this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
741 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2331 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NarrativeBear 77 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I find nothing wrong with this movement, but at the same time I almost feel like this movement is exactly what "government's" may want. Less educated individuals having children means more uneducated voters in the long run.

Kind of like that scene in Idiocracy (2006).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJDcoqrh1ac

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago

I thought the idea of the US version was just to avoid republicans.

[–] wolfpack86 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not like women turned out in droves for Harris either. Who's going to withhold from the women that dropped the ball?

[–] CleoTheWizard 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You don’t need to. I’ve run the numbers elsewhere but if we assume 100% of your dating pool are women and 50%-ish are liberal, even if only half of them participate it’s going to put pressure on men very quickly if they don’t want to be alone.

Now we know those women aren’t spread equally so this movement isn’t going to be consistently effective everywhere. But in places like Texas, it would mean most of the major cities harm Republican men seeking relationships/sex.

And taken one step further, this creates a child shortage if done for long enough. Even just 10% of women deciding not to have kids will have a big effect. People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Keep in mind that even in a place like texas, in major cities liberal voters far outnumber conservatives. There are millions of us voting hoping that one day the people that don't will finally register and give the state the changes it desperately needs.

It may look like we're outnumbered. But the biggest problem we have by far nationwide is the amount of people that don't vote. Conservatives are honestly outnumbered everywhere except in states like north and south Dakota that have a ton of land and low population.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People worry about conservatives just having more kids but realistically they work lower end jobs and don’t have money for that. Imagine raising 3-4 kids in this economy, not many will do that.

I suspect there are a lot of corpos voting red, especially once you get to the C-suite. I don't think it does any favors to anyone to assume that Trump's sweep was just the redneck vote.

[–] CleoTheWizard 4 points 1 month ago

I’ll expound a bit. Of course there are a portion but that portion of better off conservatives is relatively small. And affluence often doesn’t result in wanting more kids.

I think most people would agree that the average wage of a dem voter is significantly higher than that of a conservative voter even when adjusting for COL. A lot of their voters lack degrees and lack the financial situation to have a bunch of kids.

Also keep in mind that this stuff is kind of exponential right. If 10% of women don’t have kids, they’re probably on average not having about 2 kids. So you either need 10% of other women to have 2 kids or 20% of women to have 1 extra child. That’s a big ask for your average American of any political skew. If 10% of women participate, that means 1 in 4 people need to have an extra child. And the larger that portion of participating women becomes, the exponentially greater pressure it puts on other women who want to absorb that impact.

[–] wolfpack86 0 points 1 month ago

So why do women who doomed this country still get to enjoy the finer things?

[–] Benaaasaaas -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The thing is, there are tons of incels already and if you think that will push them to be more liberal I have some bad news for you.

[–] CleoTheWizard 18 points 1 month ago

The point isn’t to isolate men and create more incels, the point is for women to stop tolerating behavior that is not worthy of rewarding with intimacy or relationship. Women shouldn’t put up with awful men that don’t care about their rights just because they’re worried that they will become even worse men.

The point isn’t necessarily that women get what they want politically either; it’s a reaction to the majority of men displaying a lack of shared interest in their partners health and wellbeing. Not to mention that most men never have to deal with the results of these elections, now they will.

[–] WhiteRabbit_33 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is eugenics propaganda. It is slightly hidden in a way of not using the blatant language of "superiority" and forcing it on people, but the base idea boils down to breeding traits such as higher intelligence into (or out of in this case) people like what is done (was attempted) with animals. This is eugenics. Please do not spread eugenics.

Eugenics does not work. There's a lot of information on the topic, but here's a 10-minute primer: https://youtu.be/kMBriCmiTu0

TL;DW Studies show genetics plays a very minor role in intelligence in humans with socioeconomic factors being the main driver. Eugenics may be able to breed certain traits in/out, but that results in the extreme detriment of others. Consider dog breeding and all the health issues breeds have who were bred for a handful of specific tasks/traits.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They are talking about education, not intelligence. Children of couples with higher education will usually have a better education too.

[–] WhiteRabbit_33 3 points 1 month ago

That wasn't clear from their comment. The link for Idiocracy didn't help that since that movie focuses on eugenics.

For education, sure, but while the data shows more educated voters voted for Harris, it isn't nearly as big of a gap as it should be. Slightly over 2/5ths of college educated voters voted for Trump, likewise slightly over 2/5ths of uneducated voters voted for Harris. The media likes to hype that divide along with all the others, but that's a shit ton of people on both sides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/exit-polls-2024-election/

[–] lordnikon 11 points 1 month ago

Honestly I think that only works if society keeps progressing in any form for a generational time scale. Women protecting themselves and enjoying the time left. Seems like a valid course of action as anything else.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

What that would really mean is an erosion of the tax base and possibly a demographic crisis.

But I seriously doubt that the population of ~~femcels~~ female volcels is getting larger as much as it is getting louder and coping in a way that makes a good headline.

[–] WoodScientist 3 points 1 month ago

By definition, any woman choosing not to have sex due to state-imposed pregnancy risk is not a 'femcel.'

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Incel means involuntarily celebrate. Women CHOOSING to not have sex is voluntary and it’s disgusting trying to compare them to the incel movement.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

When Idiocracy no longer is a comedy movie but an instruction manual...

Always thought that would happen with 1984, not with that movie.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

This country is fucked. We can't breed our way out of it, and trying is gross.

[–] JeeBaiChow -1 points 1 month ago

That's why this form of protest is ineffective. I want to see what the 'but gaza' people think in a few months.