I would like a family. But they will never happen. Go ahead and tax the nothing I have more. Rest in Peace Mr Whittle.
3 days ago | 19
A solidly conservative social order that has an understanding that: 1. There are exceptions to the rule, who should be treated with basic respect. 2. You do not need to upend society for the sake of those exceptions. This seems so obviously the best course, but something about human nature seems to make this impossible.
3 days ago | 15
The overwhelming majority of politicians have children, and virtually all of them shamelessly add to their nation's debt with zero regard for the future they allegedly care about more than I do. When someone says that being a parent means they have an investment in the future, it's a tacit admission that they don't especially care about people beyond their own progeny. The $4K I pay annually in property tax alone goes almost entirely to school other people's children. If I'm to be accused of not contributing, then give my money back so at least the claim would become somewhat honest.
2 days ago (edited) | 5
Anybody who thinks it's the government's mandate to nudge my lifestyle through taxation can come and take my place in Canada. They love that stuff here.
21 hours ago | 1
I'm loving your recent posts but why aren't you posting these as videos?
2 days ago | 1
People noticing a pattern and sharing that this pattern exists doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions to the rule
2 days ago | 0
This is just a fallacy of extremes, as I see it, and is a good exercise to know that general information is just that, generally correct, and when specific information contradicts it, it's important to integrate that understanding into your outlook. Because generally childlessness is a threat and in some cases can be seen as selfish (a maladaptive society that deprives opportunity and resources for families precludes people who otherwise wouldn't wish to be "selfish", that doesn't make every one without a child a net drain on society, and as you point out, it doesn't make every one with child a net gain.
3 days ago | 16
I love and respect tldr but I was very nervous that the thrust of this statement was going to be "but he was gay tho...." I'm incredibly glad to have been wrong
1 day ago | 0
Conservatives are rightly concerned that below-replacement birthrates coupled with high immigration will erase Western societies as we know them as surely as Greek Anatolia was erased, and they support policies conducive to family formation, but it's very rare to hear them railing that the childless should be "taxed to oblivion". It's also flatly wrong to say single people are penalised in the British tax system; Britain is unusually punitive among its OECD peers in the tax burden it imposes on single-breadwinner families compared to childless persons.
3 days ago (edited) | 23
No philosopher post-Jesus has contributed meaningfully to the Western canon. And I say this as a total atheist. Every subsequent philosopher has been catastrophically wrong. Some exceptions may be: Spengler, Mackie, or bloody Lovecraft. I'm on your side most of the time, but philosopher worship should be approached with the same degree of skepticism as you give social sciences and postmodern academic assertions.
2 days ago | 3
I think there is something to be said about the fact that, upon its foundation, Church of England abolished monasticism.
2 days ago | 2
I honestly think people with kids should be on a lower tax bracket. One thing you didn't add which is quite pertinent is retirement. I live in Germany and it has been known about for years that the retirement fund will be empty before even alot of genx have retired. In 2015 my economics teacher told us at that point every german couple needed to be having 7 children to secure their retirement. The system sucks if you ask me but the social contract demands we step up and do our part. I have no problem with that part being having kids or paying more into the state retirement fund. Fair is fair.
3 days ago | 1
The worst thing that can be done to a person is to force children in them they don't want. Sucks for the parent(s) and the child.
3 days ago | 5
Besides material and social concerns, can someone explain why being childless is bad? Whether or not to reproduce seems to be the essential question of life and this seems to just be completely glossed over like it's nothing in favor of economic arguments and the like.
2 days ago | 1
Honestly didn't really know of this sorta ideology till this post. Ive always been sort of an anti population type of person and actually had a massive appreciation for gay people because they contributed inadvertently to this sorta thing 😅 I love gay people regardless ofc, but im usually the kinda person who hates human beings till I get to know them
2 days ago | 0
Wild that in a world of overpopulation and resources that aren't plentiful for the general population, we aim to spread them thinner out of worry for the infinite growth of wealth for the seldom few. The so called golden ages of society weren't nearly so populous as we are today.
3 days ago | 0
TL;DR
I would like to take a moment to extend my sympathies to all those impacted by the recent, sad news of the passing of Peter Whittle. A man who no doubt did good things for the UK in the form of the broader political right and general political and socio-economic conversations of the nation.
With that said I would like to take this opportunity to address something else. People may consider this distasteful to talk about something such as this after the regrettable early passing of someone due to cancer. However I think it is something Mr Whittle himself would appreciate, as it gives a chance for the political ideas and sphere he operated in to improve its position and arguments. Much as so many people on the right, particularly in the UK seem to have an absolute 0 tolerance policy on "punching right" as they purloin the language the left. Self reflection and critique of your own "side" is always needed, lest you fall into an echo chamber with pre-conceived and unchallengeable, thus unbending, notions, that may become a problem later on.
I've somewhat enjoyed what I can only describe as the cognitive dissonance of certain conservative commentators, particularly in the UK, with regards to the regrettable passing of Mr Whittle. This is exclusively because Mr Whittle was a homosexual. Many UK commentators, indeed many international commentators on the right, have held in recent years to the position of "people without children are selfish and destructive to society" in some cases going so far as to say "they should be taxed into oblivion and never be allowed to use any of the services they are forced to pay for because they contribute nothing to society" and other such sentiments.
Seeing in recent days how this suddenly handbrake turns into the very kind words they have for Mr Whittle in his passing. "He had many spiritual children", "He contributed greatly to society and the wider thought sphere with his writing and works at the New Culture Forum", "his political activism and career have been important in furthering conservative thought and action".
I would suggest the "childless people are literally the fall of society" people reconsider their overall position in this light. Homosexuals very rarely have children, there are people unable to have them for biological reasons, there are people whose mental profiles, personalities and general life styles are not conducive to the having and raising of children. Many of the greatest inventors, scientists, philosophers etc. that these same commenters regularly cite, were childless. Indeed their lack of children is often part of the reason they were able to achieve such great things, they simply had more time on their hands to work on their ideas. Their works have gone on to greatly influence and build society. Far more so than a child who may or may not contribute anything. After all, your "children who are the future" may very well grow up to be jobless, welfare dependant wastrels. This will contribute nothing to society, in fact it will be an active drain. Once again I point to the single mother, man desert, welfare sink holes of society and revoke the right of any "childless people are the worst thing ever" commentators to complain about such arrangements. They did their duty and had children. In some cases several of them by multiple men. They are the future of society and have contributed meaningfully. Far more so than the over-represented in tax contribution, under-represented in welfare taking childless people who, apparently, have 0 interest in the future and are just mindless hedonists. Apparently people without their own biological children are incapable of caring about any adopted children they may have or nephews, nieces, cousins etc.
Self reflection on this topic would be well worth your time. As would some semblance of consistency.
3 days ago | [YT] | 351