hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
The march of progress is inevitable when it is not opposed outside the context that enables and drives it. I spent most of my last post going over this. As an example, eugenics didn't end as a permissible idea because of an argument based on a common understanding of human biology and genetics. There was instead a giant paradigm shift that supersedes any objective truth value about biology.
Progressives and true believers don't engage in discussions. There are plenty of examples of islamic preachers screaming at heretics, or SJW's screaming at dissent. Not a lot of much else. On a more macro level, Islam bans heresy when it can, so to do progressives. You can argue in theory that you could talk and dissent over ideas with true believers over their faith, but in practice that's not the case. That's because dissent to a true believer is empty in the sense of relevant intellectual content, but filled to the brim with hostile intent. Only an enemy would say something like that, and enemies must be destroyed.
You don't talk to people that draw pictures of Mohammed to understand where they are coming from. Language is just a tool to get them to do what you already know is true. The alternative is to kill them. This is also very evident in progressive forums were talk of debates or discussion is only understood in the form of propaganda. Make your side look good, make other side look bad. The truth has already been decided.
As for me trolling, no. I'm not. I've been reiterating the same point again and again. I've stated that my position is that adhering to progressive orthodoxy whilst being against the consequences is counterproductive.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Companies are not infallible. Wanting to make money is not equivalent to always making rational and correct decisions that make you money. Nor does it grant companies omnipotence to shape institutions to best and most cost effectively deliver them what they want.
I felt your objections were, for most part, addressed by that paragraph. Maybe to change the wording a bit to make the meaning I got from it clearer: A lot of people shouldn't go to college even if they could afford it.
When everyone has a college degree no one does. I think we've already passed the threshold for too many degree holders being paid too much money to do menial wrist and finger labour. Too many people who are actually smart need to spend too much time to distinguish themselves from the average brained but highly industrious. And to that end, too few smart people engage in lower class labour where their big brains could be used for a lot more good than in many other cases.
The education inflation is hitting every part of our lives. How western societies are setting themselves up isn't sustainable. And even if it were, it's so wasteful it shouldn't be done anyway.
I think this is almost always false. Our educated and wealthy people are only human, and in my experience almost all of them can have their substantive thinking overwhelmed, at least on occasion and maybe more than that, by the need for social signalling. That is a different problem than being morons. Indeed, I think most normies are pretty smart, within a baseline context of human flourishing--they're just that much more susceptible to focusing on sending the right signals rather than identifying substantially veridical facts.
I think this entire paragraph is just a key example of how smart people can excuse anything they do with big words and fancy concepts. If your elite class torpedoes your society because it can't resist the temptation to conform and virtue signal to ides they personally find novel then they are ultimately no better than a high time preference, low IQ person that 'fails' the marshmallow test throughout their life.
At some point the elite of the world is no longer owed any leeway or respect on the grounds that they just aren't doing enough work that justifies it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
Prison rape does happen. However, for most people it doesn't exist as anything other than an argumentative 'distraction' that gets in the way of their inconsistent worldview. That has up till this point mostly, if not totally, ignored it.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Like I said, the worry in mens prisons is not pregnancy but a high number of extreme cases of rape. Until you articulate a justification for the breakdown of biological boundaries that induce a massive increase in such cases in the name of civil rights, you have no leg to stand on when complaining about trans women.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Why would men and women sharing a cell blow up definitions any more than black and white men sharing a cell? To that end, if we care about biological realities, aren't we way past that threshold?
I don't see the logic follow for any of your statements. The very argument for 'put this person in the white ward of the jail' is 'this is a white man not a black man'.
On top of that, why should one elevate pregnancy over the gravity of post-rape suicides in mens prisons?
