Thank you for posting in the Subreddit. However, we are removing this post based on the fact that it is does not follow rule 5: *Content must be related or adjacent to antinatalism, without merely venting or lamenting.*
Please see the rule definition in the sidebar for more details.
I'm sorry, no childfree content?? Antinatalism and being childfree broadly overlap (yes, I'm aware that there can still be antinatalists who adopt kids and therefore aren't childfree), you can't just erase that part š
Yes, it looks like the mods want only abstract and boring discussions about eThIcS, while childfree content tell people how adults can have better lives by not having kids, and i believe childfree does a far better job spreading "antinatalism" than pure antinatalism
I don't understand, this is exactly what was on my dad's mind when he wanted kids. I live this image every day. It's my reality.
To this day, I'm still not sure my Mom was necessarily into the idea at the time, but it was the 80's, and in Wyoming, that meant it was actually around 1963 or so. Obviously, she's not in any position to be refusing her husband ANYTHING WHATSOEVER because *oh that is just not something we do out here, and for God's sake*
#Women and Children are seen and not heard.
I know what I was to my dad. Just an extension of himself, not even my own fucking entity, just an object.
"Oh well at least u still have a life." What life? It was taken away from me when I was four and I became a whipping boy. I got assaulted by a crazed, drunken, 250 lb. linebacker every week for 13 years.
I was just an object.
Now I have no life.
I thought it was supposed for people who mistake this sub for the childfree sub and find parents and their children annoying, but the rules apparently can be twisted.
> Who's the idiot that made that rule?
Please don't speak like this.
We don't need the term "parent" becoming a slur. People can adopt children/have a "parental" relationship to people in places like shelters/orphanages, have been coerced into giving birth, etc. If you have some enlightened commentary on how people shouldn't form identities out of being a parent, sure, but trying to turn the term itself into a pejorative is not good.
When I see blatant stupidity that's what I'm going to call it, you can cry about language you don't like all you want. There is nothing not good about condemning breeders, just as there is nothing not good about condemning murderers or child molesters. People who spread suffering are exactly who condemnation is for.
This is ridiculous. Nobody is hating on adoptive parents. Complete ridiculousness. Simply calling it like it is with people that reproduce is part of antinatalism and always will be.
> This is ridiculous. Nobody is hating on adoptive parents.
Please don't misconstrue what I said.
> Simply calling it like it is
Calling people we don't like mean-spirited names that make us feel "better", but only serve to insult someone? That is not part of antinatalism. Antinatalism is a philosophy that assigns negative value to birth. It is not a hate group.
Look at the title of the post OP screenshotted - "parents don't care about your suffering." That is not useful language because the term "parent" can refer to adoptive parents, or parents that gave biological birth in a situation where they had no other option, or just as a term to describe the progenitor of a concept. You are absolutely missing any point here about why posts like OP's are not helpful - and even harmful - and OP just wants to argue against rules that are established for a reason.
> part of antinatalism and always will be.
Antinatalism is a philosophical view, and not engaging in *any* debate etiquette or properly respecting philosophical discourse is indicative of fanaticism. A good start to debate etiquette is to not call your opponents mean-spirited names.
Probably just replace āparentsā with ānatalistsā and youāll be fine. This sub is currently being flooded with rchildfree people who just post memes about not having kids that have nothing to do with antinatalism so the rules definitely are necessary IMO.
I posted a thread recently asking for antinatalists that donāt hate their lives and donāt suffer much themselves.
They exist. Itās called having empathy.
Changing the subject, I have a question. What do antinatalists make of current and their life (I mean all currently living people). Do our lives have any value? And another question I have, do antinatalists see a route humanity can go that you would be satisfied bringing babies into?
Are there any mods interested in responding to this? Childfree content absolutely overlaps antinatalism. If a rule is this unpopular it's inception needs to be revisited.
reddit is a social media platform for subreddits catered to one topic. Having freedom of speech on here would make the app just chaos and not worthwile for a specific topic
Any topic, sometimes you go on a sub "debate x or y", you share your opinion civilly and the mods will ban you. It's up to the mods, not always reddit itself, since it's managed by literally everyone you'll find people that just want to live in their bubble and not hear anything that doesn't align with their way of living.
Yeah but that's not really censorship. It's the community self-regulating (even if it isn't always done right).
Censorship is something inescapable that prohibits you from sharing your true opinion altogether - but on Reddit you are still free to post your opinions on a different subreddit or make one yourself as long as you're not actively harassing or harming anyone.
It's kinda the same difference between an author's book being banned by the state versus a publisher simply not wanting to publish that book - one is state censorship while the other is just some people deciding that it doesn't fit in their catalogue.
Some reddit communities are admittedly really bad and some power-tripping mods ban way too easily. I have seen my fair share of shitty communities and mods bending rules to ban people they disagree with.
But nobody is actually getting *censored* here. At worst you're just getting kicked out of a specific discussion group if you violate its rules or really upset its moderators.
And even if you get banned you can still post in other subs with better rules and mods or start one yourself to voice your opinion.
All of them. However, the ironic part is that itās not Reddit censoring the users. Itās mods that take being a sub-Reddit mod too seriously, that are censoring Reddit users. AKA Reddit users are censoring other Reddit usersĀ
That's not really what the word censorship means though.
That's just a singular self-regulated community kicking you out for violating its rules (or, with some, simply for upsetting the moderators).
But you're still free to voice your opinion in different subreddits or create one yourself as long as you're not deliberately engaging in stuff like harassment or harming others.
The moderators on this subreddit censored OPās original post. Censorship (https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship) āCensorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are āoffensive,ā happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.ā
Side note: itās concerning the amount of ppl on here that donāt understand what censorship isā¦ no wonder the internet and life in general is becoming more censored as time goes on.Ā
I do agree that some stuff, especially NSFW content and art, does get progressively censored on the internet (though there's a very important difference between getting criticism and being censored that many people don't understand).
But a small discussion group on a site like Reddit banning you because you violated their rules - however stupid or imprecisely worded they may be - is not a form of censorship. You're still free to openly express your opinions and views on Reddit as a whole and this one sub you're banned on isn't a major platform of public discourse you're now excluded from.
My thoughts exactly. If there is any bigotry then remove it. Iām all for that. Iām not for making it against the rules to speak negatively of parents.
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules.
Reddit's content policy can be viewed here:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
The other day mods removed my comment because I told a natalist that they didnāt develop their prefrontal cortex. I was told that we want to have a discussion here. I asked mods why donāt they remove comments from natalists that say itās good we donāt reproduce, that twist and ignore arguments. No response. Iām not sure that all mods here are ANs.
āItās good you donāt reproduceā may be offensive to you but it contains an argument. An insult about developing a part of the brain is just that, an insult and ableist.
I have a question to you. Why do you think that you made an argument with your comment somehow?
You said āitās offensive to youā but it contains an argument. What exactly argument does it contain? And why my statement doesnāt contain an argument? Everyone is different and everyone has different brain. Some people are not very smart as well as some people are not good dancers. So since you decided that you are objective enough to explain me something (for some reason) can you please address my points?
