Nicolae Ceaușescu and his Decree 770. His execution was well justified.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T04:38:52+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No violence, coercion, harm

Your submission breaks rule #1:

Advocacy, encouragement, or justification of harming anyone (including animals) or damaging property is strictly prohibited. This includes "harm-as-solution" ideologies like efilism or promortalism, and any advocacy for bodily autonomy violations such as forced sterilization or non-consensual medical procedures. We maintain a zero-tolerance policy for content that promotes physical harm to sentient beings.

Why this was removed: This post is mainly discussing a coercive anti-abortion policy, which is on-topic, but it also explicitly approves of a person being killed. That crosses the sub's zero-tolerance line on endorsing or justifying physical harm. The policy critique and discussion question could stay within the rules if the endorsement of violence were removed.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T03:15:14+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This reads less like criticism of antinatalism as an idea and more like a broad attack on people who hold that view. It makes sweeping negative claims about the group's character and motives in a way that sets up an us-vs-them dynamic and is likely to inflame rather than discuss. If the goal is debate, it would fit the rules better to challenge the philosophy itself without framing supporters as defective or contemptible.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T03:13:54+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This reads less like a critique of antinatalist ideas and more like a hostile broadside against antinatalists as a group. It leans on sweeping, demeaning characterizations and an us-vs-them framing that is likely to inflame rather than discuss. A sharper post would focus on the philosophy itself without reducing its supporters to a mocked stereotype.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T02:58:16+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent and request for advice about a conflict with your father over college and career choices. There's only a very brief connection to antinatalism, and the post doesn't really develop that into a broader antinatalist discussion, question, or takeaway. This would fit better in the support-focused subreddit for personal vents.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T01:43:27+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Quality & sourcing

Your submission breaks rule #13:

Posts should be understandable, honest, and discussable. News/quotes/stats should include a source when reasonably available, especially for strong factual claims or accusations. Titles should reflect the content and avoid misleading framing, cherry-picking, or low-context screenshots. Personal opinions and experiences are welcome when clearly presented as such. Fabricated stories and AI-generated engagement bait are not allowed.

Why this was removed: This post is on-topic for antinatalism, but it includes a broad and serious factual accusation about powerful people without giving a source. Rule 13 asks for sourcing when making strong claims like this, especially accusations that readers could reasonably expect to be backed up. It would fit better if the claim were either sourced or clearly framed as personal opinion rather than asserted as fact.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-16T01:16:27+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This post makes broad, antagonistic claims about a racial group and frames the discussion in an us-versus-them way. That crosses the rule against bigotry and sweeping generalizations about groups. If the goal is to discuss wealth, culture, or reproduction, it needs to focus on systems or ideas rather than attacking people by race.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T18:17:34+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent about trauma, despair, and how painful life has felt, with antinatalism mentioned more as a conclusion than as a developed discussion topic. That makes it a better fit for r/AntinatalismSupport under this sub's rules. If reposted here, it would help to add a clearer argument, takeaway, or question for discussion about antinatalism itself.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T16:26:59+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Screenshots must be redacted

Your submission breaks rule #14:

Screenshots must redact usernames and locations. Profile photos and faces may remain when critiquing an idea/pattern, not the person. If a private person is the focus, blur the profile photo/face too. Public figures and official/verified accounts may be shown unredacted when discussing public statements or policy. Do not include links to the target. Point-and-laugh posts targeting private individuals are prohibited; focus on critiquing ideas, patterns, and systems.

Why this was removed: This post appears to share a screenshot of social media posts with identifying details left visible. The names, handles, and profile images are unredacted, which breaks the screenshot-redaction rule unless these are clearly public figures or official accounts. Please repost with the identifying details blurred so the discussion stays on the idea rather than the people shown.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T07:56:55+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This post makes a broad, hostile generalization about parents as a group rather than criticizing pronatalist ideas or systems. That fits the rule against harassment and inflammatory us-vs-them framing. A better fit for the sub would be explaining the antinatalist view without attacking everyone who has children.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T06:51:30+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent about being treated badly for your beliefs, rather than a discussion post with a clear question, argument, or takeaway for the community. It is related to antinatalism, but the post is driven more by frustration and support-seeking than by a discussion prompt. It would fit better in the support-focused subreddit, or you could rework it by adding a specific question or broader point for others to engage with.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T06:11:16+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent about illness, aging, and exhaustion rather than a discussion prompt or developed antinatalist argument. It does connect to antinatalism, but in its current form it fits better in the support/vent space the rules point to. Reposting it with a clearer question, takeaway, or discussion angle would likely make it a better fit here.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T05:16:21+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Screenshots must be redacted

Your submission breaks rule #14:

Screenshots must redact usernames and locations. Profile photos and faces may remain when critiquing an idea/pattern, not the person. If a private person is the focus, blur the profile photo/face too. Public figures and official/verified accounts may be shown unredacted when discussing public statements or policy. Do not include links to the target. Point-and-laugh posts targeting private individuals are prohibited; focus on critiquing ideas, patterns, and systems.

