Russia Proposes ‘Extremist’ Label for LGBT, Feminist, Child-Free Movements

[Fallen Prophet]

Fortunately people here don't share this highly dogmatic and demonizing view.

I hope you understand that this is just your opinion.

I believe that someone not wanting to procreate is an extreme position - and you have kind of proven that to be true.

You claim that you don't want to procreate because you have had such a horrible life - and I would consider that to be an extreme example - because most people don't have horrible lives and they like being here.

We all hold extreme views on some issues - that isn't demonizing.

Why? Such things happen. Cultures come and go, nothing lasts forever and change is the only constant.

I understand that you may not appreciate what your country has given you. The opportunities. The culture. The ideals. The values.

But not everyone is as ungrateful as you and they would like to preserve these things.

Nope.

So - why do they give tax inceptives to people that have children?

So? There are too many of us as there is.

That is your - frankly - very sad opinion.

I don't think there are enough people. The more people we have the more ideas and innovations they will bring to the table.

It's called inclusivity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hope you understand that this is just your opinion

No, it's a fact. No one cares that I don't have kids. Except apparently arselings who want to make it their own business.

I believe that someone not wanting to procreate is an extreme position - and you have kind of proven that to be true.

I'm not forcing it on anyone, I'm not killing or turning violent over it, I'm not even pushing for legislation to enforce child limits.
You seem to have an incredibly low bar for what constitutes as extremism.

I understand that you may not appreciate what your country has given you. The opportunities. The culture. The ideals. The values.

I had to move to get opportunities and culture, and to live under ideals and values that aren't repressive and based on ancient superstitions.
Amd where in the hell do you get unappreciative because I don't want kids?

I don't think there are enough people. The more people we have the more ideas and innovations they will bring to the table.

We already don't have enough to go around. Add too many more and it's disease, resource shortages, and misery and suffering.

You claim that you don't want to procreate because you have had such a horrible life - and I would consider that to be an extreme example - because most people don't have horrible lives and they like being here.

That just isn't extremism. It has nothing to do with extremist ideology.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No, it's a fact. No one cares that I don't have kids. Except apparently arselings who want to make it their own business.

You've never encountered anyone who believed that you never wanting to have kids was strange? I find that difficult to believe.

Either way - I do not care if you don't want kids - but I can understand why your government would care - which is why they give incentives to people to have kids.

What's an "arseling"?

I'm not forcing it on anyone, I'm not killing or turning violent over it, I'm not even pushing for legislation to enforce child limits.
You seem to have an incredibly low bar for what constitutes as extremism.

No - I think you are just using an incorrect definition of "extreme".

Having an "extreme" opinion does not mean that you want to force anyone to do anything or be violent or kill anyone or anything.

That is why the term "violent extremism" exists - it is extremism that becomes violent - proving that not all extremism is violent or anything like that.

I had to move to get opportunities and culture, and to live under ideals and values that aren't repressive and based on ancient superstitions.

Ok. So - don't you want to have children in this new place you live in order to better preserve this culture, ideals and values?

Amd where in the hell do you get unappreciative because I don't want kids?

I didn't.

After I mentioned that the decline in population growth in the U.S should concern all Americans - you said, "Why? Such things happen. Cultures come and go, nothing lasts forever and change is the only constant."

This proves that you do not appreciate the country you live in. Or lived in. I don't know your situation. At least you don't appreciate the culture, ideals and values of the U.S.

Could you imagine if I we were talking about how you should be concerned about mother dying and you said, "Why? Such things happen. Mothers come and go, they don't last forever and change is the only constant."

That would prove that you did not appreciate your mother - would it not?

We already don't have enough to go around. Add too many more and it's disease, resource shortages, and misery and suffering.

We don't? Then is everyone so fat and everywhere I go is hiring?

That just isn't extremism. It has nothing to do with extremist ideology.

Sure it is.

You can love or hate life to the extreme.

Wanting to have unlimited children would be an extreme stance. Wanting zero children would also be an extreme stance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This proves that you do not appreciate the country you live in. Or lived in. I don't know your situation. At least you don't appreciate the culture, ideals and values of the U.S.

That just means I acknowledge things change and nothing lasts forever. Even the mightiest of empires fade into dust and memory.

You've never encountered anyone who believed that you never wanting to have kids was strange? I find that difficult to believe.