Three comments to address my two sentences? Iād be happy to answer your questions but first could you take a fourth comment to address the ableism in your ad hom āargumentā? Edit for clarity: I am both a mod and AN.
That seems strange that you are not answering my questionsā¦ And why is it important how many comments did I leave? Iām a bit confused with your response.
I would expect that a mod could be able to maintain a reasonable discussion. Especially taking into account that the whole conversation is about you guys making decisions that other people disagree with. Thatās ok if you canāt provide the reasoning. Sad but fine. It would make things more clear why do you do things one way or the other. But fine if you canāt. Just could you please then in future avoid making statements that you are not able to back up with the reasoning?
By the way why did you mention you are one of the mods?
Iām not sure what exactly goal are you trying to achieve. Thatās already quite weird that you brought up an insult. If you consider someone telling you that itās good you donāt reproduce to be an insult Iād reconsider your AN self identification. I was just bringing examples of a non constructive discussion. You cherry picked a piece of it, added you misinterpretation. Then didnāt answer any questions. Applied a label. Why is what I said is ableism? And pointing at me not reproducing is not? Iām infertile. Which is wonderful. But the issue that while both statements are equivalent, you condemn one but not the other. Which is the definition of a bias. And a sign of a non constructive discussion. As well as you avoiding answering questions is a sign of it. Well thatās quite sad especially taking into account that you(mod team) claim you want to have a discussion here. What a shame.
The argument we see from natalists all the time is āha ha, Iām glad youāre choosing not to reproduce, that way your antinatalism doesnāt get passed down to the next generationā. You never mentioned infertility. This is a shitty argument but itās still an argument. Discussion can be continued from here; I.e. my parents werenāt antinatalist yet the idea persists. Where, pray tell, does the discussion continue after āyou have a developmental disorder so you canāt understand what Iām sayingā?
My mom def just had kids cause everyone else she knew was having kids, not cause she cared or wanted to be a mom. The day I turned 18 her ājobā as my mom ended and we stopped being friends.
Sounds just like my parents. My dad was a coke head and a schizoid who abused us in every way possible and my mom had 5 children with him already knowing damn well who he is. My mom didnāt want kids, she wanted babies so once all of us hit around the age of 3 and started to become more independent she started neglecting us emotionally and physically. My dad made it known how much he hated having children, let alone 5 of them. My parents are now divorced. Weāre all between the ages of 21-30 and struggle with PTSD. Whenever this is brought up to my mom about how it wasnāt fair to us she says āI gave you lifeā then proceeds to try and change history claiming she āspoiledā all her children. Itās pure greed and they donāt give a shit about whether their children suffer.
It's like vegans hating on vegetarians. These people are closest to you in what is a niche mindset, probably more willing to engage in conversation and learn about it, etc. But nope, let's alienate them and push them away.
Correct. Iām sick of this movement to make antinatalism have good public relations and be more palatable to outsiders. I got news for those peopleā¦thatās not gonna make natalists change their minds. You either recognize the truth of antinatalism or you donāt.
That's a good analogy, I think a lot of childfree people have AN sentiments. I'd love to bring more minds to the table here and have worthwhile discussions.
Honestly, I flip-flop between being plain old CF and AN, but don't really think about it too much as the net result for myself (I do not and will never have children) is the same.
My two siblings (both older) also do not and will never have kids. The three of us had happy childhoods and a good relationship through the years with our parents, so it's interesting that the three of us arrived independently of each other in "non-negotiable _no_ to kids" territory.
There should probably be a place/sub for people who feel hatred for their particular model of their progenitors to express it and commiserate, perhaps.
I don't know. I can empathize with such feelings even if I do not have them. It seems obvious to me that anything that procreates is suffering ignorance / missing information. Even a sadistic psychopath who procreates to cause specific harm - that sadist is ignorant of the information empathy and modal reasoning about possible worlds containing increasingly more harm-states can provide them.
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*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.*
Iām all for moderating any bigotry/racism out of the sub. But we should be able to criticize and say negative things about parents/natalists on an antinatalist forum.
Childfree is about the annoyance of raising a kid, antinatalism is about the concern of the kid's life(be it your own as a kid or other's). The post is about the latter so in my opinion this doesn't even break the rule.
Maybe if you have bad parents. Idk man, I love my mom and dad and they raised me well. Even if they weren't always perfect. I'm glad I'm alive to experience life.
I'll bite, how can a post be antinatalist, childfree, no babyhate and no parent hate - all at the same time? Very confused
Also not an anti-natalist this just came across my feed and I'm confused lol
It's actually simple. Antinalism can be, and should be, discussed as an idea. There are entire books on the topic that don't even hint at parent/child hate, so it clearly can be done.
I'm sure you're right but from my perspective it just seems like a power hungry mod that made an arbitrary rule
Take to heart that I've also come across other subs get taken over by mods one way or another that put these rules in and ban whoever they feel like, also some subs are strictly for that and was never "taken over". For instance there's a flat earth sub out there that I can't remember the name of and any comment on any post gets the iser banned even ones that align with their beliefs, they say it's to "own the globers".
As I said I don't know anything about anti-natalism but to my perspective rule 8 appears to be a double negative allowing the mods to ban at will. Personally I also don't understand some of the posts and comments I've read in this sub after it appeared in my feed, like how people with good parents can blame those same parents for bringing them into this world just because this world is shitty, to my perspective the world is shit so blame the world not the parents, of the parents are shitty then blame the parents but you guys do you I'ma mute y'all now
There are parents like this. They are just textbook bad parents, sadly.
Every child should have a safe-adult outside the household. Be it an extended family member, a teacher or counselor, or a therapist they have phone access to, having this person means that the child has an external adult to act as a sounding board for the parents behavior. The child isn't going to know something isn't normal or isn't ok, but their safe adult will, and can lend them perspective.
This is also a possible case for every child being assigned a social worker to follow their "case" ie their development. It's a more foolproof system than the "parent license" idea that gets tossed around sometimes - a test is easy to fudge, a social worker meeting up every week, not so much.
Iām a perfect world every kid would have this type of support, but unfortunately that kind of support requires lots of money. Money govts would rather spend on useless warsĀ
Because this sub is not about hate, bub.
Its for high quality discussion on the ethic of life.
Do you want to be an elite Oxford Antinatalist or a peasant life hater?
Buncha snobby rich kids that think they're books are better than anyone else's. Pretentiousness is the only thing that comes out of any of those ivy league type schools.
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11.
As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate.
Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism ā it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
Your post had nothing to do with philosophical antinatalism. It was simply an inaccurate screed against ALL parents. That's "parenthate". Seems pretty basic.
