hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
6hr ago
In the context of a western society I don't think genital mutilation has any place. On top of that the proliferation of drugs and the effort from trans advocates to have minors take them makes me question the safety of allowing them easy access to them. But it goes further than that.
Trans advocacy is in a corner right now. They've tethered themselves to the idea that the best way for a trans person to escape their male body is to go on hormone treatment very young. It makes sense biologically from a 'looksmaxxing' perspective, to borrow a term, but this flies in the face of any civilized conception of children and their ability to make decisions for themselves. If they had been more responsible and sane then I'd feel differently about their easy access to hormones. But as things stand, one side trans people are a coalition of consenting adults with agency who decided to direct energy towards legalizing permanent body modification regimen for children, on the other a medically destitute group of mentally suffering victims on the verge of suicide. In neither case do I feel comfortable giving them easy access to permanent body modification or drugs.
To complicate things further, a lot of trans people will never pass. Giving such people 'trans affirming care' is a waste of time and effort. I could only support hormone treatment for a specific subset of trans individuals who have a chance at passing. And even then I find the entire endeavor morally questionable considering the implications of what happens to a human body after the age of ~35.
In real terms, with the most charitable interpretation possible for the trans side where we are talking about sexually a-typical but otherwise rational and well adjusted people who are not binding themselves to any hostile political message and are just looking to aesthetically please themselves in a safe and controlled way, we are essentially talking about looksmaxxing a select few men into looking like young women so they can sell themselves on social media or engage in sex work for a decade or so before we meet a line of hard reality modern medicine has not yet figured out how to address. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort to me.
To contrast that with something that I would find worthwhile: Giving young men testosterone that would lead to them not be depressed and alone and instead push them towards being productive members of society that make families. What is the case that makes transing people worthwhile? Because I genuinely don't believe that the ratio of potentially passable non transed people who would otherwise commit suicide is in any relevant way aided by the procedures we have today if we look at things long term. Outside of a few social media stars and sex workers who can leverage their unique status to make enough money. Nor do I believe that transing unpassable people is going to alleviate their woes. Since they will have to face the day and go to work knowing full well that they look off.
hanikrummihundursvin
23hr ago
I am all in favor of QoL or beautifying surgeries for mothers relating to their pregnancy.
I think doctors should look at broadening the scope for administering steroids to men insofar as it can be of benefit to them. That being said I believe the amount of men that would benefit from using steroids is small. Most of them just need to exercise.
I don't understand the implication of a medical right in this context. For instance, you don't need a medical right to buy a plane ticket and pay out of pocket for whatever cosmetic surgery you want.
If you are digging at a point with these questions I've missed it and you must spell it out for me.
To borrow some lefty terminology, a lot of people carry around a lot of emotional trauma. The idea that you should leverage that via threats of suicide to get other people to rearrange their lives around you or otherwise directly pay for cosmetic surgeries for you to get you over your trauma isn't the positive argument trans advocates think it is.
Following that is the simple fact that you don't need to exist as a sexual entity. Plenty of obese people turn asexual because they understand on some level that their obese body will never be what they want. Even if they lost weight, it would be a disaster of loose skin and morphed body parts requiring surgeries they can't afford. They don't want to have sex with their body anymore so they just don't. It's sad, it's traumatic, they still wake up and face the day.
The line between being a sad but relatable human being and being a narcissistic sociopath gets crossed by most trannies when they huddle together and start demanding privileges for their group and not others. They don't campaign on changing the classification of a lot of cosmetic surgeries from cosmetic to necessary. No, they just want those things for the trans. No consideration for anyone else but them.
On top of that, white men have held the high score on the suicide charts for a long time now. Did any tranny advocate ever allow that fact to sway them one way or another when it comes to the anti-white political projects they seemingly all participate in? No. Not once ever. So why should any white man be swayed by the argument when we change suicide victims? Trans people invoking suicides are not invoking an objective standard but their own ingroup preference for themselves.
Trans-advocacy exists as a group entity hostile to practically everything that allows trans people to exist in the first place. It's woven itself together with nigh every nihilistic anti-white political ideology that exists. If they had any semblance of kindness for the other they would not advertise their transness as anything other than a disease to be avoided. But as has been the case with the many chat groups that form around their identity, they are more interested in spreading their ailment than preventing it. Like a 'health at every size' advocate that presents obesity as healthy right up until the day they die from their obesity.
