hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Are the mods asleep?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You assume a certain amount of jews and then assert they have to be accounted for.
You have no grounds to assert anything if the amount of estimated jews is lower than you need it to be. So we are basing our entire belief for the holocaust on the assumption that population estimates. We then grandstand on this premise whenever any specific issue is taken with the holocaust narrative.
The problem here is obvious. You can dismiss every single item of critique without engaging with it. Any attempt to bring a hammer and chisel on the ugly rock of lies that is modern belief in the holocaust gets thwarted away.
What's worse, we're pretending that we hold to a different position than the alleged revisionists. As no claims to a specific amount of jews are made. Instead we afford ourselves the luxury of believing that the number of 'missing' jews just so happens to coincide with the reigning holocaust narrative. If the narrative says numbers go down, our belief in a fixed amount of jews in need of accounting for also goes down. It's a completely onesided standard that leaves one in no place to cast any aspersions on the alleged 'seeds of doubt' being sown by 'revisionists'. Since our belief in the holocaust is completely circular. That is, we start of by believing the holocaust narrative, and then use that belief as proof that it happened.
Besides that, uncertainty is a very common thing in history, especially with regards to numbers and populations, and especially around WW2.
Sounds like a classic motte and bailey pivot to me.
By who? The Iranian leadership? Are we supposing that they go in public, make a definitive statement of what 'Death to America' means, and every Iranian citizen knows to not take that statement seriously, and instead chant what they really mean. Which is to wish death on every American man woman and child, because Iranians are just subhuman and beastial like that and revel in suffering and death?
- Sure.
- Yes.
- The conflict between Israel and the muslim world has been rather vicious. I'd wager they wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza. And I'm sure they have elements similar to Israel, that gloat and cheer when civilians are being bombed. Insofar as there is a difference between the chants, I think they want Israel to stop existing as a country, and for the jews to be somewhere else.
- Is there a regime in this conflict that hasn't attacked civilians? Why would Tel Aviv looking like Gaza not be fair play? Not that the Iranians have done anything remotely close to that.
- I don't know how they think it is interpreted or if that even enters their minds.
But the again, why would I bother quote, answer or link anything? None of the anti-Iran hysteria does so. Post after post. Kind of crazy.
In fact nigh all of those posts are just a routine list of arbitrary accusations and arbitrary benchmarks. Why would Iran funding Hezbollah be a reason to not like Iran? Funding proxies that can be called terrorists is practically an American geopolitical hobby. Is it OK to cause suffering, chaos and death to achieve your political goals so long as you are not called Hezbollah?
In your view, is the United States deliberately targeting Iranian civilians?
No. But I think that US officials have shown a great lack of care towards civilian deaths. Including Hegseth defunding the division focused on reducing civilian harm. And how they handled the school bombing doesn't inspire confidence. So yeah, I think if we allow all parties in the conflict some wiggle room regarding collateral damage, I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be mad against.
Do you deny that Iran has been directing and supporting Hezbollah?
Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups. Why is funding proxies invalid when Iran does it, but not America or Israel?
Do you deny that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?
If we apply the label fairly then I think they look like incompetent amateurs compared to Israel. As demonstrated in the footage of Gaza.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I am sure he is a federal agent in some deep state conspiracy to... do... something? I don't know where the plot goes from there, hence why I asked: What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean?
Some arrangement was definitely made and ... Then what happens? Like, the FBI need to pay some guy to be a shock jock on twitter? They put CP on his PC and now he has to do as they say which is... Make fun of zionists, women and democrats?
I don't want to sound too dismissive but I don't know what relevance I should place on the notion that someone is a 'fed'. I mean, can I just refer to Ben Shapiro as Mossad and therefor dismiss everything he says when it inconveniences me somehow? I don't understand the purpose of calling Fuentes a fed otherwise.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
When people bring up 'Iran chants death to America, therefor they are a threat' they are making a much more visceral and stupid argument than 'we have rational but unresolved geopolitical issues.'
The fundamental premise being that Iranians are insane in some way and therefor giving them a nuke will lead to them nuking America.
It's otherizing and hysteric and such statements in any other context leveraged against any other group would warrant supporting argumentation. So far that has been lacking.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Ali Khamenei made those objections already, stating that it means opposition to U.S. government policies, not the American people. Hard to imagine a greater authority on the matter.
Besides that, rhetoric coming from a protest or some mass gathering is slightly different than rhetoric coming from world leaders. 'Glassing the place' became a common term for what many Americans said should be done to the middle east, I don't suppose you think that's the same as an official statement from a national leader? Though Trump has now narrowed that gap.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It's right next to Iran's political platform of 'death to America'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
AFAICT 'yes' outspent 'no' by orders of magnitude. Another nail in the coffin for those who think that you can just buy any election.