The issue isn't that it breaks the rule, the issue is that the rule exists in the first place. It's insane to, as a supposed member of the antinatalist community, say that it isn't right to condemn the people who cause more suffering than anyone else in existence. Also, the content of the post very clearly and directly supports the antinatalist position. Is your argument that parents in general care about the suffering that their decision to bring their kids here causes? Cause that'd be an argument I'd love to hear you justify. The idea that bringing people here against their will is unethical *is* antinatalism, and that is precisely what the original post says.
The post says parents "couldn't care less" about their children's misery. That's objectively and demonstrably untrue. You can declare reproduction immoral all you like, but you can't make this further jump rationally or credibly.
Parents don't consider the risk that their child might suffer to be a sufficient disincentive to not have them, but they (in the overwhelming majority of cases) deeply care about the suffering their child DOES experience. Again, basic stuff.
No, here's some actual basic stuff for you. Tell any parent that they are responsible for every second of suffering their kid will ever experience by virtue of the fact that they had them. This is something that no logical argument can refute, find one that cares about it. We'll wait. This is exactly what the OP was saying.
They simply don't "care" about hypothetical suffering enough before reproduction to not reproduce.
After reproduction, they care about their actual child, and suffering that their actual child experiences. You can BLAME them for that suffering if you want, but you can't deny that they care about it.
>They simply don't "care"
You just said it yourself, they don't care. Claiming the suffering is hypothetical is a joke, all life comes with suffering. There is no cop out for them to hide behind here, as you said yourself they don't care about their kid's suffering enough not to reproduce. I'm glad we agree.
Being antinatalist isn't an excuse to be a blithering idiot disconnected from reality. It's a philosophy, not a tribal tattoo.
Parents care about the suffering their children actually experience. Saying otherwise is bone-achingly wrong. They simply don't place sufficient weight on the potential suffering a potential child MIGHT suffer to consider reproduction immoral in the abstract.
It's a critical difference.
But suffering is inevitable meaning they know they will come into suffering and they think itās worth the pain but they will never be their child or experience what their child does and how they do, so how can you have that knowledge and still force someone here?
You know your child will die, but not when or how, you know your child will experience pain and suffering, but not when or how badly, you know your child will experience disease and illness, but not when or how badly. You know allllll these things plus many many more bad things that can happen at any point, and still force someone here knowing they will experience these things. How do you call that caring?
For example, I decided for myself that Iām gonna remove myself at some point and my friends and family say I canāt or in their words Iām ānot allowed toā, but they can decide for someone else they get to die?? Itās so hypocritical itās crazy.
I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that they don't give two hoots about hypothetical suffering before a child exists - even though they know that SOME suffering is inevitable.
That is NOT the same thing as actual suffering to their actual child.
Arguing this is ridiculous. You have to take the position that NO parents EVER care about their children. And you'd have to be completely divorced from reality to take that position sincerely. It's palpably false.
Like it kinda is though? How do you not care before theyāre here, but do when they are? When youāre the one who put them in a position to experience that suffering?
How are you going to put someone in a position to feel pain, and then feel bad when they do? Youāre the one essentially causing the pain by creating them to experience it in the first place.
Iāve thought about this since I was a child. Why was I put here to experience the suffering I have? Why did my mom not think about the fact that I would? To me, it just doesnāt make sense. You know theyāre going to feel pain but you bring them here to feel it anyway all while not caring that they will? Or sorry, all while not giving two hoots?
Like it kinda isn't, though? If you can't understand the difference between hypothetical experiences in the abstract and actual experiences affecting actual people, that's just an issue you're going to have, I suppose.
But they arenāt hypothetical, if youāre planning on and have a child those will be realities. Especially death. That cannot be hypothetical because everyone dies. So they donāt care about that? Until it happens? Knowing it was always going to happen? Kinda fucked, no?
I understand differences between hypothetical and reality, but the hypothetical when it comes to having kids isnāt that, it *will* be a reality. They *will* experience sickness, disease, loss of friends and family, heartbreak, and eventual death. That isnāt hypothetical, all those things are inevitable to every life. What makes you not care about it before theyāre born? When you know it will happen to them?
the point of anti natalism is to make the ethical, educated choice !not! to bring a child into the world knowing they will suffer regardless
childfree is for people who do not hold this view yet still dont want children of their own.
if itās preventable, why do it? Because you want the experience of having a kid? only caring while theyāre suffering is just not good enough for anti natalists
I don't care what's "good enough for antinatalists". Obviously reading comprehension isn't, so the bar seems perversely set.
You can get your underwear as twisted as you want about the decision people make to reproduce. Call it pure evil - who cares. The ONLY point in THIS THREAD is that actual parents DO care about their actual children. You cannot deny that without disconnecting yourself from reality. It's a pointlessly bad argument.
Antinatalism is not a belief that "no parents care about the suffering of their children". That's not what the philosophy says or requires. If YOU do, it's on you to defend. And it's indefensible, because it's objectively wrong.
you clearly havenāt read r/antinatalism description. youāre wrong. Again, child free is a more appropriate place for your beliefs
i mean feel free to stay but youāre going to be upset when people post the things you consider morally wrong so its on you
Do you get to decide what unethical is? You just have an opinion and we as breeders are allowed to challenge that, just like you can challenge us.
Nobody here likes to be challenged on their views though.Ā
Youād all just like to post your views without repercussions.
You canāt.Ā
If you want to do that, form a club, put white hoods over your heads, have a secret code and be done with it.Ā
Ā Iām all for discussion.
Reality decides what's unethical, I (and the OP) are simply pointing out that reality. What we have is objective evidence and logic. A parent is responsible for every single second of suffering their kid experiences, because they would have experienced none of it without the parent's decision to have them. That isn't an opinion, that's the reality of how causation works.
Question, does the net positive ever outweigh the net negative? Like sure weāre going to suffer, that is part of the human experience. But if weāre able to provide enough love and joy, do you think that could make the suffering worth it?
What net positive do you think there is? Everyone agrees that life is hard, everything you want is a struggle, and you have to appreciate the good times because they're rare and fleeting. A life in a world like that is almost impossible to be a net positive.
All I know is that personally I feel grateful every single day. I have love from my wife, my family, my friends, my pets, myself, and pretty soon my baby. Also, Iāve learned to enjoy the struggle simply for the sake of challenging myself. If youāve ever gone backpacking, youāll know just how rewarding the struggle can be.
Truly though, love is the thing that makes it all worth it.
Way to just gloss over everything else about love and gratitude. But you literally cannot have self-improvement without struggle. Life only gets better by pushing yourself.
Exactly. You're making the best of the shitty situation you were birthed into. You're focusing on what little good can come from the overwhelming bad. You know what's better than having to struggle for things to be a bit better? Not having to struggle. Being grateful for having to struggle is some Stockholm syndrome shit.
There is no question that kids are an inconvenience. They are purely needy by virtue of their very nature. Find me a parent that cares that they are responsible for every single second of suffering their kids will experience in their lives. They don't care enough to even consider it, they just pretend that reality isn't reality. No assumptions necessary.
