4 ms·

I assure you, as a young person, nobody has ever commented on my birth rate when I went out.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
No one implied they would, but the thread you're commenting on literally begins with an abstract discussion about using the law to coerce you into having a more "positive" birth rate.
- bandyaboot 1y ago
  So what is it that you’re saying is keeping younger people from getting out? Just the knowledge that there may be people out in the world with them who are creepily obsessing over their birth rate?
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Already getting dopamine in other ways.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Apathy resulting from being treated and talked about like cattle, raised and bred to feed the machine of capitalism while they watch it destroy the world around them.
- dpassens 1y ago
  But it doesn't, does it? For one, the question was merely whether we'd observe an increased birth rate, not whether that is a reason to pass such a law. Secondly, you're the one who's bringing up coercion. You can both not be on social media and not have kids. It's still your decision.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    The comment I responded to was specifically talking about "banning social media" and their confidence this would have a "positive" impact on birth rates, despite the clear preferences of younger people. I'm "bringing up" coercion because I'm not sure how to describe such policies and intentions otherwise? The reason for it might not have been made explicit but we both understand what they were driving at and why they weren't "merely" asking the question of what effect a social media ban might have on chocolate sales or something equally arbitrary.
    - dpassens 1y ago
      > despite the clear preferences of younger people But the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children, it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates. > we both understand I'm assuming that you're not doing this intentionally, but by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] into having a more positive "positive" birth rate', a notion that I still disagree with, you're suggesting that I'm being intentionally obtuse. Please don't do that.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        > the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children, No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional. > it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates. I understood this as well but if we're going to be picky about what was actually said then your use of "just" is unfair here. They actually didn't go one way or the other in it being coincidental or intentional. > by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] ... I haven't implied this. I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily. Did you understand that? Framing it as "just asking questions" obscures the obvious socio-political undertones and feels dishonest.
        dpassens 1y ago
        > No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional. Not really. There are still young people who don't intentionally choose not to have children. Their birth rates might or might not increase without social media. > your use of "just" is unfair here. Fair enough, I'll concede that. > I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily. Because birth rates are much more relevant to the topic at hand than chocolate sales, no? More loneliness almost necessarily translates into lower birth rates while you can eat chocolate alone or with others.

No one implied they would, but the thread you're commenting on literally begins with an abstract discussion about using the law to coerce you into having a more "positive" birth rate.

bandyaboot 1y ago
So what is it that you’re saying is keeping younger people from getting out? Just the knowledge that there may be people out in the world with them who are creepily obsessing over their birth rate?
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Already getting dopamine in other ways.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Apathy resulting from being treated and talked about like cattle, raised and bred to feed the machine of capitalism while they watch it destroy the world around them.
dpassens 1y ago
But it doesn't, does it? For one, the question was merely whether we'd observe an increased birth rate, not whether that is a reason to pass such a law. Secondly, you're the one who's bringing up coercion. You can both not be on social media and not have kids. It's still your decision.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  The comment I responded to was specifically talking about "banning social media" and their confidence this would have a "positive" impact on birth rates, despite the clear preferences of younger people. I'm "bringing up" coercion because I'm not sure how to describe such policies and intentions otherwise? The reason for it might not have been made explicit but we both understand what they were driving at and why they weren't "merely" asking the question of what effect a social media ban might have on chocolate sales or something equally arbitrary.
  - dpassens 1y ago
    > despite the clear preferences of younger people But the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children, it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates. > we both understand I'm assuming that you're not doing this intentionally, but by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] into having a more positive "positive" birth rate', a notion that I still disagree with, you're suggesting that I'm being intentionally obtuse. Please don't do that.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      > the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children, No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional. > it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates. I understood this as well but if we're going to be picky about what was actually said then your use of "just" is unfair here. They actually didn't go one way or the other in it being coincidental or intentional. > by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] ... I haven't implied this. I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily. Did you understand that? Framing it as "just asking questions" obscures the obvious socio-political undertones and feels dishonest.
      - dpassens 1y ago
        > No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional. Not really. There are still young people who don't intentionally choose not to have children. Their birth rates might or might not increase without social media. > your use of "just" is unfair here. Fair enough, I'll concede that. > I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily. Because birth rates are much more relevant to the topic at hand than chocolate sales, no? More loneliness almost necessarily translates into lower birth rates while you can eat chocolate alone or with others.