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

-4 points
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/magazine/jd-vance-interview.html

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
24 points

I found this bit at the top revealing in a way…

I had my own venture-capital firm, and there was this weird way where I felt like I had succeeded at climbing the ladder of meritocracy, but I had also found the values of the meritocracy, frankly, deeply wanting and deeply lacking

If he’s being honest, at least in the terms of his motivations, he’s confusing meritocracy with capitalism. He “succeeded” at capitalism, and mistook that for having been judged to be some quality of merit, and then became disillusioned by meritocracy- probably because he succeeded without any real merit. A lot of his current ideology seems to be based on the rejection of something he fundamentally misunderstood.

permalink
report
reply
34 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
-36 points

You don’t have kids do you? I think he’s terrible but absolutely agree with that response.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

He’s a walking definition of “anecdotal evidence”.

Also, Trump and Musk have a fuck ton of kids & they haven’t learned shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

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…)

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Would rather stab myself with a spoon, thanks.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

What about a spork

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Well, it’s a creepy-ass spoon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have a titanium spork and it kicks ass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Guy doesn’t know who he is. Evolving views. Converting to Catholicism 5 years ago. But he sure hates the left now. In a subdued way though so as not to reveal his true self.

permalink
report
reply

He’s a grifter, and the GOP audience will currently take the grift and ask for more. Like Trump, he pretends to be whatever he needs to be to allow him to continue the con. No morals, no dignity, just dollar signs and power.

Edit s/right/GOP

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

dude’s a fucking changeling i want a sample of his blood

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Get in line behind Thiel.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 446K

    Comments