First episode I listened to was a justification for Russian nazis and the second I listened to called childless people losers. I don't care to listen to any more of it. Is the name a joke or something? Why would you name your website after these losers? The people on /r/blackwolffeed are nothing but terfs and hate on identity politics and trans people. I don't feel like the brand of leftism chapo is selling is something I want to buy. It's like hey free healthcare but your not a woman and don't mention race exists. If mods are gonna ban me for hating on this podcast than do it, I don't want to be here if they support it. However if you fine people don't like the podcast, I ask you for your support to change the name, because I haven't found a raunchier trans space. I recommend John Waters Fun House, can this thread just be a struggle session of coming up with better names than one of a shitty reactionary podcast? Thank you.

  • chapoistransphobic [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Episode 498 is just natalist garbage. I forget which one had the nazbol garbage. Don't really want to listen to it again. Can anyone help me out here?

        • Straight_Depth [they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Can you explain to me what exactly is wrong with not having children?

          Nothing wrong at all

          What exactly is so good about natalism?

          The same way it's good that people also have a choice to not have children; bodily autonomy is dope. Taking away that choice or chiding people either way is not dope.

          Do you think the earth can support 10 billion people?

          Yes.

          All with automobiles and decent living standards?

          That will never happen in the global south and the global north has an aging population, growth is slowing or tending negative. The only places where pupulation is rising is the south and they need to because they're incredibly poor and labor is the sole source of income for families.

          I think the right to have a child should be random so no eugenic breeding.

          Ok this is weird.

          • chapoistransphobic [she/her]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Im not claiming to have an educated take. But you have to admit overpopulation is a problem if we don't want to kill the earth. I want the right answer, I'm perfectly capable of changing my mind when faced with new evidence. But everywhere I look I see plastic garbage, can't escape it in nature. I don't want eco fascism, but that will be the solution if another is not found.

        • HarryLime [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Can you explain to me what exactly is wrong with not having children?

          There's nothing wrong with not having children, or making the personal choice to not have a child. However, it's a perfectly normal desire to have and raise children, and it's a basic human drive and a part of the human experience. It's one of the reasons that gay/trans adoption is such a big issue- LGBTQ people should absolutely have the right to raise children just like straight people. Leftists should argue fiercely for creating a world in which children are cared for and supported economically, and the material conditions allow people to have and raise them comfortably. Young people today are not having children at nearly the same rates as their parents because capitalism makes it extremely difficult.

          Do you think the earth can support 10 billion people? All with automobiles and decent living standards?

          This is Malthusianism, which is deeply reactionary, and Karl Marx disproved it over a hundred years ago.

        • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Again that episode wasn't to promote having children, it was about dunking on the very reactionary r/childfree subreddit. Also, love calling Chapo fascist while repeating tired eugenicist talking points playing up overpopulation.

    • HarryLime [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Imagine thinking it's bad to be "natalist."

          • TransComrade69
            ·
            4 years ago

            I really fucking hate discussion of anti-natalism here because it's always warped into "anti-children". Every already existing child deserves fucking food, shelter, healthcare, etc. just like the rest of us.

            Anti-natalism isn't about despising the existence of already existing children. It's about the lack of consent from a bundle of cells that is being brought into this world against their will where they will inevitably face suffering. I don't think bringing someone into this world where they will suffer is a choice that we should make for them, especially when there are already so many children in need of homes.

            But that's just my take. I'd like to adopt when I'm more financially and emotionally secure. There is a stigma around adoption as second rate or a backup and it's honestly fucking disgusting. If someone is willing to have children, they should be equally open to adopting instead of subjecting new life to the socio-economic desolation we're heading towards. But like I said, that's just my opinion. I know all the parents are going to be up in arms about this, but whatever. :P

            Edit: Inb4 I get hit with "People want things :angery:" again. A human life isn't a "thing" to just be brought into the world, subjecting them to the cruelty of life, just to occupy one's time or satisfy one's desires.

            • DeepPoliSci [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              It’s about the lack of consent from a bundle of cells that is being brought into this world against their will ... I don’t think bringing someone into this world where they will suffer is a choice that we should make for them

              Genocide, but make it woke.

              Like, I get that's not your intention, but that's how anti-natalism comes off to me whenever I read it. It warps a narrow view of morality to the point of advocating genocide to prevent potential "suffering."

              • QuillcrestFalconer [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I mean it's totally legitimate not to agree but choosing to not have children is not genocide

                • DeepPoliSci [none/use name]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I'm not responding to one's choice to have or not have children.

                  I'm responding to the perspective that reproduction is immoral because a child cannot consent to existing. That is a genocidal perspective on reproduction.

                  • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Imagine being so offended by a moral argument that your immediate response is accusations of genocide. Like what is the reasoning here? Genocide against which group?

                    This reminds me of the common response to vegan/vegetarian arguments, where it's clear people are just getting defensive and lashing out.

                  • DeepPoliSci [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    You should just say "I don't want to have kids" if that's what you meant.

                    That is much different than anti-natalism, which considers reproduction a moral failure.

            • acealeam [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              ok but like for most people life is not solely suffering. I'm not trying to argue against adoption, but whenever i hear this stuff it just seems like anti-natalists are insanely depressed. having kids is not subjecting them to pain any more than it's subjecting them to joy. living, it's good folks

              https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antinatalism
              https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/childfree
              antinatalists are 90x more likely to post in /r/suicidewatch?? that can't really be right, can it?
              childfree is listed as 30x more likely to post in /r/depression

          • chapoistransphobic [she/her]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I have nothing against the existence of children, I'm not neither explicitly pro or anti natalist. I have a problem with heterosexuals thinking they are superior because they have a litter of children.

        • HarryLime [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Regardless, the hosts dunked on /r/childfree in that episode, it wasn't about these arguments over the best way to raise children- they were making fun of people who outright hate children.

          And they've never once defended Russian Nazis. In their recent interview with Adam Curtis, they did discuss the history of Edward Limonov, if that's what you're talking about, but their analysis of him was pretty nuanced.