>>85158189
I am black and my balls itch.

Based, since I am dysgenic.

>>85158189
It's not for me to decide whether other people should have children or not, so I don't care whether it is good or evil. I don't think it's either

>>85158203
>It's not for me to decide whether other people should have children or not

Why not? Surely you can make a value judgment on it.

>>85158189
Extremely cringe. It's bad for you, it's bad for the society. The meaning in people's lives comes from adopting responsibility and social connections. For most people it's having kids, since there's only so many positions of power. You're psychologically wired to derive fulfillment from it. But no, you'd rather eat candy than run a marathon, because you're a short-term thinking creature focused on the immediate hedonistic pleasures. And then you wonder why you wind up on psychiatric meds. It's bad for the society, because you need a steady supply of younger people to keep the society working. The elderly can't work, but they have to be taken care of and the infrastructure needs to be taken care of. The reducing of population numbers and the aging of the population also weaken the country on the world stage, making it more susceptible to invasions or exploitation by other nations. Having kids is like voting. If you want to avoid turmoil, you have to add your own little brick to this societal project. I think these antinatalist types don't actually realize that they live in the real world. The cushy society created a believable-enough abstraction for them, thinking they can just be anything and do anything, so they say retarded shit like that people shouldn't be having kids. They don't realize how delicate this kind of stable and safe social order is, and how much work needs to be put in to make it possible.

>>85158299
I mean, murder is evil ofcourse because the consequences are obvious and the same in all cases, but giving birth has more ambiguous consequences so I'm not inclined to make a value judgement on it. It's like saying commercial transaction is good or evil. Surely someone once got a good/bad deal out of it but it is odd to say it's good/evil as a whole

>>85158310
Couldn't care less if this joke of a rotten society falls apart tomorrow and I'm not even an anti-natalist, fag.

>>85158310
>They don't realize how delicate this kind of stable and safe social order is, and how much work needs to be put in to make it possible.

What? I'm antinatalist and understand this perfectly. Basically you're saying if we stop having kids society will break down. So what? All your reasons for having kids you've given are instrumental in value. You want to USE the creation of new humans for some sort of purpose to benefit the already existing. You use them as means for an ends and not an end in itself. That is wrong when there is so much suffering inherent in human life. Your post is like saying to a vegan, "well if we stop the production of new chicks at the hatcheries, then the battery cage egg farms will go out of business! We have to keep going otherwise the farmers will lose out and there will be no cheap eggs!! We need to eat!!!

The vegan will just be like so what? Abolish factory farming.

It's the same with antinatalism. So what society breaks down. Abolish reproduction.

>>85158357
But no human lives are good. We all get sick, get aged, and die. We all suffer and cause suffering.

>>85158474
>You use them as means for an ends and not an end in itself.
Because it's a consequentialist argument. When the discussed issue's moral value is in contention, then one of the way to evaluate it is to look at its outcomes. What I listed are clear moral outcomes. Antinatalism is unquestioningly bad for you and it's unquestioningly bad for the society. Is it good for the born human? Most people don't want to kill themselves and in fact would rather live, but I suppose I could be maximally charitable and say it's ambiguous and could go in whatever direction. But in that case it doesn't have much impact on the consequentialist moral calculation.
>That is wrong when there is so much suffering inherent in human life.
Most people live fulfilling lives. Again, you don't want to play the game of comparing outcomes, because you will lose on that point. Just take my charitable granting of it being ambiguous and unclear and discuss either the outcomes I brought up or bring other ones up.
>Your post is like saying to a vegan, "well if we stop the production of new chicks at the hatcheries, then the battery cage egg farms will go out of business!
This comparison is disanalogous, because even if we assume the consciousness of a chicken is equivalent to that of a human, then the life of a chicken in the most cruel thrirdworldist chicken farm would pretty much only be suffering. The life of humans is on balance positive, but for the sake of argument I'm willing to not get into that calculation and outright grant that it's unclear.
>It's the same with antinatalism. So what society breaks down. Abolish reproduction.
You seem to have this idea that human life is untold levels of suffering, because you're probably yourself a very mentally ill person. So you're projecting your experience on humanity in general. What I'm telling you here is that this point of view is completely unjustified. You haven't even begun to do so in your post.

>>85158189
A compiling of Reddit pontification on why white people shouldn't get to have families

>>85158189
I have shit genes I really don't want to pass on so I tend to agree with it in regard to myself.

