Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Really, now people are mad that others are trying to have kids?
This is the conclusion of all those "humans are the virus" type posts, all the "I didn't ask to be born" angst. These people think existence is suffering therefore it is morally wrong to have children. They're unwell.
There are bad actors in every group, but the vast majority of these people do not engage in acts of violence.
Painting them with this brush would be like pointing at parents who abuse their children and then saying that all parents abuse their children. It's obvious bullshit.
Nothing wrong with anything you just said, taking action to prevent others from having kids however….
I chose not to have kids not because I didn't ask to be born, but because I am fully aware that I do not have what it takes to be a good parent. I have major issues with sensory overload, and little kids are basically little perfect generators for unpredictable noise and smells.
If I had conceived a kid accidentally, of course I'd spend every last ounce of energy I had in me making sure that they had a lovely childhood. But IMO, being able to recognize this simple fact is what separates me from my own parents, and them not being able to recognize that simple fact is what robbed me of having a childhood at all.
I think there's a big difference between choosing to not have kids for personal reasons and being anti-natalist to such an extent that you see others as subhumans for wanting or having kids. Your experience and feelings are valid and of a sound mind. The person who did this has a twisted mind and lacks empathy.
I get it, but at the same time, some very competent people that could be amazing parents need IVF and it's not right to take that away from them or terrorize them for that choice.
Some might shame them for not adopting, but I think that's a stupid mentality. Not everyone has the same needs to be filled with parenthood. Some want legacy, some want someone to love unconditionally, some want to give back to the community, some want a part of themselves and their partner to be left in this world, etc.
I've even heard some say IVF shouldn't be covered by Universal Healthcare where I live, because "God didn't want them to have kids anyway", but if we went with that mentality, nothing would be covered by Universal Healthcare, because "God didn't want them to live or be cured anyway".
Too many people have a serious lack of empathy for others.
intentional act of violence
Had the target been a church, everyone would have been screeching "terrorism!", but this was a fertility clinic, so it was just random violence instead
The FBI is claiming terrorism.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/explosion-shakes-palm-springs-residents-instructed-stay/story?id=121910709
That sounds suspiciously like they’re avoiding calling it ‘an act of terrorism’… which is even more suspicious being that lighting a Tesla on fire or spray painting a Tesla dealership would immediately be called terrorism, but this hasn’t been. Hmmm.
Edit: the FBI has determined that it was an intentional act of terrorism at this point.
The subtitle in the article clearly calls it terrorism
FBI statement describes attack as ‘intentional act of terrorism’, adding that clinic was deliberately targeted
The article has been updated to include that since the posting and my original comment.
Something tells me you never visited the article itself and only read the first four paragraphs OP posted on Lemmy. If you had, you would've seen this:
“Everything is in question, whether this is an act of terrorism,” Palm Springs police lieutenant William Hutchinson told the Desert Sun newspaper.
They're not suspiciously avoiding anything; they may literally not know yet, and immediately jumping definitively to terrorism while they work out what happened is irresponsible, because "terrorism" isn't just an epithet: it's a real, actual, specific crime.
No, I did. My point is that they’re passively skating around it in this case, but in the case of the Tesla incidences that I’m referencing they very actively come out with ‘terrorism’ first.
Didn't this just happen less than four hours ago? And ostensibly the perpetrator is dead? The police aren't lawyers and have more leeway with what they accuse people of (let alone a dead(?) person), but domestic terrorism has a specific criminal definition. In four hours, the police have responded, gotten people to safety, made sure the attacker was dead(?) and there were no others, and started to investigate the scene. And you surmise that during that investigation, they've so far found compelling evidence this person whose corpse(?) may not even be identified yet was motivated by one of the intentions in Criterion B?
Also, who's "they" who very actively came out with terrorism first? Trump and Musk? Because literally of course the fascists did. I'd like to see what the police said in the first few hours of those attacks. Moreover, why do you want to whataboutism to alleged bad police behavior elsewhere to explain why the police should behave badly here?
Edit: here's how The Guardian covered a story about an incendiary device at a Tesla dealership two months ago. Notice how it's fascist Trump mouthpiece Pam Bondi talking about "terrorism" so immediately, while the police statement mentions nothing of the sort.
“On Monday, March 24, 2025, at approximately 8.04am, Austin police department (APD) officers responded to a found/abandoned hazardous call at the Tesla dealership located at 12845 N US 183 Hwy SVRD NB,” Austin police department said in a statement shared with CBS Austin.
“When officers arrived on scene, they located suspicious devices and called the APD bomb squad to investigate. The devices, which were determined to be incendiary, were taken into police custody without incident. This is an open and ongoing investigation, and there is no further information available for release at this time.”
They're happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so they've ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car. The bar for "terrorism" is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.
Regardless, it's definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenant's very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating. And maybe it just turns out that it's carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.
They're happy to call it an intentional act of violence, so they've ruled out a lot of the explanations for an exploding car.
That's Criterion A and the first part of Criterion B* of domestic terrorism. There are three criteria, and the second part of Criterion B is the hardest.
The bar for "terrorism" is pretty low - they charged an Atlanta student with is for tossing bottles of water and dry ice out his window.
The bar for terrorism is as defined in what I just linked, and specifically Criterion B is where most of the uncertainty would lie.
Regardless, it's definitely a journalistic choice whether to quote the police lieutenant's very careful, and possibly technical statement, or to quote the business owner (Musk) or US President speculating.
The Guardian is a UK-based center-left newspaper with a generally good track record of journalistic integrity. Yes, quoting the police lieutenant is a choice here, because it's the correct one. They currently have the most information about the situation. This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely don't understand: do you want them quoting Trump's unhinged rant about this bombing that I don't think he's even put out yet?