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
I don't see the deflection. People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals. Nor did popular support much to save segregation. It's about the context. Rosa Parks didn't matter until a bunch of media outlets made her a front page story. By that point the 'argument' presented is: Should nice old ladies who are no different from us except for the amount of melanin in their skin be allowed to sit where they want on a bus they paid to be on? And only inane morons would ever bother to engage with that argument in the negative. Same goes for respectable men walking down a New York street wearing suit and tie demanding equal rights under the law. Why should they be deprived of holding their loved ones hand during their final moments on a hospital bed?
The entire discourse is premade. All the relevant points of contention that predicate the 'arguments' accepted by all relevant parties. So long as you exist within that context without recognizing and rejecting it, all the arguments are irrelevant. We're just a few decades of well made movies and documentaries away from lowering the age of consent by a few years. The only hope against that outcome is that the progressive disgust response activates for enough of them at some point to be against that. Outside of that, the march of progress will continue.
What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
I personally don't believe that people who argue against trans rights but not the overarching context have a leg to stand on. They can make no claim to any of these things. To that end I agree more with the trans people. At least they are consistent to the program. It's also super easy. I can farm downvotes but no coherent arguments that don't boil down to an essential admission of transphobia. If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash. And all the people who pretend to stand on the principles of biology and whatever would practically vanish.
I mean, it's practically convenient that this place mods out the heat that keeps the progressive flame alive. Otherwise dissent from progressive orthodoxy would become a bannable offense in just a few months. It's why this place is here and not on reddit.
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context. The progressives will just keep on with their lies. History will remember anti-LGBTQA+ people as hateful losers, just like we remember those who were against segregation.
My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know. I don't think it's possible. Nor should it be, if that persons faith is true and they value and protect it.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's
Not unbelievers, people who want to cast away the parts of the religion that inconvenience them, but hold the parts that don't. I can't demonstrate that without bonking them on the head with a Bible. Progressive morality is the dominant morality. Not just as words on the internet, but what guides 80% of people as they listen to the radio, watch TV or do anything. People then want to carve out special caveats for their own predilections but still scoff at those who do the same for all the rest of progressive fake morality, rationality, reason and history.
but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty. To what grand moral narrative would you appeal? It's partially why I make an appeal to rape in mens prisons and the fallout of desegregation. How can trans people be a bigger issue than that?
The logic here being that, since Scott wrote a lot of nice things, he can claim a different ethnicity?
Or is this just some kind of kneejerk ethnocentric defense mechanism that was accidentally triggered?
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Isn't Scott jewish?
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
There's no cost benefit analysis of desegregation or whether fighting the Nazis was worth it. 80% of people, at the very least, just default towards the fake progressive history. There's not a single person who can claim rationality whilst being wrapped up in all that religious dogma. There are no skeptical or rational or less wrong people doing tonally amoral utilitarian deepdives into these topics, measuring minorities in 'utils'. In fact, every single one of the allegedly rational will kowtow to the religion of our age as soon as these topics are brought up.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad. Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends. I briefly touched on why history is moving in this direction, using the historical analogy of civil rights as an example. That being said, Trans people and black people are not the same, but pointing that out when it's not relevant to the point being made is fruitless.
The trans movement seeks to insert a 'third' or more categories and break the sex binary where needed. To that extent the trans movement is categorically less radical than the civil rights movement. To follow the black/white analogy, it only seeks to assert a minority be counted as a different race. Sometimes the abolition of certain race defined aspects of western society is deemed to be what is best for society. Sometimes 'positive' segregation is deemed to be the best.
By the same token, as societal rules and norms based on race can exist in a good or a bad way, gender and gender expression can be set up in a good way or a bad way. Trans rights seek to make them more good than bad for trans people. You might say they are wrong, or making things bad for other groups, but, again, that same argument was levied by racists in the 50's and 60's. Given the track record of such arguments, coming from people with no power or any mainstream moral weight of support behind them, I'm still left wondering why you even imagine anyone should take your assertions with any weight.
Hopefully this helps elucidate the point of the analogies.