>>85158458
Agreed, I love this obligation retards push towards society when society is fucking shit. Maybe if it was better I'd be more open to it but I go outside everyday and it's just ghetto hell.

>>85158587
Nobody is stopping you from having a family besides your own face and height

Antinatalism is pointless because the people having the most kids are the poor and stupid who don't know what antinatalism is and wouldn't give a fuck if they did

>>85158582
Anon, how would you feel about legalizing the killing of parents? Anyone that decided they're displeased with being born could punish those directly responsible for it, without consequence. Surely that would not have a significant impact on society, since being alive is just so great. There's nothing to fear, right?

>>85158630
Ofc, but I wasn't talking about that. No one is stopping you from having reading comprehension

>>85158458
That's because you're a severely mentally ill person at the complete bottom of the rungs of the society. You have zero skin in the game. However, you have to consider, that most people are not like you. Their lives aren't perfect. There's a lot of things they probably strongly dislike. But they have enough investment in their own lives to not want to have them fall into disarray. They want to work. To be happy. They want to have a community, they want to have food, water, shelter, etc. They don't want bombs to be falling on their heads. You can be like that too, if you're willing to work on it. Your attitude stems mostly from severe emotional problems, which leads you to live a life that's not fulfilling. But you can work to fix that. Go to a therapist. They won't wave a magic wand to fix your life, but they will help you plan out steps for you to do so and they will hold you accountable for it.

>>85158630
OP asked what I think about antinatalism.
I think it's a compiling of Reddit pontification on why white people shouldn't get to have families.

>>85158582
>Is it good for the born human?

Well I'm antinatalist and I think the answer is a resounding NO, and the standard for life being good is most people don't murder themselves is incredibly low, lol. Yes I understand you're making a consequentialist argument, but we differ in that I don't value society nor human birth. So the counter argument to antinatalism that its bad for society holds no sway. I basically WANT the consequences (no more humans or society) that you give as a consequentialist argument against antinatalism lol.

>Most people live fulfilling lives.

Human life is suffering. We are beings with constant, eventually lethal biological needs, have an inherent vulnerability to sickness disease and injury, live in a world that exploits us and requires us to be dependent upon our harm to others, all while hurtling towards an inevitable death as our bodies are constantly aging and dying.

>discuss either the outcomes I brought up or bring other ones up.

Well I just straight up value differently the outcomes you give. So your argument has no sway. Society SHOULD end because no humans should be born.

>The life of humans is on balance positive

I think you're a fucking retard. Go on documentingreality and look at how people's lives go. Go work in a dementia ward or a prison. Go look at the miserable jobs people do. Watch men get blown to pieces by drone bombs. Right now little girls are being raped by their fathers.

File: antinatalist jew fertility IQ.jpg (1.56 MB, 6016x2808)

1.56 MB JPG

>SSSSAAAARRRRRSSSS
>STOP RAISING WHITE FAMILIES SAAARRRRR DO NOT REDEEM
>MAKE SPACE FOR MORE BRAHMIN SSSAARRRRSSSS
>THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE LIKE INDIA AND AFRICA SSAAARRRR

>>85158582
>>85158737
>So you're projecting your experience on humanity in general.

As are you, but the opposite way. I say you're deluded you say I'm mentally ill. Yes it comes down to a value judgment about the worth of human life. I'm a philosophical pessimist. You're not. It would be pointless for me to try and convince you (an optimist) to share my judgment. Just as it would be pointless for you to try and convince me human life is a joyous ball of cuddles. I think my value judgment is the correct one, you think yours is. What to do? There's nothing more to debate then because it's just basically differing axioms.

File: IMG_8059.jpg (299 KB, 1290x1704)

299 KB JPG

>>85158310
>everyone's live has an intrinsic value
most people are bugs

>>85158620
The circus must go on

>>85158310
to an antinatalist this is all highminded nonsense to try and keep the project going despite it all being in vain. the point of antinatalism is that the human project itself is barren and not worth the effort. also its less a philosophical position (even though its framed as such), and moreso just the logical conclusion to deep seated pessimism that in turn serves as a conclusion to all subsequent analyses about anything. all natalist vs antinatalist discourse never goes anywhere because they reject the whole premise of your argument

File: 1770298086219415.jpg (618 KB, 2133x1530)

618 KB JPG

>>85158487
there's no point in antinatalism because You will always exist. even after death, sure maybe not as a human anymore but non-existence is non-existant by definition buddy. you can't opt out

>>85158787
Did I exist before my birth?

