New Post
Search
HelpRe: you know...
in reply to a message by queenv
Yeah, sort of. The thing is there's really not an appropriate way to bring this kind of thing up. But without someone bringing it up - necessarily obnoxiously, inappropriately, hypocritically, and sanctimoniously - the opposing viewpoint never gets aired. It might be because I have sympathy with both "sides" (though it's not exactly my place to have sympathy with), but things start to feel whitewashed and depressing to me after a while of one side being neglected because it's not appropriate - for good reason - to criticize random people's life choices. I think if I actually had five kids, and no one ever said anything to me about how it was environmentally irresponsible (because change is enacted by large groups of people making small, responsible choices, and it does get undermined in a way that is too small to defend rationally without seeming ridiculous, but important nonetheless), it would slowly make me really inscrutably upset. But maybe I'm into externalized self-loathing.
I wouldn't bring it up. But I'm glad that every so often someone acts boorishly enough to feel entitled to do it, just so the issue can be aired and defended, even if no one is obligated to defend their own choices. Idk.
I dunno, people complain a lot about things people say to them over and over, based on their tattoos or their decision not to have kids or whatever. I don't ever quite get up in arms about it. "Freedom" doesn't mean the freedom to escape random criticism from ignoramuses. It doesn't mean there's no "cost" to making unusual decisions; that cost is dealing with obnoxious people who would impose their sense of order on you. It doesn't mean you get to be immune from feedback. That would mean the freedom to create an individualized fantasy world. It just means the choice is available to you.
I wouldn't bring it up. But I'm glad that every so often someone acts boorishly enough to feel entitled to do it, just so the issue can be aired and defended, even if no one is obligated to defend their own choices. Idk.
I dunno, people complain a lot about things people say to them over and over, based on their tattoos or their decision not to have kids or whatever. I don't ever quite get up in arms about it. "Freedom" doesn't mean the freedom to escape random criticism from ignoramuses. It doesn't mean there's no "cost" to making unusual decisions; that cost is dealing with obnoxious people who would impose their sense of order on you. It doesn't mean you get to be immune from feedback. That would mean the freedom to create an individualized fantasy world. It just means the choice is available to you.
This message was edited 3/31/2012, 7:40 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
The problem I have isn't that it's rude, or inappropriate, to criticize random people. I don't think people should be protected from legitimate political criticism of their personal choices. I'm saying the particular criticism is as negative and destructive as the problem it tries to oppose, and can do nothing good. So random attacks on breeders aren't just uncomfortable, they're canting and perverse.
Of course you technically can say that more kids = more resource use. Of course it's okay to point that out. But what's the agenda you're supporting when you do? And who, exactly, are you suffering for, when you self-flagellate over having five kids? Um, is it for the kids' own future? If you did have five kids and felt pangs of guilt, your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. And you'd wonder if maybe, being a cause of positive change is not even as simple as sacrificing your personal fulfillment.
We all do so much more right, when we treat ourselves and our fellow citizens humanely and with dignity in the first place. If you want to see change and you're going to go about it in a negative way, motivated by fear and loathing - you might as well just kill yourself, because that'd be an environmentally responsible choice. Are you anti-people-breathing, or anti-exploitation-and-ignorance? Turning on each other or considering our own fertility as an evil doesn't save the planet, it only further manifests deathworship that we would naturally hate.
I'm inclined to link to this yet again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAlIHsXcLY
ETA: About being off topic ... I know what the board is for, and you know better than to read posts that aren't interesting to you. =)
Of course you technically can say that more kids = more resource use. Of course it's okay to point that out. But what's the agenda you're supporting when you do? And who, exactly, are you suffering for, when you self-flagellate over having five kids? Um, is it for the kids' own future? If you did have five kids and felt pangs of guilt, your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. And you'd wonder if maybe, being a cause of positive change is not even as simple as sacrificing your personal fulfillment.
We all do so much more right, when we treat ourselves and our fellow citizens humanely and with dignity in the first place. If you want to see change and you're going to go about it in a negative way, motivated by fear and loathing - you might as well just kill yourself, because that'd be an environmentally responsible choice. Are you anti-people-breathing, or anti-exploitation-and-ignorance? Turning on each other or considering our own fertility as an evil doesn't save the planet, it only further manifests deathworship that we would naturally hate.
I'm inclined to link to this yet again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAlIHsXcLY
ETA: About being off topic ... I know what the board is for, and you know better than to read posts that aren't interesting to you. =)
This message was edited 3/31/2012, 10:57 AM
1
Well this topic is off the board now so I'll keep it short. My own feelings about this issue are pretty mixed, as I've said. I feel like there wouldn't have been a place to have this conversation at all - your attention might be sharply drawn to those parties who have a great deal more ability to take responsibility for conservation than you do, who neglect it with impunity. - if Brandon had politely quashed his sanctimonious feelings. And I think it's okay for this conversation to happen, even though it's veered off-topic.
lol. I've read most of the on-topic replies to this, I just don't have much to say in response to them
lol. I've read most of the on-topic replies to this, I just don't have much to say in response to them
1
Mirfak, I must say I am a little surprised at your lack of reason regarding this thread. I expected more from you, but you have lost that respect from me. Drop the emotion and look at the data. Research natural capital, overpopulation, and ecological footprints. Take a class on environmental science instead of accusing me of being a deathworshipper (really?)--on the contrary, I am advocating sustainability, not death. I do not care about maintaining consensus with anyone on this forum--a hotbed of defective and unstable personalities. What would maintaining consensus achieve? I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I'd benefit from any of your approval, or why I should self-censor beliefs about which I feel strongly.