Now, to broach a wider topic of contention and why being against trans rights is being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason:
Society has a bias. It's biased against certain ideas in favor of others. This bias is not coincidental. There's a fabric of logic* (excuse the poetry)* that this bias is woven on to. I don't care for arguments against threads being woven into the fabric when that's exactly what this fabric is made for. It's all it will ever do.
Or maybe you prefer a different description of this phenomenon? The progressive arch of history? Robert Conquest's Second Law? Cthulu always swims left?
I'm not arguing from a position of personal moral claims. I'm just looking at the fabric and what's been sewn into it. I then see people wrapped in the fabric telling me they're against the very thing they're wearing.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just relaying the rules to people who have apparently been hiding under a rock for the past decades. White solidarity is racist. Black solidarity is not. That's what 80% of people believe. Hell, that number is probably higher with just the tiniest amount of moralistic framing from mainstream media outlets.
I do operate under the belief that I am talking with people who agree with the orthodoxy given that, from my personal estimation, I could count the number of people here who are against desegregation on one hand. I also operate under the belief I am talking with misandrist feminists in denial. As the only way to get these people to care about the rape and torture chambers we call prisons is to couch the debate in terms of women suffering, rather than men. To that extent not a single person has demonstrated to be anything other than what I assume them to be.
On that basis I argue that trans rights are human rights. I give no personal weight to these concepts. I just hate hypocrisy. Especially when it owes its existence to a lack of consideration for what is going on, and has been going on, in the western world. The aforementioned 80% don't deserve to pretend that they are anything other than what they are. The generations before them had to do the humiliation ritual of their time. Now it's this generations turn. That is what the dominant system that they support demands of them. Whining about it isn't brave, rational or even tantamount to qualifying as 'disagreement'. It's just hypocritical ignorance waiting to be crushed by the system. A valuable lesson for future generations, just like the opponents of civil rights in the past serve as a valuable lesson for the current one.
In the cases of prisoners, sure, there's a potential problem, though not trans specific. With bathrooms? No. I've used womens restrooms as a man. Nothing happened. The bathroom debate is hysterical nonsense from top to bottom.
If you as a woman are at risk of being raped in a bathroom I can only ask where in the third world you take your dumps. The notion of rape in a public space by a stranger is extremely rare. I'm not even sure I've ever seen a bathroom in a public space that was ever outside shouting distance of someone else. On top of that, research has been done in places that are gender conforming and the stats find no evidence of any trans person engaging in such activity. In fact, gender non-conforming youth are much more likely to experience sexual assault, if sexual assault is the big problem for you.
As for general perverts, they don't need to be trans to put hidden cameras in the toilet. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence of that on the internet if one is interested.
The Lady sign on the bathroom door doesn't protect anyone from anything. Women who refuse to enter unisex restrooms do so for either hysterical or transphobic reasons, not rational ones.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
The right to express their gender identity. It's the abolition of biological sex as a negative delineator for trans people. Just like race was abolished as a negative delineator for black people.
Civil rights didn't end race based welfare programming. You can still have black only spaces and programs. Just not white ones. This is universally celebrated as a good thing by everyone except racists.
I think it would make the trans activists dishonest, rather than the argument.
We've gone from "some" to all. This is very transparent and irrelevant to the argument, outside of demonstrating that you and others do exactly what I said you were trying to do. Making irrelevant negative associations.
If a policy is allowed to go through, partly on the grounds that it will not cause specific side effects, and those specific side effects do materialize, it is an honest argument against the policy.
I never argued that X would never happen. Many trans activists never argued that. How about you deal with what's actually being said rather than fighting strawmen? It's such an irrelevant strawman at that. Women in womens prisons also rape eachother.
There are costs to any policy. So far society sees fit to pay for mass immigration and desegregation with the rape of men, women and children. The alleged cost of this policy is dwarfed by those, yet you will find no transphobe arguing against desegregation on the basis of the catastrophic amounts of rape, robberies and murder that have happened because of it. You are presenting an inconsistent and irrational defense of boundaries that keep a tiny minority of people from living better lives.