File: 57a2858f33aaa95a979134040(...).jpg (82 KB, 740x759)

82 KB JPG

>>85158704
That's a lot of bold assumptions you gather from a one line post. Not that it matters, but there's a reason why high iq people also share my general sentiment towards society, while midwits like you preach this nonsense, as if it amounted to anything kek. If I was this dreg of society you claim I am you wouldn't be so scared of me having a different opinion than yours, desperately trying to change me. Scum like you would much rather have the bums die off to have nicer looking streets.

>>85158704
you sound like a woman
unironically

>>85158802
yes. energy is neither created nor destroyed. it transforms

>>85158684
>Anon, how would you feel about legalizing the killing of parents?
I believe a person has a right to life and to be treated as of equal moral worth to others on deontological grounds. So I would find it bad.
>Anyone that decided they're displeased with being born could punish those directly responsible for it, without consequence.
You haven't even demonstrated that you were somehow wronged by being born. As a side note, even supposing I granted that, you haven't demonstrated why you'd have a right to carry out this killing instead of it being carried out by the state, but that's neither here nor there.
>Surely that would not have a significant impact on society, since being alive is just so great.
If it was legal for everybody to kill their parents, then no, you wouldn't have a functional society. This social contract would simply not be agreed upon by the public if everybody with any familial relations would now be permitted to start killing each other. It would lead to anarchy until something else would be instantiated.
>There's nothing to fear, right?
I don't think you even know what argument you're trying to make. You can obvious make a very strong consequentialist argument for why it being legal to kill your parents would be bad both for you and for the society. If this was supposed to be some kind of reductio ad absurdum of the whole concept of consequentialism via an analogy, then it clearly doesn't work. We can get further into this argument, but that would be getting too far away from the original point and starting a completely separate discussion.

>>85158704
Bla bla bla people like you will never accept that the world is fundamentally flawed, its always construed as some sort of personal failing within the person who judges this planet to be a faggot world. So basically you get to protect your bullshit rose tinted view or prison planet, while also feeling superior to the person who calls it out for what it is. Your a faggot.

Person 1: "the world is bad"
You: "you're a fucking mentally ill loser failure for thinking that"

Such a faggot response.

>>85158310
>you need a steady supply of younger people to keep the society working

you're so off the mark idek where to start with you. there is like 8x as many people on the planet than 100 years ago, there is no shortage of people. and of course, the elites will happily import third worlders forever regardless. having children for "ethical" reasons is also totally insane, if you must have children, do it because you want to invest in that person and help them have a good life. IMAGINE telling your offspring that the reason you had them is to "help take care of the infrastructure" get fucked.

>>85158858
>I would be greatly upset if my slaves were permitted to rebel

>>85158861
The world isn't bad

>>85158582
I see. People generally prefer what they know over the unknown, so perpetuating the known must be good for the people. Makes sense.

>>85158806
>there's a reason why high iq people also share my general sentiment towards society
This is a good example of a fallacious appeal to authority. For somebody in such a supposedly good intelligent company you sure do fall back on flawed thinking patterns.
>while midwits like you
Maybe I'm not the smartest person in the world. I have a mere Master's degree in a STEM field and a STEM job, which is admittedly far from the highest pinnacles of human achievement and frankly rather ordinary. But I've come across a lot of very smart people and I'm friends with very smart people. All the smartest people I've come across had a family and were content with their lives. These are people with PhDs working in very difficult and demanding fields that pay enormous amounts of money. Researchers introducing technical innovations that revolutionize the tech industry. So clearly something isn't adding up. You seem to have a narcissistic quality to you. You don't have anything in your life to be proud of, so you fall back on the belief that you're just so much smarter than everybody else, which is why you see through the bullshit, man. I encourage you to step outside once in a while. Go to the math department of your local college, or to some finance company. Ask an involved passerby about their life. Do you think they'll tell you they live a life of misery and despair, they believe nobody should be having kids, and that this whole society should be burned to the ground? Or do you think that they are doing rather well in life, are very much content, and that they have a family themselves? I think the answer is obvious.

>>85158909
We live in a world where men rape and strangle to death little girls

>>85158960
And how does that the world's fault?

