hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Of course, with Da Jooos, there's always some genius like Shaun King to get things started.
I think it would be more fair to say, despite any conspiracy and maximally antagonistic JIDF posting, that the guy who started this is the guy who got himself arrested in America on account of luring a child to have sex with him and the fact that the same man is now free as a bird in Israel and not trapped in a small concrete box in Nevada.
It certainly does not help the JIDF case in this matter that the person ultimately responsible for his release, whether they were actually involved or not, is an Israeli born Jew and alleged zionist. Along the with the District attorney allegedly being jewish as well. Though that may all be besides the point.
The 'conspiracy angle' between this and Epstein is not known to me, and I don't see it being false as a relevant point to anything Joo related in totality, as there is still a long and ugly history of nasty jewish pedophiles making use of their jewishness to evade justice. This just seems like another example of that ugly reality which is allowed to persist for reasons the JIDF posters are sure to be able to rationalize away as perfectly coincidentally natural.
Considering what's on display, it doesn't seem very complicated to boss them around. As they look to be captive by the same process that most others are captive by. The belief is that the ingroup needs to sacrifice to make amends with the outgroup.
People who hold this belief feel it is their moral right to sacrifice other peoples children to make the bigger picture come together. And considering it has been decided as an economic policy to move vast amounts of third world browns around, and Europe has built a justice system based on European peoples and their comparatively more peaceful and redeemable criminals, what else is there for these judges to do? Just like the government and journalists in Sweden who hide the knowledge of race based crime statistics from the public in the name of solidarity and progress. It's literally the only play that makes sense when holding oneself to egalitarian priors.
Judges being people doesn't seem to be a problem at all. It actually looks like a perfectly functioning limb of an unassailable system that one can't be against without being literally Hitler.
I don't see the connection between 'being a person' and therefor automatically being inclined to give foreign rapists light sentences.
To me it doesn't seem reasonable or humane, just cowardly and sick. Being so wrapped up in and simultaneously so blind to ones own twisted moral intuition that it becomes practically impossible to differentiate between the person raping a 15 year old and the person calling them a pig is not 'normal'.
I think it would be a lot more pertinent for people like this to examine their state of mind and how it has managed to drive them towards results such as this. But it seems like we've managed to build an impervious wall that keeps people away from exploring the true extent of the problem and just what feeds these 'outgroup sycophants' to do what they do.
There are more pieces to the puzzle. And whilst it might be easy to throw together a few negative connections and proclaim everyone is 'just like the creationists' it just so happens that everyone is also not like that, depending on context.
For one, SIG has been on a long downward trend in the gun sphere. Complaints of poor quality control can be found online going back to 2013 and further. On top of that, SIG gets awarded a military contract allegedly based on low price. Pushing forward a pistol that is not drop safe.
To go from 'High Quality Swiss-German, Made in Eckernförde, Germany' to 'Low quality and cheap, Assembled in Newington, New Hampshire, parts from wherever' is a big change.
To that extent this is more a protest than a cult. At some point SIG managed to devalue its name, through whatever means, to a point where people feel the need to vent about it. SIG was good, now it's bad. Things didn't used to be like this. Now they do.
There has to have been a board meeting where the suit and ties timidly navigate around the need of appealing more to their awkwardly large coomer market.
It's just... Somehow with all the talk of hope centered around AI technology and human flourishing there sits a big nasty tumor called 'masturbation'.
Yudkowsky might have been right after all, just for the wrong reasons. It's not the flesh eating nanobots but the 2D waifus that need to be nuked.
So much for meme history.
I'm sure there is a based tradcath out there somewhere who can contextualize all of these follies of the modern world within the disaster that is the sexual revolution, but 'drastic' age gaps were, as far as my meme understanding of history goes, more common back in the day.
But regardless of that, a part of the issue has to be the lack of a centralized authority that decides on this. Allowing everyone to recognize what the parameters are so that they can at least not claim ignorance of how the dating scene works and where they fall on the value curve.
My question would be, would that change be a good thing? Would that information change peoples behavior at all?