People just see it as and accept it as my own choice.

but I can understand why your government would care -

If it cared they'd penalize me. But they don't.

No - I think you are just using an incorrect definition of "extreme".

You are definitely the one misusing it if you think not wanting to have kids is extreme. It's just not.

We don't? Then is everyone so fat and everywhere I go is hiring?

That has nothing to do with my point.

Could you imagine if I we were talking about how you should be concerned about mother dying and you said, "Why? Such things happen. Mothers come and go, they don't last forever and change is the only constant."

That would prove that you did not appreciate your mother - would it not?

I don't appreciate my mom. She's constantly put my down my entire life, only ever points out and highlights my flaws, expects total submission, is antagonistic towards everything I want to do/has never lent me any support, has mocked and ridiculed me, embarrassed and humiliated me, and has left me with some pretty deep emotional scars. She's such a pathetic excuse of a mother she'll yell at me for doing stuff she does (she's very hypocritical and lives by double standards).

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they don't. They want racial purity and authoritarian machismo.

If they wanted to actually enlargen their population and nothing else, they could trivially achieve that by taking in more immigrants.

Fallen sort of has a point. Social Security is a bit of a Ponzi Scheme since it relies on a growing population. When the population stops growing there are going to be some serious problems funding it. And the funds as you probably know are not really in a "security deposit". The ability of taxpayers to fund it is the supposed security. A flat, or worse yet declining population will be disastrous. And yes, I agree, the world needs a declining population right now, not a growing one.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That just means I acknowledge things change and nothing lasts forever. Even the mightiest of empires fade into dust and memory.

No - it is more than that. Having zero desire to preserve your culture shows that you do not appreciate it.

People just see it as and accept it as my own choice.

Of course they do because it is your choice and they have no choice but to accept that fact - but they do have an opinion about it. They do.

If it cared they'd penalize me. But they don't.

That would be called tyranny.

The tax incentive that I have been mentioning (and you have been ignoring) is proof that they care.

They are using the carrot rather than the stick.

You are definitely the one misusing it if you think not wanting to have kids is extreme. It's just not.

Extremes are the highest and lowest.

Someone wanting infinite children would be the extreme on the highest end while someone who wants zero kids is on the extreme lowest end.

If your attitude toward children led you to start attacking or killing kids - then you'd become a "violent extremist."

You are an extremist - just not a violent one.

That has nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your point.

You said that we do not have enough - while in reality - we have everything in excess. Food in abundance - fat people prove that. And the amount of open jobs shows all the opportunity this country has to offer.

You are just wrong. We have plenty to go around. More than we could hope to consume or use.

I don't appreciate my mom. She's constantly put my down my entire life, only ever points out and highlights my flaws, expects total submission, is antagonistic towards everything I want to do/has never lent me any support, has mocked and ridiculed me, embarrassed and humiliated me, and has left me with some pretty deep emotional scars. She's such a pathetic excuse of a mother she'll yell at me for doing stuff she does (she's very hypocritical and lives by double standards).

Thank you for providing more examples of you being ungrateful and unappreciative.

That just proves my point - sadly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No - it is more than that. Having zero desire to preserve your culture shows that you do not appreciate it.

No, I don't appreciate this disposable culture of instant gratification, a life of pursuing material junk, disconnected from others, dumbed down, greedy, vicious, spiteful, a culture of sound bites and pop politics where a lack of critical thinking is praised and promoted. This culture is so sick that we consider parents living in an empty nest a norm.
Let the new Rome burn and fall.

but they do have an opinion about it. They do.

They don't see it as extreme.

The tax incentive that I have been mentioning (and you have been ignoring) is proof that they care.

They offer a lot of tax incentives that their is no care or concern behind. Like when Scientology was dubbed a formal religion for tax break purposes. Those who made that decision didn't care about what Scientology actually teaches and practices.

You are an extremist

No, you just want to think that. But I'm not.

You said that we do not have enough - while in reality - we have everything in excess

Not everyone does. Even America some places do not have access to drinkable water or fresh foods.

you being ungrateful and unappreciative.

That just proves my point - sadly.

It's sad you seem to think I should be grateful and appreciative of being abused.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No, I don't appreciate this disposable culture of instant gratification, a life of pursuing material junk, disconnected from others, dumbed down, greedy, vicious, spiteful, a culture of sound bites and pop politics where a lack of critical thinking is praised and promoted.