>>85158960
booohooo nigger

>>85158189
I think it is based. If women do not want children, then they will be on birth control and I can nut in them carefree. If they doo want children, they turn into cautious, boner-shriveling prudes who either force you to pull out (nothing ruins an orgasm more) or are a little too eager for you to come inside, which is its own kind of hell.

>>85159021
I would sacrifice everyone like you to eternal damnation if it meant it would get the birth control out of the water

>>85158956
>fallacious appeal to authority.
I never appealed to any authority, being intelligent in a vacuum doesn't make you the authority of anything.
>I have a mere Master's degree in a STEM field and a STEM job
>These are people with PhDs
Now that's a fallacy if I've ever seen one. Passing college doesn't mean you're smart, just obedient at the very least and a regular competent human at most. No achievement to be proud of there.
>pay enormous amounts of money
Oh wow money men, that's so cool, gimme gimme money. The highest pinnacles of humanity you talk about, were generally very miserable and even with all the wealth in the world they'd much rather kill themselves. They figured out too late that they were feeding a bottomless pit. There's no point to it. Genius figures throughout histoy die celibate. Those same people you claim to be extraordinary. Something isn't adding up maybe?
>Do you think they'll tell you they live a life of misery and despair, they believe nobody should be having kids,
Again, I'm not an anti-natalist. And yes, the overwhelming majority of people would be disingenuous to a stranger on the street and claim to not be miserable, what a shocker. You gotta try harder man, your arguments barely hold themselves together.

i don't see why murder is wrong if life is just not worth it whatsoever.

>>85158864
>you're so off the mark idek where to start with you. there is like 8x as many people on the planet than 100 years ago
Why do I care that there's a billion Africans when in my society everybody is a geriatric and there's nobody there to work, so everybody starves to death and drowns in shit?
>there is no shortage of people
If another society is more populous, then that's bad. They could conceivably invade or exploit mine. We're not kumbaya global citizens. We live in a world of nations in tension and conflict.
>and of course, the elites will happily import third worlders forever regardless
Immigration is a temporary band aid solution with its own set of problems. Birth rates are going down everywhere in the world. You're just kicking the can down the road.
>if you must have children, do it because you want to invest in that person and help them have a good life
Most people will probably have kids because they're simply acting on instinct. But "I just feel like it" doesn't work well as an argument in a debate. I'm here to show you, that there are also good reasons for it, even if they aren't something that enters your calculus. It's like asking the question why killing people is bad. Most people are set up in a way that makes them very emotionally averse to doing that, which is why they don't and they are appalled by it when they see it, but there are also good argument you could make why it's bad. It doesn't mean they are the best arguments or even the primary arguments. They are merely sufficient to prove the proposition.

>>85159064
mine's worth it. you can kill op if u want

Why is antinatalism almost always aimed at white people? Why are a majority of antinatalist writers and thinkers ethnic jews?

>>85159055
>I never appealed to any authority, being intelligent in a vacuum doesn't make you the authority of anything.
You did. You said that "there's a reason why high iq people also share my general sentiment towards society". If that wasn't an attempt at an argument to strengthen your point, then there would be no reason to even say it. You're guilty of exactly what I accused you of.
>Now that's a fallacy if I've ever seen one. Passing college doesn't mean you're smart, just obedient at the very least and a regular competent human at most. No achievement to be proud of there.
I sense your seething through the screen, but my point of bringing it up was to show that I'm indeed just a regular guy. Which is why I then went on to talk about much smarter people than me that I've come across. It's circumstantial, yes, but even if that's not a full-fledged study, it's a point on the evidence board. In fact all the smartest people in the world that are currently alive have families.
>The highest pinnacles of humanity you talk about, were generally very miserable and even with all the wealth in the world they'd much rather kill themselves.
I don't understand what this is based on. You're romanticizing this trope of a tortured genius, but it's not born out in the data. It's just that: a trope. It's not reality.
>Again, I'm not an anti-natalist. And yes, the overwhelming majority of people would be disingenuous to a stranger on the street and claim to not be miserable, what a shocker.
The point of me asking that obviously wasn't because I was curious what exact words would leave their mouth, I was asking for you to tell me what you think their sentiment is. Forget them telling you shit, if you had a magical telepathic device that could read people's minds, what do you think you would find in their heads? Do you genuinely believe all those hyper intelligent high achievers are all secretly miserable and are praying for the downfall of the society?