Maybe some people are obese because they genuinely have medical issues that cause them to gain an absurd amount of weight. And maybe some trans people are a #10. But the idea that this is what the trans identity advocates are representing, just like the idea that HAES is presenting healthy big boned folks, is an obvious falsehood.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
How many marines do you know? Because it's actually not that unheard of in those circles.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I don't know how many red coded men there are in Maine, but I've observed the backlash against #MeToo from those circles morph into support for anyone who gets accused of sexual harassment. Platner might have had a chance with that sort of crowd if he fronts a bit more tough and masculine, which should not have been outside of his wheelhouse. And considering his opposite number Susan Collins is a woman, he might have been able to steal some votes. But now that he's out... eh.
All in all I'd code this as the Democrats in Maine coming out on bottom. Any hardline Platner fan will walk away from this scorned. But considering that Susan Collins is a staunch supporter of Israel, it might not even count as a loss in the eyes of Liberal Zionists on the establishment left.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
Say, how do you like the Belgians now?
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
It's generally seen as ill mannered and out of touch to go digging into the past for grievance with anything relating to politics. So I don't think Leopold has much to do with it. Football is its own history.
It's hard to say. I can only speak for myself in that they are a bitch to lose against. They usually have very strong teams on paper, but they also never go the distance to actually win. For smaller countries to have their miracle runs ended by Belgium instead of the 'big teams' is very anti-climactic. For bigger teams to lose against Belgium is similarly disappointing. It feels like you've been robbed of all the romance and drama of seeing two big teams duking it out. Instead you get... Belgium.
Americans and their ability to front as the best and strongest country in the world whilst also being the worlds biggest victim is unmatched.
Trump is not a popular figure. Neither is FIFA. Seeing them shake hands over the US team is like getting a letter of recommendation from Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein on your ability to manage a summer camp for girls.
No one likes the Belgians. Seeing them lose to the Americans would be great. But that would be quite enough for most people. And you should be courteous enough to pack your bags and leave when you're done.
I'm not going to pretend I know or understand every link in the chain. But there is an undeniable pull from that direction and it's coming at a genuine cost to the establishment dems. So what gives?
The left is in the middle of a small civil war right now because of Israel. If the zionists weren't doing some yanking, why doesn't the establishment on the left dump the Israelis? Why do democrats keep voting in favor arms deals with Israel or clap for Netanyahu when their base hates him? It doesn't make much sense when you look at the electoral state of things. With 30 year incumbents like Diane DeGette suddenly losing to folks like Melat Kiros who was campaigning on being pro-Palestine you need an explanation.
MS NOW is pandering to the Democrat base. CNN panders to the Democrat establishment. The veil of credibility was always a sham. People used to care a lot about the aesthetic of 'journalistic integrity' and being rational, responsible and credible. But that's less of a concern for people nowadays. It has often been said that the entire 'don't be a crazy person' thing died the same day Christopher Hitchens did. Not to speak too highly of his flawed character.
My conspiracy brain believes that it's a controlled setup. There is a conception of the left media ecosystem as an emergent reality. All the actors play their role to keep it alive by providing as broad a tent as possible to keep as many people captive inside as they can. You need to make everyone comfortable. You can't do that by broadcasting division within the tent or having too small a tent. So everyone gets their corner of affirmations. But why?
When push comes to shove, you have everyone politically active there. You can make broad appeals to a shared crisis or enemy. Which is what happened with Trump, as an example. There is no 'news' there per se. That's just not what these media outlets are supposed to do. They're there to keep you captive until you are needed. The conspiracy part of my belief is that these media outlets have their chain yanked by the same hand.
This is a necessary context to understand media. It also helps explain why Musk buying X was so important. It gave the base on the right a place to organize. A place to make calls to action. A tent. Without that there was just 4chan, Talk Radio and Fox News. And out of the three 4chan was the only platform that wasn't explicitly in the pocket of zionists and the Heritage Foundation, though I repeat myself. The larger and more unanswered question on the right is who is yanking the chain over there. Which would help us understand the shifting media landscape on the right in recent years and why it's suddenly not banned everywhere like it used to be.