Show me what the OP wrote that is hatred rather than condemnation. Further, hating someone who causes untold suffering is perfectly legitimate. No one bats an eye when someone says they hate murderers or rapists or torturers, all of which cause less suffering than parents.
Some women donāt have a say whether or not they can get an abortion, so no not all parents should be chastised. Have you seen the abortion laws recently in a bunch of states? And donāt come at me about not having sex or being celibate, it isnāt realistic and no birth control is never 100% safe.
Edit for weird wording.
I would make exactly the same argument that celibacy isn't realistic, but it also isn't realistic to try to pretend that this removes the responsibility of the people who brought someone here for that person's suffering. Also:
>Some parents (especially women) donāt have a say whether or not they can get an abortion
Not especially women, women are the only ones who get a say in abortion. They may only have the rights in some states in that area that men do, but saying "especially women" isn't a claim that can be made in reality.
This post is terrible, even from AN perspective. But you don't even need that, just basic empathy - most people, when reproducing, think of the potential happiness. That doesn't whatsoever mean they don't care about the bad or that they don't care about their genetic offspring. It simply means that they either weren't exposed to challanging views at the time, or that they simply perceive more happiness than bad for their child.
Attributing malice where simple conformity or optimism can be a simpler solution is counterproductive.
its completely and entirely true. best post ive seen all week. stop feeling so damn ashamed of being a "disappointment child". your parents dont give a shit about your pain. if they did, youd probably be a "better kid"
People have kids so they don't feel alone as they age into obscurity...this isn't controversial whatsoever, even among natalists. Many will admit it's definitely part of their "end game".
The post was removed as it falls under the category of "parenthate," which is expressing resentment or hostility towards parents without engaging in meaningful philosophical discussion.
Antinatalism focuses on the philosophical argument against procreation, thus it's not about criticizing individual parents or parenthood itself.
That post screeshotted explains actual shitty parents that don't care about their kids. This isn't a worldwide case for every human, it's completely false. My dad was a piece of shit, my mother cared and still very much cares for me. She constantly makes sure I'm eating right, treating my self right, and makes sure that I hear her voice at least once a week. I never despised her for having me, I don't even despise my father for participating. My birth wasn't the reason for his treatment of me.
Fair enough to shit on the gross parents who birthed their children with future foul intention. Ridiculous to shit on the parents who did their utmost to raise healthy children and succeeded. Its fine that the lot of you feel horrible about being birthed, but this is not 100% universal.
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*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.*
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*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.*
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*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.*
Has nothing to do with "catering" to Natalist's feelings and everything with acting like a douche canoe. Everyone here is human and should be treated with common decency even if we disagree on topics.
My post was removed too for āparent and baby hateā for a post about how Natalism has negative effects on disabled people and we tried to talk to admĆÆn team about it. AdmĆÆn who deleted our post talked to us directly and has some major admĆÆn-syndrome, major abuse of admĆÆn power and muted us for WEEKS any time we sent a reply message cause they didnāt want to talk at ALL about it even though other admĆÆns were in the comment section defending the post. Iv heard thereās a new admĆÆn thatās been abusing their power and doing this to everyone. Should we start a new antinatalist page?
It strikes me as odd that it's marked as discussion but then "if you're a natalist don't respond". You can't have a meaningful debate without both viewpoints.
Wow this sub is truly weird as fuck from an outside perspective. Y'all need some psychedelics. inb4 "I took psychedelics and now I realized life is suffering" no you didn't.
Its about time to end childish posts, i have my reasons to not have children and i want to read other people reasons but most time is depressed kids blaming parents for being born.
You dropped this King, š.
Funnily enough, folk here argue that it bridges the gap between the 'normies', as if all this misery porn doesn't scare out even genuine antinatalists...
Either you are meeting people for the first time here, or you are just living in a really bad neighborhood. I feel bad if that's really the only perception you have of parents and can't really blame you for that....
That post does nothing but show OP's contempt for their own parents. While many people here are anti-natalist because they likely share similar sentiments about their own parents, it's totally unreasonable to say everyone who chooses to have a child will be a terrible parent. Sometimes I feel like some members of this community would get along great with incels and members of other fringe groups society tends to look poorly upon.
Childfree content usualy is about the benefits of not having kids, and far better at convincing people of not having kids than that boring purist crap about eThIcS.
it fits the definition of parent hate, literally shitting on parents thats all the post is about. how dare OP have the audacity the act against the rules that are supposed to keep this sub rantinatlism and not rchildfree,
go there to post your depressing thoughts about other people.
Thank you for posting in the Subreddit. However, we are removing this post based on the fact that it is does not follow rule 5: *Content must be related or adjacent to antinatalism, without merely venting or lamenting.* Please see the rule definition in the sidebar for more details.
Infiltrated.
I'm sorry, no childfree content?? Antinatalism and being childfree broadly overlap (yes, I'm aware that there can still be antinatalists who adopt kids and therefore aren't childfree), you can't just erase that part š
Yes, it looks like the mods want only abstract and boring discussions about eThIcS, while childfree content tell people how adults can have better lives by not having kids, and i believe childfree does a far better job spreading "antinatalism" than pure antinatalism
I don't understand, this is exactly what was on my dad's mind when he wanted kids. I live this image every day. It's my reality. To this day, I'm still not sure my Mom was necessarily into the idea at the time, but it was the 80's, and in Wyoming, that meant it was actually around 1963 or so. Obviously, she's not in any position to be refusing her husband ANYTHING WHATSOEVER because *oh that is just not something we do out here, and for God's sake* #Women and Children are seen and not heard. I know what I was to my dad. Just an extension of himself, not even my own fucking entity, just an object. "Oh well at least u still have a life." What life? It was taken away from me when I was four and I became a whipping boy. I got assaulted by a crazed, drunken, 250 lb. linebacker every week for 13 years. I was just an object. Now I have no life.
wtf
Who's the idiot that made that rule? Which other groups of people who cause horrific suffering are we not allowed to condemn here?
I thought it was supposed for people who mistake this sub for the childfree sub and find parents and their children annoying, but the rules apparently can be twisted.
"Parent hate" has nothing to do with that.
Is real hard to distinguish what kind of murderers you can't condemn sometimes.
Lol I guess you're right, people do seem extra stupid these days.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Who's the idiot that made that rule? Please don't speak like this. We don't need the term "parent" becoming a slur. People can adopt children/have a "parental" relationship to people in places like shelters/orphanages, have been coerced into giving birth, etc. If you have some enlightened commentary on how people shouldn't form identities out of being a parent, sure, but trying to turn the term itself into a pejorative is not good.
When I see blatant stupidity that's what I'm going to call it, you can cry about language you don't like all you want. There is nothing not good about condemning breeders, just as there is nothing not good about condemning murderers or child molesters. People who spread suffering are exactly who condemnation is for.
This is ridiculous. Nobody is hating on adoptive parents. Complete ridiculousness. Simply calling it like it is with people that reproduce is part of antinatalism and always will be.
