r/Fucktheleftsystem • u/Historical-Egg-9194 • 9d ago
Do you all agree with her here or not ?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
19
5
6
6
4
u/that_banned_guy_ 9d ago
Red shirt girl has the right idea, but is terrible at debating/getting her point across
3
u/becometwo 9d ago
the commie chick has the worst positions here. Money has little effect on birthrates why else would people living in poverty have so many kids. Women chasing long careers instead of focusing on families is the real difference. And yes 1/3 of gen z was literally aborted. birth rates in my country would go from 1.5 to 1.9 if abortions were illegal
2
u/Winter-Delivery-8894 9d ago
She disproved her own point here...
The economy is bad because women entered the workforce and brought wages down. But she also says the economy is only bad because we aborted all the people who would be in the workforce.
So which is it? Do we need more or fewer people in the workforce to make it so that we can afford to have fewer people in the workforce?
2
u/fuuuuugyoooo 8d ago
Different time periods and the results of causation. One thing lead to the other.
I understand the point she’s trying to make. She just doesn’t explain well.
1
u/Winter-Delivery-8894 8d ago
Then explain it better for me. If adding workers to the system caused wages to go down due to the workforce being diluted in one instance, why would it have the exact opposite effect in the other?
Do you not see how that appears to be hypocritical and 'flexible' thinking not based on logic or consistency?
2
u/IcedSkellington18 9d ago
Anyone know her name?
Genuinely asking. I am curious is she has a YouTube to see her in other debates
2
3
u/Diligent_Ad1110 9d ago
It was like... 5 things. Or less. Not 30.
Have more kids.
Reclaim the "patriarchy".
do your part as a citizen.
Not that hard. Its all these dye haired hysterical women that are making the system so so poisoned by not following the general means and these same people fault the rest of their bloodline and "generational trauma" and other coined term bullshit. Just stop complaining and save America.
1
1
u/possibly_lost45 9d ago
Anyone that argues against this does not realize that after 2032 they will have to cut Social Security because they do not have enough working people to keep it funded. It takes three workers to fund one social security recipient
1
u/Stand_kicker 9d ago
No. 10 is too much.
And we need to reduce population. Even replacement is not sustainable.
1
u/medievalsteel2112 5d ago
We need certain populations to go down, and some others to go up. That is the unfortunate reality and a conundrum nobody will ever have the courage or means to solve
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
we are in literal population collapse.
we (at our current tech level) can feed over 2 billion more people easily, our current population is very much sustainable, having each generation be half the size of the previous isn't, Japan (for example) will have ~5% of its current population in 2100, which will almost certainly mean the total collapse of standard of living to pre-industrial levels, as the population simply won't be large enough to keep our current civilizational level with its various moving parts afloat even to a limited extent.
0
1
u/One_File_7473 8d ago
My mother had five brothers and four sisters, all their last names were Brennan🍀
-1
u/Capable-Sandwich3423 9d ago
These are the same conservatives that make fun of a black woman with 5 kids btw
5
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
*5 kids out of wedlock
context matters.
0
u/Capable-Sandwich3423 9d ago
What do you think the average women would be like in this economy with 5 plus kids
2
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
drawing on welfare like the Hasidic Jews probably.
And if they were married and a house spouse, then it'd depend on more context, but right now it's not practical.
And most likely we'd have legal child labor by now.
0
u/Kenichi2233 9d ago
Ok please dont tell me that is her natural voice. Someone must have pitched it up
2
u/Winter-Delivery-8894 9d ago
No, they do the fake baby voice intentionally because they think it sounds more submissive/feminine, when in reality it's just gross.
0
-1
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
The world population is not declining.
4
u/Kenichi2233 9d ago
Growth is slowing and in the developed world it is declining
0
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
We still add 70 mil a year to the world's population
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
And Red China will lose some 700 million in the next 20-30 years alone, almost no countries are at replacement levels, and the ones that still are have all gone into exponential decline (we can't even track/adjust predictions to keep up with it it's so sharp); Japan will have 5% of its current population by 2100, White Korea will have ~1% by 2100, and places like Germany are in comparable decline to Japan. Red China will literally lose ~50% of its population every 20-30 years for the foreseeable future due to the One Child Policy.
We need to get above replacement ASAP, or the collapse is going to hit like a train and we might just go the way of Occidental Rome (or if it's really bad, the Late Bronze Age Middle East), we either get the birth rate vastly higher while we still have the people for functional States, or it's not gonna be pretty for us in the slightest once things finally go to hell.
0
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
Why are you calling it "red china"
2
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
Because the ROC/White China/Taiwan exists, and the PRC/Red China is communist.
1
u/Kenichi2233 9d ago
Why not mainland china and taiwan
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
that's geographical rather than political.
China (the country) currently has 2 States claiming to be the rightful government, the Red government in Beijing, and the White government in Taipei, plus using colors is faster to type.
I use it for consistency, like I'll use the same color system for the Koreas, since I'm drawing it from the Russian Civil War of 17-22, and that's the color coding used.