It’s also worth remembering that smugly smirking pricks are actually great when they agree with you. So the goal here is not to pretend to be some logic lord that can not be captured by any smile or contained within any tent. Just to remember that when you are hunkered down under the canvas, the constant pitter-patter above can make it incredibly easy for people to believe that it’s raining, especially when everyone inside agrees that it must be. When, in reality, it’s just the overlords of the media ecosystem sprinkling our tent with water.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Men generally have a strong instinctive response to what constitutes fair use of violence. Sucker punching, 2 against 1, all this sort of stuff invokes strong feelings. In a sense this might even be worse PR for the police than the Nowak murder. It shows the police as a willing participant in an unfair use of violence. And its an instance of violence that the police didn't even instigate. So they are coming along as a secondary participant after the unfair use of force was observed and are siding against the victim. And its a woman officer that then relies on the mercy of the person she is participating in unfairly victimizing.
The left was ultimately correct. ACAB. There's no sense in ever subjecting yourself or anyone you care about to the whims of these lunatics.
The one thing that will come of this, as is the trend with all this stuff, is an increased harshness in society. Brutality of violence goes up. People stop seeing the human behind the eyes. Every instance like this chips away at the moral code of conduct in society. The next time there are riots there will be more people closer to the edge of throwing a bigger rock with more intent to cause serious harm.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
This kind of hair splitting could apply to any instance of alleged 'hatred' in history. It's only being applied to whites by whites since the alternative makes them more uncomfortable.
I remember reading horror stories about youth training camps in Nazi Germany where they would sometimes bring the boy and girl groups together and have them do all sorts of activities with one another. The horrifying details of some of the girls coming home pregnant were a sign of the sordid nature of the Nazi regime and the people that organized these programs. The idea that there was a system in place that wasn't all that concerned with youth pregnancy and could be seen as functionally encouraging it was presented as lurid and practically evil from the perspective of the historians.
But from a naturalist perspective, what else is nature trying to have you do when your hormones are raging? When every emotional impulse is felt fivefold? Why should the bedrooms of teenagers in a coed training camp be monitored like prison cells or there is otherwise some great moral crime being committed? It's an odd juxtaposition with modern society where we have the same impulses but they are all intentionally neutered or directed towards childlessness.
To that extent, how bad is it that two young people with relatively high IQ's and neurotypical temperament create a family together early? Even if they are circumstantially encouraged by an adult matchmaker. Should they grow apart, they still have a chance at a second life before they turn 40. When many modern couples are having their first kid!
I keep thinking back to the idea of a genetic matchmaker of sorts. Even one as rudimentary as the infamous 'immune system smell test'. The notions that looks and personality compatibilities are impossible to study or roughly figure out seems stupid to me. You don't need a matchmaker with 100% or even 70% success rate. You just need to do better than the sexually liberated wild west we have today where apparently fewer people than ever are having sex and even fewer having children.
Like, is it completely impossible to just teach teenagers how to get along? There's an entire industry outside of schooling dedicated to just that, but it's reserved for adults who have already made all the mistakes. Feels like the entire thing is upside down.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Yeah. When I heard that the jury in Karmelo Anthony's case was 'all white' I could only imagine 12 obese Mexicans in buttoned up shirts with white cowboy hats sitting in the courtroom sweating profusely under the Texas sun.
I feel like the American identity isn't a comparable thing to say, Austrian, Dutch, Polish or similar. It's more like a gameshow competition where the last one to stop touching it wins. Though to be fair many European countries are moving in that direction.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
The devils duo, Catholics and Jews. The KKK tried to warn us but we didn't listen. Now look at it.
The tradcaths on X do so much PR work by being miles to the right of their Church. And one has to believe they are sincere and genuine. Which leads one to ask why they present themselves as Catholic. My muslim coworker expressed a similar sentiment when he saw a normal family of four flying the rainbow flag. 'That is not for you. Why do you have it?'
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
I don't think you are disagreeing. The kids purpose is just to alleviate the emotional anguish of the parents in the most immediate sense possible, sure. But the actual problem is that there's no forethought, context or purpose that backs any of the emotional impulse the parents have.
To that extent parents having emotional impulses that drive them forwards isn't a bad thing. They would always be there in some context. But they should serve a higher purpose than keeping up with the Joneses.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
The simple solution to multi language social spaces is that in any shared space where there is the potential for a person who doesn't know language X, you speak the universal language regardless of if they are there or not.
