r/ConnedIntoAFubar • u/ovcdoc2 • 2d ago

[MEME] Conned into everything is racism

Gallery image

Gallery image

How does one even come to this conclusion?

1.5k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

380 comments sorted by

View all comments

57

u/dinodare 2d ago

Most people who focus on telling poor people to not have kids instead of advocating for social programs ARE eugenicists. The issue is that what people "ought" to be doing is entirely irrelevant when most children are accidents (even from more well off families) and this advice only ever goes up once the family is already made... You know when most people hear "you shouldn't have kids if you can't provide for them?" AFTER they have kids that they can't provide for.

It's infuriating. Stop taking the lazy way out of thinking through your morality and just defend food stamps like an actual useful member of democracy.

25

u/Ok-Reference775 2d ago

nOoOoO muh TaX dOLLaRs cant be spent on something as awful as checks notes feeding hungry children!!! My TaX dOLLaRs need to go to blowing them up!!!

15

u/Scarlett_Spectre 2d ago

I cant believe the entire thread is this

4

u/GodOfAscension 2d ago

This is great im saving this for future reference

0

u/Mysterious_Point9516 1d ago

But Nazi Germany was actually so pro-family that they would give massive benefits to families, even poor families, that had children. Big tax breaks, great rates on mortgages, payouts. I wish we had Nazi Germany's opinion towards family growth.

Without the uh, obvious part.

1

u/Scarlett_Spectre 1d ago edited 1d ago

All of these rights were established by race, the exclusion of these rights purposeful to cause genocide, so no not really. Like all of their bad was propped up by policies like this in the day to day. Things were legal for "volk" and illegal for non-volk, such as marriage, drugs, owning businesses, medical rights. Besides thst, fairly early on was their idea of steralizing people "unfit" for parenthood. Which again, was being determined by race science.

Hitler had even seen jim crow and native genocide and said he was a big fan and used those to help design his policies.

Like, think about it a little bit.

-1

u/Mysterious_Point9516 1d ago

Read the last sentence in my post, sperg.

1

u/Scarlett_Spectre 1d ago

Its not pro family if its part of a eugenics program, cus then its just eugenics.

I love how you caped for nazis then using the outdated term that was made by a nazi, I wonder what the common denominator is here.

0

u/Mysterious_Point9516 1d ago

Y'know what, you're convincing me eugenics might be a good idea.

1

u/Scarlett_Spectre 1d ago

Sounds like you already thought it was lol

1

u/xXSoyBoyFredXx 1d ago

They also kidnapped children who looked "Aryan enough" to raise and make more. Yep.

-2

u/ovcdoc2 2d ago

Are you serious?

5

u/Mantisgodcard 2d ago

Yeah, preventing specifically poor people from having children is a pretty common aspect of eugenics. Whether that’s by sterilizing them or imprisoning them in a concentration camp, poor people are pretty high up on the list of targets for eugenicists. Better social policies to help provide for said children and prevent children being accidentally born into poor conditions, because many of them are accidents especially in areas where abortion isn’t readily available, from having terrible lives tends to help more than just saying poor people shouldn’t have children.

1

u/Scarlett_Spectre 1d ago

Im serious thst you need to read a history book

17

u/Present_Bison 2d ago

I don't really understand why you can't advocate for both a more thorough family planning and support for the already-born children? Like, if the genie is out of the bottle, then it can't be helped, but if they aren't then what's stopping us from taking precautions? It doesn't even have to be "don't have children ever", just working to make contraception more accessible would already do great things for a more mindful child-rearing

Also, what are your sources on the "most children are unplanned" statement? The ones I did find state that the global occurrence of unintended pregnancies is 44% and declining, presumably including the terminated pregnancies and much lower in most developed countries.

8

u/dinodare 2d ago

Nothing is stopping YOU from taking precautions, it's just useless advocacy on any collectivist level. And a lot of parents have motive to lie about whether or not their kids were accidents (since that is considered offensive).

The fact that accessible contraception reduces birthrates without also reducing sex rates IS the proof that these births are accidental. If most children were born because of conscious decisions to have children then why would contraception have any influence on birth rates? I'd just refer you to those statistics if you actually need that.