The age thing, whilst more viscerally nasty, is probably not the sole reason for why Epstein and friends are looked at so negatively.
The idea of an upper class that lives voraciously lavish lives, engaging in all manner of depravity and indulgence, is pervasive in history and fiction. I don't think there is a single example where people look at these behaviors positively.
To that extent, whilst one might have to make more nuanced arguments against Epstein and friends on those grounds, the argument is there. Epstein and the people going to parties on private islands were doing something shameful and ugly even without the child rape trafficking.
No, not what sounds good vs what is effective. Most of these problems have no proven actionable solutions. From race to homelessness. And often times the problems are linked. The problems are also woven into the moral fabric of progressive ontology that came out of the older 'classical liberal' world.
That goes double for when we are operating within the parameters of what progressive voters will allow to fly or what can actually pass a human inspection. It's all well and good for us here talking about graphs and whatnot, but these debates have been had in the spheres where they matter. Turns out you can't be taken seriously as a classical liberal in civilized society if your answer to the moral impetus that drives progressives forward is bold faced racism or a confident 'welp'.
From a progressive standpoint, you're not looking at successful systems in hopes of further maximizing efficiency. You are looking for solutions to problems. Expensive projects with dubious results might look economically silly, but the need for them arises from a want. For example, after hearing that a local homeless person froze to death or something. 'We need to do something' always sounds better than 'welp'.
Eh, I'd think of it more in terms of if an attractive looking woman is hitting on you, you don't need agency.
Also, I'm sure wealthy men are going for young women. Just not marrying them. To that end I'm not sure if the data is demonstrating that recently married men are getting married to parity partners or if these parity partners have been an item for a long time. It would certainly match my experience of people meeting in university.
I'm inclined to agree with you. There is 'hatred' in many nations regarding past wars. But that's between nations.
To change perspectives, how one can say they are part of a group with a righteous feeling of anger, fear and vengeance against another national group whilst still claiming to be an equal national to that group strikes me as peculiar. Similar to how some advanced progressive/liberal/leftists manage to order their politics in such a way that brown people can do no wrong.
It is necessarily the case by dint of these emotions that there is a difference. How one would categorize or order that difference is up for debate, but that's where it starts.
I'll be honest, the condescending twattery got to me a little. But I forgive you.
Now, Let's read together. I say:
"As I've just said, the point wasn't about jews in particular but the phenomenon of outside population groups reaping the harvest and then leaving when it's time to till the field."
You say: "Well, that's a bad thing to do, agreed. Glad you didn't mean Jews"
There's nothing for me to say or do here when what I write holds no relevance to what you reply with.
Relating to the Youtuber and his screw, if you have a trigger that can get stuck like that, even if unlikely, and it getting stuck means the gun is able to fire through pressure/manipulation on the slide, don't you then have a problem?
As for SIG, I was under the impression that the name was built on German quality that has now been eroded in the pursuit of profit. To that extent I don't think disliking SIG is bad insofar as liking SIG was ever good. Companies can change over time.
Beyond that it's hard to make a point about motivated reasoning when that's all most people have. It's not like the average person can make an independent quality control assessment of SIG products before making up their mind on what 500$ pistol to buy. You are always at the mercy of other peoples biases.
As I've just said, the point wasn't about jews in particular but the phenomenon of outside population groups reaping the harvest and then leaving when it's time to till the field.
Some people feel like jews have a special case to plead regarding this, but I disagreed. Noting how many different people suffered in WW2, not just jews. Meaning jews don't have a special case to plead. You try to ignore this point by asking about jews in Germany, when in reality my point stands regardless of those particular circumstance, as the suffering of jews in Germany does not trump the suffering of Europeans elsewhere. Whose governments did plenty to get them into an early grave.
Not everyone is equally patriotic, not everyone shares the same understanding of what a nation is. But there is a very visceral line drawn in the sand that demonstrates that at some point you don't really qualify as a national. Or that your ideation of what a nation is was never serious beyond the self serving justifications of a parasite wanting to leech off it's host.
