Most supporters of fascism aren’t going to think “I’m doing this for the white race”.
Point out where I’m advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it’s not valid and you can’t make it stick.
When you say things like “caring capacity of the planet”. Like, that’s actually a realistic threat.
Not sure if typo, but the term is “carrying capacity”, this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant “caring capacity”. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It’s hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this…
Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.
…Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don’t change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don’t call you out on it.
Eco-fascist stand their as a solution to the “hard truths” of climate change. Masking themselves as scientific and reasonable. They are not offering solutions for humanity. They are offering solutions for who they view as human and “leser than”. But they’re not gonna say that. They’re gonna say the same thing you are saying.
You’re saying here that I’m advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, “if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group”. Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?
Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.
Let’s examine this point a little more… I’m not stupid, and I’m willing to believe you’re not stupid. You’re insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming… These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it’s an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It’s seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it’s racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you’re alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I’m the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?
I would appreciate it you reread the first quote and the response you have in your above comment.
You quoted me explaining that supporters of fascist AREN’T all aware or even intend to support racial supremacists. Then told me, in not so few words, “I can’t be supporting fascist. I’m not not a racial supremacists”.
Can you see how you’re ignoring what I’m talking about and the point I’m making? If you can acknowledge that I’ll respond to the rest of your comment if you still want. But you opened your comment basically telling me that you are ignoring what I said.
No, it is explained in the rest of my post. You can’t just simply assert your first statement without evidence. Did you miss the whole section on you being a nazi because you (probably) drive a car and wear clothes? Your argument that I’m an eco-fascist is built on the exact same framework. If you want to call me an Eco-Fascist, then you need to point to statement where I explicitly say that I am an eco-fascist, or I explicitly call for eco-fascism. Note that Eco-fascism is the use of authoritarianism, violence, and force to explicitly wipe out ethnic groups and using vague justifications about the environment to support it.
Since you seem confused by my actual position, let me try to clearly state it for you, and you can try to attack that.
The earth is finite, therefore the resources on earth are finite. People need those resources to live, therefore the maximum population of people on the planet is finite. Please note here that I am not arguing that we have reached that limit, or are even near that limit.
Humans are by far the biggest driver of climate change, and the more people there are on the planet, the faster this will occur, and regions of the planet will become inhospitable more quickly.
There is no benefit to increasing the total number of people on the planet at this point.
Providing everyone with the means to self limit their reproduction is a gain for humanity and life as we know it. Note that this is not a call for euthanasia, sterilization, or government incentives to go childless, nor is it a call to specifically target certain regions or demographics. I think we should provide global access to contraceptives to both sexes, along with education about reproduction, laws guaranteeing an individual’s right to reproductive autonomy, social safety nets to care for the elderly without relying on their children, and education on the damage the human population is doing to biodiversity and life on Earth.
None of that is ecofascism, at no point do I call for authoritarian, violent, or racist policies to be used, all 3 of which are core tenants of eco-fascism.
I read your whole comment mate. I can reply to one part and realize that you’re not actually acknowledging my point. I was trying to simplify things for you because you seem to not be able to respond well to long replies. I was pointing to a really obvious misunderstanding of our discussion. You can’t even acknowledge that?
I’ll put it simply with an extreme example. Again, this is an EXAMPLE. I’m not calling you a Nazi. I’m using an extreme analogy to make a point.
Being a Nazi does not require one to acknowledge that they are a Nazi. If that was the requirement no one but the Nazis of 1930-1940s Germany would fit the definition. One can still be rightfully called a Nazi when they are repeating Nazi talking points. Regardless of their intentions or misunderstandings. We’d call them a Nazi.
You are consistently repeating eco fascist talking points. I don’t care about you’re own internal rationalizing for that. They are eco fascist and you are saying them. That’s it. You can try to justify that to yourself but it doesn’t make you repeating the same things eco-fascist say any less of a reality. That’s what you did.
1, I didn’t not repeat eco-fascist talking points. Quote the relevant text from me along with providing a source on eco-fascist positions of you want to continue to make this argument.