>>85159175
>I then went on to talk about much smarter people than me that I've come across.
And that doesn't make you the one appealing to authority because...?
>this trope of a tortured genius, It's just that: a trope. It's not reality.
Man, if you can't name a single fucking genius that died childless and miserable throughout history I don't know what to tell you. You are aware of the large families geniuses like Leonardo DaVinci and Isaac Newton had right anon?
You don't even have to dig the past, there's currently very high status people that are straight-up suicidal, like fucking Phill Collins to name one.
>Do you genuinely believe all those hyper intelligent high achievers are all secretly miserable and are praying for the downfall of the society?
>miserable
I don't know if they'd be brave enough to be able to wish for societal collapse, probably not, but I'm pretty sure you're not fooling anyone here but yourself, anon.

Some people are aligned with entropy and destruction and death.

>>85159098
Every -ism is a lever that pulls more indentured nuservants into neoliberal corporate structure. Boomers are nihilist materialists and want to 'cash out' as they die, so they are filling the roles that would otherwise be the livelihoods of native/heritage people of their countries with foreigners, who can be treated like chattels and paid less than natives without as much trouble.

Replace every -ism with "endless foreigner replacement" and their behavior will start to make sense in context with their seemingly random and disconnected beliefs. Why is the same thing happening from all of them, even though their social causes are all so radically different? Because each one is promoted and promulgated throughout the entire corporate/academic neoliberal order to serve the singular end of displacing you.

>liberalism
The most honest and forthcoming, pure, distilled endless foreigner replacement ideology. "It's happening, and that's a good thing!"
>conservatism
A type of neoliberal. Votes for endless foreigner replacement, leveraging the neoliberal's desire for order and security. "It's ok as long as it's done legally, and if they're based!"
>veganism
Endless foreigner replacement (EFP), leveraged by this type of neoliberal's desire for humane treatment of animals. Once the endless foreigners are moved in, don't mind the fact that you just directly imported the demand for more factory farming, from people who will never become vegans in a thousand years.
>environmentalism
E.F.O., leveraged by this type of neoliberal's desire for clean surroundings. Once the endless foreigners are moved in, don't mind the fact that they just directly imported the source of the litter and fly-tipping, from people who will never care about having clean surroundings forevermore.
>antinatalism
E.F.P., leveraged by this type of neoliberal's desire for proper childcare. Vote to import in people who will never give a shit their children ever.

You begin to see the pattern.

>>85159065
but the birthrate is not decreasing for moral reasons, its for economic ones, if everyone is poor and pessimistic about the future they wont have kids and thats a smart decision. unless you want to bring your kids into a world where they will struggle and you will resent eachother, only middle class and above should reproduce.

>>85159261
>And that doesn't make you the one appealing to authority because...?
When we're talking about opinions of intelligent people, then bringing up the opinions of intelligent people isn't a *fallacious* appeal to authority.
>Man, if you can't name a single fucking genius that died childless and miserable throughout history I don't know what to tell you.
I can. But I can also name billions that didn't. There are millions of geniuses in every generation, I can maybe name two that died childless, and one of them was probably gay.
>Leonardo DaVinci and Isaac Newton
There isn't enough known about them to say that they prove your point. It's entirely possible they were just gay. Especially Newton. I was thinking more of Tesla, who you could say was straight and simply didn't get along with women. But I can also give you examples of famous geniuses who not only had families, but were serial womanizers. Einstein and Feynman come to mind, and that's only from the last century. I could give you thousands of examples even only from the sample of people alive currently. There's an enormous amount of technological breakthroughs happening all the time. But why even bother, if you want to, I can go dig up that one study for you that examined historical records and concluded that this trope of tortured geniuses is just a myth. Why do people talk about those singular examples of Newtons and Teslas? Because their bachelor status was the exception. But your claim wasn't that there existed such people, your claim was that this is the rule. The burden of proof of that is much greater.
>I don't know if they'd be brave enough to be able to wish for societal collapse, probably not, but I'm pretty sure you're not fooling anyone here but yourself, anon.
I think you're delusional and terminally online. Go to therapy, faggot. It will do you more good than dooming on r9k and thinking that this makes you smart because Newton was dooming and he was smart or some bullshit.