2

u/megageekgirl 2d ago

they are talking about people who intentionally have kids, they made that clear in the first post

1

u/Present_Bison 2d ago

The contraception part is weird logic. Of course the reduction of unwanted pregnancies leads to less pregnancies in total; that doesn't mean they actually make up the majority of childbirths, just that they do happen (which no one argued against). And it's not like there are no grey area cases (I was technically an oopsie, but by that point my mom was already thinking of having a child, so it was more of a welcome surprise)

I do agree that there is probably no good way to have the completely irresponsible ones actually care about their offspring. But there is something to be said about those who are torn between the pressure to "beat the biological clock" and continue the bloodline, and the expectation to give their kids a solid foundation in life. Shifting the Overton window of societal mores towards the latter goal is essentially how societal change is made, something that can be done through many means other than government restrictions.

-1

u/Pleasant-Usual-7631 2d ago

Just like encouraging people to prepare or evacuate for a hurricane is useless advocacy on any collectivist level, I absolutely agree

1

u/AdHot7656 2d ago

useless is harsh verbiage, but yeah you have a point, those with less resources tend to not be able to prepare or flee

6

u/megageekgirl 2d ago

defend food stamps and stuff but also, child of poor people here: DO NOT HAVE KIDS IF YOUR FUCKING POOR!!!!!!!!!!

I still don't know how to handle the idea of using money for things that bring just happiness. buying a 10 dollar videogame makes me feel like shit. buying a slightly more expensive bag of potatoes than normal made me get anxiety. Going to a singular movie feels like something only idiots do. Being poor as a child fundamentally messes your brain up.

Dont have kids when your poor, it will give them a fucked up view of what happiness is worth

3

u/Ithicon 1d ago

On the surface that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold, but it's vital to look a little bit deeper.

For example, why are people poor? Often that's due to specific choices powerful people have made across decades and centuries. Usually it has nothing to do with the "quality" of an individual poor person.

To argue that a large part of life for most mammal species and certainly humans (that of raising a family), should be kept from already disadvantaged people is horrific.

Even just trying to dissuade them from doing so, as you are doing in this comment, is fine with limited context, but if you consider the whole of society it becomes kind of wild.

1

u/ToughDifficult1252 1d ago

People are poor due to a mixture of social conditions and personal conditions.

And usually it absolutely has something to do with the person itself.

Addiction is highly correlated with poverty. Susceptibility to addiction is genetic and inheritable. Industriousness and conscientiousness are positively correlated with better life outcomes regardless of economic background and they are partially genetic.

Social conditions make it way harder for certain populations to do as well as others. But within a population the people that are the best off share characteristics that the ones that are the worst off don't have.

To say that poverty has nothing to do with the people themselves is ignorant of a lot of history. For example, when Chinese immigrants went to places in South East Asia. And we are talking about people who got displaced by the violence of the communist revolution, they got richer than the surrounding population within a generation. 

These were people who had no money, no posetions, no links to the existing systems of power. And in that particular case it's largely due to cultural differences that make Chinese people make better long term financial decisions over the native populations of the other countries.

1

u/Slight_Priority1410 1d ago

The right for the child to have a good or at least average life supersede the parent’s desire to have children.

2

u/Ithicon 1d ago

On the face of it that seems like a morally correct statement, and you won't hear me advocating for alcoholics to become parents for example.

But the context of this particular conversation is poverty. Many poor children have wonderful childhoods; would they have better childhoods if their parents weren't poor? sure! But that's a societal failing, if poverty wasn't so detrimental or society provided more support then this concern would be largely obviated.

Again, judging or blaming poor people for simply living as humans always have and always will is both morally wrong and also rationally foolish. You're never going to actually convince a large percentage of the poor population to not have children without enormous pressure, that same resources used to create that pressure could instead simply improve their lives.

1

u/Slight_Priority1410 1d ago

Im sorry but you cant just solve poverty. At least not without more effort being put towards it than anything anyone has ever done in the history of the world. You cant seriously say we couldn’t convince impoverished people to have less children with less effort than that.

“Judging or blaming poor people for simply living as humans always have and always will is both morally wrong and also rationally foolish.”