A quick sanity check - would you consider the UK raoe gang scandal a crime against humanity?
Yes. Inflicting conditions upon people that lead to inescapable circumstance that facilitate rape of the defenseless by a hostile group and the systemic blocking of any recourse they might have to be defended by the law is, in my view, a clear example of such a thing.
Everything? Just the mere act of keeping them off the streets already requires enacting suffering.
The mechanism that reduces crime is taking these people away from the public. Rape, torture and murder are not a necessary component of that mechanism.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
I'm not seeing the problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
And a racist would disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a colored go to a white only bathroom.
Trans activists were originally promising none of this situations will ever happen.
It's a dishonest association regardless of what some trans activists said or not. If a criminal who happens to be trans further commits crimes in prison then they can be dealt with like other criminals who do the same.
You seem to be assuming that the case for trans rights requires no justification, and any disagreement must stem from lack of knowledge. I disagree, and believe the case for "trans rights" is simply unsupportable.
Then we have an obvious disagreement. I would argue you could much more readily say the same for civil rights in America. The cost and scale is far greater, yet it's easily glossed over by the proponents of civil rights and desegregation. Doing the same for trans people is trivial in comparison.
Again, I completely disagree, and believe this renders the concept of "crimes against humanity" meaningless.
Reading first hand accounts followed up by official definitions of crimes against humanity, you don't have a rational leg to stand on when you say this.
You have to look no further than what happened with El Salvador's crime rates to see that the benefit to the rest of society is quite obvious.
What exactly about the prisoners suffering makes the streets they no longer occupy safer?
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
I'm not a fan of the moderation here in general. But it is here, and I'd prefer if it was applied to others as it's applied to me. To that end I'd already be out the door if I wrote like you did here about certain things I believed to be factually accurate.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
Cases of criminals raping their fellow inmates is not an argument against trans rights any more than interracial rape is an argument against civil rights.
If you want to argue that being raped by penis is worse than something else, you should start by looking at men's prisons. If you want to argue rape in general is the problem, female inmates rape eachother more than male inmates.
Individual cases are irrelevant to the scope of the discussion, which is human rights for trans people. When we are talking about prison populations and criminals the discussion will get dragged into an unsavory quagmire with a lot of negative connotations that transphobic people try to associate with the concept of trans rights. This is a dishonest guilt by association tactic that's not relevant to the actual discussion of the topic. Proven by the fact that people refuse to engage in similar rhetoric regarding race.
I'm not surprised people object when they don't know what trans rights are, nor what transphobia is. The modern prison system is a crime against humanity. It places people in terrible conditions that facilitate further suffering and strife to no one's benefit. Those who choose to argue against trans rights rather than argue in favor of a better prison system betray their transphobic bias and abdicate any moral highground they may have pretended to occupy.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
To take your bowl of honey analogy a step further, Coopers problem isn't necessarily the honey or the bees. It's more the people coming around accusing him of being a beekeeper because there are a lot of bees in his garden.
To that extent I am sympathetic to Cooper since the people complaining about bees seem to have no reasonable cause to do so. They just go around finger wagging at other people who associated with Cooper, telling them: 'Don't you know he's a beekeeper?! Imagine if the bees multiply and start questioning the holocaust?'
To that extent I find the whole thing ridiculous. It seems that on the orthodox right, their only raison d'être is the consecration of the post war consensus.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
They're a faction on RW twitter that is considered a pest by a different factions on RW twitter. I think that's fair to say? However, both of your posts are overtly rule breaking 'boo outgroup'. Which leaves me wondering why they're not modded. Beyond that I have nothing to add.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
Are the mods asleep?
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
If you think your coworker is a weird pervert then you need to take that issue up with your supervisor. Not wave it around as a hypothetical at the expense of human rights for trans people.
