Skip Navigation
352 comments

  • The fact that there are Nazis in the US government, and that that fact is met with an attitude of "Oh well!" instead of torches and pitchforks is what makes modern USA sickening.

  • Bold emphasis is mine

    But idea of offering** feral populations **financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.

    Wow, just wow.

    When a population gets feral, a little snip snip keeps things in control. Could offer incentives (Air Jordans, etc.).

    Sure... some new sneaks for never being able to procreate? Sounds legit (heavy /s obviously)

    I have a suspicion where this is being aimed at:

    It's not politically correct to say, but low-IQ, low-impulse control populations lack higher reasoning and moral faculties - they require strict corporal punishment and threat of violence to function properly within a society.

    It's the people RFK is targeting - people with Autism, ADHD, other neurodivergent conditions, the physically and mentally disabled. Cull the ones who are already "diseased" and leave the healthier ones to live one and procreate. At least that's my suspicion here - basically they're pushing the discourse towards an acceptance of some form of eugenics. It's terrifying.

    The point in the last quote - 'to function properly within a society' is really a veiled form of saying - 'you will work until you die in whatever way we see fit'.

    There's a similar push in the UK to get disabled people into any job, seemingly regardless of suitability, workplace accommodations (despite there being legal requirements to make such things) - and the way this is being done is to effectively penalise them financially by sanctioning the disability allowances, refusing PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and forcing those with lifelong conditions to undergo a full review every year. This pretty much can starve out someone into finding a way to live that means the Government pays less and the quality of life the person has is drastically reduced owing to the various stressors inflicted on them. The whole thing is a shitshow and is being argued about a lot at the moment in our Government parties.

    Can disabled people work? For sure, and many do. Can all disabled people work? No, but the Government is going to make damn sure that you at least try, and if you fail, then find another job cause we ain't supporting you now we know you can work regardless of how effective you are... From a Govt statement:

    We’re determined to fix the broken benefits system as part of our Plan for Change by reforming the welfare system and delivering proper support to help people get into work and get on at work, so we can get Britain working and deliver our ambition of an 80% employment rate.

    In other words, to "function properly within a society".

  • The irony. I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ. But apart from that:

    That stance of mass-sterilization is quite a hefty turnaround from "people should have more children", which we heard just a few months ago.

    I don't want to be a doomer, but the economic prospects are bad. Lots of people already struggle to make end's meet, and if the mass layoffs of white collar workers due to AI are real, it will be even worse. Notice that it doesn't matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.

    I also think that it's politician's job to improve the living conditions of the people, and GOP might actually for once be doing its job if it starts educating people about the socio-economic implications of having kids.

    I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there's a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a "support", providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.

    • The irony. I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ.

      Not all conservatives are stupid, they're too easy a pool to grift from but overwhelming, stupid people are conservative.

      "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. - John Stuart Mill

    • I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ.

      that's a safe bet

    • Judging from them aping Hungarian "pro-natalist" programs like the tax-writeoff, when they mean "we need more babies", they mean "we need more white babies from high-IQ families".

      Context: The tax-writeoff for children actually comes from The Bell Curve, and Hungary first tried to implement it to try to incentivize richer people to have more kids, since they would get more money per child from the state. It got repealed by the centrist-liberal MSZP-SZDSZ after Fidesz lost the 2002 elections. However, to please the more right-libertarian parts of the SZDSZ, the replacement of it was technically a welfare trap, as some people could get more money from it than the minimum wage, which forced a lot of Roma people with bigger to either not work at all, or to work illegally, and ultimately created a hot bed for the local far-right to create their own brand of "welfare queen" narratives. While it wasn't as bad as the far-right wanted to paint it, them really focusing on a few crime cases commited by Roma (similar to the whole Casey Riley situation), they spinned the narrative to their side. And later on adding the disabled to the mix thanks to godawful jokes about the intellectually disabled then successfully convincing people that "rt** might be too stupid to even stand up thus they might be in wheelchair", used Forrest Gump to convince that disabled people only get jobs out of pity and "connections", and that "rich G*psy drug dealers pretend to be amputees to get enough welfare money for Mercedeses" (turned out that many of those cars belonged to old white lawyers). After the 2010 election, we got back our tax-writeoffs, and all our welfare system got destroyed in order to build a "work based society".

      Also if you ask, the myth of "women using frequent abortions instead of birth control" came from that very same era of Hungarian politics, likely from Tamás "Tomcat" Polgár, who made embarassingly bad and fashy games before AndyPants.

    • Good, white people should have more children. Just like Lebensborn in Nazi Germany. And they also did this forced sterilization thing on "unworthy lifes".

    • As the contradictions grow with capitalism, they will fuel the revolutionary change of the proletariat...

      https://sociology.institute/introduction-to-sociology/karl-marx-analysis-capitalism-historical-perspective/#the-contradictions-of-capitalism

    • I don't want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.

      Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also "sea cabbage".

      Depending on area there'd also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you're used to, though about USA I've read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.

      So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.

      If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don't have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.

      Notice that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.

      There's a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it'd be cheaper probably.

      That's because value is created by labor, if your labor isn't needed and you don't have a job, then you'd still produce value if you had one. And when you can't afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I'm a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there's a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.

      I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there’s a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a “support”, providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.

      It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I'm not an economist, that's just how I see it.

      • Thanks for your comment :)

        I feel that you're trying to be honest about this discussion, though realistically, many of your points have flaws in them.

        One of the issues i see is that you're acting as if society was one, coherent blob. In reality, you have a bunch of people more-or-less (often less) willing to cooperate with one another.

        That’s because value is created by labor, if your labor isn’t needed and you don’t have a job, then you’d still produce value if you had one. And when you can’t afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I’m a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there’s a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.

        I think somehow, herein lies the fallacy, though it's completely non-obvious. In the last 200 years, we've lived in times where "bigger population" always implied more workers and thus more work getting done.

        But that is not, in general, the natural way. Consider, as an example, the medieval ages. Most people were farmers, and basically all farmable land at that time was distributed among farmers. If you had more people back then, that did not mean that more work got done. You can only plow and harvest so-many hectares. Once that is done, you're running out of work, and the additional people are mouths-to-feed, but they don't really produce any extra. I'm worried that as automation advances, we're nearing similar terms. More people would not mean more productive output, but rather, people sitting around with not much to do, aka. unemployment. And that creates a psychological toll where people get dissatisfied with their living conditions, as they're looked down on as "useless eaters", and that creates a negative situation. I think that the number of people should not hugely exceed the number of jobs that actually should get done, i.e. jobs that actually pay at least a living wage.

352 comments