This is a take from a gender-essentialist who ardently believes fixed roles for men and women are established by the bible. Their other publication: https://americanreformer.org/
In light of this fact, I'd guess "their" preferred pronouns are he/him/his.
The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
"bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".
Yeah, not the best choice, then. "Bleeding heart" has been used as a slur by (US political) conservatives[1] to attack (US political) liberals. It implied that the liberals suffer from an excess of empathy to the point that it clouds their judgment, or something. Nowadays it's just a slur. You're using "liberal" in a way that differs from standard US political usage, which is all right, especially since you clearly d…
Frankly, I have only heard liberals self-identify as "bleeding heart", and misunderstood its definition. Then again, I don't consume US conservative media.
> These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights.
Of course. Virtually every faction of US politics is philosophically liberal.
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t believe its density as much as costs and impact on lifestyle. Make daycare, child health services and great schools universally available and cheap/free. Make it feasible and safe to get kids around dense cities quickly (excellent transit options). I suspect under these circumstances more people would be open to the idea of children. As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and fin…
> As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others. Yet Suburbs are the only ones I see that work. If you are thinking about having kids in the US move to the suburbs soon. Cities are not setup for you. Schools in the city are considered bad for a reason. Even if you can afford private schools,…
North American style suburbs are artificially subsidized by cities and not sustainable for society. A series of policy decisions at all levels of government have artificially made the suburban lifestyle cheaper than it otherwise would be, but sooner or later, something has gotta give.
This is a good starting point on the subject, with many sources for more in-depth reading if one chooses: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/24/busting-4-comm...
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#44This is a take from a gender-essentialist who ardently believes fixed roles for men and women are established by the bible. Their other publication: https://americanreformer.org/
I try not to partake in tinfoil hattery, but this getting the upvotes that it did, in the time that it did, given the content, and compared to the demographic of the platform, might alarm some folks who care about the integrity of submissions on HN. Maybe that's nobody, maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm not following HN guidelines. IDK.
No tinfoil hat needed to see that certain users attract a larger share of upvotes for a given statement while other users attract a larger share of downvotes for other given statements. The same is true for certain subjects but that is just a reflection of the ideological makeup of the site's population.
It is also noticeable that downvotes often come in clusters where a given post suddenly gets downvoted several times within a short time frame where there otherwise has not been any activity around that post. Whether this is caused by a bunch of ideologically-aligned users having some downtime - Compiling - or something more nefarious like sock-puppet accounts being used as ideology amplifiers is not clear and can only be investigated by Dang et al.
The up/downvoting system is one of the less successful aspects of HN, especially where it concerns downvotes. A meta-moderation system like the one used by Slashdot of old could be of help here but I suspect the site owners prefer the simplicity of the current system over one which, while more 'fair' does have the tendency to keep growing with the meta-moderators being moderated by meta-meta-moderators until it is moderators all the way down.
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#45Any hope that we can replace the traditional family-based society with some sort of urban community thing has been dashed already by the ultra partisan libs versus cons divide and conquer tactics of the elites and their tools in the media
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#46The article makes an interesting case for the possibility that South Korea's military dictatorship intentionally created low-fertility policies that can't be reversed. But reading the description of what's going on, I can't help be reminded of John B. Calhoun's work on the "behavioral sink" [1], where he basically created a utopia where rats had everything they needed for survival, they multiplied exponentially, but…
Stop quoting behavioral sink, it has been thoroughly debunked. https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#47This is a take from a gender-essentialist who ardently believes fixed roles for men and women are established by the bible. Their other publication: https://americanreformer.org/
So?, does that invalidate the article because he isnt the typical SF leftist?
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others. Yet Suburbs are the only ones I see that work. If you are thinking about having kids in the US move to the suburbs soon. Cities are not setup for you. Schools in the city are considered bad for a reason. Even if you can afford private schools,…
North American style suburbs are artificially subsidized by cities and not sustainable for society. A series of policy decisions at all levels of government have artificially made the suburban lifestyle cheaper than it otherwise would be, but sooner or later, something has gotta give. This is a good starting point on the subject, with many sources for more in-depth reading if one chooses: https://www.strongtowns.org/…
Strongtowns is cooking the math. Suburbs have existed for more than 100 years, and most do not fall for issues they claim.
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#49Peter Zeihan's take is that urbanization leads to less children because there's less space, you don't need the free labor kids provides on the farm, and children are very expensive in the city. This is coupled with the speed of urbanization for countries that industrialized after the second world war- the later you industrialize, the faster that industrialization happens, the more stark the transition to a childless…
>there isn't enough children to keep the country functioning I wonder if some kind of mandatory civil service will become necessary. I feel in the US that many people are disengaged from the rest of their communities for numerous reasons, and it would be both a direct public service and a benefit to societal cohesion for all people to experience being a servant to their cities via public works.
How do you get from the resurrection of corveé labor to an increased birth rate? I don't see the connection. If anything, I would imagine that taxing people's time as well as their money would only make the burden of parenthood feel heavier.
Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others. Yet Suburbs are the only ones I see that work. If you are thinking about having kids in the US move to the suburbs soon. Cities are not setup for you. Schools in the city are considered bad for a reason. Even if you can afford private schools,…
> the big car won't fit in the city well, and your other options is paying a lot more on public transit because odds are there isn't a family pass, so the big car is probably cheaper. The TCO for a car is thousands of dollars per year. Granted the US only has three or four cities that come close to facilitating carless society, but in those cities, I doubt public transit costs $5000 a year or more.
If you are buying a new car every 3 years the $5000year price for a car is reasonable, but cars last for 15 years and so the total lifetime costs average out to less, and if you buy a used car you costs are much less. My cars are down to more like $2000/year now.
$100/month 12 month (2 parents + 3 kids). Of course it depends on where you live, but $100/month per person is a normal price for a monthly pass. If the kids are younger and riding with a parent the price is lower, but kids have places to go (particularity as teens!) without parents (which should be advantage of the city). When you consider the convenience of the car being ready to go when and where you want to go - unlike transit systems - it isn't hard to justify paying more (Read this as a rant about how useless most transit systems are in the US)