4 ms·

This is what they wanted. This is the reward of Marxism. They have deconstructed the family. Congratulations. They are living in "interesting times". And we're

This is what they wanted. This is the reward of Marxism. They have deconstructed the family. Congratulations. They are living in "interesting times". And we're partners.

smoldesu 3y ago
> And we're partners. Rip on Marxism all you want, the Free Market is what let America's most-valuable companies get in bed with a questionable authoritarian state.
- coldtea 3y ago
  From Pinochet's Chile to Indonesia's Suharto, one of many such state's the "free market" went in bed with.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
What’s the fertility rate in Scandinavia for comparison to “Marxism”? One child policy just dragged the future forward. A combination of economic peril or empowerment of educated women always kills the fertility rate. It will always settle below replacement rate assuming access to contraceptives. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_events_6123/news_press_releases_4630/press/falling_birth_rates_in_northern_europe_11237 https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_events_6123/news_press_rel... https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Contraceptives aren't really what drives fertility down. You've got people losing interest in marriage and childbearing, you've got people having abortions (abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide, 42% in 2021). Contraceptives tend to encourage risky sex and contribute to unwanted pregnancies, and that's why contraception is encouraged and promoted by the abortion industry; it's great for their bottom line to hand out cheap condoms (you know, the kind that break) and get a "repeat customer". It's been noted quite well in nations like Japan, where the youth are just simply losing interest in relationships and marriage, and they have a "boyfriend pillow" or porn instead. In these United States, women would rather get a degree or two and a career, and they'll stop at nothing to achieve those things, so they have less sex, marry later, or just get an abortion if they slip up.
  - bediger4000 3y ago
    > Contraceptives tend to encourage risky sex and contribute to unwanted pregnancies Beg pardon?
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy).
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        > They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy). Please, if you're referring to me, I prefer not to be misgendered. Pronouns in profile. I don't consider pregnancy a "risk" of sex but rather its natural consequence. SOME people may consider it a risk, if they are fornicating without any means of supporting a child, if they are committing adultery, if they are pimps with prostitutes who need to be out on the streets turning tricks; to them, pregnancy is a real risk (and the unborn child may be material evidence of a crime.) Sex without contraceptives certainly carries the risk of STIs. And it is undeniably a scientific fact that barriers can reduce that risk. It is also undeniably scientific that abstinence and faithful monogamy reduce the risk too. But let's get back to the psychology: it trains the users to have sex more often and in situations that they normally may not. Since the users of contraceptives become conditioned to enjoy this pleasure without "risk" of consequences, they do it more and more, and then guess what, they don't really care about failure rates or lack of devices on-hand. I can tell you from first-hand experience, repeatedly over my life, that people who use contraceptives often couldn't care less if they aren't used once in a while, and guess that "risk" that carries? It's sort of like if your local Post Office handed out free parachutes, and rather than landing, your airline would just make a close approach and everybody jumps. You're totally used to grabbing that parachute; you don't care who packs it; one day you forgot the parachute or it looks janky; you just jump anyway. What the heck? Everyone else is doing it.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
coldtea 3y ago
Nothing about this is specific to Marxism. Some of similarly low fertility countries are anything but marxist anyway (Korea, Japan, with many Western countries catching up quickly, and even Africa and Latin America falling quickly). In fact, during Mao's rule and when China had much more hardcore marxist ideology (as opposed to the current semi-free "go get rich" market), they went from 400 million to 1.2 billion.
jmoak3 3y ago
Is South Korea Marxist too? How about Japan? What about the state of New York? Something else is happening. Some blame chemicals or the economy. Before you say they just want to hook up now, younger generations are having less sex than ever. I believe it’s communal ties and space per person in a given region (including outdoor space to freely roam). The Amish make 40k a year household income and clear 5-8 kids per family for example. We’re animals meant for friends, hard work, and open spaces.

This is what they wanted. This is the reward of Marxism. They have deconstructed the family. Congratulations. They are living in "interesting times". And we're partners.

smoldesu 3y ago

> And we're partners. Rip on Marxism all you want, the Free Market is what let America's most-valuable companies get in bed with a questionable authoritarian state.

coldtea 3y ago
From Pinochet's Chile to Indonesia's Suharto, one of many such state's the "free market" went in bed with.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

What’s the fertility rate in Scandinavia for comparison to “Marxism”? One child policy just dragged the future forward. A combination of economic peril or empowerment of educated women always kills the fertility rate. It will always settle below replacement rate assuming access to contraceptives. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_events_6123/news_press_releases_4630/press/falling_birth_rates_in_northern_europe_11237 https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_events_6123/news_press_rel... https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Contraceptives aren't really what drives fertility down. You've got people losing interest in marriage and childbearing, you've got people having abortions (abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide, 42% in 2021). Contraceptives tend to encourage risky sex and contribute to unwanted pregnancies, and that's why contraception is encouraged and promoted by the abortion industry; it's great for their bottom line to hand out cheap condoms (you know, the kind that break) and get a "repeat customer". It's been noted quite well in nations like Japan, where the youth are just simply losing interest in relationships and marriage, and they have a "boyfriend pillow" or porn instead. In these United States, women would rather get a degree or two and a career, and they'll stop at nothing to achieve those things, so they have less sex, marry later, or just get an abortion if they slip up.
- bediger4000 3y ago
  > Contraceptives tend to encourage risky sex and contribute to unwanted pregnancies Beg pardon?
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy).
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      > They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy). Please, if you're referring to me, I prefer not to be misgendered. Pronouns in profile. I don't consider pregnancy a "risk" of sex but rather its natural consequence. SOME people may consider it a risk, if they are fornicating without any means of supporting a child, if they are committing adultery, if they are pimps with prostitutes who need to be out on the streets turning tricks; to them, pregnancy is a real risk (and the unborn child may be material evidence of a crime.) Sex without contraceptives certainly carries the risk of STIs. And it is undeniably a scientific fact that barriers can reduce that risk. It is also undeniably scientific that abstinence and faithful monogamy reduce the risk too. But let's get back to the psychology: it trains the users to have sex more often and in situations that they normally may not. Since the users of contraceptives become conditioned to enjoy this pleasure without "risk" of consequences, they do it more and more, and then guess what, they don't really care about failure rates or lack of devices on-hand. I can tell you from first-hand experience, repeatedly over my life, that people who use contraceptives often couldn't care less if they aren't used once in a while, and guess that "risk" that carries? It's sort of like if your local Post Office handed out free parachutes, and rather than landing, your airline would just make a close approach and everybody jumps. You're totally used to grabbing that parachute; you don't care who packs it; one day you forgot the parachute or it looks janky; you just jump anyway. What the heck? Everyone else is doing it.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

Nothing about this is specific to Marxism. Some of similarly low fertility countries are anything but marxist anyway (Korea, Japan, with many Western countries catching up quickly, and even Africa and Latin America falling quickly). In fact, during Mao's rule and when China had much more hardcore marxist ideology (as opposed to the current semi-free "go get rich" market), they went from 400 million to 1.2 billion.

jmoak3 3y ago

Is South Korea Marxist too? How about Japan? What about the state of New York? Something else is happening. Some blame chemicals or the economy. Before you say they just want to hook up now, younger generations are having less sex than ever. I believe it’s communal ties and space per person in a given region (including outdoor space to freely roam). The Amish make 40k a year household income and clear 5-8 kids per family for example. We’re animals meant for friends, hard work, and open spaces.