'The Interview' A Conversation with JD Vance
'The Interview' A Conversation with JD Vance
The Republican vice-presidential candidate rejects the idea that he’s changed, defends his rhetoric and still won’t say if Trump lost in 2020.
I think they do a pretty good job of holding his feet to the fire here. I'm not always a fan of the NY Times, but they do ride him pretty hard about his past statements.
Archive link: https://archive.is/SDntW
You're viewing a single thread.
It’s very creepy. She’s definitely being nice to him. He’s desperately trying to come across as relatable and it’s not working.
**Sorry, I just want to clarify something. So women who don’t have children because they’re worried about climate change, that’s sociopathic? **
I think that is a bizarre way of thinking about the future. Not to have kids because of concerns over climate change? I think the more bizarre thing is our leadership, who encourages young women, and frankly young men, to think about it that way. Bringing life into the world has totally transformed the way that I think about myself, the way that I think about my wife. I mean, watch your grandparents interact with grandchildren — it is, like, a transformatively positive and good thing for there to be children in the world. And if your political philosophy is saying, don’t do that because of concerns over climate change? Yeah, I think that’s a really, really crazy way to think about the world.
Why isn’t everyone like me? That’s how the world should be. Unbothered by the extinction of all plant and animal life caused by rampant pollution and violently unsustainable industries which I will fight for during this critical time. Also, ain’t kids a hoot? Oh man, my kids make me just like Jesus. Whoops. Don’t print that.
The question is about a scenario where a person selflessly decides not to have kids because of how doing so would subject them to a worse quality of life and add to the demands we put on the planet.
His answer (as quoted here) selfishly explains how kids can enrich the lives of those around them, but does not discuss the experience of the kids at all.
And that's pretty much the whole conservative mindset... other people only matter if they can be used to your benefit. (I don't think i quite got that until just now...)
He’s a walking definition of “anecdotal evidence”.
Also, Trump and Musk have a fuck ton of kids & they haven’t learned shit.
You don't have kids do you? I think he's terrible but absolutely agree with that response.
I think you missed the point OP was, I hope, trying to make.
The truth here is that JD Vance is absolutely trying to red herring and manipulate anyone with children, or who can empathize with parents, into sympathizing with his backwards world view. JD is painting this nice little picture about how nice it is for a parent to have kids, how nice it is for a grandparent to have grandchildren, all while purposefully ignoring the elephant in the room, and the real issue behind why some people are hesitant to have children given the current state of things.
The real reason people are hesitating is not for them, but for the child. They want to spare a potential child from growing up in an America that looks like "The Book of Eli" or "The Road". They're holding off because they don't want their kid dying in super wild fires. They don't want their kid drowning in their home when the worst hurricane anyone has ever seen hits a coast. They don't want their kid getting murdered for their supplies, and left to bleed out under an irradiated sky, ash falling on them as they go limp.
It's the easiest thing in the world to say, "of course people should have kids, mine have made me so happy!"; it takes far more character to say, "I can understand why someone might be hesitant nowadays."
Now, I'm not even sure JD Vance meant to red herring here, and demonize people with very real concerns. For all we know his gross narcissism cannot even allow him to really feel for his children beyond an extension of himself. However, I know JD Vance is smart. Because of that, I'm willing to bet he answered that question so that people like you can say, "I absolutly agree with that response", and not even recognize that he completely red herringed the issue, ignored the subtilty, gathered sympathy for his shitty world view, all while grifting into oblivion.
I couldn't disagree more. But that’s me, and it’s not like we can put kids back, so. It just means we either need to move to sustainable industries sooner, or there’ll be more suffering involved. Solutions exist, we’re just not pursuing them with anything like an appropriate amount of effort. So it’s likely to be the latter.
And this article lists traits of sociopaths. You’re saying you agree with JD Vance that one’s concern for the environment such that one feels they shouldn’t add to the human-created problems indicates they have these traits?
Hey friend. I don't have kids for many reasons. I have fun playing with kids, I have more fun with my niece and nephews than with the rest of the family. But things are fucked up. My wife and I worry about the world they will live in. Am I going to be able to help them?
I mean, if it comes to it, are they going to be able to get here or somewhere safe where I can defend them with firearms? I'm not a great shot.
The world is in a fucking terrifying place. I'm going to buy a rifle.
You don’t have kids do you? I think he’s terrible but absolutely agree with that response.
I do, and I agree with him about kids but disagree with him that it's the only valid viewpoint to have. What's "transformatively positive" for me may still have external impacts that someone else chooses not to inflict on the world, or may still be a choice someone chooses not to make because of general concern for the state of the world those children would be born into, or may not be "transformatively positive" for someone else for a host of other reasons.