You sure are having fun being mad over a single word when you still compared humans to controlling the population of dogs. The word “sterilize” does not improve the ethics here in the slightest. Euthanasea is not a very far leap to make once you’ve done the work of, I repeat, reducing human beings to the level of dogs. But nevermind that. Nevermind the indigenous people, blacks, immigrants, and so on, that have been sterilized against their will. That was actually to reduce suffering, you see, and not fascist at all!! Nevermind the 8 other paragraphs I wrote about why that’s unnecessary in the first place and is more an expression of your contempt for humanity than it is an actual solution to anything.

What a weird thing to gloat about and not think about the real world implications of in any way whatsoever! I am the one who cares about words, my words say absolutely nothing about me at all! Soothe your ego and backtrack because you have been called out and bested in debate! Bet you feel real bad right now!! Lmfao you fascists are so funny sometimes.

Anyways, I’m busy fighting fascists like you in real material ways. Kindly fuck off and have the day you’re very clearly already having.

lmfao project harder fascist

and while you’re at it, pick up a fucking book. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

That’s wild of you to think that not wanting kids is facism.

That’s an insane reduction of my argument

I’m merely emphasizing the ridiculous of your claim that one can only improve the world by birthing kids and raising them to do good. You don’t have to birth kids to do that, just fuckin do it yourself.

That’s also not what I said, and “just fuckin do it” is the point I was making. I was saying that having kids and raising them in that way had relatively better potential to reduce suffering than not having kids at all, not that it was the only or most effective way to do it.

You clearly didn’t read or try to engage with what I wrote. You’re the one that compared human population control to euthanizing dogs, as if that would actually solve anything, and refused to elaborate when I pointed out that it wouldn’t. I’m not the one in bad faith here and I’m done responding to this thread. No, I don’t care to learn about ideologies that seek to “improve” the human condition by removing humans from the equation that aren’t even materially responsible for these conditions in the first place.

I’m not talking about “birthing the next Einstein” or “nobel prize winner”, types who again, likely had above-average means that contributed to their positions and therefore are less likely to fundamentally question the system that afforded them that. There’s a certain level of arrogance in assuming that only a “great man” in a great position could come along to change things. There’s even more arrogance in acting like you’re taking on some noble cause to “reduce the world’s suffering” by simply deciding not to have children.

I’m talking about collective struggle. You don’t need to be anyone special to engage in that, it just doesn’t work that way. No, that is not the world we have, and it won’t be easy, but is it not one worth fighting for? Does it need to be “instant” to be worthy? Population control isn’t some quick or easy fix either, by the way.

The system is able to adequately distribute resources, that’s what I’m saying, it simply lacks interest in doing so. It’s not the number of people that is straining it. Even with fewer people, it will be strained, because that strain is by design and necessary to the system. The people in power, the ones who design the system, are the ones that design it to fail in that way because they benefit from doing so. The more of our class who are conscious of the class war raging around us, to fight with numbers rather than capital, the better.

Other places like cuba, china, and the USSR have had revolutions that created what they could of that world on a national level, under worse conditions. Haiti was a literal slave colony under one of the most powerful nations at the time of its revolution. It’s on the rest of us to learn from their examples and bring our corners of the world to meet them, to complete their revolution. It won’t be overnight, but we can make revolution in our lifetimes. In the grand scheme of things that is not a long time, at all, and each successive generation can build on it if we only teach them our struggle and enable them to have greater power over their own lives.

You’re definitely showing on full display here, some commenters’ points about eco-fascism and “giving up” on improving the world because you’re too small-minded to imagine a better one and and acknowledge your own role in fighting for it. So might as well just cull the working class population, who use the fewest resources but who you personally find less worthy of life; including your own potential children; to make it more comfortable… (for exactly the people who cause the suffering you seek to address.) Up to and including literally putting them down like dogs, apparently. Real classy thing to gloss over btw. Yes, this is a fascist ideology.

The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.

This is just wrong. There are more than enough resources to go around. More homes than homeless, more food production than food insecure, more clothes than anyone could ever wear in a lifetime; things like transportation, energy, and production could be greatly optimized via collectivisation; and so on. The problem is endless profit-seeking and exploitation, not overpopulation.

The people that have access to these resources, many of which are extracted from the global south, consume way more than their fair share because of the infinite growth drive of capitalism. There is never “enough”, regardless of population; because to stagnate or to shrink is to fail under capitalism. Overconsumption is a problem that could be solved, quite comfortably I might add, if we were enabled collectively to put our minds to it.

You would do more to lessen suffering, by having kids and raising them to fight for that world; because that world is in fact possible; than to prevent their personal suffering by simply not bringing them into existence. Assuming anti-natalism is the only thing stopping you from having kids, of course; not everyone wants or needs to reproduce and I completely agree with destigmatizing that decision, but at least be honest that you just personally don’t want to be a parent. Don’t introduce new stigma for people that do want to be parents.

I take issue with this universal suffering idea. Sounds eugenics-ey. Cause it’s reasonably predictable which children will struggle more than others simply based on material conditions of their parents. It’s less of a “gamble”, for certain people who, often enough, just so happen to be directly responsible for some amount of suffering in the world. Even if I grant you that suffering is universal even in the most optimal conditions, it’s not like someone with optimal means is questioning the ethics of becoming a parent. And if they are, it’s most probably in the hyper-natalist, “populating the world with my superior spawn” direction like the musks of the world. Doesn’t anti-natalism kinda indirectly suggest leaving the world in those kinds of hands?

Also, humans are not cats and dogs and any ideology that leads you to make this comparison, especially w/r to population control and euthanasia, should be rejected just on the face of it. Point blank period.

Who said anything about streaming services? What an absurdly silly way to throw away money in this day and age. In this economy?

I kid, but yeah OP was asking about browser/jellyfin streaming.

Can you say anything about privacy?

Yes exactly my point, thank you for clarifying

The US dumps money into “defense” because it is under a dictatorship of capital and it just so happens that selling weapons is an extremely effective way of converting public tax dollars into private capital. The US profits from endless violence, plain and simple. “American exceptionalism” i.e. chauvinism is just how they sell it to the people at large in order to appear democratic.

If the US left NATO it would cease to exist. It’s a protection racket, and one without a real threat at that. It was always intended as a red scare tactic (operation gladio for example) and to isolate the USSR, which no longer exists, by expanding US military influence across Europe. NATO has never been about european defense and it would be a solution in search of a cause without the US.

Is the implication that new developments or information may have come out in the <4 months since this article was published which invalidates some or all of the information it contains? I’m having trouble seeing why this is an issue that needs pointing out in this particular case.

Where would you prefer content like this be posted and discussed?

Nah this definitely sounds like a situation where “it’s the end of your senior year and there’s no other way we can effectively reprimand this behavior” and he might have already been a problem student.

There was a kid that shit his pants at my middle school. Left a little nugget that slid out of his basketball shorts in the hallway. I guess there was also some on his seat which nobody noticed until a girl in the next class sat in it.