Gender wars in Corea

[tp4tissue]

Seems absurd upfront.

It's apparently a big deal, as Corea's incel population reaches critical mass.

Large corporations are policing all media material to actively remove any content which can be construed as "Pro-Feminist."

Surveyed young male shoppers 18-35 go as far as to consider a company/retailer's "political stance on feminism" before choosing to spend. (They are ~73% anti-feminist)


This year, 2024, 157 elementary schools across Corea has 0x enrolled 1st graders. Fertility collapse.

Is it the video games? Ya play enough of them corean fan-service MMOs, this is the outcome?

[tp4tissue]

Apparently, this image is what set the corean anti-feminist movement ablaze.

Players of the nexon game campaigned that the finger pinch gesture is designed after pro-feminist organization logos which featured it.

But then soon after, corean men found similar hand gestures in all sorts of ad-material and protested against the brands/corporations with net driven viral boycotts.

THEN after that, the actual Feminist groups of corea got involved, and began boycotting the stores that "removed" the pinch-gesture from their material.

The owners/ board members of these companies in korea are overwhelmingly old men, age 53+, and they all went, WAHT Even is this?



Ads featuring the Pinch

[noisyturtle]

Japan has the same problem. The people in their country don't want to ****, but they keep horny immigrants out who find Japanese people very sexy. Then they complain how their population is declining.

[tp4tissue]

Japan has the same problem. The people in their country don't want to ((secs)), but they keep horny immigrants out who find Japanese people very sexy. Then they complain how their population is declining.

LOLOL, it's not that they don't want to,  the economic conditions make it impossible to BENEFIT from having children.

When children are born slaves, as is the case in all capitalist societies, their benefit is primarily diverted to enrich the wealthy land owning class.

Someone pays a heavy personal price to have the children, then the fruit of their labor and the child's future labor is extracted away from the birth family. You can only push this so far before it's impossible to have children, leading to a feedback loop in cultural-attitudes towards anti-natalism, and flame out.

So, this is much the same everywhere where modern economics exist.  It's all going down hill.

[fohat.digs]

Someone pays a heavy personal price to have the children

Absolutely true, the price of raising children is extremely high by any measure - time, money, energy, emotions - and a whole lot more during that middle third of your life when they must be your primary focus.

But the rewards are infinitely greater and there is nothing that rewards the sacrifice like the love given and recieved within a family.

It is tragic that so many of the "best and brightest" of the younger generations are "opting out" of ensuring that the best of the human race continues to flourish.

[noisyturtle]

Can isolationist and nationalist countries even survive the future of this planet? People from those countries tend to thrive in America and other places that let them live there. Is it their government, or their societies worldview as a whole? Things obviously change when they leave, or is it just the people who think independently tend to be the ones who leave?

[tp4tissue]

No country will survive if America continues to be the most climate destructive nation.

There are some circles which believe China is the world's only hope in saving the planet.

They believe this because XJP is the defacto EMPEROR of China, and can literally wave his hand at climate change and make it go away. He is that powerful.

But Tp4 highly doubts this outcome as XJP is pretty old and (conservative in chinese terms). If and When he dies, which given his composition, pretty fat and old, he's probably heavily diabetic, nearing congestive vascular failure,  China will enter an internal political struggle (approximately 4 power factions) which puts in at least a 10-20 year delay on any meaningful climate action.

By then, it's already too late. So Tp4 still fundamentally believes, America will have to take the lead, but again, the probability of successful 'Murican climate change mitigation is nearly as unlikely as Emperor XJP waving his hand.

[Rhienfo]

Someone pays a heavy personal price to have the children

Absolutely true, the price of raising children is extremely high by any measure - time, money, energy, emotions - and a whole lot more during that middle third of your life when they must be your primary focus.

But the rewards are infinitely greater and there is nothing that rewards the sacrifice like the love given and recieved within a family.