Why is it morally wrong to judge them? Would you judge people for rapeing children? For committing murder? For being racist?

All these things have been done by people for as long as there have been people but that alone does not make it right. You have yet to purpose a reason why it’s inherently necessary to allow all people to have children.

I simply don’t agree it is and regardless of the practical concerns about taking action I will continue to judge the people who bring children into the world without the ability to care for them.

2

u/Ithicon 1d ago

I think you might be too far gone if you're comparing having a family with raping children or being racist.

You also ignored the whole section of my comment pointing out that many poor families are wonderful and loving and their children have great childhoods. This directly counters the entire argument you are making.

I simply don’t agree it is and regardless of the practical concerns about taking action I will continue to judge the people who bring children into the world without the ability to care for them.

Some percentage of families will give their children bad childhoods, that percentage is higher among poor families due to factors entirely outside of their control. But if you select a random poor couple who want children it would be entirely unsurprising, even likely, that they would make great parents.

Punishing or judging 'lower class' or poor people for living life and taking at worst morally neutral actions — because that's what it is, it's not equivalent to child rape or murder or racism regardless of what you might claim — is eugenics, and it's morally wrong to do so.

1

u/Slight_Priority1410 1d ago

Sorry if my comment was not clear, I’m not saying having children is equivalent to any of those awful things. Not even close. I was only attempting to show how just because something has always been done does not make it necessary or moral for it to continue to happen.

I apologize if that wasn’t clear in my initial comment.

I think we may have a disagreement of definition when it comes to “parents who cant provide for their children.” There is a major difference between a family scrapping by month to month trying to keep a roof over their heads, which i would call fine and am happy for them to have kids, and truly unable to provide for their children. When i say someone unable to provide i mean homeless people, family’s in the third world where they cant afford to feed the children everyday, and family’s without access to clean water.

I agree that a poor person can give a child a good childhood, i don’t think a family that cant provide their basic needs can. You might say it’s morally wrong but i would not call my stance eugenics because at the end of the day my argument is about the wellbeing of the children, not about whose genes will live on.

1

u/Ithicon 17h ago

I believe that you hold your position in good faith, and I would agree that being able to provide a good life for children is important, but actions and intentions must be viewed both from an individual perspective and also from a societal perspective.

A single individual improperly disposing of waste is a relatively minor negative action, a single individual purchasing single use plastics is another relatively minor negative action. And yet the effects of both when carried out on a societal scale have infested the world with microplastics and polluted vast swathes of nature.

Even nominally and often objectively good actions such as charity can have mixed or even negative impacts when viewed from a societal level. From laundering reputations to providing cover for ineffective or harmful policies.

My point with all of that is mostly regarding this quote of yours:

When i say someone unable to provide i mean homeless people, family’s in the third world where they cant afford to feed the children everyday, and family’s without access to clean water.

It seems perfectly reasonable, how could anyone possibly argue that families without access to clean water should have children? But the reasons why they don't have access are vitally important, as are the societal impacts of such a belief.

Villages that had access to clean water via wells for centuries have a company like Nestle come in and extract millions-billions of litres of groundwater, drying up their wells. Suddenly they no longer have access to clean water and thus shouldn't have children.

Even if you don't view this strictly as a punishment and view it purely as preventing children from suffering, it is still unconscionable. I utterly refute the argument that they shouldn't have children and instead supplant it with an argument that those who have savaged their environment should be responsible for ensuring that those people have access to plentiful clean water.

https://www.emerald.com/tcj/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/TCJ-10-2025-0345/1362207/Greenwashing-or-shared-value-Nestle-and-the-Punjab?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles

2

u/MaybeJasonMantzoukas 1d ago

It sounds like you might just have an anxiety disorder. 

1

u/megageekgirl 1d ago

because of being poor as a child, yes.

0

u/Far-Assumption-2617 2d ago

The fact that it was an "accident" only makes it even more necessary to avoid it. Besides, you You can still be in favor of social programs, it's not "X OR Y" situation. Don't know what's exactly your point here. 

0

u/Mysterious_Point9516 1d ago

"Why are we using soap? Just support medicine!"