this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
362 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39000 readers
2336 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of parliament and an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said a new bill would tackle the “ideology of childlessness.”

Russia’s fight against the West and its values has taken aim this week at an “ideology” that the Kremlin and its allies say threatens the country’s very foundations: people not wanting to have children.

Lawmakers have proposed a ban on “propaganda of conscious refusal to bear children,” Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of parliament and an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said in a post on Telegram on Tuesday.

It is the latest effort by authorities to combat the demographic strain of falling birth rates, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin says could threaten the country’s long-term outlook. In July, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Russia’s declining birth rate “catastrophic for the future of the nation.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 73 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You know, I would bet there's tens of thousands of Russians that would be interested in having children if they didn't all have a case of unnecessary deadness. If only something could have been done to avoid that.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

But if you can’t send them to get gunned down in a foreign land, what is even the point of having more children? Do you hear yourself?

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Can we get the .ml crew in here to explain why this is actually good and freedom? Because I'm a little confused.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why does ml crew defend modern day Russia? Modern day Russia is not a communist country. I’m confused why any communist would defend the USSR in general, especially after Stalin took power. Makes no damn sense to me.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

Because they're supported, and 'west bad!!!'.

They support the hell out of chairman pooh as well, and he's one of the world's major billionaires according to the paradise papers.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago

USA bad -> Russia good

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's because tankies aren't communists, they're authoritarians.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Come on, .ml, tell us how the west has fallen and Russia is the last true bastion of civilization and people's rights. We're waiting.

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

found one

A commendable effort by Russia to discourage the promotion of human extinction.

The nation starting wars and extracting fossil fuels is soooo concerned with the extinction of humanity.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I too am curious what this has to do with socialism and how it is not simply campist brain rot.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago

We're waitinggg...

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is what JD Vance wants for America

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

This, together with the wifebeater-law, is what Hexbears want for America

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Under His eye.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 month ago

While fathering some sofas on the side

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Should we make a society that people want to bring a child into??

Nah lol

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 month ago

💡If we simply make it illegal to... not have children? No, that's not right. Not want to have children? No, impossible to enforce. Ah, it must be illegal to profess the lack of desire to have children. What a beautiful and simple law that will certainly address the root cause of falling birth rates.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Uncle vlad needs meat for his glorious meat grinder

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How long ‘til this becomes a GOP plank?

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 17 points 1 month ago

It already is, basically.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Citizens stop having kids because they can't afford them, government fines them and makes rape, I mean traditional values, more acceptable instead of making rich people stop hoarding all the cash.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

believe it or not, straight to jail

[–] cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

Does anyone know the strategic reason for right wing authoritarians prioritizing people having kids? Like project 2025 talks about it a bunch, but nothing totally clear cut comes to mind as to why. At least not that feels like it fully justifies how clearly important it is, and that isn't just me dismissing it as meaningless control or whatever. It feels strategically important

In this case it's clearly important militarily, but that's also not likely to help in the present conflict in Ukraine. It'll take a long time for those kids to grow up, but at least they'd help mitigate population loss

[–] socsa@piefed.social 22 points 1 month ago

Traditional values used to subjugate women. That's really it. The same reason they hate abortion. Pregnancy and children are traditionally ways to control womem. "Keep em barefoot and pregnant" and so forth.

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 month ago

More working class children means that there will be more people to exploit in the future. The size of the working class population is extremely important for the generation of wealth because they’re basically the only ones doing productive labour.

[–] shaun@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Corporations need consumers (constant growth model). Military needs more living soldiers.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess that feels like the obvious reason. It just feels like there's gotta be something more immediate and tangible. Maybe there isn't though 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Having kids makes you think differently. It makes you think about longer term plans, and immediate plans. It makes you yearn for stability. It makes you more succeptible to scare tactics. It makes you less likely to rock the boat.

It made me personally accept shittier situations personally (work) for the percieved benefit of ensuring stability for my baby. You can imagine how that extrapolates across an authoritarian society.

Even knowing it would probably be fine to advocate for myself, to push for what I deserved; knowing that it was purely biology pushing me to make the choice, I still picked percieved stability. I just couldn't bring myself risk being fired.

Counter-intuitevely, we think of parents as being primed to defend their children from any and all attacks and threats. That works monkey to monkey, but at scale, it breaks down. Being parents makes both men and women more vulnerable.

As for immediate effect: I'd be a lot easier to coerce if you had access to my family.

Edit: It also makes you busy as fuck. Ain't nobody got time for nothin' when they have a kid. Certainly not for uncertain outcomes, like resistance groups or political disident work

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 18 points 1 month ago

They want to grow the population in order to have more workers and consumers. There's also a white nationalist component where they're afraid that white people will become a minority and they'll use this demographic power to agitate for more equality, which is basically oppression to those people (because if it was only about economic growth, they'd be pro migration).

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

The wealthy are running a massive pyramid scheme and need a constant influx of plebs to support the bottom tiers.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

Obsession with control, including control over future generations

[–] OfficerBribe@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

No idea what kind of level prioritising is meant, but all governments should provide benefits to children since any country needs their population to be healthy and not decline. You want young working able people to replace old population so that there are enough workers and taxpayers to keep country going.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Putler absolutely would send preteens to Ukraine if he started running out of adults.

[–] RichieRich@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Russia is like, “Sons! We need sons for the fatherland so that they can fight in the field against Ukraine!” How inhuman can Russia be?

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I find it disturbing that they apparently expect that their 3 day operation will be ongoing two decades from now.

There’s always a new country to destroy and use it to blame the west.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

So I just did a quick analysis of war lengths after and including WWII, and given that this isn't my area of expertise, but they tend to run around 30 years on average. You either get out quickly or you're there for generations. Russia is losing troops at a rate that worries me and I'm on Ukraine's side of the war.

[–] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Keep making life shitty and it will happen all on its own anyway. Hell making it a law might Streisand Effect it.

Here's this one cool hack they don't want you to know about. Governments hate it!

[–] resetbypeer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I hate headlines with the word could. Remind me when it has or is. I could become a billionaire but it's highly unlikely I will. Just like her fine or the arrest of Putin.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

I think there's a time between "This thing is possible I guess" and "you're already fucked" that I'd like to hear about things.

load more comments
view more: next ›