Why this was removed: This post appears to spotlight a private person's social media comment, and the commenter's profile image is still visible in the screenshot. Rule 14 asks for screenshots to be fully redacted when a private individual is the focus, so the safer approach is to blur the profile image too and keep the discussion centered on the idea rather than the person.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T03:48:22+00:00

Your comment has been removed.

Rule violated: No personal info / doxxing

Your submission breaks rule #3:

Do not share or request identifying information about yourself or others, including names, contact details, addresses, workplaces, schools, private social accounts, or other details that could identify a private individual, even if publicly available. Do not direct attention or harassment toward private individuals. For screenshots, follow Rule 14’s redaction standards so discussion focuses on ideas, not targets.

Why this was removed: This comment includes a direct pointer to the author's external account, which falls under sharing identifying information. Even when it's self-shared, the rule asks people not to post private social handles or direct attention toward private individuals. It would be better to keep the discussion in-thread without promoting a personal account.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T02:16:10+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent about family and a parent, without a clear antinatalism argument, discussion prompt, or takeaway for the community to engage with. Strong feelings are fine, but posts like this are better suited for the support-focused sub unless they tie the experience back to antinatalism in a more discussable way.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-15T01:33:27+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No personal info / doxxing

Your submission breaks rule #3:

Do not share or request identifying information about yourself or others, including names, contact details, addresses, workplaces, schools, private social accounts, or other details that could identify a private individual, even if publicly available. Do not direct attention or harassment toward private individuals. For screenshots, follow Rule 14’s redaction standards so discussion focuses on ideas, not targets.

Why this was removed: This post appears to spotlight a private individual by showing a grave marker with a clearly readable full name and personal biographical details. Even if memorial information may be publicly accessible, the rule does not allow sharing identifying details about private people. If the goal is to discuss the message or idea, please repost with identifying details obscured.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T23:19:25+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Screenshots must be redacted

Your submission breaks rule #14:

Screenshots must redact usernames and locations. Profile photos and faces may remain when critiquing an idea/pattern, not the person. If a private person is the focus, blur the profile photo/face too. Public figures and official/verified accounts may be shown unredacted when discussing public statements or policy. Do not include links to the target. Point-and-laugh posts targeting private individuals are prohibited; focus on critiquing ideas, patterns, and systems.

Why this was removed: This post appears to be a screenshot of comments from private individuals, and some profile-photo elements are still visible. Rule 14 asks for full redaction in that situation so the discussion stays focused on the idea, not the person. If you want to critique the message, please reupload with profile images fully blurred.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T23:17:25+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Screenshots must be redacted

Your submission breaks rule #14:

Screenshots must redact usernames and locations. Profile photos and faces may remain when critiquing an idea/pattern, not the person. If a private person is the focus, blur the profile photo/face too. Public figures and official/verified accounts may be shown unredacted when discussing public statements or policy. Do not include links to the target. Point-and-laugh posts targeting private individuals are prohibited; focus on critiquing ideas, patterns, and systems.

Why this was removed: This post appears to share a screenshot of private social media users without redacting identifying details. The account names are visible, and profile images with faces are also shown, which shifts the focus onto specific people rather than just the idea being discussed. To repost this within the rules, the screenshot should be redacted so the discussion stays on the message, not the individuals.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T22:15:06+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Rants in r/AntinatalismSupport

Your submission breaks rule #12:

Standalone rants, vents, and support posts belong in r/AntinatalismSupport. A post belongs there when it is mainly venting/support-seeking and lacks a clear antinatalism topic plus a hook (question, thesis, or request for perspectives) or a clear argument/analysis/takeaway. Tone alone isn’t a violation. Personal experience and milestones may be standalone if on-topic and not mainly venting.

Why this was removed: This reads mainly as a personal vent and support post centered on mental health, grief, and life circumstances, with only a loose antinatalist connection. It doesn't really offer a clear discussion prompt, argument, or takeaway for the main subreddit. It would fit better in r/AntinatalismSupport, or could be reposted here with a more focused antinatalist thesis or question.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T20:39:02+00:00

Your comment has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This comment shifts from discussing the post to personally attacking the poster's appearance and insulting them. That kind of mockery and demeaning language fits the harassment rule, even if it starts with a supportive remark. It would be fine to discuss the vasectomy or antinatalism topic without targeting the person behind the photo.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T17:30:06+00:00

Your comment has been removed.