Wow - this is so funny - because we are talking in that other thread about masturbation and how you think it's good.

But now here you are claiming that you hate this "culture of instant gratification", "disconnected from others", "greedy" - it's like - WOW

You really don't know what you believe - do you?

And I would say that most if not all of these issues are caused by people not appreciating what they have.

This culture is so sick that we consider parents living in an empty nest a norm.

What's sick about that? Chicks need to leave the nest eventually? Are you claiming that parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their nests?

I don't understand.

Let the new Rome burn and fall.

Hah!

You keep providing examples of how ungrateful you are and I think it is because you haven't lived in actual poverty before.

Go explore the world and then come back and tell me how hard we got it here.

They don't see it as extreme.

That really doesn't matter - because by definition it is extreme.

And c'mon - you can't read their minds - you honestly think no one thinks its weird or extreme?

They offer a lot of tax incentives that their is no care or concern behind. Like when Scientology was dubbed a formal religion for tax break purposes. Those who made that decision didn't care about what Scientology actually teaches and practices.

The government doesn't have to care about what the religion actually teaches - only that it is a religion.

Just like how they don't care what religion I raise my children to live by - they just care that my children exist.

No, you just want to think that. But I'm not.

There is nothing wrong with being on the extreme end of an issue.

You wanting literally zero children puts you at the extreme end of this issue.

Not everyone does. Even America some places do not have access to drinkable water or fresh foods.

No - that is not accurate.

If anyone in America has no water or food - it's because they spent their money on their new iphone or TV.

We have what they need in abundance - but they have different priorities.

It's sad you seem to think I should be grateful and appreciative of being abused.

You should be grateful and appreciative for being alive at all. That's the start.

You shouldn't look at everything through the lens of a victim. You can never be happy if you do that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You really don't know what you believe - do you?

I'm not a prude and I don't have sexual hangups so it's not inconsistent.

What's sick about that? Chicks need to leave the nest eventually? Are you claiming that parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their nests?

I don't understand.

Humans traditionally don't live in arrangements that end with it being husband and wife and no one else.

That really doesn't matter - because by definition it is extreme.

It's really not. You just have a bizarrely low threshold for extreme.

And c'mon - you can't read their minds - you honestly think no one thinks its weird or extreme?

It's called having face to face conversations with people rather than making assumptions about people on the internet.

You wanting literally zero children puts you at the extreme end of this issue.

It's really not.

If anyone in America has no water or food - it's because they spent their money on their new iphone or TV.

I live in a county that has potable water stations and a thriving home water filtration business because the tap water widely isn't safe to drink.

You shouldn't look at everything through the lens of a victim. You can never be happy if you do that.

I don't. However it's a fact my mom is abusive and that's nothing to be appreciated.
You need to quit looking at things through assumptions.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't know how you equated "anti-feminist" with "supporting domestic violence".

I didn't, the article was saying, 'Organizations supporting victims of domestic violence have also been labeled “foreign agents.”', you then said, "You can be anti-feminist and pro-women". I understood you to be talking not about me specifically when you said "you" but rather talking about Russia's ruling party. That's why when I replied I was talking about Russia when I said you can't be a supporter of domestic violence and pro-women, it was a reference to the ruling party of Russia, not you specifically.

it wouldn't be an "extremist" view if it were held by the majority - would it?

It appears that your definition of "extreme"= minority which i find very problematic. For me something is extreme if it causes harm and therefore if the majority were holding a harmful view they would be considered extremist by me.

But the idea that man can become women and women men or that gender is a social construct are extreme views.

Well they possibly are *minority* views in the US, but that could change.

More people leads to more innovation.

Most of the innovation seems to occur in resource rich developed areas, not in areas where the population is overproduced beyond the capacity of food production

Not to mention the preservation of your nation's culture. And a bunch of other stuff.

The only aspect of my nations culture which I consider non-negotiable is the free competition of ideas, and that can be preserved by selective immigration of those who agree to it as a principle.

As to the "bunch of other stuff" I would suggest that is just an empty claim.

In my opinion

 

[Kooky]

Fallen sort of has a point. Social Security is a bit of a Ponzi Scheme since it relies on a growing population. When the population stops growing there are going to be some serious problems funding it. And the funds as you probably know are not really in a "security deposit". The ability of taxpayers to fund it is the supposed security. A flat, or worse yet declining population will be disastrous. And yes, I agree, the world needs a declining population right now, not a growing one.