It is tragic that so many of the "best and brightest" of the younger generations are "opting out" of ensuring that the best of the human race continues to flourish.

Another thing is that in countries like korea, where there are rigid traditional gender roles a lot more pressure on the women to raise a family basically by themselves, which puts even more pressure on the women and basically forces them to do it, I understand why there is a growing movement to not have children.

Another thing is that cost of living is so high that for a lot of younger people who aren't wealthy, it's too expensive to have children, I probably won't get the financial opportunity to have any, especially with how things are seemingly gonna get worse economically (on top of me putting a child in a world that will probably be in ruin by the end of their life)

This is the intention of late stage capitalism, to make the working class subservient to the ruling one until the system basically becomes a monarchy.

[tp4tissue]

This is the intention of late stage capitalism, to make the working class subservient to the ruling one until the system basically becomes a monarchy.

It's not so villainous/ premeditated. Even most rich ass-#*les agree that in general, monarchies, highly concentrated power is in the long run BAD for business as it increases the ratio of mismanagement.

What's happening is that our misplaced values and bad datasets at the personal level, levered by technology, lulls us into a zombie walk towards tragedy.

What's wrong with you, me, everyone. Our value system is distorted by the economy which only serves hyper-sensory experiences. All things mundane are perceived as malnutrition.

We've long ago conquered NEED as a species. The vast majority of effort since the Babylonians is expended on vanity junk with no consideration for the long term costs to ourselves or the environment. This is not a deliberate desire of mankind, it's the shortcoming of a thought system which defaults into a binary reaction towards pleasure. Hedonism absent self-actualization. 

No one can be bothered to lift a mop, because we wrongly perceive that the payoff is not worth the effort. We spend instead on objects and actions we "think" is high return, only to feel empty upon acquisition, because in reality it's yet another bauble on the shelf. In that split second when a shiny pebble seduces us into collecting it, our species disinherits its future.

[fohat.digs]

putting a child in a world that will probably be in ruin by the end of their life

My children are grateful that I gave them life, and they are glad to be alive.

Life is far from perfect, but a person should get an opportunity to live it.

As it is, the majority of new babies are born into the worst conditions, and many of what would be the most advantaged babies are simply never conceived.

Is that really a rational way to think about procreating? Or, like TP4 says - if you don't want discomfort, don't go outside.
 

[tp4tissue]

As it is, the majority of new babies are born into the worst conditions, and many of what would be the most advantaged babies are simply never conceived.

Ask a rich guy, should poor people starve, 99% of rich guys would say NO, and THEY MEAN IT, they're not inherently bad.

Ask a rich guy, do you want a big mansion, 99% say YES, and THEY MEAN IT, they're inherently myopic and greedy.


But the 2 conditions are mutually exclusive, no 1 person can build a mansion himself, the labor and resources has to come from SOME WHERE.

In the case of modern economics, it comes from the poor people, it comes from poor countries.  When someone builds a mansion, there will be more poor people and they WILL starve. Technology as a lever may be powerful, but it can not produce bottomless excess for every person, or even very many persons.  When almost all 8 billion humans define their lives through "possession of excess," well this is as far as we go.

Empire in all its forms, eat the young and the poor.   It can only reboot so many times before there's nothing left.

[mohawk1367]

putting a child in a world that will probably be in ruin by the end of their life

My children are grateful that I gave them life, and they are glad to be alive.

Life is far from perfect, but a person should get an opportunity to live it.

As it is, the majority of new babies are born into the worst conditions, and many of what would be the most advantaged babies are simply never conceived.

Is that really a rational way to think about procreating? Or, like TP4 says - if you don't want discomfort, don't go outside.

anti-natalism might be the toughest topic in history to debate

[TomahawkLabs]

anti-natalism might be the toughest topic in history to debate

How do we incentivize a young population who is poorer than the last generation and years behind financially than their parents (at the same time in their lives) to take on children who are also more expensive than they have ever been coupled with daycare insecurity due to lack of options or spots in existing daycares?

