Comments by "lordsneed" (@lordsneed9418) on "Being Erased from the Gene Pool is Not a Flex: Anyone With Less than Three Kids is a Cuck" video.

However the corollary to this argument is that if you are infertile for whatever reason then the next best thing you can do is either cause your relatives to have more children than they would otherwise , or cause members of your extended family aka your eithnic group to have more kids than they would otherwise. And even if you aren't infertile it is still in your interests to do both these things anyway.
10
you could potentially do surrogacy. But it is an unfortunate m bad state to be in to be infertile. I believe Malcolm was addressing people who willingly choose not to have children though . A person who loses the ability to walk in an accident is different from someone who intentionally cuts off their own legs. If you are infertile then the next best thing you can do is cause your relatives to have more children than they would have otherwise , and cause people who share more genes with you such as your extended family i.e. members of your ethnic group to have more kids than you would have otherwise.
8
you only really die when your genes dwindle and get filtered from the genepool because your kids who carry your genes are you. The only people with a chance of living forever are those who reproduce.
2
"republicans are more aroused by chuck olding than democrats" This is likely fake lib propaganda along the lines of "republicans are more likely to be ghey" or "men who find same-sexuality disgusting are more likely to be ghey" In which groups is cuckolding/polyamory known to be most common? the bdsm community and rationalist/EA community. And both of those communities are known to be VERY lib. see also the dailybeast article "Cuckolding: The Sex Fetish for Intellectuals" which interviews these people and reveals that the engagers in this fetish skew much more highly educated and thus more liberal. Think college professor couples
2
People tend to side with people who share more genes with them (ethnocentrism, in-group preference, ethnic nepotism) . Therefore it is actually a bad thing for us European-descent people when libs don't have kids because those libs are disproportionately European and it means our descendants will have fewer allies and be more outnumbered by other ethnic groups who have strong in-group preference like africans and moohammadans . The anti-European-descent diversity agenda is encouraged to a large degree by non-Europeans who realise that they benefit from Europeans being marginalised, discriminated against and displaced. At the moment liberal European-descent people are anti-european-descent but that could change quite quickly when the situation becomes more like south african. so it would be better if they started having children.
1
yes more precisely you;'d say that you and your descendents need to have on average >2 children each or else your genes will dwindle.
1
Your mathematics is focusing on totally the wrong quantity (what matters to evolution is number of person A's dna passed on, not the % coverage of his dna passed on) but more importantly your hypothetical example doesn't actually happen in real life. Sibling groups with a same-sex attracted (SSA) sibling do not have an extra >4 children on average compared to sibling groups that are entirely opposite-sex attracted , which is what would need to happen in order for it to be worth while for the SSA sibling to be be SSA rather than have his own children. Furthermore, not even having a mother survive past your childhood causes you to have that many extra children. So we would have to suppose that having a SSA sibling is more caring and supportive and helps you have more children than maternal love , which is preposterous. So this theory for the evolution of same sex attraction is completely wrong.
1
I believe he is addressing people who intentionally, deliberately don't have kids or have few kids by choice. Being low fertility is an unfortunate , bad state of affairs just like being disabled is an unfortunate, bad state of affairs. However a person who lost the ability to walk in an accident deserves sympathy while a person who intentionally amputated their own legs because they did not want to walk anymore does not. Also he does not mention that under this point of view, infertile people can still do the next best thing which is to cause their relatives to have more children than they would otherwise and cause those who share more genes with them, their extended family i.e. their ethnic group to have more children than they would otherwise. This is somethign that is in everyone's interests to do even those who are fertile.
1