As I said, you could trivially enlargen your population by taking in more immigrants - indeed, new immigrants are vastly more likely to be of working age than new children, and can therefore immediately contribute to that social security system you so delightfully derive as a "ponzi scheme".


New citizens aren't what's required, but rather, new members of the dominant ethnicity - and not any new members, mind you, since LGBT people and leftists aren't considered sufficiently "pure" to count as part of that in-group, either.
What's important in this argument is not the actual number of new citizens, but their ethnic and racial makeup.
The demographic issue is a smoke screen.

 

[Kooky]

Your irrationality.

Please be more specific.

 

[Kooky]

A nation that wants to preserve their culture, values and ideals would prioritize growing their own citizens rather than importing them.

We have actually seen the opposite happen in countries that open their borders. They lose their cultural identity and it creates friction.

Bingo! This is what it is about.

Nothing about population figures or social security. Just plain old national purity.

 

[Kooky]

I don't think there are enough people. The more people we have the more ideas and innovations they will bring to the table.

It's called inclusivity.

Then restricting immigration, restricting how parents bring up their children, and oppressing LGBTQ people's (or, indeed, anybody's) ability to live their lives as they decide for themselves would be the exact opposite of what you wanted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, you could trivially enlargen your population by taking in more immigrants - indeed, new immigrants are vastly more likely to be of working age than new children, and can therefore immediately contribute to that social security system you so delightfully derive as a "ponzi scheme".


New citizens aren't what's required, but rather, new members of the dominant ethnicity - and not any new members, mind you, since LGBT people and leftists aren't considered sufficiently "pure" to count as part of that in-group, either.
What's important in this argument is not the actual number of new citizens, but their ethnic and racial makeup.
The demographic issue is a smoke screen.

Yes, that works too, but that cannot go on forever either. And immigrants do do that, contrary to the claims of many on the right. And the fact that the Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme is well known. Cash flow in does not match cash flow out without a growing population.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, that works too, but that cannot go on forever either. And immigrants do do that, contrary to the claims of many on the right. And the fact that the Social Security System is a Ponzi scheme is well known. Cash flow in does not match cash flow out without a growing population.

No, that's nonsense. You may dislike social security and other forms of public benefits for whatever reason, but that does not make these systems "ponzi schemes" in any real or factual sense. What a "ponzi scheme" is, is actually fairly well known and defined, and social security isn't that. But don't take my word for it!

A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.[1] The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds. A Ponzi scheme can maintain the illusion of a sustainable business as long as new investors contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and still believe in the non-existent assets they are purported to own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Hint: That's not how social security works at all!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#Forms

So calling social security a Ponzi scheme betrays ignorance of a) how social security works, and b) how Ponzi schemes work.
I hope the information I provided can serve to alleviate some of that ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that's nonsense. You may dislike social security and other forms of public benefits for whatever reason, but that does not make these systems "ponzi schemes" in any real or factual sense. What a "ponzi scheme" is, is actually fairly well known and defined, and social security isn't that. But don't take my word for it!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Calling social security a ponzi scheme betrays ignorance of a) how social security works, and b) how Ponzi schemes work.

You are so wrong. Why do you keep making these rather foolish claims about others that you cannot support? You might not like the phrase "Ponzi Scheme" but it is very close to how it works. The money that one puts into it is not used for other purposes. The returns on it are rather abysmal. We need something like it, but as presently funded it is in serious trouble when the population quits growing. A Ponzi scheme also only works when it is growing. They traditionally have a much quicker and more dramatic death. But if one discovers a Ponzi scheme very very early in its life one can be one of the lucky few. They rely on the lucky few that get in at the beginning (and who often make the error of reinvesting) to get to the point where the founders pull out and it collapses. I had an employee that invested in one once. She was warned about it by both my father and me at the time. And I do believe it put a severe kink into her marriage that ultimately failed.

I will definitely "get most of my money back". Though not really if one takes everything into account. I am not so sure of the next generation.