Even if I did advocate for the same tactics as eco-fascists, the end goal and applocation of those tactics is different, and that is the distinction that matters. You (probably) advocate and support some of the same things that the Nazis wanted to do, like provide social security for the elderly, and have the government focus on fitness and healthcare for the populace. Does that mean that you are support the extermination of Jews? By my logic, the answer is “no”, but by your logic, the answer is “Jawohl, mein Führer”. So if you want to persue this line of attack, I’m going to need to you to defend your support of killing 6 million Jews.
Point out where I’m advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it’s not valid and you can’t make it stick.
Not sure if typo, but the term is “carrying capacity”, this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant “caring capacity”. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It’s hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this…
…Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don’t change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don’t call you out on it.
You’re saying here that I’m advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, “if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group”. Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?
Let’s examine this point a little more… I’m not stupid, and I’m willing to believe you’re not stupid. You’re insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming… These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it’s an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It’s seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it’s racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you’re alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I’m the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?
I would appreciate it you reread the first quote and the response you have in your above comment.
You quoted me explaining that supporters of fascist AREN’T all aware or even intend to support racial supremacists. Then told me, in not so few words, “I can’t be supporting fascist. I’m not not a racial supremacists”.
Can you see how you’re ignoring what I’m talking about and the point I’m making? If you can acknowledge that I’ll respond to the rest of your comment if you still want. But you opened your comment basically telling me that you are ignoring what I said.
No, it is explained in the rest of my post. You can’t just simply assert your first statement without evidence. Did you miss the whole section on you being a nazi because you (probably) drive a car and wear clothes? Your argument that I’m an eco-fascist is built on the exact same framework. If you want to call me an Eco-Fascist, then you need to point to statement where I explicitly say that I am an eco-fascist, or I explicitly call for eco-fascism. Note that Eco-fascism is the use of authoritarianism, violence, and force to explicitly wipe out ethnic groups and using vague justifications about the environment to support it.
Since you seem confused by my actual position, let me try to clearly state it for you, and you can try to attack that.
The earth is finite, therefore the resources on earth are finite. People need those resources to live, therefore the maximum population of people on the planet is finite. Please note here that I am not arguing that we have reached that limit, or are even near that limit.
Humans are by far the biggest driver of climate change, and the more people there are on the planet, the faster this will occur, and regions of the planet will become inhospitable more quickly.
There is no benefit to increasing the total number of people on the planet at this point.
Providing everyone with the means to self limit their reproduction is a gain for humanity and life as we know it. Note that this is not a call for euthanasia, sterilization, or government incentives to go childless, nor is it a call to specifically target certain regions or demographics. I think we should provide global access to contraceptives to both sexes, along with education about reproduction, laws guaranteeing an individual’s right to reproductive autonomy, social safety nets to care for the elderly without relying on their children, and education on the damage the human population is doing to biodiversity and life on Earth.
None of that is ecofascism, at no point do I call for authoritarian, violent, or racist policies to be used, all 3 of which are core tenants of eco-fascism.
I read your whole comment mate. I can reply to one part and realize that you’re not actually acknowledging my point. I was trying to simplify things for you because you seem to not be able to respond well to long replies. I was pointing to a really obvious misunderstanding of our discussion. You can’t even acknowledge that?
I’ll put it simply with an extreme example. Again, this is an EXAMPLE. I’m not calling you a Nazi. I’m using an extreme analogy to make a point.
Being a Nazi does not require one to acknowledge that they are a Nazi. If that was the requirement no one but the Nazis of 1930-1940s Germany would fit the definition. One can still be rightfully called a Nazi when they are repeating Nazi talking points. Regardless of their intentions or misunderstandings. We’d call them a Nazi.
You are consistently repeating eco fascist talking points. I don’t care about you’re own internal rationalizing for that. They are eco fascist and you are saying them. That’s it. You can try to justify that to yourself but it doesn’t make you repeating the same things eco-fascist say any less of a reality. That’s what you did.
You’re missing 2 things.
1, I didn’t not repeat eco-fascist talking points. Quote the relevant text from me along with providing a source on eco-fascist positions of you want to continue to make this argument.