I'd be very tentative with this. 'Yes' might not have bought this election in particular but the fact there's money being thrown at it means they can continue bargaining. Who knows, maybe one day, unbeknownst to most, this particular issue might go on sale and if one side happens to have money in the pocket it's an easy buy.
I think this is a problem with the right in general where they don't have a positive affirmational stance to rally behind. Instead they lean on the implicit racism of the public. With how hands off the right is with cultural institutions it's just a waiting game until the Overton Window shifts far enough along that the publics implicit racism doesn't cut it. Or, of course, the demographics shift in such a way that the Abbo rallying cry gets carried along in a coalition of ascendent minority groups.
I didn't say that being against the excesses of the modern black activist movement required you to create a homeless shelter for white people only.
The point being made is that you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored. Even by Rowlings own standard such a thing would be considered wrong. She would, like most people, consider a white only space to be racist. Yet in her defense of herself she plays that exact same scenario out by making trans people the outgroup and women the ingroup. All the while saying, just like all the racists before her, that she doesn't hate anyone, she just wants to protect her ingroup.
If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.
I don't think you have any idea what a world without black people would look like. Considering the massive costs associated with propping up every black population on the planet with the labor of white people. I don't accept your statement.
That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.
Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports. Western society has been gearing themselves towards this exact goal on behalf of women for decades. Your preference for arguments, logic and reasoning is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant. The point here is that Rowling supports this stuff on her behalf. She sees no issues with the logic of men handing women their 'money' and that any man who doesn't accept that is a misogynist. But now that she has 'money' as a woman, she refuses to acknowledge the paradigm she would have been arguing in favor for a few decades ago and balks at the notion of being called a transphobe.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
I'm comparing things generally considered to be bad by Americans with the morally neutral geopolitical framework supplied by LazyLongposter. Which I think he is using to selectively justify Americans doing things we all known are morally bad.
As he stated, the US could have won the war in Vietnam had they just intentionally bombed the civilians harder. But because doing such things is too awful in the eyes of the public, the US stopped. Using that morally neutral standard, what is the problem with the holocaust? Killing your enemy is a winning strategy. Is it better to starve to death in camp than it is to be burned alive in a firestorm that was intentionally created by dropping incendiary bombs on wooden residential areas?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That depends on birth rates, intermarriage rates, and the actual rate of immigration from different nations and races. Non-hispanic whites and asians currently have the same birth rate, which presumably means east-asians specifically are even lower.
It actually doesn't. Unless you are proposing an immigration policy of a % based immigrant population and zero intermarriage rates, the constant stream of foreign DNA into the native population will change it.
Lets define, for the sake of argument, the current white population to be 100% white from now on. Lets take that population and say that only asians are allowed to live with it as a 5% of the total population... Any white making a family with an asian is a white not making a family with another white. That's a minus. Every child of theirs that makes a family with a white is another minus. The effect of every single mix raced person is compounding.
As you correctly point out, hapas can look very European. An asian/European quadroon certainly doesn't carry as much visual baggage as a white/black quadroon. But how do you count those people? Are they white now? Does that mean we can bring in more immigrants to maintain our 5%?
Unless you envision a world where the white population can grow endlessly, the presence of a constant stream of foreign DNA will inevitably change the white population.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I should have clarified, an 'imported' or foreign born asian wife. What I was saying is that this single data point doesn't necessarily point in the direction you need it to. It's not a matter of how many, it's a matter of recognizing that the course of your life and your expressed political beliefs don't always line up 100%. And just because they don't doesn't mean you don't feel how you feel regarding politics and your in and outgroups.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
And my point would be that it's not particularly hypocritical when those individuals are just playing the same game everyone else is. Including Israel, that is not really concerned with whatever amount of dead or raped Palestinians they leave in their wake. I mean, I don't think the worst part of that is the hypocrisy but whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
If the Israeli government is 'deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazans', then why haven't they brought about their destruction in whole or in part?
I mentioned why in my comment:
Looking at Israeli actions in a modern context, the question is not whether they 'physically' could, since we know they could, but how a modern nation would go about genociding a population. Given a modern nation would understand that overtly killing a lot of people at once would garner a drastic response they could potentially not afford.
The argument being the only reason to do something like this is to kill the people there, force them out of the land, permanently disperse them and then take the land and eventually have no one left to make a claim to it as the dispersed population loses its identity and disappears.
You can already see the reasoning in comments here, to a lesser extent:
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.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Could you? I think most normal people have a very immediate and visceral understanding of the difference between a 'good' hobby and a 'bad' one.
For example, kayaking doesn't seem to have any immediate 'practical use', but I can tell you with full confidence that it's a much better hobby than playing Donkey Kong Racing on repeat.
One could probably write essays on why and argue at length through whatever wordgames possible back and forth, but I think most people share this fundamental understanding on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The phrasing used here is running away from the problem. No utilitarian argument needs to confine itself to an either or of total Palestine or Israel victory. That's only done on the prerogative of the person making the argument.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
"MAGA" from the 2016 campaign trail or "MAGA" from the 'legal immigration is actually good for the economy' that Trump started parroting in office after one too many a meeting with the fine folks from the Heritage Foundation?
