Hacker News Reader

> Unfortunately, it's not a single problem, and certainly does not have a single cause.

Did they claim that? They didn't even use the word capitalism once. They simply mentioned that greed is also a problem, and you talk about how they supposedly blame it all on capitalism, and how that's just a convenient strawman to slap down.

> Nobody "pushed" people to use Tinder.

Yeah, because that's a simplification of a whole lot of stuff. It can be unpacked, but why even bother when you're not working along, and just go by a silly literal interpretation and point out how silly that is.

> They don't do that because they don't want to.

That's the start of the discussion, the comment was talking about why that is. And you just end with "it's fine that it is so because it is so", basically.

> Raising one kid yields far more purchases than a Tinder Plus subscription and a pack of prophylactics.

That was described by the parent post. That's why the push for immigration can be traced back to increased capitalistic opportunity.

> It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics.

Again, he did not describe that.

> You're also ignoring agency completely

No, he described it in sweeping generalities eg Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? - a direct reference to the wealth-education of the middle class, where you're smart enough to maximize, but not able to ascend leveraging those choices.

The primary issue with the rant is how he starts with "You" to mean a nebulous powers-that-be and then asks questions and makes statements from the perspective of the middle class.

Read it again for clarity. There's nothing about his comment that hasn't been said before.

I don't recall pinning them all on capitalism. That is a typical false classification someone engages in who wants to dismiss any real world analysis of the underlying causes. Then you go on to argue from this basis for the remainder of your commentary. I won't engage you further because you have misclassified my framing on purpose I could imagine and are falsely arguing against something I never stated. I detailed a range of different reasons why Birth rates are down. If you want to accurately refute any particular point you're more than welcome. But I will not engage your falsely framed retort in the least.

> You are pointing out some real problems

And yet.. you're trying to falsely refute them. Meanwhile, you present nothing but 'Yeah you pointed out some real problems ... but dude.. it's totally nothing"

Agency is framed by social context. Does someone have the same Agency in America as Canada, Europe, Sweden, Japan, China? Do they express the same cultural/social trends? What happens when a country like China bans certain social activity? What about your agency then? What happens when China bans certain apps that have no social value whatsoever and will lead to a more impoverished state? What happens when a country is steeped in nonsensical divisive idiocy vs a mature country that doesn't tolerate it socially? Agency means nothing without context. Cultures are pushed through mainstream media in the west. If you deny that, you have something cognitively wrong. Agency means nothing when you don't exercise it and live your life based on populist trends which is what the majority of people do. Thus the term : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_ideology

You began with : > You are pointing out some real problems

And went off to lala land. I'm not a Marxist. I'm not an anti-capitalist. I'm a realist. Reply with something better.

> Reply with something better.

Nah, I'd rather engage with someone less rude and toxic. Good luck to you.