• 1 Post
  • 112 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle




  • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.workstome_irl@lemmy.worldme_irl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I commented some of this in response to a popular comment below, but since you asked for general impressions:

    I take this as an anti-natalist statement. Anti-natalism has some implications of nihilism for those already born, which is to say: If I think it’s unethical or wrong to have children, due to the suffering inherent in living a life (or caused by the negative externalities of reproducing), does that logically imply that I must blame my own parents for my conception, and wish never to have existed? (though not, necessarily to end my own life, of course, as that would bring further suffering)

    If we are not going to be nihilist, and instead choose a more utilitarian approach with a cost-benefit analysis, to what extent does the added value of reproduction (from your effect on the future increasing through genetic propagation, fulfilled biological imperative, and any derived joy from interaction with the birthed individual) outweigh the potential loss of quality-adjusted life years from health implications of reproduction (especially for the mothers)? Is the risk of negative outcomes high enough to resolve not to reproduce?


  • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.workstome_irl@lemmy.worldme_irl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I definitely see your point, though I took this as an anti-natalist joke, not a refutation of “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

    I’m inclined to wonder at what point the arguments of anti-natalism must be weighed against the nihilistic implications on those already born?






  • I wish that only good takes and true statements would get upvoted. Perhaps I am still traumatized from my Reddit days. I am heartened to hear that you were being sarcastic. I don’t go by upvotes when assessing intent. All that Poe’s law says is that if you say something sarcastically, someone WILL believe you are being genuine. All I ask is for a simple /s for us neurodivergent folks. Not everyone is capable of reading the mind of a person based on seven words which directly and clearly agree with a piece of propaganda (propaganda that the majority of my home country has swallowed, bait, line, sinker and pole). It is all-too-believable to think that someone would support it and be upvoted by people who believe they are being sarcastic, especially when the only extant reply was someone ostensibly agreeing with the content of your message, saying “Exactly, thank you”.










  • How privileged, your wondrous life must be. I envy you the marble and ivory walks you must be able to tread in this, your halcyon paradise, where you can merely tell these ignoble peasants to eat cake. I pity you your ignorance. When the silt on which you’ve built your grand temple to your own ambivalence washes away, I wonder what you will say, then?

    Get down off your fucking high horse and rage against the dying of the light in the corpofascist hellscape this world has become, or fuck off back to your palace, Marie Antoinette.