> This is ridiculous. Nobody is hating on adoptive parents. Please don't misconstrue what I said. > Simply calling it like it is Calling people we don't like mean-spirited names that make us feel "better", but only serve to insult someone? That is not part of antinatalism. Antinatalism is a philosophy that assigns negative value to birth. It is not a hate group. Look at the title of the post OP screenshotted - "parents don't care about your suffering." That is not useful language because the term "parent" can refer to adoptive parents, or parents that gave biological birth in a situation where they had no other option, or just as a term to describe the progenitor of a concept. You are absolutely missing any point here about why posts like OP's are not helpful - and even harmful - and OP just wants to argue against rules that are established for a reason. > part of antinatalism and always will be. Antinatalism is a philosophical view, and not engaging in *any* debate etiquette or properly respecting philosophical discourse is indicative of fanaticism. A good start to debate etiquette is to not call your opponents mean-spirited names.
Cool, but when this gets applied to breeders, it becomes an issue.
And what issue would that be? Forcing them to face reality?
Because the sub itself could get banned by the Reddit admins, itās not personal you doofus
I'm not saying it's personal, I'm saying it's both stupid and spineless. Not to mention going completely against what this sub is.
For what reason? Discrimination?
Some bullshit rules about that yeah
What the actual fuck mods?!
No childfree content in an antinatalist group is insane
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
WTH is this!! This sub is antinatalist not pronatalisim
Great question
Probably just replace āparentsā with ānatalistsā and youāll be fine. This sub is currently being flooded with rchildfree people who just post memes about not having kids that have nothing to do with antinatalism so the rules definitely are necessary IMO.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I posted a thread recently asking for antinatalists that donāt hate their lives and donāt suffer much themselves. They exist. Itās called having empathy.
Changing the subject, I have a question. What do antinatalists make of current and their life (I mean all currently living people). Do our lives have any value? And another question I have, do antinatalists see a route humanity can go that you would be satisfied bringing babies into?
Why would life have value?
Iām just asking if it does to you
Thank you for this. Now I shall spring forth new life because I have been saved.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No problem
Are there any mods interested in responding to this? Childfree content absolutely overlaps antinatalism. If a rule is this unpopular it's inception needs to be revisited.
I hate Redditās lack of freedom of speech. Society be damned.
reddit is a social media platform for subreddits catered to one topic. Having freedom of speech on here would make the app just chaos and not worthwile for a specific topic
Yeah, but catering to one specific topic and censoring are different things. However, I think Instagram is way worse.
Which topic of discussion is being censored by Reddit in your opinion?
Any topic, sometimes you go on a sub "debate x or y", you share your opinion civilly and the mods will ban you. It's up to the mods, not always reddit itself, since it's managed by literally everyone you'll find people that just want to live in their bubble and not hear anything that doesn't align with their way of living.
Yeah but that's not really censorship. It's the community self-regulating (even if it isn't always done right). Censorship is something inescapable that prohibits you from sharing your true opinion altogether - but on Reddit you are still free to post your opinions on a different subreddit or make one yourself as long as you're not actively harassing or harming anyone. It's kinda the same difference between an author's book being banned by the state versus a publisher simply not wanting to publish that book - one is state censorship while the other is just some people deciding that it doesn't fit in their catalogue. Some reddit communities are admittedly really bad and some power-tripping mods ban way too easily. I have seen my fair share of shitty communities and mods bending rules to ban people they disagree with. But nobody is actually getting *censored* here. At worst you're just getting kicked out of a specific discussion group if you violate its rules or really upset its moderators. And even if you get banned you can still post in other subs with better rules and mods or start one yourself to voice your opinion.
Mh you're right, I didn't think about it that way.
All of them. However, the ironic part is that itās not Reddit censoring the users. Itās mods that take being a sub-Reddit mod too seriously, that are censoring Reddit users. AKA Reddit users are censoring other Reddit usersĀ
That's not really what the word censorship means though. That's just a singular self-regulated community kicking you out for violating its rules (or, with some, simply for upsetting the moderators). But you're still free to voice your opinion in different subreddits or create one yourself as long as you're not deliberately engaging in stuff like harassment or harming others.
The moderators on this subreddit censored OPās original post. Censorship (https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship) āCensorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are āoffensive,ā happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.ā Side note: itās concerning the amount of ppl on here that donāt understand what censorship isā¦ no wonder the internet and life in general is becoming more censored as time goes on.Ā
I do agree that some stuff, especially NSFW content and art, does get progressively censored on the internet (though there's a very important difference between getting criticism and being censored that many people don't understand). But a small discussion group on a site like Reddit banning you because you violated their rules - however stupid or imprecisely worded they may be - is not a form of censorship. You're still free to openly express your opinions and views on Reddit as a whole and this one sub you're banned on isn't a major platform of public discourse you're now excluded from.
Wow. Seems like a hue overcorrection due to dishonest people lying about this sub being a place of bigotry.
My thoughts exactly. If there is any bigotry then remove it. Iām all for that. Iām not for making it against the rules to speak negatively of parents.
By bigotry do you mean inaccurate stereotypes about a group of people? A group of people like... parents? You absolute muppet?
what makes me sad is that im here right now and nothing can be done, ill just have to wait to my death
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules. Reddit's content policy can be viewed here: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
The other day mods removed my comment because I told a natalist that they didnāt develop their prefrontal cortex. I was told that we want to have a discussion here. I asked mods why donāt they remove comments from natalists that say itās good we donāt reproduce, that twist and ignore arguments. No response. Iām not sure that all mods here are ANs.
āItās good you donāt reproduceā may be offensive to you but it contains an argument. An insult about developing a part of the brain is just that, an insult and ableist.
Absolutely not an insult. Just a statement of fact.
I have a question to you. Why do you think that you made an argument with your comment somehow? You said āitās offensive to youā but it contains an argument. What exactly argument does it contain? And why my statement doesnāt contain an argument? Everyone is different and everyone has different brain. Some people are not very smart as well as some people are not good dancers. So since you decided that you are objective enough to explain me something (for some reason) can you please address my points?
Also why is it āinsult to meā but not an insult in general? Also why did you even use the word āinsultā? Did I mention it somewhere?
Three comments to address my two sentences? Iād be happy to answer your questions but first could you take a fourth comment to address the ableism in your ad hom āargumentā? Edit for clarity: I am both a mod and AN.
That seems strange that you are not answering my questionsā¦ And why is it important how many comments did I leave? Iām a bit confused with your response. I would expect that a mod could be able to maintain a reasonable discussion. Especially taking into account that the whole conversation is about you guys making decisions that other people disagree with. Thatās ok if you canāt provide the reasoning. Sad but fine. It would make things more clear why do you do things one way or the other. But fine if you canāt. Just could you please then in future avoid making statements that you are not able to back up with the reasoning? By the way why did you mention you are one of the mods?
Are you unwilling or unable to address the ableism in your original comment?
