Right to LifeBoard

Briarlands, would you please stop with the insults? I'm not sure who you're talking about (a fictional character?), but this behavior is not very appealing.

Evpolitia wrote:

Actually, as I've heard it, it could be good, at least in the west.
It's the secular couples that aren't having any children, while conservative religious families mostly still honour the age-old tradition of having the wife manufacture a football team by herself.
So it goes that the logical conclusion of these trends are that the religious part of the population keeps growing to eventually overtake the shrinking secular one, so eventually we'll have a smaller, but much more devout population, quality over quantity one could say.
A good example of this is the "ultra-Orthodox" Haredi Jews in Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism#Population).
My source on this is (trust me bro)² though, so I'd appreciate it if someone who's really dived into the issue would inform me if I'm being stupid here.

While it is always encouraging to see the continued vibrancy of "conservative religious families" they are such a minority (even compared to the Haredi) that it is drops in a lake compared to the number of children the rest of society has. These families also have their own problems to deal with: children who drift away from the faith, infertility, individualism/the rise of singleness, the social pressure to contracept, and the loss of the culture war. Having gone to a college populated largely by such families I can say with some confidence that my fellow students are certainly net way ahead of the rest of the US in terms of having kids etc, but they aren't that ahead: tons of them remain single, can't have kids, or don't have very many for one reason or another. If they were a country their birth would be above replacement, but not significantly so. Moreover, if the wider demographic collapse happens, it will really harm these families too: there will be scarcity, a push towards automation (think Wall-E), governmental crisis, economic shrinking, and decay of infrastructure. My point is not that these families can't survive and be part of a future cultural revival, but that there are serious obstacles to that and inevitable hardship regardless.

Briarlands wrote:

Stop suppressing my posts! Show Song of the South and Critter Country some respect!

Your posts were suppressed because you are being disruptive and borderline spammy. This is a region for serious discussion; if you want something else, find a better region for you.

Briarlands wrote:

Here's a serious discussion for you: Was Song of the South really as racist as they say it was?

Why are you so obsessed with Song of the South?

Briarlands wrote:

I watched it when I was a teenager and I loved it! It's Walt Disney's greatest movie and makes you sing, dance, and learn

Honestly, I've never heard of it.  Although I'm curious, why do people think that it's racist?

Phydios wrote:

The film was accused of romanticizing slavery. The source material is set in the 1870s, after slavery's abolition, but apparently the film did not make that clear. Considering Disney's allegiances and the current political climate, they are even more committed than before to trying to memory-hole the film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South#Depiction_of_race

Disclaimer: I have not seen the film. But I know of the controversy around it. Even though it's technically not romanticizing slavery, it definitely is romanticizing the post-slavery lives of African Americans, which was by no means all song and dance, to put it lightly, even during Reconstruction. Although James Baskett (playing Uncle Remus) deserves praise for his performance (and he defended the film), it has been used since its release by those seeking to romanticize and white-wash the Confederacy, slavery, and Jim Crow.