The idea that one wants to teach the kids a different language is fine. Teach them. But as soon as it starts creeping into situations where not everyone can understand you have a discipline problem. No swearing at the TV in Russian and no Chinese in the kitchen!
The problem of doing things this way is that the parents actually have to take responsibility. It's much easier to not have to put in effort, and just talk to your kids in this language whilst the other parent does it in another, rather than actively sitting your kids down every evening and doing some genuine teaching. But it's a recipe for negative social structures within the home, like you overview.
All in all it's a problem of low agency parenting in a low stakes environment. To veer slightly off topic:
Parents want 'good things' like their kids knowing multiple languages, being pitch perfect and doing well in school or sports, but they don't know why. You hit on this in portion III. It becomes harder and harder to justify teaching your kids a language or otherwise doing hard things when in practicality it is only used to impress grandma and grandpa, who might quickly turn to the universal language when they hear how poorly their studies have been going. There are no real stakes, no weight. This is because fundamentally there's no vision for the future. The kids don't actually have a purpose. The family doesn't exist in a serious context.
People like to blame the 'economy' for the downwardly mobile, but it's practically always the parents that failed. They were disinterested in securing a prosperous future for their children because they themselves are not serious. There's no identity, no ego, no belief, no nation and no border. It's all up in the air, to be discarded at whatever convenience.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
It's hard to imagine any coherent conception of a nation with borders that can be infinitely exploited by any person who manages to give birth within them.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
So the establishment is widening a rift in their own party because... The evil Palestinian regime would otherwise behead every American if given the chance? Which would somehow be more likely to happen if the dems stopped bending the knee for Israel?
I can see the vague emotional outline for 'Palestinians are radical muslims and that flies on the face of lefty progressivism' but trying to connect that to any genuine geopolitical reality feels like a real stretch.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Yeah, there was a lot of stuff that could be said that I didn't to not get banned. But it's a very interesting dynamic compared to on the right.
See you on the other side king.
tl;dr: the left is in an existential crisis because of Israel.
I wanted to write a post on the recent shifts in lefty rhetoric. The big one is 'This isn't Woke 1.0 anymore'
To define a few terms for convenience sake. The 'base' is the politically active far left portion. The 'establishment' is the more 'moderate' one. Popular examples of viewpoint representatives of the 'base' online are Vaush and BadEmpanada. Popular examples of the establishment are Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube and Destiny.
The big shift from the base can be described thusly: Performative woke stuff is out. You can no longer signal that you are in favor of soft social causes that are otherwise irrelevant to broader critiques of capitalism and colonialism or similar lefty theology. This might hold interesting connotations for transgenders as an untouchable priestly class in leftism. But in practice this just means that there have been some genuine changes at the grass roots level. And they are putting Palestine first as a purity test. The base is making this adjustment due to a series of genuinely devastating political losses.
You can say it begins with the Biden admin not standing up to Israel after Oct.7. The base got to feel what it's like when their representatives and institutions don't go along with them. This was a thing the base really cared about. But the establishment ignored for, at the time, seemingly no good reason. Come election season, Harris doubled down on this 'don't ask don't tell' position on Israeli overreach. This made the base even madder. If folks remember a few weeks back, the infamous 'Election Autopsy Report' that the DNC didn't want to release, the base was projecting whole heartedly that they lost because Harris was soft on Israel-Palestine. So not only was the base getting ignored, they also believed they were losing because of it.
To make matters worse, Trump started doing things this term. DOGE, along with the USAID thing happened. It was the first sign that the left as a whole was starting to lose grasp on just what was going on. The first symbolic defeat they've felt in a long time. The right was genuinely running a victory lap waving around all the ridiculous lefty causes that had been receiving millions of dollars. Hating Musk and lighting Teslas on fire was, as far as political activism goes, ineffective at actually achieving anything, even if just rhetorically or cathartically. Alongside this ran legislative defeats like the passing of the OBBBA and the ICE apocalypse alongside Trump admin actions against colleges and campuses. Those were principally establishment defeats, but the base got to pay the price.