Iām not sure what exactly goal are you trying to achieve. Thatās already quite weird that you brought up an insult. If you consider someone telling you that itās good you donāt reproduce to be an insult Iād reconsider your AN self identification. I was just bringing examples of a non constructive discussion. You cherry picked a piece of it, added you misinterpretation. Then didnāt answer any questions. Applied a label. Why is what I said is ableism? And pointing at me not reproducing is not? Iām infertile. Which is wonderful. But the issue that while both statements are equivalent, you condemn one but not the other. Which is the definition of a bias. And a sign of a non constructive discussion. As well as you avoiding answering questions is a sign of it. Well thatās quite sad especially taking into account that you(mod team) claim you want to have a discussion here. What a shame.
The argument we see from natalists all the time is āha ha, Iām glad youāre choosing not to reproduce, that way your antinatalism doesnāt get passed down to the next generationā. You never mentioned infertility. This is a shitty argument but itās still an argument. Discussion can be continued from here; I.e. my parents werenāt antinatalist yet the idea persists. Where, pray tell, does the discussion continue after āyou have a developmental disorder so you canāt understand what Iām sayingā?
Wait until the mods remove this post too because it probably breaks some other rule š¬
Soo what are we supposed to talk about? I forgive my parents but I'm still frustrated by their selfishness.
And yours?
Be grateful they said. They had it worse they said.
I genuinely love this reddit
My mom def just had kids cause everyone else she knew was having kids, not cause she cared or wanted to be a mom. The day I turned 18 her ājobā as my mom ended and we stopped being friends.
Sounds just like my parents. My dad was a coke head and a schizoid who abused us in every way possible and my mom had 5 children with him already knowing damn well who he is. My mom didnāt want kids, she wanted babies so once all of us hit around the age of 3 and started to become more independent she started neglecting us emotionally and physically. My dad made it known how much he hated having children, let alone 5 of them. My parents are now divorced. Weāre all between the ages of 21-30 and struggle with PTSD. Whenever this is brought up to my mom about how it wasnāt fair to us she says āI gave you lifeā then proceeds to try and change history claiming she āspoiledā all her children. Itās pure greed and they donāt give a shit about whether their children suffer.
>No childfree content That's right oh genius mods, let's alienate those who are closest to us in our opinion!
So ridiculous
It's like vegans hating on vegetarians. These people are closest to you in what is a niche mindset, probably more willing to engage in conversation and learn about it, etc. But nope, let's alienate them and push them away.
Correct. Iām sick of this movement to make antinatalism have good public relations and be more palatable to outsiders. I got news for those peopleā¦thatās not gonna make natalists change their minds. You either recognize the truth of antinatalism or you donāt.
That's a good analogy, I think a lot of childfree people have AN sentiments. I'd love to bring more minds to the table here and have worthwhile discussions.
Honestly, I flip-flop between being plain old CF and AN, but don't really think about it too much as the net result for myself (I do not and will never have children) is the same. My two siblings (both older) also do not and will never have kids. The three of us had happy childhoods and a good relationship through the years with our parents, so it's interesting that the three of us arrived independently of each other in "non-negotiable _no_ to kids" territory.
That don't make a lick of sense.
theres another antinatalism sub thats less restricted i think, i follow both
There should probably be a place/sub for people who feel hatred for their particular model of their progenitors to express it and commiserate, perhaps. I don't know. I can empathize with such feelings even if I do not have them. It seems obvious to me that anything that procreates is suffering ignorance / missing information. Even a sadistic psychopath who procreates to cause specific harm - that sadist is ignorant of the information empathy and modal reasoning about possible worlds containing increasingly more harm-states can provide them.
raisedbynarcissists is pretty close to that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *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.*
Is this for fucking real?
We need an antinatalist forum devoted to free speech.
Iām all for moderating any bigotry/racism out of the sub. But we should be able to criticize and say negative things about parents/natalists on an antinatalist forum.
Childfree is about the annoyance of raising a kid, antinatalism is about the concern of the kid's life(be it your own as a kid or other's). The post is about the latter so in my opinion this doesn't even break the rule.
Post is 100% correct though. Parents do not care and donāt want to hear you complain.
Thanks
Maybe if you have bad parents. Idk man, I love my mom and dad and they raised me well. Even if they weren't always perfect. I'm glad I'm alive to experience life.
Do you all just have bad parents? And no, borthing you does not make them bad
I'll bite, how can a post be antinatalist, childfree, no babyhate and no parent hate - all at the same time? Very confused Also not an anti-natalist this just came across my feed and I'm confused lol
It's actually simple. Antinalism can be, and should be, discussed as an idea. There are entire books on the topic that don't even hint at parent/child hate, so it clearly can be done.
I'm sure you're right but from my perspective it just seems like a power hungry mod that made an arbitrary rule Take to heart that I've also come across other subs get taken over by mods one way or another that put these rules in and ban whoever they feel like, also some subs are strictly for that and was never "taken over". For instance there's a flat earth sub out there that I can't remember the name of and any comment on any post gets the iser banned even ones that align with their beliefs, they say it's to "own the globers". As I said I don't know anything about anti-natalism but to my perspective rule 8 appears to be a double negative allowing the mods to ban at will. Personally I also don't understand some of the posts and comments I've read in this sub after it appeared in my feed, like how people with good parents can blame those same parents for bringing them into this world just because this world is shitty, to my perspective the world is shit so blame the world not the parents, of the parents are shitty then blame the parents but you guys do you I'ma mute y'all now
FOUND THE PARENTPHOBE CANT BELIEVE THERES STILL PARENTPHOBIA IN 2024. HOW DARE YOU /s
There are parents like this. They are just textbook bad parents, sadly. Every child should have a safe-adult outside the household. Be it an extended family member, a teacher or counselor, or a therapist they have phone access to, having this person means that the child has an external adult to act as a sounding board for the parents behavior. The child isn't going to know something isn't normal or isn't ok, but their safe adult will, and can lend them perspective. This is also a possible case for every child being assigned a social worker to follow their "case" ie their development. It's a more foolproof system than the "parent license" idea that gets tossed around sometimes - a test is easy to fudge, a social worker meeting up every week, not so much.
Iām a perfect world every kid would have this type of support, but unfortunately that kind of support requires lots of money. Money govts would rather spend on useless warsĀ
That mod sucks!
Because this sub is not about hate, bub. Its for high quality discussion on the ethic of life. Do you want to be an elite Oxford Antinatalist or a peasant life hater?
The taken down post wasn't hate
I am literally only here to be a peasant life hater. Oxford is psychotically overrated anyway.
Oh, did you attend there? Do tell!
Buncha snobby rich kids that think they're books are better than anyone else's. Pretentiousness is the only thing that comes out of any of those ivy league type schools.
99% of this sub fall into the second categorie
well, that's hard to prove, lol. I'm sure there are a few super genius Phd professors mixed in.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And this precisely why moderation is needed. Nobody gains if we just rot in depressive vents and online fart equivalents.
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11. As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate. Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism ā it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
Your post had nothing to do with philosophical antinatalism. It was simply an inaccurate screed against ALL parents. That's "parenthate". Seems pretty basic.