>>85159405
>if everyone is poor and pessimistic about the future they wont have kids and thats a smart decision
When people are poor and pessimistic, they have far more kids. People don't have kids when they see better alternatives to having kids, which is a curse of the cushy life of modernity. It's why birth rates plummet when a country enriches itself. It's counterintuitive, similarly to how in the US, if you're poor, you're astronomically more likely to be obese, than if you're poor in some shithole, where you're probably starving to death.

it's both. incredibly cringe philosophy but simultaneously incredibly based as far as convincing people with high neuroticism to willingly commit eugenics on themselves and self select out of the gene pool lol. in that regard the future's looking kind of bright ngl

>>85159421
>But your claim wasn't that there existed such people, your claim was that this is the rule. The burden of proof of that is much greater.
Okay, I'll give you that one, whatever, human genuises are also an exception to the rule, most people are retarded. There's no real point in talking about the apex of the pyramid. Can't be bothered to figure out which of us is closer to reality, no real way to tell, only assume, which you seem to be better than me at doing.
Notice how 90% of your post is about the inconsequential "genius were like this" part of the discussion you seem to have the upper hand in, trying to corner me into admitting you're the one who's right.
My main post is, the society you're so desperate to uphold, that's everything but filled with genuises, is worth shit for me, and for a worrying amount of people like me. Your stupidity might have angered me at some point of the debate, but you're the one that's scared shitless, because deep down you know I'm right. The day shit hits the fan there's no amount of phd's that'll save you. In the meantime, slave away all you want, but you've been warned. It'll amount to nothing.

>>85159579
>Notice how 90% of your post is about the inconsequential "genius were like this" part of the discussion you seem to have the upper hand in, trying to corner me into admitting you're the one who's right.
I engaged with the only argument you've made.
>My main post is, the society you're so desperate to uphold, that's everything but filled with genuises, is worth shit for me, and for a worrying amount of people like me.
And I'm telling you that this stems from unresolved emotional problems, not a rational thought process. It happens. Even very smart people do irrational things from time to time, because we're all humans and we're all prone to it.
>The day shit hits the fan there's no amount of phd's that'll save you.
Instead of having these impotent revenge fantasies because you think you were slighted in some way, I strongly encourage you to pursue the kind of work that's necessary to make your life feel like it's worth living. Not for my sake. For your sake. Because it's your life, and you (probably) only get one. Godspeed.

>>85159651
>I engaged with the only argument you've made.
Fair enough. I wasn't feeling like deconstructing your whole worldview, just threw the first thing that sounded right. My bad.
>this stems from unresolved emotional problems
Not at all. The irrational part of me is the one that still asks me to go out there and find a partner and have children and find a meaningless job to support them, but I can think further than that to know it's not worth it, at least not now. I also have a vision of what I want to do with my life, and I'm working part-time in the meantime. I'm not the "bottom of the barrel" neet you want me to be.
>Instead of having these impotent revenge fantasies
I know it sounds bad the way I worded it, but I didn't mean to threaten you, it's more like a premonition sort of thing, because once society finally collapses, I won't be the one lamenting it.

There are two avenues avenues of consideration. The individual, and the societal.
From the individual: any life born is being fated to die, to experience suffering, loss, and pain. These are absolutes. The joy, happiness, and other positives, however, are uncertainties.
It seems cruel to condemn a soul to such a fate.
From a societal level, it is unfortunate that the ones who "should" be producing the most children are producing the least and the ones who should outright not be reproducing are producing the most.
All those who attempt to argue "but society will suffer!", to which the antinatalist will simply say "society can't suffer if it doesn't exist, funny how that works".

>>85158960
Despite currently arguing for antinatalism, that argument (you) just made is stupid. That doesn't conclude life is bad, but rather those actions and/or people are bad.

>>85158956
>Ask an involved passerby about their life. Do you think they'll tell you they live a life of misery and despair, they believe nobody should be having kids, and that this whole society should be burned to the ground? Or do you think that they are doing rather well in life, are very much content, and that they have a family themselves? I think the answer is obvious.

>be person
>in debt or no job or job stress or etc.
>struggling with anxiety
>just lost family members (death)
>suffering emotionally
>wondering if it would be better to end it all or just go back to the now empty house
>random anon asks how's life?
>who's this faggot? "It's fine bro, you?"
>he smiles and says "I knew it, everyone's happy and content, those people on the internet are surely just narcissitic losers at the bottom of society! Have a good day fellow productive citizen!"
>wtf

>>85158189
Most fags here will never have sex in the first place and there's billions of other people that will happily shit out more kids whether you like it or not. Why worry about it?

>>85158189
Eugenic. It's a self-eliminating retardation that by its very design eradicates itself.