Restrooms aren't just a place of vulnerability for women. They are also a place of vulnerability for trans people. There need to be some pretty strong material arguments made for why trans people should be barred from the bathrooms of their experienced sex that go beyond TERF'ist misandry. That is, if we want to ground our position in reality rather than phobia.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “this guy just said he was a woman two minutes ago for the first time, so sorry granny, he gets to be in your changing room and see you naked.” With a process that involves time and effort, I get it.
Gender dysphoria and being trans is not treated with 'two minute' levity anywhere I know of.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
The original phrasing doesn't need to imply anything beyond what Cooper himself would want it to imply. If the government is run by jews then that's a factual matter that can be examined. That's the position Cooper is affording himself.
The meaning of the demands is to illustrate that 'antisemitism' isn't magic that sprouts from thin air. People air their grievances. They purport to have facts on their side. If those are wrong then that should be exposed. Not buried under accusations that any inquiry is just a first step towards a second holocaust. And if those accusations turn out to be true then it falls on the accused to make amends, not dig their heels in the ground and refuse responsibility.
It's also there to illustrate that inroads and peace between different people can be made if both parties are interested. It certainly wouldn't take much to get most of the right on your side. As has been demonstrated in France by Éric Zemmour, or to a lesser extend by Stephen Miller in the US.
What emotion can a "host" feel for a ruling population but hate, unless those rulers have killed those neurons altogether?
Depends on how they are ruled. There have been plenty of multiethnic empires and countries in Europe. Why anyone would presuppose that harm would befall them if they acted with kindness and respect towards Europeans is a mental illness with no name.
Freeing oneself from old paradigms can be a very noble effort. Capitalism, Communism, Economics, Rights... These concepts, along with many others, have in many cases done discourse more harm than good. But it is easier said than done to get past them.
I appreciate the argumentative nature of your post. It certainly fuels discussion. I do however think it is marred by the fact that it tethers itself to a few poor concepts. To that end I'm not sure if it is conducive to your goal of brainstorming alternatives to ownership, as you've seemingly managed to push a lot of people into old 'capitalism vs communism' trenches. And, as we can see, many people here will jump at any opportunity to brandish old bayonets, if only to see if they are still sharp.
To chime in I'd ask you, as I've seen you post about your 'personal riches' in a comment: Can you, in some sense, hold 'ownership' over your family? I for one would look at myself as having a certain duty towards my family members. But I also see there being a certain kind of possessive nature to these relationships. Is there some way you would broach this topic?
As for inanimate objects in general, the old Venus Project line came to the conclusion that human society was on the cusp of post scarcity, and that the main problem was organization and distribution. Is that close to an alternative to ownership in your mind or are you looking further afield?
My personal caveat, and where I diverge from Jacque Fresco and friends, would be that I'm very partial to the notion that our 'possessive nature' is very much innate, along with a lot of other things. To that end I find imagining a society, even a post scarcity one, that doesn't have a problem with emergent hierarchies based on other peoples possessions to be very difficult.
I mean, figuratively, what are you to do when your boys go out into the woods and one finds a cool stick, and the other can't find one that looks as good and becomes jealous? Instigating a search for some sort of final solution to this sort of problem seems odd to me. Rather I'd say that encountering this problem is a part of being a child and a parent. Both have a duty to ameliorate the situation, but both are also saddled with their emotions and competence, or lack thereof. Parents usually demand one son suffer. Be that to be forced to share or be that to settle for whatever less cool stick they can find, as the forest is full of them.
To that end I'm not sure if the question can be answered in any meaningful sense. Take the low road and side with either boy. Keeping the stick, if you have it, seems emotionally straightforward for one boy. Demanding it, by the same token, being emotionally straightforward for the other. Or assume the role of a parent and find some kind of answer on the high road. Which is where I'd ask for your take.
More options
Context Copy link