The issue isn't that it breaks the rule, the issue is that the rule exists in the first place. It's insane to, as a supposed member of the antinatalist community, say that it isn't right to condemn the people who cause more suffering than anyone else in existence. Also, the content of the post very clearly and directly supports the antinatalist position. Is your argument that parents in general care about the suffering that their decision to bring their kids here causes? Cause that'd be an argument I'd love to hear you justify. The idea that bringing people here against their will is unethical *is* antinatalism, and that is precisely what the original post says.
The post says parents "couldn't care less" about their children's misery. That's objectively and demonstrably untrue. You can declare reproduction immoral all you like, but you can't make this further jump rationally or credibly. Parents don't consider the risk that their child might suffer to be a sufficient disincentive to not have them, but they (in the overwhelming majority of cases) deeply care about the suffering their child DOES experience. Again, basic stuff.
No, here's some actual basic stuff for you. Tell any parent that they are responsible for every second of suffering their kid will ever experience by virtue of the fact that they had them. This is something that no logical argument can refute, find one that cares about it. We'll wait. This is exactly what the OP was saying.
They simply don't "care" about hypothetical suffering enough before reproduction to not reproduce. After reproduction, they care about their actual child, and suffering that their actual child experiences. You can BLAME them for that suffering if you want, but you can't deny that they care about it.
>They simply don't "care" You just said it yourself, they don't care. Claiming the suffering is hypothetical is a joke, all life comes with suffering. There is no cop out for them to hide behind here, as you said yourself they don't care about their kid's suffering enough not to reproduce. I'm glad we agree.
Abstract vs reality - try living in the latter sometime. Most people do. Works for us.
All of this occurs in reality. There is no abstraction here.
Hypothetical suffering of a non-existent person doesn't.
Which only matters if you don't bring them here. It's not hypothetical if you're going to, they are *going* to suffer.
totally missing the point of antinatalism. head on over to child free
Being antinatalist isn't an excuse to be a blithering idiot disconnected from reality. It's a philosophy, not a tribal tattoo. Parents care about the suffering their children actually experience. Saying otherwise is bone-achingly wrong. They simply don't place sufficient weight on the potential suffering a potential child MIGHT suffer to consider reproduction immoral in the abstract. It's a critical difference.
But suffering is inevitable meaning they know they will come into suffering and they think itās worth the pain but they will never be their child or experience what their child does and how they do, so how can you have that knowledge and still force someone here? You know your child will die, but not when or how, you know your child will experience pain and suffering, but not when or how badly, you know your child will experience disease and illness, but not when or how badly. You know allllll these things plus many many more bad things that can happen at any point, and still force someone here knowing they will experience these things. How do you call that caring? For example, I decided for myself that Iām gonna remove myself at some point and my friends and family say I canāt or in their words Iām ānot allowed toā, but they can decide for someone else they get to die?? Itās so hypocritical itās crazy.
I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that they don't give two hoots about hypothetical suffering before a child exists - even though they know that SOME suffering is inevitable. That is NOT the same thing as actual suffering to their actual child. Arguing this is ridiculous. You have to take the position that NO parents EVER care about their children. And you'd have to be completely divorced from reality to take that position sincerely. It's palpably false.
Like it kinda is though? How do you not care before theyāre here, but do when they are? When youāre the one who put them in a position to experience that suffering? How are you going to put someone in a position to feel pain, and then feel bad when they do? Youāre the one essentially causing the pain by creating them to experience it in the first place. Iāve thought about this since I was a child. Why was I put here to experience the suffering I have? Why did my mom not think about the fact that I would? To me, it just doesnāt make sense. You know theyāre going to feel pain but you bring them here to feel it anyway all while not caring that they will? Or sorry, all while not giving two hoots?
Like it kinda isn't, though? If you can't understand the difference between hypothetical experiences in the abstract and actual experiences affecting actual people, that's just an issue you're going to have, I suppose.
But they arenāt hypothetical, if youāre planning on and have a child those will be realities. Especially death. That cannot be hypothetical because everyone dies. So they donāt care about that? Until it happens? Knowing it was always going to happen? Kinda fucked, no? I understand differences between hypothetical and reality, but the hypothetical when it comes to having kids isnāt that, it *will* be a reality. They *will* experience sickness, disease, loss of friends and family, heartbreak, and eventual death. That isnāt hypothetical, all those things are inevitable to every life. What makes you not care about it before theyāre born? When you know it will happen to them?
the point of anti natalism is to make the ethical, educated choice !not! to bring a child into the world knowing they will suffer regardless childfree is for people who do not hold this view yet still dont want children of their own. if itās preventable, why do it? Because you want the experience of having a kid? only caring while theyāre suffering is just not good enough for anti natalists
I don't care what's "good enough for antinatalists". Obviously reading comprehension isn't, so the bar seems perversely set. You can get your underwear as twisted as you want about the decision people make to reproduce. Call it pure evil - who cares. The ONLY point in THIS THREAD is that actual parents DO care about their actual children. You cannot deny that without disconnecting yourself from reality. It's a pointlessly bad argument.
ok so leave and join childfree because you wont force anyone here to share your beliefs no matter how many times you express that you think its wrong
Antinatalism is not a belief that "no parents care about the suffering of their children". That's not what the philosophy says or requires. If YOU do, it's on you to defend. And it's indefensible, because it's objectively wrong.
you clearly havenāt read r/antinatalism description. youāre wrong. Again, child free is a more appropriate place for your beliefs i mean feel free to stay but youāre going to be upset when people post the things you consider morally wrong so its on you
Do you get to decide what unethical is? You just have an opinion and we as breeders are allowed to challenge that, just like you can challenge us. Nobody here likes to be challenged on their views though.Ā Youād all just like to post your views without repercussions. You canāt.Ā If you want to do that, form a club, put white hoods over your heads, have a secret code and be done with it.Ā Ā Iām all for discussion.
Reality decides what's unethical, I (and the OP) are simply pointing out that reality. What we have is objective evidence and logic. A parent is responsible for every single second of suffering their kid experiences, because they would have experienced none of it without the parent's decision to have them. That isn't an opinion, that's the reality of how causation works.
Nailed it
Question, does the net positive ever outweigh the net negative? Like sure weāre going to suffer, that is part of the human experience. But if weāre able to provide enough love and joy, do you think that could make the suffering worth it?
What net positive do you think there is? Everyone agrees that life is hard, everything you want is a struggle, and you have to appreciate the good times because they're rare and fleeting. A life in a world like that is almost impossible to be a net positive.
All I know is that personally I feel grateful every single day. I have love from my wife, my family, my friends, my pets, myself, and pretty soon my baby. Also, Iāve learned to enjoy the struggle simply for the sake of challenging myself. If youāve ever gone backpacking, youāll know just how rewarding the struggle can be. Truly though, love is the thing that makes it all worth it.