And maybe it just turns out that it's carefully ethical journalists reporting on potential right-wing violence, and usually unethical hacks reporting on possible attacks on the corporatocracy, but it sure does feel like a pattern.
Dude, it's The Guardian. Here's how they recently covered Tesla dealerships if you care to explain how it's biased compared to this story.
* By "first part of", I mean the phrase "appears to be intended". What it appears to be intended to do is the hard part.
Do you get so excited when someone says, 'My house was robbed"? Houses, of course, can't be robbed. They can be burgled; only people can be robbed. Legally. Colloquially, we all know what they're talking about.
Maybe "The Technician" does, but insisting that people be very carefully precise with language outside of the specific technical domain is a form of sealioning.
I don't know what you want except to make yourself look like a jackass who can't learn from their mistake when gracefully given the opportunity.
Don't come at me with facts when it ignores my feelings.
I'm not going to rag on NJSpradlin or tburkhol; I tried to debunk what they said on a factual, dispassionate basis. Their comments to me are examples of what happens when one side is never held to account for and is constantly rewarded for taking the easy path and spreading disinformation that makes them feel better, while the other side is punished with more lies to correct and is never rewarded for enduring the other side's firehose of falsehoods, tediously researching their points, and speaking up for truth. These well-meaning comments are made by victims of their environment.
Now more than ever, everyone needs to be a vanguard of the facts, but it's not hard to see why that's become so difficult.
Here's a fun little thought experiment. What would an Evangelical Suicide Bomber yell before smashing that detonator button?
We're all well acquainted with the Islamic version. Cuz racism and propaganda.
Hellsing Ultimate Abridged gave us a hypothetical glimpse at Catholic Suicide Bombers.
What would an Evangelical scream?
Probably something like, "for Trump!"
Trumpu Akbar
Sounds like this was someone on the left trying to stop overpopulation. This wasn't an abortion clinic. It was the opposite: a fertility center.
So I guess they would yell "for the climate!"
It reeks of a false flag. Handy excuse for the Insurrection Act.
Stooop... Sheesh. We all know it was probably people who believe that artificial insemination is like an affront to their imaginary friend or tradition or something. Those are the only people stupid and weird enough to try to terrorize a demographic like this.
Edit: we're both wrong. It was a person who claimed they didn't want to be born. https://sh.itjust.works/post/38199657
Christian terrorism
This dude was an antichristian anti-natalist.
Edit: Here's the guy's website: https://promortalism.com/
Yuuup
I was actually listening to NPR yesterday and they bring up the new old finding that world population is soon going to start declining. A lot of people bring up the Koreans and Japanese but don't realize that they were first but we're all fucked. Additionally, no matter what any government has done so far, people are having less kids and no single country has been able to improve that. So there's something going on and we don't know what it is. Also plastic in your testicles and ovaries is probably alright. And Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) forever chemicals are probably OK to drink from. Anyway, no clue what might be going on. So you guys go fuck, porn will soon be illegal so you'll have to do the real thing. I know most of you are fat and many wear glasses.... Which are definitely not due to pfas but you'll have to compromise. God only wants you to fuck for kids, none of that transexual stuff is allowed. Get them babies out fast! We gotta war to win against China. But remember, go to schools so you too can pay a mortgage larger than your paycheck. Sorry, no healthcare for women, or IVF, or genetic vaccines that work better.
Additionally, no matter what any government has done so far, people are having less kids and no single country has been able to improve that. So there’s something going on and we don’t know what it is.
It's not a mystery. People can barely afford themselves and kids are expensive as fuck and interfere with having a successful career(especially for women) so they're having less of them.
Are you sure? How about if we started a new war and we gave you a whole 5,000 dollars just to have babies?
Plus look Cinnamon toast crunch has 24% sugar. No wonder people are fat. Every spoon full of cereal is 1/4 sugar! WTF. With all the diabetes out there, how can anyone think of having kids?
Did you never learn to read those labels? Add those numbers up real quick. It's way more than 100%
That's your daily nutrition per serving. So a serving of cereal contains 1/4 of the total sugar you should consume in a day.
Funnily enough, I was going to make this same comment. But then I saw that the serving size is 41 g with 12g of sugar so... 
24 percent sugar would be an improvement!
That makes it sound better.
The only reason the US hasn't started to experience a population slowdown the way Japan and Korea have is because of immigration. The process is significantly farther along for them but we would have started.
Interestingly, the US fertility rate fell below the replacement rate all the way back in 2007. I knew we were dependent on immigration, but I didn't know how long ago that happened. Japan was actually 1974. Korea 1983. So as you say this isn't a new problem, and the US is not immune.
One thing that I never see discussed when global population decline is brought up is that maybe we don't need 7 billion humans on Earth, each competing for increasingly fewer resources? Our population could be declining because we have reached the limit of what resources our global economic system can provide.
I have seen the polemics take the shape that humanity needs to be this large or else we will go extinct somehow, but I can't be the only one who understands that if we grow to the point where we exhaust all available resources, our species is doomed. Conservation as a concept is an inherently selfish one — it's ostensibly about biodiversity for the sake of the Earth, but really, it's moreso about maintaining the kind of environment that humans find most comfortable. Humans can survive in the desert but not when it's 145 °F during the day.
No no no, no schools, that's too expensive and teaches people to be liberal. Maybe just start working to support ~~the billionaires~~ the economy
Here is an interesting graph I found. Birth rate accounting for the child surviving to reach childbearing age. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/effective-fertility-rate-children-per-woman-who-are-expected-to-survive-until-childbearing-age Not sure if the target is still 2.1 though. I couldn't find a better graph to show population rate by birth per country though. That would be an interesting graph that I think would tie into the haapiness of people and the polution levels of thier area.