In that same period, Bartkus’ rhetoric on alternative social media sites was dark. “I would not acknowledge reproduction as a human right, but instead as a form of rape,” IndictEvolution wrote on Lemmy.World in July 2023. “I am also not bothered by infanticide as long as it is done humanely…”
Isn’t that him attempting to be supportive of “trans stuff”? Still quite a wild statement to “despise nature” though.
An edgelord approving of “trans stuff” because he sees it as an affront to nature, but good because he “despises nature”. if that’s what “support” sounds like I don’t want it.
tbf i think he means bioessentialism, cause antinatalism is against the fact that it is “in our nature” to reproduce, therefore we should, and it’s easy to conflate the two.
I do agree that he is an edgelord tho, and probably doesn’t fully understand antinatalism in its full depth
Yeah, his comment history definitely shows a very fucked up way of thinking.
It’s a fucked up world.
Not “because of”. You have read that into the text, which actually says, “Something I love about…” which is also how someone might talk about an unexpected benefit they discover about something they already love.
I don’t see how “something I love about” necessarily implies that they also love other things, it could easily be read as only a sarcastic appreciation. I don’t consider myself ‘a big middle finger to nature and traditional culture’ and personally I don’t appreciate people who do see me that way.
That said it’s still sad seeing someone clearly going through a lot blow themselves up for what amounts to nonsense philosophy instead of finding something meaningful to do.
It could be said that way, yes. There is an ambiguity. But usually it is used to indicate specifically that it isn’t the sole factor. I’m not saying he’s being an effective ally, or even that he’s trying to be an ally. I just think you misinterpreted to say his views on transgender people are solely based in rebellion against nature and tradition.
I’m sorry it’s hurtful to you, in any case. I am also very disturbed.
I certainly wasn’t giving him the most charitable reading, nor did I care for his conclusions.
Considering the very real threats out there it’s concerning seeing people latch onto nonsense philosophies.
I agree. Last year a very confused man in my community went into a gender studies class in a University and stabbed the professor and two students (all survived). My partner is transgender at another school in town and I am… weirdgender. He was not a radicalized right winger, he was just disturbed and confused, and there is just so much fucking ambient hatred, it affects people who otherwise wouldn’t even give a shit about any of it.
that’s awful, yeah it does like there’s a lot of people are looking for someone to blame for why things are going badly, easy to pick on an out-group.
still valid, take care of yourselves out there!
Many of the trans people I know struggle with their dichotomous nature. They don’t necessarily see their natural body as something to be celebrated. I know that is far from universal among trans people but it’s something people often see from outside the culture looking in.
I said I don’t see being transgender as something unnatural or a ‘big middle finger’ to either nature or tradition. not liking your body doesn’t necessarily mean that correcting it is in opposition to ‘nature’
Something like capitalism has been more of a ‘big middle finger’ to nature and traditional cultures than any other force in history, certainly more so than trans people. Humans have expressed being trans long before things like capitalism and ‘traditional’ family structures too.
it’s just sad seeing people latch onto nonsense philosophy and self destruct pointlessly
Is it something you’re interested in discussing further?
sure thing, feel free to message me if you prefer!
First I would like to say that homicide or even violence are not valid expressions of antinatalism. I have to confess I share some similar views to those expressed (but apparently not fully embraced or informed by compassion) by the bomber, which makes this all the more disturbing to me. I find myself wanting to advocate, not for the bomber, but for some of his views, and that’s a hard distinction for people to make sometimes. I also want to offer people some insight into what he might have felt and thought by providing context for some of the seemingly radical things he said, because I think most people should be able to understand his point of view if they wish, whether or not they agree with it. But you might not want to relate to a terrorist, and I don’t want to engage if it makes you feel invalidated or challenged. Particularly since you may find his views to be anti-trans and dangerous.
I think it requires privilege not to despise nature.