I've been backpacking. Brainwashing yourself into thinking struggle is somehow a good thing is nothing but a coping mechanism.
Way to just gloss over everything else about love and gratitude. But you literally cannot have self-improvement without struggle. Life only gets better by pushing yourself.
Exactly. You're making the best of the shitty situation you were birthed into. You're focusing on what little good can come from the overwhelming bad. You know what's better than having to struggle for things to be a bit better? Not having to struggle. Being grateful for having to struggle is some Stockholm syndrome shit.
Itās hard to have discussions when posts are being deleted (aka censored) by modsĀ
Wow. I got some upvotes in this sub. My down votes from people who donāt like to be challenged in this sub are bleeding me dry.
The OP clearly stated that kids are an inconvenience and parents donāt care. Huge leaps in assumptions.
There is no question that kids are an inconvenience. They are purely needy by virtue of their very nature. Find me a parent that cares that they are responsible for every single second of suffering their kids will experience in their lives. They don't care enough to even consider it, they just pretend that reality isn't reality. No assumptions necessary.
Where exactly within the post?
Hatred isnāt condemnation and vice versa.
Show me what the OP wrote that is hatred rather than condemnation. Further, hating someone who causes untold suffering is perfectly legitimate. No one bats an eye when someone says they hate murderers or rapists or torturers, all of which cause less suffering than parents.
Some women donāt have a say whether or not they can get an abortion, so no not all parents should be chastised. Have you seen the abortion laws recently in a bunch of states? And donāt come at me about not having sex or being celibate, it isnāt realistic and no birth control is never 100% safe. Edit for weird wording.
I would make exactly the same argument that celibacy isn't realistic, but it also isn't realistic to try to pretend that this removes the responsibility of the people who brought someone here for that person's suffering. Also: >Some parents (especially women) donāt have a say whether or not they can get an abortion Not especially women, women are the only ones who get a say in abortion. They may only have the rights in some states in that area that men do, but saying "especially women" isn't a claim that can be made in reality.
This post is true. Everyone knows this. And everyWOMAN especially. You all KNOW and delude yourselves with lies. š¤”
Other than it being objectively wrong, totally! Emoji!
This post is terrible, even from AN perspective. But you don't even need that, just basic empathy - most people, when reproducing, think of the potential happiness. That doesn't whatsoever mean they don't care about the bad or that they don't care about their genetic offspring. It simply means that they either weren't exposed to challanging views at the time, or that they simply perceive more happiness than bad for their child. Attributing malice where simple conformity or optimism can be a simpler solution is counterproductive.
FACCCCCCTS
its completely and entirely true. best post ive seen all week. stop feeling so damn ashamed of being a "disappointment child". your parents dont give a shit about your pain. if they did, youd probably be a "better kid"
People have kids so they don't feel alone as they age into obscurity...this isn't controversial whatsoever, even among natalists. Many will admit it's definitely part of their "end game".
The post was removed as it falls under the category of "parenthate," which is expressing resentment or hostility towards parents without engaging in meaningful philosophical discussion. Antinatalism focuses on the philosophical argument against procreation, thus it's not about criticizing individual parents or parenthood itself.
Lmao
But This Sub Is Childfree, Babyhate And Parenthate, I'd Understand It If Posted On Natalism Sub.
It's literally not. It's about philosophy of AN, and that doesn't necessitate hate of any kind.
Mods are on a tear today. Maybe they should go mod for the natalist sub if they're gonna keep up with this shit.
Reading through your post history you seem less āantinatalistā and more āextremely depressed and angry your parents had youā
That post screeshotted explains actual shitty parents that don't care about their kids. This isn't a worldwide case for every human, it's completely false. My dad was a piece of shit, my mother cared and still very much cares for me. She constantly makes sure I'm eating right, treating my self right, and makes sure that I hear her voice at least once a week. I never despised her for having me, I don't even despise my father for participating. My birth wasn't the reason for his treatment of me. Fair enough to shit on the gross parents who birthed their children with future foul intention. Ridiculous to shit on the parents who did their utmost to raise healthy children and succeeded. Its fine that the lot of you feel horrible about being birthed, but this is not 100% universal.
if you unironically think that your parents are evil for not conformig to your philosophy then you are indeed cooked my freind
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *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.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *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.*
Aaaa
Looks like natalists are successfuly "israeling" this sub with the blessing of the mods.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *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.*
The op of that post is either insane or an actual idiot. Lol
Has nothing to do with "catering" to Natalist's feelings and everything with acting like a douche canoe. Everyone here is human and should be treated with common decency even if we disagree on topics.
Thereās legitimacy, and then thereās instability. Seek a therapist.
Huh?
My post was removed too for āparent and baby hateā for a post about how Natalism has negative effects on disabled people and we tried to talk to admĆÆn team about it. AdmĆÆn who deleted our post talked to us directly and has some major admĆÆn-syndrome, major abuse of admĆÆn power and muted us for WEEKS any time we sent a reply message cause they didnāt want to talk at ALL about it even though other admĆÆns were in the comment section defending the post. Iv heard thereās a new admĆÆn thatās been abusing their power and doing this to everyone. Should we start a new antinatalist page?
I just joined this sub and now the moderators have me very confused.
It strikes me as odd that it's marked as discussion but then "if you're a natalist don't respond". You can't have a meaningful debate without both viewpoints.
Wow this sub is truly weird as fuck from an outside perspective. Y'all need some psychedelics. inb4 "I took psychedelics and now I realized life is suffering" no you didn't.
Its about time to end childish posts, i have my reasons to not have children and i want to read other people reasons but most time is depressed kids blaming parents for being born.
You dropped this King, š. Funnily enough, folk here argue that it bridges the gap between the 'normies', as if all this misery porn doesn't scare out even genuine antinatalists...
Either you are meeting people for the first time here, or you are just living in a really bad neighborhood. I feel bad if that's really the only perception you have of parents and can't really blame you for that....
That post does nothing but show OP's contempt for their own parents. While many people here are anti-natalist because they likely share similar sentiments about their own parents, it's totally unreasonable to say everyone who chooses to have a child will be a terrible parent. Sometimes I feel like some members of this community would get along great with incels and members of other fringe groups society tends to look poorly upon.
Because youāre being a dick to someone and personally insulting and attacking them without any reason. Be better.
Childfree content usualy is about the benefits of not having kids, and far better at convincing people of not having kids than that boring purist crap about eThIcS.
Agree
it fits the definition of parent hate, literally shitting on parents thats all the post is about. how dare OP have the audacity the act against the rules that are supposed to keep this sub rantinatlism and not rchildfree, go there to post your depressing thoughts about other people.
The post screams "I'm still 14 years old and I just got grounded" if I'm being honest lol
A good majority of this sub is bitter teenagers with only a small handful of users not wanting kids for genuine reasons. Itās sad really.
Thankfully, I think they're pretty easy to spot
It's clearly a parenthate post, that's why. Mods are right, it was a post worthy of removal.
The rule is worthy of removal
based mod