.
If you are diving into the subject, this might not be the best video to start with… Lots of cherry picking and ad hominem attacks.
Some reflection in this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1f9a6tt/new_video_essay_about_antinatalism_just_dropped/