 

[Kooky]

You are so wrong. Why do you keep making these rather foolish claims about others that you cannot support? You might not like the phrase "Ponzi Scheme" but it is very close to how it works. The money that one puts into it is not used for other purposes. The returns on it are rather abysmal. We need something like it, but as presently funded it is in serious trouble when the population quits growing. A Ponzi scheme also only works when it is growing. They traditionally have a much quicker and more dramatic death. But if one discovers a Ponzi scheme very very early in its life one can be one of the lucky few. They rely on the lucky few that get in at the beginning (and who often make the error of reinvesting) to get to the point where the founders pull out and it collapses. I had an employee that invested in one once. She was warned about it by both my father and me at the time. And I do believe it put a severe kink into her marriage that ultimately failed.

I will definitely "get most of my money back". Though not really if one takes everything into account. I am not so sure of the next generation.

I challenge you to find an authoritative source that supports these claims as factual (but please specify whether you are talking here about Western/Central/Northern European social security, US welfare, the UK system, or the Russian social welfare system, because these do not work the same way).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I challenge you to find an authoritative source that supports these claims as factual.

Be specific. Which claims do you not like.

By the way, you do not appear to understand how Social Security works. It is a tax and a very regressive one. I would think that you would be in favor of scrapping the system and coming up with one based on a progressive tax. The Social Security Tax is one that only the poorest of workers get out of through the EIC (Earned Income Credit) and it is one that the richest pay the lowest percentage of their wages into since it tops out. I forgot how much the current cap is, but at one point in one's earnings one does not pay any more into Social Security. Okay, it is currently at $142,800 dollars. Anything over that one does not pay Social Security on but one still does pay for Medicare. That is quite the opposite of an income tax. It is more similar to an old fashioned poll tax in that way.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I didn't, the article was saying, 'Organizations supporting victims of domestic violence have also been labeled “foreign agents.”', you then said, "You can be anti-feminist and pro-women". I understood you to be talking not about me specifically when you said "you" but rather talking about Russia's ruling party.

No - I was not talking about Russia's ruling party - just the general "you".

The OP made it seem like your opinion was that if someone - Russian ruling class or individual - disagreed with "radical feminism" then they hated women.

And I don't believe that that is true. Anyone can be anti-feminist and still be pro-women. Feminists don't speak for all women - just their agenda.

And without knowing more about these "organizations" and what "support" they are giving to victims of domestic violence I cannot weigh in.

For example - I like the idea of providing knowledge about sexual health - but I still don't support Planned Parenthood.

I also don't know what this Russian party thinks about "foreign agents".

So - my comment was more about your opinion than about anything that is happening in Russia.

That's why when I replied I was talking about Russia when I said you can't be a supporter of domestic violence and pro-women, it was a reference to the ruling party of Russia, not you specifically.

I understand - I am not on Russia's team - but I don't know enough about these organizations, the support they claim to offer and the designation "foreign agent" to determine if the ruling class in Russia hates women.

I would assume - based on the fact that everyone in Russia has a mother - that that is not the case - but then again - I don't know.

It appears that your definition of "extreme"= minority which i find very problematic. For me something is extreme if it causes harm and therefore if the majority were holding a harmful view they would be considered extremist by me.

Yes - to you - but the actual definition of "extreme" means "furthest from the center of a given point".

For example - I hold the view that Adam and Eve were real people that actually existed as recorded in Genesis - today that would be considered an "extreme" belief to hold.

What is considered "extreme" changes with the times and they don't not need to be harmful at all to be considered "extreme" - just furthest from center.

Well they possibly are *minority* views in the US, but that could change.

Well - if the "center" remains biological fact and objective reality - then I don't see that happening.

If that center were to be moved - then it is a possibility - to the detriment of us all.

Most of the innovation seems to occur in resource rich developed areas, not in areas where the population is overproduced beyond the capacity of food production

Of course the innovation would occur in areas rich with resources and opportunities. That stands to reason.

That does not mean that the innovation found in these areas would not benefit all - especially those overproduced areas.

The only aspect of my nations culture which I consider non-negotiable is the free competition of ideas, and that can be preserved by selective immigration of those who agree to it as a principle.

I agree that we should be selecting only from among the best to emigrate. Those who are most likely to assimilate.

But it is much easier, convenient and cheaper to just grow our own.

No need to fund massive bureaucracies to run their often biased and corrupt selective processes.

As to the "bunch of other stuff" I would suggest that is just an empty claim.

You really don't see any benefit to the citizenry of one's nation making more citizens? Are you serious?