This thread alone has displayed every possible symptom of groupthink--a phenomenon which hinders progressive and critical rethinking (you could also research groupthink). I have no need nor use for cohesion with any of you, and am by now quite used to your pointy hats.
Also (one last thing), in what way is spreading awareness NOT activism?
This thread alone has displayed every possible symptom of groupthink--a phenomenon which hinders progressive and critical rethinking (you could also research groupthink). I have no need nor use for cohesion with any of you, and am by now quite used to your pointy hats.
Also (one last thing), in what way is spreading awareness NOT activism?
1
Oh, an ad hominem! How nice!
It appears that you missed my point. I don't need more education to know that sustainability does not have to depend on curtailing reproduction directly on an individual basis. That is very simplistic. A small reduction in the number of consumers does not necessarily mean less exploitation. It might even lead to more, considering all the incentives for exploitation. (I'm not insisting that it would, just trying to suggest that there is complexity to consider)
I don't think you should self-censor your beliefs at all. I think you should reconsider them, or at least reconsider your own emotional commitment to them. There is the possibility that it's you whose critical faculty is impaired by groupthink. Who are you thinking for, and who taught you what you think you know? Answer carefully. Have you ever really wondered, from where does the authority come, of the narrators of the researches that you invoke? Have you examined the meanings of the word "footprint," and do they all jibe perfectly with your values?
Accusing people of doing harm by having large families doesn't spread awareness, it's just an expression of your fear and loathing. I share your fear and loathing about environmental destruction - I just don't think that blaming my fellow citizens and their families is a positive action in any way whatsoever.
It appears that you missed my point. I don't need more education to know that sustainability does not have to depend on curtailing reproduction directly on an individual basis. That is very simplistic. A small reduction in the number of consumers does not necessarily mean less exploitation. It might even lead to more, considering all the incentives for exploitation. (I'm not insisting that it would, just trying to suggest that there is complexity to consider)
I don't think you should self-censor your beliefs at all. I think you should reconsider them, or at least reconsider your own emotional commitment to them. There is the possibility that it's you whose critical faculty is impaired by groupthink. Who are you thinking for, and who taught you what you think you know? Answer carefully. Have you ever really wondered, from where does the authority come, of the narrators of the researches that you invoke? Have you examined the meanings of the word "footprint," and do they all jibe perfectly with your values?
Accusing people of doing harm by having large families doesn't spread awareness, it's just an expression of your fear and loathing. I share your fear and loathing about environmental destruction - I just don't think that blaming my fellow citizens and their families is a positive action in any way whatsoever.
This message was edited 3/31/2012, 1:58 PM
1
I know what you mean. There have been discussions in the Lounge about questions and comments directed at women who either never plan to have children or who are postponing it. Some have objected to even the most basic question, "So, are you planning on having children?" I've asked that question myself of so-far-childless couples and it never occurred to me that it's SO offensive. I've even said, to women who never plan to have children, "Well, I hope you don't regret that later on." I've also said, if they are young enough, "You might change your mind later on." Now from reading threads on the Lounge, I realize that these questions and comments are considered just SO intrusive and so horrible and so none-of-your-business and so indefensible. I make them just the same! The fact is, I know that it does happen, to some people, that they change their minds about having children and that some people live to regret it. It shouldn't be treated as if that's IMPOSSIBLE.
The fact is, that although it's much more common than it used to be, the decision to never have children is still made by a minority of people, and to a good portion of the majority who have or want to have children, it's really incomprehensible. I guess I feel the way that you do---you've made a minority decision, a decision which seems very unnatural to a good amount of people---so it's not like you have some God-given right to never ever ever hear anyone make any kind of comment about it.
So in your words, I don't think that it makes them immune from feedback or that there's no cost to making the decision.
It works the other way too---I had a friend who received a lot of negative comments when she revealed the fact that she was pregnant with her fourth child. The Duggars know that they come in for a lot of criticism. They've made a very unusual choice, so it's something that they have to deal with.
The fact is, that although it's much more common than it used to be, the decision to never have children is still made by a minority of people, and to a good portion of the majority who have or want to have children, it's really incomprehensible. I guess I feel the way that you do---you've made a minority decision, a decision which seems very unnatural to a good amount of people---so it's not like you have some God-given right to never ever ever hear anyone make any kind of comment about it.
So in your words, I don't think that it makes them immune from feedback or that there's no cost to making the decision.
It works the other way too---I had a friend who received a lot of negative comments when she revealed the fact that she was pregnant with her fourth child. The Duggars know that they come in for a lot of criticism. They've made a very unusual choice, so it's something that they have to deal with.
1