"MAGA" is an empty political slogan that one too many 'right wing' American pours all their hopes and dreams into. It's vague enough to fit all of them. Vote for change!
To give a factual example of why "MAGA" is a marketing thing and not a political thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown
"MAGA", if it ever was a thing, caved in, got on all fours and kissed the ring of TPTB. No wall, no deportations, more immigration. That has been its state ever since.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
When you designate civilian infrastructure as a military target you are just playing with words. The existence of 'collateral damage' as a term is completely meaningless in this context. It is only invoked as a self serving defense for when the ingroup kills civilians.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
OK, but I want to recognize, in the context my original reply to Supah, that we are going very swiftly from 'not all jews' to 'of course all jews'.
I would also like to recognize the inherent problems with the fact that jews naturally outgroup non-jews. And that some jews have displayed extreme neuroticism when it comes to interpreting whether the ingroup is being persecuted or not.
I think we can also recognize that there are inherent issues with this dynamic that are very conducive to causing problems. As is argued in the OP, the very nature of something like the narrative of the holocaust transcends just matters of historical fact. It has to be defended tooth and nail at every point, like you mention, regardless of whether it be true or not. Because it's perceived by jews as a matter of survival. Same goes for the variety of other social memes like the authoritarian personality, critical theory and their derivatives. Say what you want about those memes, but they are not there to help gentiles. They are there to help jews.
I feel that there is an alleged proposition inherent to all of the jew apologetics surrounding these issues. That is that, ultimately, whether it harms gentiles or not is irrelevant. It doesn't ultimately matter if the jew running around defending every bunk social theory or historical narratives is doing good or bad or telling truth or lie. We are just implicitly supposed to recognize and appreciate the inherent logic to the actions of the unapologetic jew. Regardless of its consequences.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You have the causation reversed. If someone sufficiently marks themselves as low status or a member of an outgroup you turn your brain off.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Race isn't the question. The question is instead just a proxy for race. Repeat ad infinitum.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
It reads like I said it was about as measured and controlled as Israeli actions. Maybe you missed that part of my reply? Here, let me highlight it for you:
It was a revenge attack for deaths caused by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine. It was about as measured and controlled as Israeli attacks often are.
Here you go. I'd rank that attack as being pretty bad as a representative of how Iran handles things with regards to America. Given that this was a retaliation against Israel. A better example for how they deal with America would be their response to Operation Midnight Hammer. Where they gave advanced warning. Demonstrating capability, rather than signaling intent or want for war.
But as a response to Israel, as I've told you numerous times already, that conflict is very messy. Israel has already dictated the rules of engagement and Iran plays by those rules when defending itself and its interests. Conflating Iran's dealings with America and Israel is not valid, and you should stop trying.
Hopefully that clarifies my position on the topic for you. I'd implore you to read more than one sentence at a time. It gives a better overall picture and minimizes confusion on your half, and the need to reiterate everything on mine.
That creation of a lot of rubble does not necessarily mean that the rubble-creator has a "complete disregard for human life."
Then what is your issue with Iran retaliations against Israel? Please try to form a coherent standard that can apply to both Israel and Iran. I can accept a standard that says both parties have been reckless and bad, or that they are both playing by the same ruleset.
1 I responded to that comment below.
2 If your free speech comes with the caveat that any sufficiently powerful person or group can effectively own the public square in part or whole and dictate what can and can't be said then I can only consider my original point, that Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedoms and rights, proven and demonstrated.
3 I'm not terribly interested in getting in the weeds on this nor do I see the relevance, but:
I don't see how Trump 2.0 can be considered to have given his voters what they wanted when there is an active middle east war and more foreign workers in the country now than before his second term began. But the MAGA base will cheer on literally anything as long as Trump does it so there's that.
If your free speech rights hinge on you becoming a billionaire to functionally buy the public square then, again, I feel I can't overstate my original point.
4 Isn't that a great refutation of your own point? He didn't compare himself to Europe and make that the barometer. He had ideological and philosophical values! He looked beyond just what's in the world and dared to dream of what was possible. Or something...
But how American are those values? The vast majority of the American elite is in favor of speech restrictions and controls. Illustrated by every other American platform having very clear speech and content restrictions that go beyond any law of the land. That's why Musk had to buy Twitter. Before that people had been getting banned for misgendering people or making political jokes that offended the ownership elite or the special interest groups that constantly drive for more censorship like the ADL. Musk's X is in a very clear minority among the elite and his platform still engages in censorship and backroom algorithmic manipulation.
How about we have our own ideologies and values and judge what's happening in the world of free speech by those? Rather than basing our barometer on what some billionaire came up with or what they are doing in Germany or wherever else.
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.
More options
Context Copy link