You claim I made arguments that jews aren't real citizens and that's just a lie. I made no claims in that direction whatsoever beyond stating that the jewish family that is hoarding passports reminds me of that visceral line drawn in the sand of brown fighting age immigrants fleeing Ukraine.
Maybe you feel the need to police any potentially negative connotation relating to jews, for whatever reason. Or maybe it's something else. But don't lie about what I've said or what I mean or try to drag the conversation into a direction that justifies your compulsion.
Oh, they weren't "deranged." Jew-hatred is centuries old. I realize you're in the "There's a good reason for that" camp, but like everyone else who says this, you never do more than wave at Jewish Communists and other Jewish leftists and imply that this is evidence of some inherent nefarious characteristic of Jewishness.
That's not true. There are certainly a lot of good examples on the left of what many take issue with when it comes to jews and behavior that is demonstrably negative to others. Which also demonstrates a very vicious spirit against the other. But that's not my evidence for anything other than that. There are bad people and negative psychological expressions in all population groups. The distinction is where it manifests, how and why. My main underlying point would be that jews are highly ethnocentric and seemingly unaware of their own biases in a way that can become very damaging if left unchecked. As many jews have demonstrated.
Were Jewish citizens of Germany exempt from national service?
I doubt it, but since my examples don't relate to the position of jews within Germany during WW2 I don't know why I should care.
You sure loved that anecdote about a few Jewish families with a dozen passports, but how common do you think that is, really?
Probably rare, which is why my point was highlighted by immigrant groups in Ukraine running away from conflict. The point wasn't about jews in particular but the phenomenon of outside population groups reaping the harvest and then leaving when it's time to till the field.
Do you think the average Jew (in America or elsewhere) has a dozen passports and is ready to flee the country if it faces a threat? Do you think Jews would flee in greater numbers than others? If a Jew doesn't have multiple passports and has in fact served in the military, do you regard him as a co-national like yourself? (Have you served?)
Do you think these questions are relevant to anything I've said? To the only tangentially relevant point, last time I checked, jews were very underrepresented in the US armed forces.
I would be inclined to agree with you and others as far as peace goes but this is ignoring expansionist ambitions of Israel. Israel wants land occupied by Palestinians. All Palestinians have to do on that front is not leave. To that extent they can win battles and drag the conflict towards a stalemate of sorts.
If you need to broaden the definition of victory to include whatever short term gain you allege Israel has now and preclude any longer term concerns then I'm not sure my definitions are the problem.
I mean, the peace and security Israel bought for itself seems extremely hard fought and eerily similar to what they had before. Outside of the Oct.7 attack, which was a defensive blunder, is all the manpower and material spent on this battle justifiable in any sense if we are comparing before and after?
In 2021, there was a singular combat casualty for the IDF. And of the 54 attempted significant terror attacks, there were 3 deaths and 34 wounded. And 2021 seems to be on the lower end of average.
I stand thoroughly unconvinced.
You are implying the people in question were simply deranged and hated jews for being jews. Which is a sort of backhanded otherization rhetoric that would not fly in any other context. Most principally for being an obvious lie. But also for just being silly. Denying others a theory of mind to make your case just means you don't have a case.
That's because they have a country that isn't going to suddenly decide they don't belong there.
Historically, this is just not true. And more pertinent to the topic, sometimes it's not their own nation that's doing the deciding. Acting like the predicament many jews found themselves in during WW2 is any worse than that of many civilians in the aforementioned nations is invalid.
A convincing case has yet to be made that Jews are simultaneously unreasonably paranoid, disloyal, and also do not deserve to be considered fellow citizens and got what was coming to them.
You can't both be a citizen and also exempt from service to the nation if the concept of a national is supposed to hold any relevance. This rings especially loud after decades of diversity propaganda where everyone is touted as an equal national. If your alleged co-nationals are hoarding passports they certainly do have a different view on the nation and their membership. If you want to verbalize recognition for that fact using hyperbolic thought ending rhetoric... fine. But you are certainly not looking for rational discourse when doing so.
If your military victory left you a completely unruly population that you can't control outside of genociding them and you can't completely genocide them without compromising your military victory then I'm not sure you have a military victory.
