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.
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.