[Rhienfo]

putting a child in a world that will probably be in ruin by the end of their life

My children are grateful that I gave them life, and they are glad to be alive.

Life is far from perfect, but a person should get an opportunity to live it.

As it is, the majority of new babies are born into the worst conditions, and many of what would be the most advantaged babies are simply never conceived.

Is that really a rational way to think about procreating? Or, like TP4 says - if you don't want discomfort, don't go outside.

It probably is way to nihilistic and not very rational if I'm being honest now but I just want to know if there is progress to set society up in a forward direction when it comes to stuff like climate change if I ever want to have children. Plus humans aren't rational when it comes to emotional responses which my statement was.

Also this is quite a minor thing compared to the economic pressures of having a child, which is the biggest factor for me and a lot of people for not wanting children, especially since things aren't really going in a upward direction when it comes to stuff like affordable housing and such.

This is the intention of late stage capitalism, to make the working class subservient to the ruling one until the system basically becomes a monarchy.

It's not so villainous/ premeditated. Even most rich ass-#*les agree that in general, monarchies, highly concentrated power is in the long run BAD for business as it increases the ratio of mismanagement.

I agree that a lot of people don't really see what they are doing as villainous, but rather strive for the biggest profit margins, which is prison labour in the us is the most cost efficient labour for businesses, cause it's basically legal slavery.

anti-natalism might be the toughest topic in history to debate

How do we incentivize a young population who is poorer than the last generation and years behind financially than their parents (at the same time in their lives) to take on children who are also more expensive than they have ever been coupled with daycare insecurity due to lack of options or spots in existing daycares?

it's really simple, just make it economically viable for people to have children, but that eats into corporate profits, and we can't have that.

Just in general I'm sorry for being quite negative there (surprisingly I don't like to be that negative, especially recently where I've been the happiest I've been in a long time, it was quite sudden too) but I don't really feel like things are gonna get better in the near future, unless drastic change happens (which it definitely can, especially with this upward trend of more progressiveness in young people and also increasingly amount of union action) and I hope that positive change happens.

[mohawk1367]

anti-natalism might be the toughest topic in history to debate

How do we incentivize a young population who is poorer than the last generation and years behind financially than their parents (at the same time in their lives) to take on children who are also more expensive than they have ever been coupled with daycare insecurity due to lack of options or spots in existing daycares?

yeah i dont mean if you cant support children, i mean if you believe everyone else having children is morally wrong

[TomahawkLabs]

yeah i dont mean if you cant support children, i mean if you believe everyone else having children is morally wrong

I don't think having children is morally wrong. I think the societal pressure and lack of government intervention has created a situation where the general population is being told they need to have kids and they should feel bad because their parents started their family 5-10 years sooner, is morally wrong.

[fohat.digs]

having children is morally wrong

Reproduction is one of the most fundamental attributes of life, and arguably THE most important attribute - but which is not to say that that is always good.

Look no further than the humble virus, just about the only thing that it CAN DO is to reproduce, and not always to its own benefit or for the benefit of its environment.

My argument remains that the greater good is having the most conscientious parents continue to reproduce healthy conscientious offspring.
 

[tp4tissue]

My argument remains that the greater good is having the most conscientious parents continue to reproduce healthy conscientious offspring.

It comes down to how powerful is the intellect which drives the circuit.

What is or isn't moral, is dependent on context of the dataset and the processing power of the computational package.

We don't really know with certainty as individuals which way is correct, for humans, we can only move forward and while crushing each other.   At some point, this strategy no longer works, because our efficiency drops too low, and we enter a non recoverable error state.

Dinosaurs were awesome, bigger, stronger, more powerful, god like relative to human scales, but what happened to them, nature (including space rocks) said, nope too big, too fragile to sustain.

Humanity is too at a critical mass, where nature says, ok monkeys, you're too fat, too unhealthy, not smart enough, shape up, or I'll kill you too.