364
Revealed: US pro-birth conference’s links to far-right eugenicists
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
364 points (97.2% liked)
News
23406 readers
1773 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The world has almost 8 billion people. Maybe we could do with a few less.
I think that according to economists, no. We just need enough to keep the replacement rate up.
Which economists? I'm sure I can find some who believe that population should be reduced. Economics is more opinion than science.
The prevailing consensus of economists in capitalist countries is that we should just keep running on that treadmill to generate “limitless” growth.
Taxing the rich would fund social security for a long time.
UBI?
I think it would be simpler to have only ubi
Anyone who thinks that should start with themselves
We're not even close to the point at which population growth becomes unsustainable. We're in the position we're in because we failed to invest in infrastructure.
Yes, about 3000 billionaires will do. But I doubt that's who you meant..
The rhetoric you're using does serve them though:
https://www.theworldmind.org/home/2021/12/10/the-dangerous-myth-of-overpopulation
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question
https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
For reasons I don't understand, people seem to be incapable of separating any discussion of overpopulation from racism and eugenics. I think it's at the point where it's disingenuous, willful, or at the very least a massive blind spot in people talking about the problem. You should understand that bad people can embrace overpopulation with bad conclusions, and that should not taint reality. Hitler was an animal lover - does that mean it's wrong to love animals? That's the level of flawed argument we're dealing with here.
Jfc...
It's because they're fucking inseparable, you not understanding why or how (never mind being as wilfully ignorant as you are since you clearly didn't read word in the links I posted) doesn't change that
Let me copy pasta myself for the sake of anyone who actually wants to learn more before I leave this dumpster fire:
Well that was a totally reasonable response from someone who is totally capable of considering the merits of an argument without relying on bad articles trying to drum up weak support for the author's preordained conclusion with circular reasoning. Nothing to see here folks. This guy has it all figured out and we should totally worship his correctness without debate.
IMO the only myth is the belief that it's a myth. The evidence is overwhelming.
This is a fine position if you're ok with your worst enemy getting to make the decision about who gets to procreate and live.
That's not what is being suggested in this thread.
The suggestion is that people (all of them) should have better access to, and education about, contraception.
I responded to this:
Which is vague. And vagueness is often used to give plausible deniability when eugenicists are on the march. So cool on you for giving such grace to an internet stranger, but when I read things like this, it always includes what is between the lines.
And which social or ethnic group in particular do you suggest should be the ones to be sacrificed exactly? The answer to eugenics is not more eugenics.
Why does there have to be a sacrifice? Why can't people just be encouraged to use contraception?
Because the pope says I can't wear a little rubber thingie on my old chap.
How do you encourage marginalized people who have been historically discouraged from breeding due to eugenics reasons to voluntarily stop breeding because the people in power just lowkey want them to?
Because the people causing the collapse of the planet are not the same ones you expect to stop reproducing (literally eugenics btw)
Which ones do you think I expect to stop reproducing exactly?
You clearly stated it - the ones you think need encouragement to use contraception, and lets not pretend you mean rich people.
Why not rich people? I meant all people. If rich people don't understand condoms, they should. And use them. I have no idea why you think I would say otherwise.
You're talking about this as if there's no overriding socioeconomic context that carries forth implications. Any time birthing restrictions have been tried, rich and privileged groups always get exemptions.
People should be encouraged to take advantage of contraception because they should have the right to plan their families- not because we've decided we want to look down on people who breed.
No, you didn't, no one who brings up overpopulation ever does, it's a dog whistle (so even if we pretend you didn't mean to, you're advocating the same bullshit as those who do mean it).
But hey, double down away if it makes you happy, just know that your choice to die on this hill instead of putting your hand up to admit you had a shitty uninformed take doesn't do you any favours.. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Please point out one single thing that I've said that makes me a racist. One thing.
He's right, and saying there's too many people on the planet to live sustainably isn't racist or a dog whistle. Suggesting that there's too many of some specific race or class of people would absolutely be racist (or classist or some other -ist), but nobody should get a pass. Everyone helped get us into this situation and everyone should be working to solve it. While it is true that using our current factory farming methods we can produce enough food today that's absolutely not going to be the case forever and it's also forcing our hand with regards to using incredibly environmentally damaging and unsustainable farming methods. We have to use factory farms because we literally couldn't produce enough food otherwise. Everybody should be encouraged to limit the number of children they have. And before you start, I practice what I preach, I have no children.
Prime example one of the problem is Muskrat and his what, nearly a dozen kids? That should be completely unacceptable. There's absolutely no reason why anyone should have more than 2 kids at worst, ideally 1 or no kids. At least until global population levels have dropped to a point where we can meet our food needs using smaller farms that don't require truck loads of fertilizer and antibiotics and pack so many animals into such a tiny space that they can barely move.
You put a lot of words into someone’s mouth and then had an argument with yourself. That was funny but I doubt that was your intent. Maybe try not constructing so many straw men?
That escalated quickly! Zero to genocide in one comment.