Israel feeding Gazan children will create Gazan men and women. Those men and women are raised with a strong sense of having more Gazan children. To that extent I'm not sure if claims by either side of who is trying to starve who are in any way sensical.
No. How did you reach that? The point where jews could make inroads with Germans had long passed them by.
I'm suggesting that Russians, Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians and Ukrainians for example, don't carry 12 different passports in case of another war, despite being victims of WW2.
WW2 affected more people than just jews.
This brings up feelings similar to when I see news stories from Ukraine of all their African migrants fleeing the country. A bunch of brown fighting age men who suddenly aren't Ukrainian like the others. All rhetoric of unity and shared humanity thrown out the window for a train ticket out of there. So they can, presumably, do the same song and diversity dance someplace else.
Not sure if I can get behind this message hypothesized here. Whilst I can understand that the Anti-Red pill crowd is desperate for something to chew on, this is a stretch.
Sure, the data is there, but it says nothing about what men want, as there is no causal direction implied anywhere outside of editorialized headlines. It does, however, fit the Red Pill box of women 'rejecting' men they see as lesser than them and instead looking for men who make at the very least equal. To that extent it isn't rich men choosing rich women, it's rich women hunting down every single rich man they can. And when they get him they predictably, according to TRP philosophy and this data, stop working and start making a family. 'Because that's what women actually want.' (Italics read in the voice of Nick Fuentes)
To that extent the data fits that red pill 'truth' and the general red pill assertion that dating is a different market for men as they get older.
Perhaps after the end of Trump, the USA will be in a position where it can apply for readmission to the human race...
I'm no fan of the USA, but considering the rest of the world, that statement is not serious.
- Prev
- Next
It feels like we are trying to push a square peg through a round hole, so long as scientists are people and not robots.
Having gone through a long journey of internet atheism, towards 'Skepticism' as a sort of general outlook to fill in the void that a lack of coherent belief system creates, I was left, like many, very unimpressed by my fellow atheists, skeptics and scientists in general insofar as they were represented by science popularizers. I did not find anything similar to Less Wrong during this time, but was left to trudge through the mud of Skeptic drama, power tripping feminist moderators and such. Atheism+ came along with a bang and every foot soldier of internet atheism and skepticism turned from making mountains out of molehills, where the actions of some pastor in the middle of nowhere did or said something silly, towards tearing each other apart over small ideological differences. These were the same people who scoffed at the silly religious people who start wars over inconsequential differences in scripture...
Now, that's just the rabble beneath the 'Science'. It included a lot of professors and scientists, sure, but it also included a lot of nobodies. But this was the population group that had, for at least a decade, labored under the delusion that they were in some way different from the rest. With science, reason and rationality as their shield. Turns out they very much weren't any of that to any extent that mattered.
But, again, this is the rabble. The scientists themselves, surely, are better. Right? Well, as you say yourself, they kind of aren't. And better men than me or you have long made that observation. Turns out they are very much human like everyone else.
To that end I'd argue the kind of 'scientist' you seem to pine for would probably make for a terrible person in any other aspect of life. Good people don't constantly have to evaluate base truths. Wallowing in self doubt over whatever facet of their life they happen to re-evaluate today, to not fall prey to bias or whatever, whilst potentially destroying key aspects of their life in the process.
Further than that, I'd say that if you ever want to colonize Mars, the last thing you need is science. As you can't hope to achieve such a lofty goal without true believers who hold not doubt in their heart towards their task but unshakeable faith and enthusiasm. Lest you end up with another 'Whitey on the Moon' paradigm.
As far as my mind can see, if we were to form any sort of realistic framework that could facilitate this goal of veneration and exploration for science, physics and space, we are working towards a chauvinistic European and/or East Asian supremacism. Any other population groups and any other concerns that don't functionally establish such authority are doomed to fall prey to everything we've seen trip up science so far. Though I welcome any thoughts to the contrary.
In conclusion, it seems that if one loves science, one should learn to love politics first.
More options
Context Copy link