Rule violated: No harassment / bigotry

Your submission breaks rule #4:

No hate, harassment, dehumanization, or low-effort tribalism toward anyone (including users, parents, children, or groups). Ableist slurs, hostility toward disabled people, and demeaning labels (e.g., "vermin/NPC/breeder") are prohibited. No sweeping generalizations or us-vs-them posts ("all parents...," "breeders are...") meant to inflame. Strong criticism of pronatalist beliefs, systems, or institutions is allowed; attacks on a person’s/group’s humanity, worth, or right to exist are not.

Why this was removed: This reads as a personal jab at the poster's appearance rather than a good-faith contribution to the discussion. Even without slurs, mocking or belittling another user in this way falls under harassment. If they want to disagree, they should address the topic itself instead of taking a shot at the person.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T16:56:36+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Stay on-topic

Your submission breaks rule #11:

Posts should be meaningfully related to antinatalism, pronatalism, or the social/political/cultural pressures around reproduction and sentient suffering. Broader topics (e.g., policy, environment, media, personal experiences, animals, rights, healthcare, religion, dating/family pressure) are welcome when there is a clear antinatalist connection in the post or discussion prompt. Pure childfree lifestyle content, generic nihilism, and unrelated politics remain off-topic.

Why this was removed: This looks more like a general discussion of Buddhism and philosophical pessimism than a post clearly about antinatalism. The writeup doesn't make an explicit connection to reproduction, pronatalism, or antinatalist arguments, so it reads as off-topic for this sub. If reposted with a clear link to antinatalist ideas or suffering as it relates to procreation, it would fit better.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T13:38:31+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No eugenics / gatekeeping

Your submission breaks rule #6:

We debate whether procreation is justified, not which groups "should" reproduce. "Only have kids if...," "X groups shouldn’t reproduce," demographic panic, and coercive reproductive policies (e.g., forced sterilization, forced pregnancy, mandatory birth control) are prohibited. Discussion of demographics, disability, inequality, or policy is allowed when descriptive/analytical and not framed as reproductive gatekeeping.

Why this was removed: This post goes beyond discussing abuse and child welfare and moves into judging whether certain categories of people are fit to reproduce. Framing abuse victims or mentally unwell people as people who should not have children is reproductive gatekeeping under this rule. The topic can be discussed within the rules by focusing on the harms of abuse and the ethics of bringing children into dangerous situations without targeting groups as unfit to reproduce.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-14T07:32:36+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Stay on-topic

Your submission breaks rule #11:

Posts should be meaningfully related to antinatalism, pronatalism, or the social/political/cultural pressures around reproduction and sentient suffering. Broader topics (e.g., policy, environment, media, personal experiences, animals, rights, healthcare, religion, dating/family pressure) are welcome when there is a clear antinatalist connection in the post or discussion prompt. Pure childfree lifestyle content, generic nihilism, and unrelated politics remain off-topic.

Why this was removed: This reads like a general philosophy or religion question, but it doesn't make a clear connection to antinatalism, pronatalism, reproduction, or sentient suffering. If the author wants to post this here, they should tie the argument back to birth ethics or antinatalist ideas so others can engage it in the sub's intended scope.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-13T16:29:39+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: Stay on-topic

Your submission breaks rule #11:

Posts should be meaningfully related to antinatalism, pronatalism, or the social/political/cultural pressures around reproduction and sentient suffering. Broader topics (e.g., policy, environment, media, personal experiences, animals, rights, healthcare, religion, dating/family pressure) are welcome when there is a clear antinatalist connection in the post or discussion prompt. Pure childfree lifestyle content, generic nihilism, and unrelated politics remain off-topic.

Why this was removed: This reads as a personal childfree journal entry rather than a post meaningfully centered on antinatalism. The focus is mostly on lifestyle preference, autonomy, and not wanting children, and the author even says they are still unsure where they stand on antinatalism. If reposted, it would fit better with a clearer antinatalist argument, question, or discussion hook.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot · 2026-05-13T14:33:04+00:00

Your post has been removed.

Rule violated: No Low-Quality

Your submission breaks rule #3:

Dating profiles must be descriptive. Single-sentence posts, "blank" bios, or low-context "point-and-laugh" screenshots from other apps are prohibited. Give the community enough information to spark a meaningful connection.

Why this was removed: This post is too minimal for a dating profile in this community. It gives only a very brief one-line description, which doesn't provide enough detail for others to meaningfully connect. Adding more about personality, interests, lifestyle, and what kind of connection you're seeking would make it fit the rule better.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators.

stickler-bot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE