@hanikrummihundursvin's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC


User ID: 673



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 673

And the point of that paragraph was to give an example of how people think.

The fact that a country existing provides some mechanisms for others to seek recompense does not change the fact that people feel they are owed something from another group. There's no crucial difference. Jews felt the Germans did something to them. Not the country, the people. Cruel acts against individual Germans or people who collaborated with Germans are seen as just. The fact that there exists a mechanism, due to Germany being a country, to seek recompense does not change the fact that there is a motivation behind using that mechanism. That mechanism existing or not is irrelevant to the point being made about how people use language and generalize with regards to groups they do and don't like.

Did all the Jewish people in the world take a vote and agree to be bound by its results, or something?

No, just like not every German in Germany voted in the elections that got Hitler power. But jews did express themselves through thousands of organizations that convened and agreed that they would take action against Germany in 1933. They did not need to be a country to do this. Which displays just how contrived and argumentative your insistence on 'countries' is. As if these people can now not be responsible for their own actions because they don't qualify as a country.

The country of Israel was very specifically created by one specific movement, the Zionist movement; as you surely know, there were a lot of Jews at the time who explicitly and expressly disagreed with the Zionist movement, its actions and its goals.

So what is the ratio here that allows one to associate Germans being responsible for the holocaust but not jews with Zionism?

I don't really understand the references to "some Jews" continuing to boycott the Germany or whatever. That would just indicate that most don't, no?

No, what was being demonstrated is that jews see no issue holding a negative opinion of Germans. Which would be equally wrong with regards to your post on what people should do. Demonstrating just how irrelevant your particular pontifications are with regards to my position, which is the same as the jewish position on Germans.

It just seems to demonstrate the difficulty that talking about "Jews" as a people as an equivalent to a country is

Except no one was talking about Germans as a country except you. If jews could not take collective action unless they were a country you would have an argument. But this is obviously not true, as jews can take actions as individuals and as groups. Like they demonstrated in 1933 and have demonstrated time and time again with collective action through organizations.

No one is saying that jews being 'successful' is a reason to not like them except you.

German people were interned in the US following the US entry into the war. Plans were drawn up for more extensive internment of all German Americans but were scrapped since there were too many of them. Redefining things to be a 'country' is irrelevant. Getting down to brass tax it's about people. Everyone understands this when they are forced to act in reality.

However, that still doesn't make all Jews everywhere liable for the actions of Israeli goverment.

Yet, to this very day, many jews harbor resentment towards Germans. Some going as far as they can in upholding the old anti-German boycott.

Maybe I am being too hot tempered and uncharitable here but I really can't fathom what your point of bringing 'countries' into this would be other than to obfuscate things. Jews did not need to be a country to act as a people. They knew of themselves as the jewish people, they grouped up as the jewish people and they made declarations and took actions as a people prior to Israel ever being a thing. In fact, the only way Israel as a country could come to be in the first place was because of jewish people acting as a group.

So to turn your thing on its head a little bit, and to attempt to highlight my issue with it; are jews liable for the creation of the state of Israel?

Who implied that? I don't understand.

I just see your point being predicated on the idea that people can't take issue with what some jews were being successful at and/or how.

That's why one of the part of the rules is: Be as precise and charitable as you can.

Maybe you could be charitable and understand that when someone says the Germans did something, they don't mean every single individual German. Maybe you can understand that when someone says jews have won a lot of Nobel prizes, they don't mean every single individual jew. I mean, of course you understand that. Everyone does. 'Jews have won a lot of nobel prizes' is not a statement anyone has ever taken issue with. It's just that when the implication is negative the ingroup bias of some gets activated and they start demanding special status for their ingroup.

I don't accept that jews are more special than others and I don't accept that I should use extreme and autistic verbal rigor when talking about the ingroup bias of some whilst freely ignoring it for others. I think people should be able to be charitable, see past their bias, and recognize what is being said without dragging everything through the mud of tactical individualism. Like I said in my prior comment, you don't need to prove how every single individual German helped the Third Reich when justifying they pay war reparations to jews. You don't need their tax returns to see just how much they were paying. You just draw a blanket group based judgement. They were German, they now have to pay. I'm making a similar judgement call. If one is jewish and one sees all of the negative stuff specific jews have done, why doesn't one have to own that? The Germans had to own all of their actions. They couldn't say that it wasn't them, but rather individual soldiers, politicians and the 30% or so that voted for the NSDAP in the 30's. Why should jews be allowed to not just disown all responsibility, but ultimately claim that these things aren't even jewish. It's like saying the NSDAP wasn't actually German.

The fact Germans are paying for anything is because citizens do in fact inherit the financial responsibilities their government has agreed to.

Why do they 'inherit' that whilst jews don't inherit that specific jews in powerful positions who identified themselves as jews and representatives of jews, who identified their organization as jewish and who declared economic war on Germans in the name of their explicitly jewish organizations due to actions taken by specific Germans against jews in Germany?

Seems like we've erected a very one sided standard. Individual Germans take responsibility for Germans as a group. Individual jews don't take responsibility for jews as a group. Even when jews are explicitly grouping up and expressing themselves as a group. It seems like, in a negative context, there are only individual jews and they can never reflect poorly on jews as a group. No matter how much ingroup bias jews display. Yet here I am pretending that this just doesn't exist. That jews don't have an ingroup bias that they routinely express every single time someone is critical of jews.

Here's a thought, if people don't see themselves as jewish, stop being jewish. Say you're Italian or Romanian. But no. Even on the internet, where no one knows you are a dog, jews and people who ingroup jews take time out of their day to reply to group generalizations in the context of negatives about jews but let actively rely on them in other contexts.

I'm not saying anything about all jews being X. I'm pointing out a double standard. Other individual people have to own their group and how other individual people of that group have made that group look, especially if those individuals did something bad to jews. I could understand how a fervent individualist would not want to participate in such a thing, but people who act on their group biases are obviously not that.

That's not the argument.

Claiming that certain Jews did things that you dislike is of course not necessarily pathological.

Then why do I consistently get the response that it is? Regardless of anything else, my point stands. There is a very distinct and clear form of ingroup bias whenever the 'jews' are criticized. There's never a concession made or a 'rational' framework of cause and effect. In this very thread the act of killing a Nazi collaborator is framed as justified, not causal.

However, blaming Jews as a group for things is certainly and in all cases a form of irrational, shoddy thinking.

Is there anyone in the world who believes that every single jew in the world was doing the things the "specific" jews in Weimar Germany were doing?

What you are saying would have salience and some form of coherency if it wasn't for the fact that the entire modern world is based on the idea that there are nations of people. Like Germans. Who were paying, and are in some form still paying, for the actions of specific Germans during the war. Do we need to be able to trace the causal chain of how a specific German housewife helped the Nazi regime during the war, which justifies her and her offspring pay money to jews until the day they die and beyond? No. This nihilistic autism is only presented when someone makes even a vague generalization about jews having done something.

I mean, can we come up with some term that describes the specific jews that do anti-European, anti-civilizational, anti-society, anti-Christian stuff? You know, not the good ones but the "specific" ones and those that support them. Because I'm tired of people acting like they are explaining something to me when all they are doing is playing PR for their ingroup. As if I just can not fathom that the jew I played video games with isn't Magnus Hirschfeld.

This is a great example. Jews just exist in a form that is impossible to assign negative cause to. So the natural conclusion is that anyone who assigns them any negative cause is suffering from some ailment or pathology.

This is just such a transparent expression of ingroup bias. Like, it can't be that jews actually caused something negative to happen or are in any way instrumental in the proliferation of anything bad and that some people had a very natural and human reaction to it. I.e. not wanting to live with jews anymore. No, the Nazis were instead jealous of jews.

Troll post or not(it is), the meta argument still stands. At a certain point you realize that people who ingroup jews never accept in any sense that there is any rhyme, reason or responsibility to be found when the subject of anti-semitism comes up. Which is why you get these inane arguments to begin with.

The framework for the discussion is of a victim and oppressor, not cause and effect. Which is at odds with the 'rationalist' disposition on most other topics.

Every modern generation has to come to terms with the fact that their world gets replaced, their traditions get tossed aside, and their life's work was ultimately worth very little to anyone except themselves.

It's another trick of modernity, where the constantly evolving industrial and technological society outpaces each generation and leaves them without any heirs or students to whom they can pass the mantle. In fact, seeing someone pick up their useless hobby to carry on the tradition would make a self aware person feel guilty and sad.

Prior to such a rapidly changing world, the bond between generations was held together through tools and technology that didn't get outpaced. That could be recycled and innovated again and again. The joy of cultivating a craft and knowing it will live on.

That being said a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves. Most of the things people devote themselves to today are useless junk. Prior to a more civilized world, having a useless hobby could very likely lead to something very bad.

The impulse we have to devote ourselves to things that work and to grieve their loss is a small reminder of just how far we are straying away from being human. We have impulses to grieve the lost world, but not to celebrate the fact it was lost under a pile of 'better' things.

I agree with most everything you say but the way you phrase certain things, as exemplified by the 'triggered' @Folamh3 reply you got, undermines it and makes it seem like you are coming from a point that completely misunderstands why these problems arise to begin with. At least as far as it relates to what I assume is a popular opinion here; that society changed in this way to a large extent because of women's empowerment.

Now, I think it would behoove us, instead of blaming some vague thing like 'society', to recognize just what happened. Why were things allowed to change to begin with? Why didn't the men, who then had power, stop it?

The verbiage in your post is steeped in the sort of meaning that feels similar to what one would hear from a lone brave professor who decided to teach the first woman who attended his lectures despite all the men in the class leaving in protest. Or the rhetoric of a universalist 'egalitarian'.


"Our future"

There are no 'fair' solutions to this problem. The very idea of 'fairness' and 'equality' between men and women was part of what created it. There is no 'us'. The only 'working' societies in the world subjugate women. The universe does not owe anyone who wanders outside of that dynamic a solution to their self inflicted problems.

To that end, regardless of how highly you think of your post, I don't think you are saying a lot. The impression I get from reading it, for whatever that is worth, is that the drowning mans salvation lies at the bottom of the ocean.

Outside of that I am all ears to an actual solution to this problem that doesn't come from Catholic neo-reactionaries and the like.

Whilst I can identify with the sentiment in your post it's also a weird position to be in.

I don't have anything in common with Brand. He seems like an extroverted weirdo with enough self awareness and sociopathy to do some real damage on those who are more earnest and innocent in their social life. At the same time I probably have very little in common with the kinds of people Brand hangs out with. Given a lot of them are probably no sheep when it comes to malicious social games. For some reason, however, I find myself siding with the guy just because enough journalists don't like him.

I have no dog in the fight. I don't even seen much utility in guys like him espousing their rhetoric. Why do I feel like his fight is being foisted on me?

As much as I want some sort of signal out there that goes against the mainstream lunacy, I don't want to become a golem that gets animated into the opposite direction of the mainstream just because. Opposition for the sake of opposition just isn't enough. It turns you into the mirror image of a progressive like Vaush or similar where nothing matters except surfing the wave of the current media hype. I can see how obviously ridiculous people who do that look. I'd prefer not becoming one even if I feel the emotional pull to side with Brand because of who seems to be gunning for him.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that they made an excellent point here that wasn't properly addressed.

Persuaded of what? I don't understand this disposition towards the topic.

People complain about the state of media and entertainment. It is pointed out to them that everything they have tacitly or fully supported for the last decades is the cause of their woes. They proceed to stick their head in the sand so their worldview can remain safe and sound whilst everything they held dear gets whisked away in a BIPOC LGBTQI+ friendly reiteration. Where every element of the creative process sees what you cared about as being a symptom of a problem that needs solving.

You can not have what once was because of what now is. The culture you like is dying a demographic death. You will never get it back. The final nail in its coffin being the culture makers themselves. Instead of writing a 'good' story, they write inserts that compliment modern victimary discourse. They do this because that is the dominant culture. It's the dominant culture because of the culture that came before it.

Once you start tracing the thread of the modern moral fabric back to its source you don't find what you are looking for, you find everything that the modern moral fabric has conditioned you to reject. Which is what a lot of people do, which makes their complaints sound extremely hollow.

This comment makes an excellent point and the poor quality of replies and downvotes are telling of that.

I think one could easily argue for the objective merits of yesteryear. That did not preclude the new generation from consuming the new stuff more. You can give some objective measure of why that stuff is worse, but it doesn't matter at all to those who consume it more. This repeats all the way back to whatever time you want.

Entertainment always has a form molded by those who make it. You can argue that the form we now see, with regards to 'woke' stuff and politics in media, is worse than something else. It's designed by committee, it's politically motivated, whatever. What people seem to be failing to see is that the point made by @guesswho encompasses all of that.

The people who mold media today are doing so because of the conditions they find themselves in today, just like the people who molded media back in the day were. And that's the funny thing about this whole thing. You could not be were you are today if the people you are complaining about were not excellent at what they were doing. You are the product of the exact same political media you complain about. You are being left behind just like every other cultural conservative got left behind. You support every single step of that process up until the point where you find yourself replaced.

It's not my insistence. It's the context the question was in. I very purposefully made that distinction clear and cited that context. If you don't want to engage with the question within that context I am very correct in stating that you are reframing the question. Insisting that you are not doing exactly what you are doing is very dishonest and transparent.

Anyways based on your tone I'm presuming you are preoccupied with culture war issues. In that case the CPC affirmed their intent to ban trans medical procedures for all children. Getting rid of diversity hiring practices, keeping freedom of speech. Pretty much all of the main culture war threads.

And without radical change none of these things will happen since these things are long embedded in the institutions themselves. It's rather tiresome to have to explain this to people when the example of this happening has already been given and you refuse to acknowledge it.

These examples still feature a Libertarian infringing on the rights of others, just by using the state as a medium.

Why should it be the libertarian that gets their way with regards to what a teacher can and can't say? If the teacher wants to espouse LGBT stuff why not let them? Isn't that more freedom for the teacher? Why should they, the teachers, be the ones who have to live under a society that stifles their speech if they want to keep their job?

I know libertarians can justify whatever they want to justify. As Hoppe did most eloquently when he advocated for the physical removal of those who violate a hypothetical covenant made between people who want to maintain some sort of society they like. The point I am making is that a libertarian loses any and all moral highground as soon as they stoop to this level. Suddenly their notions of freedom are no greater than mine. They want to live in a society of a certain flavor.

You are reframing the question and missing the point of it. To remind us of its original context:

We used to have a guy here (or back on reddit) singing praises of UK conservatives, and how Multicultural Torryism is going to show us the way to combat wokeness. The UK now routinely sics the cops on people for denying progressive orthodoxy. Establishment conservatives are playing on the same team as the progressives.

If the distinguishing feature of the Canadian right vs the left is that it will not ban guns, there's not much point in celebrating their victory, is there? Does any element of the Canadian right represent any radical divergence from the mainstream of leftist politics?

22 years is a lot.

One would hope, for the sake of the 'right wing', that these events force right wing activists to smarten up and push the 'right wing' base towards more radicalism, distrust and pessimism towards the state.

But I think in reality this will just be seen as a failed circus act. Which people will want to quickly forget so the memory won't spoil the next circus troop coming to town.

You haven't responded to the original contention made, instead you go through this pointless rigamarole of sneering and insinuations and then try to leverage those as a thing when it's just the longest form of ad hom possible.

Why like or care about that? I mean, I'm not saying that's bad or that you shouldn't. But I had imagined, given the context of the conversation, that this was being presented as some motive to vote for the conservatives in the face of the political 'problems' facing Canada.

This is incorrect. Although I may not "engage with the opposite view" to your satisfaction, I told you I've read books, I've watched documentaries and interviews (including with deniers).

I don't believe you based on your inability to entertain a simple argument made by me.

Observing that your words do not match your posting history is not a lie. It may be an incorrect conclusion, but I'm not lying about what you said, I'm saying what you say is not congruent with your behavior.

What I said is congruent with my behavior. But it's not congruent with what you need me to be to justify your actions, so you make stuff up.

Again, no lie. Repeatedly saying "liar liar" because you don't like my conclusions is not the effective weapon you think it is.

When your conclusions are the exact opposite of what I wrote, they can't be drawn from believing what I said. So why ask me to explain myself if you already have a view of me that you wont change?

I see. You want me to specifically debate the total number of Jews killed, how many were killed at Auschwitz, whether or not Nazi testimony is credible or whether it was extracted under torture, whether we can take Hitler and Goering's statements about wanting to remove all the Jews at face value, all those things?

No. I just wanted you to engage with what I said, given you replied to me.

And if I don't play that game, debating each and every denier talking point, but say "I think the Holocaust happened," I am not "engaging with the argument"?

If you bother replying to each and every denier argument, but never address any of the arguments specifically, but always just assert that you think the holocaust happened, and that holocaust denial is like low brow conspiracy theories, then your replies are not serious and instead just exemplifying the typical attitude I described in my first comment.

The problem here is that there are many arguments here which you try to bundle as one argument.

I did no such thing. I made a single argument relating to the holocaust in specific based on the problem of Dachau and eyewitness testimony.

The argument is "Did the Holocaust happen?" The fine details might be relevant for someone genuinely interested in historical details, but I am saying "The weight of the evidence is that the Holocaust happened?"

That's not the argument I made. But you would need that to be the case for your position to make any sense, so you just make this stuff up. I know you are saying that, in total, the holocaust happened. And I'm saying, I don't care what you believe in total. It's not relevant at all to the argument I made. I already mentioned that most people don't evaluate the evidence, but instead just accept the entire narrative and then reinforce their belief based on the idea that all of it must be true. You obviously do that, you obviously don't look at individual pieces of evidence, instead relying on the historical narrative as a narrative rather than an investigation into reality. I think that's very obviously uncritical and faulty reasoning but whatever.

Only if you are claiming I believe those things without evidence. Which you can assert, but again, my stating I believe things to be true is not a statement about how I came to that belief.

I find that your position is based on not engaging with specific pieces of evidence but instead on believing that the narrative is true. If you can point me to any part of your comments in this chain which doesn't do that, feel free. You can certainly say you believe in the thing because this and that, but in practice and word you have not done it here.

I am applying reasoning to what's being said. I'm not indulging in your rhetorical diversions.

After maintaining you have engaged with the argument, you now admit you have not.

Somehow, in your mind, insinuating that eyewitness testimony is not a great piece of evidence, supported by an instance where a lot of people in a concentration camp lied about intentional killings after being liberated, is just a rhetorical diversion. But maintaining that, actually, the argument was all along whether or not the entire holocaust happened is "the argument" is not a rhetorical diversion...

This looks like transparent projection. Your frame for this topic always needs to be the entire holocaust, the sum. Because your principle for belief is that it's already all true. If you can't point to it all being true to support your belief you have nothing.

It's sometimes harder to ascertain just how realistic these movies are, or how unrealistic they are. Compared to more modern stuff, the noble savage is so obvious and transparent that one can easily wave them aside. But when the image presented is more pragmatist, realist, ambiguous... That's a lot more believable.

I think that believability is very obviously based on personal preference for 'pragmatism', 'realism' and nuance, as opposed to more in your face progressive ideological notes everyone has heard before. And I think taking the historical narrative seriously is usually an error, and just as fallacious as when a progressive starts mouthing off platitudes about 'hidden figures'. The fact it is more appealing makes it even more sinister.

These are stories from people. These people are not representing reality, they are representing themselves. The producers, writers, directors, actors. Just like modern cinema represents contemporary progressive values, the older movies represent the values of their time. To that end watching them is a good time and a very interesting looking glass into the past psychology of people, but with some caveats.

A part of me always feels that even being actively aware of the movie as the fiction it obviously is, it still taints your imagination and view of the world. Like reading a book, having your own vision on what everything looks like, then watching a movie based on the book and now all you can see when you read the book is the movie. Even worse when one thinks back, knowing this to have happened, and being unable to remember anything of what you originally imagined being.