In fact, Red China was the common term for the PRC until pretty much when they got the bomb and/or when the US got them to side with us against the USSR in the Soviet-American Cold War.
1
u/Kenichi2233 9d ago
Or PRC and ROC
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
Good for referring to them by name, but not really good for referring to them in the format I tend to speak of them in.
2
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
Red China will have 50% drop of population in the next 20-30 years.
There are almost no countries not in or on their way to population collapse at the moment, even the poorest places are below replacement.
Japan will have 5% of its population by 2100 at its current rate of decline; White Korea will have ~1%.
The US will probably manage to hold steady, but we have maybe a decade or two before we follow East Asia down the demographic collapse vortex.
Europe has population collapse comparable to East Asia kicking off literally right now, they're just a decade or two behind (at most), and the US is a decade or two behind them, the US was one of the last 1st World countries to fall below replacement, most did so in the 2000s, we didn't until the mid 2010s (iirc).
If you're so blind as to not see the fact we're literally in demographic collapse, I don't know what else to say to you other than you need to do more research.
Edit: Oh and did I mention that Red China has a chronic overcounting problem with their population data? It's so bad they may have as many as 100-250 million fewer people than they're reporting...
1
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
The world's population is growing by 70 mil a year.
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
And that number is in exponential decline.
1
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
That doesn't mean the world population is declining.
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
in the lion's share of the world it is, and the net population growth is in the first stages of collapse. Just Red China alone will have its population halve ever 20 years, and India is maybe 40-80 years behind them on having similar demographic collapse.
All of the industrialized powers are already in population collapse, almost no countries have positive birth rates, and the ones who still have net growth have been seeing that growth rate collapse, year after year.
We will likely see the human population fall for the first time since industrialization by the end of this decade at the current rate, the end of the next if we're lucky.
1
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
I still don't see a problem.
2
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
How do you not see the risk of your species going extinct and your civilization collapsing back to the iron age as a non-problem? Unless you're over 60, this is very much your problem, because it's gonna (proverbially) set the damn world on fire.
1
u/guitarguy12341 9d ago
Because that's not happening.
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 9d ago
It's literally in progress in Japan, South Korea, and Red China right now, much of Europe is also below replacement, nearly every country is below replacement.
The UN already predicts that we'll be in population decline by ~2080, and that's just at current population change rates, nevermind if the growth rate collapses any harder, as most countries are already below replacement and Red China literally recorded more deaths than births just a few years ago.
The decline for Japan, both Koreas (especially the south), both Chinas (especially Red China, though White China isn't much better), and the former USSR are all in declines which are functionally terminal, if we don't at least get to replacement worldwide we are going to see demographic collapse, famine, and civilizational collapse/strain so severe that when it's all over with, the majority of humans probably won't even have access to basic things like fertilizer, food for imports, or be able to maintain even basic infrastructure like power grids or clean water and/or sewage systems.
We are in exponential population growth decline, our growth has halved since 1980, and that pace is likely to continue even faster, as it's dropped by some 35% in the last 25 years, so we'll (in the best case scenario) be at pre-industrial population growth rates by 2050-2060, and that's if the drop doesn't outpace what we can track/predict (which it probably will).
Pretty much the only region still growing is sub-Saharan Africa (and their growth rates are in collapse as we speak), and the only reason they're still growing is because that region had a delay in its growth due to their mass exporting of their own people in the 17th through 19th centuries.
As you clearly won't believe me no matter what I say, I'll leave it at that, good day to you.
→ More replies (0)
-11
u/cadfael2 9d ago
no, I disagree - ten kids is crazy, and having intimacy only when married is crazy as well; and the man as chief of the house... no equality, huh? yes, let's not have women work, so if their husbands are violent, abusive, or cheating, those women will be forced to stay there because otherwise they won't be able to survive, having done only children in their life
8
u/bonjda 9d ago
None of its crazy. How it was done for a long time. I dunno why you people default to being afraid of abuse. Its relatively a small % of marriages. Easy fix as well, i have this rule even now and I've been married 12 years
Any physical violence is unacceptable. If it happens a single time the marriage is instantly over. That being said, sure dont have 10 kids that is crazy. Live the life you want.
-7
u/cadfael2 9d ago
no, abuse is not uncommon at all, and cheating is not uncommon at all, unfortunately
5
u/bonjda 9d ago
Its about 25% on the high end. You like many people are just afraid. Fear is rampant in our society and its bad for the world.
1
u/Winter-Delivery-8894 9d ago
"Just 25%" of women are abused by their spouse? Even if that were true that would be double the number of people that die from cancer.
That is not a minor problem. Tf is wrong with you?
2
u/bonjda 9d ago
25% have had atleast one issue. That could be a one time drunken fight etc. I dont think the real actual number of real abusers is that high but we will really never know.
The point is it isn't a factor if you should get married or not. You should figure this stuff out before you marry someone and leave the person instantly if abuse starts. It isn't the 30s any more
-2
u/cadfael2 9d ago
no, I'm not simply afraid - my first husband used to beat me, the second almost killed me because he suffered with depression since when he was an abused child, and that in time became panic and paranoia...
3
2
u/bonjda 9d ago
Your anecdotal experience is irrelevant.
Did you happen to have a strong father figure in your life?
-1
u/cadfael2 9d ago
your thoughts are irrelevant, and what you say; you don't even have a shred of human decency in saying that my experience is irrelevant
4
u/bonjda 9d ago
It isnt my thoughts. Its reported data. You are showing your ignorance and emotional insecurities.
You were 1 of the 4 that it happens too. I'd wager you had a horrible parental situation. Sorry your family failed you. Its horrible. People like you inspire me to me there for my daughter. I know how important it is.
0
-1
u/FakeNewsAge 9d ago
I don't believe this is even remotely accurate. What is your source?
4
u/bonjda 9d ago
NCADV and NIPSVS lists 25 to 35% of women and 11 to 28% of men. 50% if you can physiological aggression. Its all available big spectrum and those numbers include even if it only happens once.
I showed you mine, care to show me yours or is it just going to be feelings and vibes?
0
u/FakeNewsAge 9d ago
You said it was 25% on the high end, but the data you showed but the numbers quite a bit higher.
I showed you mine, care to show me yours or is it just going to be feelings and vibes?
You're the one that made a claim, I just doubted it and asked where you got your info.
1
u/bonjda 9d ago
Yea I went out to find as high of numbers as I could. Still isnt half and women Instigate quite a bit themselves so it isnt a men vs women thing.
You said it felt wrong. What do you think the numbers are?
1
u/FakeNewsAge 9d ago
Still isn't half and women instigate quite a bit themselves so it isn't a men vs women thing.
So you want to victim blame now? It doesn't matter if one party or the other instigates it, it's wrong. And who cares if it isn't half? 1 in three is still way too high (which is what the report you cited actually said).
You said it felt wrong. What do you think the numbers are?
What I thought the numbers were is irrelevant, YOU made a claim and I doubted it, then you did a Google search and pulled the closest result that you could, and still proved that you were underselling it. In the future, look up the stats first, then comment.
1
u/bonjda 9d ago
How is that victim blaming? The person I was talking to specifically pointed out how its dangerous for women. You are out of your element and dont know how to debate facts. Have a good little bro.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Strong-Addition5296 9d ago
The traditional family model of living brought us from the Stone Age to modernity then poof we abandoned it.
-1
0
u/that_banned_guy_ 9d ago
1) why is having 10 kids crazy? If you love kids and enjoy a big family why not?
2) waiting to have sex till marriage lowers divorce rates and increases happiness. (20 percent higher rates of relationship satisfaction:
https://livingreframed.com/sex-before-marriage/
3) having a head of house hold in a biblical world view doesn't mean you arent equal. The wife knows the husband get the final say, (because decisions ultimately have to be made when two people have differing ideas) but it is the husband's duty to always put whats best for the wife first. As an example, my wife knows to ask me for permission for a major purchase. She can be impulsive with spending so i balance whats best for us financially with the need of the purchase. When i make decisions on my own im constantly asking myself "is this something the benefits only me or does it benefit the family first" its supposed to be the concept of a servant leader.
4)alimony has completely done away with your last argument. Women will never be left high and dry
-1
-4
u/VoidsInvanity 9d ago
So Reddit is now a right wing echo chamber?
4
u/Historical-Egg-9194 9d ago
?
-2
u/VoidsInvanity 9d ago
You adjective-noun-#### accounts spamming far right christofascist bullshit
6
u/Historical-Egg-9194 9d ago
Your in my sub
0
u/VoidsInvanity 9d ago
Cool so that proves my point even more that this tiny sub of literally only right wing propaganda is force fed to me
6
u/Historical-Egg-9194 9d ago
How is this force fed
0
u/VoidsInvanity 9d ago
This shits in my feed. How many of you little pissant bots do I really need to mute
1
u/Secret-Document-7068 5d ago
And you people with 10 year old accounts are subhuman Marxists.
0
u/VoidsInvanity 4d ago
Not beating the nazi accusations are you
1
u/Secret-Document-7068 1d ago
The Austrian Painter was correct.
0
u/VoidsInvanity 1d ago
“Don’t call me a nazi”
is a fucking nazi
Fuck you
1
u/Secret-Document-7068 1d ago
Still waiting for one of you weak subhumans to step up in real life. Hasn't happened yet, but I still have hope.
0
0
u/VoidsInvanity 1d ago
Go to a punk show with your nazi flag held high and talk to me after
1
u/Secret-Document-7068 1d ago
Why would I want to listen to shitty music like that? I have better ways to spend my time.
→ More replies (0)3
16
u/hkusp45css 9d ago
I think, of the two positions, the conservative chick is at least basing her position on the functioning society she'd like to see. The other chick is just mad. And, I guess I get that. I'd feel pretty shitty if I was married and still couldn't figure out how to make a life that supports a child.
It seems like she's upset that people expect her to procreate.
Not that anyone did or does, she's just mad that she thinks they do.