That line is what the author no doubt believes is a clever wink and nod to Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. This article is satire.
Shitty satire, at that, where the author believes you’ll be proven hypocritical if you disagree and he will be proven correct by your reaction to the article.
That is to say, the author isn’t actually advocating for taking kids away from their parents at birth, he just believes you’re hypocritical if you think there’s a difference between that and banning abortion while encouraging giving up children for adoption, or taking kids away from people who claim to be their parents at the border but could be child traffickers.
I'm sure I read a similar proposal made sincerely, but I can't remember where I read it. As I recall, the proposal called for all children to become wards of the state and be raised in government run boarding schools. This way, no one would have an advantage due to familial connections or home life.
I don't doubt that some regressives (especially childless ones) actually believe this shit. I just think most of them wank over this shit as some kind of proof that there is no far left because they would never do anything so evil like the far right (supposedly) does.
The real problem with regressives IMO is just how easily they likely could be convinced that something like this is a good idea should their masters decide it is so. If you asked them a few years back if they would support mandatory experimental vaccines they would probably have said no, yet here we are.
Correct. Quality over quantity. China has 1.7B people and they suck. Our strides are because we were bright, not because of our massive population.
Fewer, WELL raised children in nuclear families.
Throw in home schooling, proper diet (get rid of public schools and the food pyramid). That's the winning ticket.
That line is what the author no doubt believes is a clever wink and nod to Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. This article is satire.
Shitty satire, at that, where the author believes you’ll be proven hypocritical if you disagree and he will be proven correct by your reaction to the article.
That is to say, the author isn’t actually advocating for taking kids away from their parents at birth, he just believes you’re hypocritical if you think there’s a difference between that and banning abortion while encouraging giving up children for adoption, or taking kids away from people who claim to be their parents at the border but could be child traffickers.
I'm sure I read a similar proposal made sincerely, but I can't remember where I read it. As I recall, the proposal called for all children to become wards of the state and be raised in government run boarding schools. This way, no one would have an advantage due to familial connections or home life.
I don't doubt that some regressives (especially childless ones) actually believe this shit. I just think most of them wank over this shit as some kind of proof that there is no far left because they would never do anything so evil like the far right (supposedly) does.
The real problem with regressives IMO is just how easily they likely could be convinced that something like this is a good idea should their masters decide it is so. If you asked them a few years back if they would support mandatory experimental vaccines they would probably have said no, yet here we are.
That is scary. Honestly thought this was a Babylon bee headline
The article is satire... probably.
Well, that’s a disturbing profile, if ever I saw one… 😳
Those retweets are fucking wild…
Are “booster clubs” a real thing, in Cali??
Booster clubs as in raising money for extra shit at schools. That's not a California thing either.
Not booster as in booster jab. They haven't lost all semblance of sanity just yet.
Do not forget A Modest Proposal was not lambasting the state of society so much as the reaction to the state of society.
Modern Marxism isnt what Marx envisioned, otherwise it would be both racist and antisemitic.
His movement, while retarded, was hijacked and made 100 times worse.
butch dykes like to raise little boys, too. I mean, they torture and murder them. not great outcomes for the kids but the ladies seem to enjoy it.
Of course they enjoy it.
Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to adopt boys.
Correct. Quality over quantity. China has 1.7B people and they suck. Our strides are because we were bright, not because of our massive population.
Fewer, WELL raised children in nuclear families. Throw in home schooling, proper diet (get rid of public schools and the food pyramid). That's the winning ticket.
The biggest disadvantage you can give your own child is African genetics, so don't race mix.
You mean they havent abolished it already?
California should abolish itself in the name of equity.
Commiefornia needs to just be dumped in the sea.
they don't want kids but they wan't your kids
I'm sure women would love losing all their leverage in a relationship.
He won't just be torn apart by angry parents, but by pissed off gold diggers and divorcees (same thing) too.
Has to be satire. Surely…
I don’t think we should fall for that one. 😑
Family structure and stability is one front in the attack on western civilization.
Intro to commie "intellectual" Gramsci who concluded a violent revolution in the West couldn't succeed until the cultural institutions were eroded - proposed subverting the institutions of family, law, government, religion, and education.
All the New Discourses podcasts are great, even though Lindsay refuses to accept that liberalism has failed and has no defense against subversion.
When the reptiloids fail to understand why mammal folk don't just lay their eggs in communal creches ...
anyone pushing equity should be beaten bloody.
I misread that as "abolish planned parenthood" and got excited.