Lets put ourselves in the shoes of the base. After having been gassed up through propaganda that Trump was going to make the sky fall down, there are now people from their ranks that are dead. Some jailed for a long time, and others permanently damaged, either physically, mentally or professionally from participating in lefty activism, with nothing to show for it. At the same time the base has not just been losing internally to the establishment, but they've also been watching the establishment lose externally to the right.
What's worse, they're now competing for space online against the likes of Theo Von, Tucker Carlson and similar, who have been filling the moderate 'I like healthcare and dislike Israel' void on the right/center. At the same time they have no leverage over the more extreme right wingers that occupy X and alternative streaming sites. This is a far cry from the 2017-2020 years where the left could exert pressure on the media landscape at will. A clear example of their loss of power.
Now, why can't the establishment just mend things with the base? Why are they huffing and puffing about the extremists in their own backyard? Why can't they give them institutional cover like they once did? Outside of the right genuinely becoming stronger due to a lack of censorship, there is a one word answer: Israel. The establishment can't compromise any more on Israel. They have to vote yes when Israel asks for arms. They have to stand up and clap for Netanyahu. And the base is redefining itself around the singular cause of Israel bombing children in Gaza being a bad thing.
There's no more intersectionalism. There no more 'sit down a black woman is speaking'. The base has slowly realized that organizing around words and ideas is stupid. You need something concrete as a barometer. And they are slowly enforcing that the actual program is not gay sex, protesting for black criminals or men in womens sports, but dead children in Gaza. And if you don't get with the program, regardless of who you are or identify as, you can be dismissed on those terms.
Will this last? I don't know. The establishment has usually managed to reign everything in come election year. But it might be that with changing demographics on the ground, and the reckless actions of Israel, that the American left is genuinely swirling down the drain of a third world communist toilet because they can't say no to infinity immigration and Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
I don't doubt you have sincerely held positions about a variety of things and I don't think you're lying in a malicious way to me, more that you are lying to yourself. The voice sounding like AI is an excuse you are giving yourself to not engage with a subject matter.
I've had this experience before when broaching uncomfortable topics. As an example, a Swedish friend of mine and I got to arguing about immigration during the height of the refugee crisis. At the time there were not a lot of resources with data on the matter, and the subject was not mainstream at all. But there was one website called something along the lines of muslimrapestatistics.blogspot.com. I linked it without thinking much of it, but to my friend the name of the blog was too much. Despite being relatively well presented and including a host of Swedish government sources, he took a stand that it was impossible for anything on such a webpage to be true and bailed on the discussion, as I had shown myself to be disreputable for linking it.
Now, maybe I am mistaking your principled stance towards AI voiceovers for what I've just described. Hell, maybe my Swedish friend had a principled stance on believing what's being said on internet blogs. But I can only ask you to appreciate that it's impossible for me to tell the difference, and the end result is the same.
I just listened to this video. It's 17 minutes and I think it's one of the best videos he's made. If you can't stomach 17 minutes of genuine and thought provoking material locked behind a high quality AI voiceover, but can stomach the ocean of garbage that is the internet, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on what counts for hygiene.
This does not feel like a good faith interaction. You asked me a question, I gave a detailed answer. If you can't watch videos you think are AI, then I don't care. I don't need to qualify anything to you at all and you can remain ignorant on whatever topic you want for whatever sake you choose. But honestly, I don't believe what you are saying right now since the videos don't sound like AI to me. It just sounds like you're erecting an arbitrary hurdle to shield yourself from earnest engagement. I don't know why and it feels like a shame. The videos are well made and cover an interesting topic.
But I'm not sure why this is especially relevant to the point you were originally making.
I was not sure if the person I was responding to was a serious or just a troll. So it felt right to include video material to figure out what level of engagement I was actually getting from them. People generally have opinions on film more readily available than opinions on 18th century anthropology and studies on racism in jury trials.
It's also very relevant to the prescriptive position that person was taking about how media should serve a role in shielding whites from information that would otherwise allegedly cause them to lash out in racist furor. The sentiment reminded me of the monkey tied down in front of TV's in 28 Days Later, as explored in the video. Showing the monkey violent imagery of mob justice and riots made the monkey crazy with rage. Very similar to what that person believed would happen to whites.
PhilosophyTube is the best example of a modern Patrick Bateman and it's not even close. It would be the perfect act in a modern rendition of American Psycho to weave in the alleged reason for his transition.
More options
Context Copy link