BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 49d 14h 13m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think they "came to be" by rejecting both our nation's founding principles, and the "low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan" in favor of the rhetoric of people like you.
Then you would be wrong. The people who came to be the ruling class in California just promised a group of people within their constituency certain things that those people wanted. These things were not illegal because men like Reagan made them legal. The only principle of the founding fathers that was rejected was rejected by both Reagan and the now ruling class of California: That immigration be reserved for white men of good character.
People who care more about the color of a man's skin than they do their behavior/content of thier character.
I care about race, since race correlates with behavior.
Yes you can. Specifically by tackling the behavior directly. The cucked liberal identitarian whinges about "disparate impacts" and "social capital" the based conservative declares "looters will be shot" and allows the cards to fall where they may.
The cucked liberal runs every socially relevant institution in America. The based conservative licks their boot and talks tough on social media before folding to the new cucked liberal politics like every single conservative before him. I mean, everything you've professed to believe so far is just the cucked liberalism of 30 years ago.
Im going stop you right there. When I look at the US today (or anytime in the last 40 years or so) the most socially dysfunctional states are almost never the states that are the most black or brown, its the states that are the most blue.
So black population centers aren't the most violent and poorest? The social dysfunction you see in places where the murder rate is comparable to Africa is somehow not as bad as in white neighborhoods in Vermont? I'm far from convinced.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I'm failing to see the relation. Being unable to have sex without taking responsibility for either contraception or the consequences of unprotected sex are not the same as being forced to have sex.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Fuentes made fun of women after Trump won. Fuentes is also a 'fed'. How should I relate these two things together and why?
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.
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You want to see what the "third-worlding" of America looks like in practical terms? California is your patient zero.
That's exactly my point? What did you think I was saying when I pointed out the folly of California? How did you think Californias current "ruling class" came to be?
Yes I know. It's also a rather stupid and Unamerican way to frame things[...] The problem is the importation of parasites and social dysfunction from Asia and South America.
Can you place the parasites and social dysfunction in a box or does it come with the people? It's obviously coming with the people. Where did they get it from? Does it fall from the sky or is it just a product of these people not being like white people? And the most important question of all, are there any realistic mechanisms to sort the people from the parasites and dysfunction?
You see, the specific corner of the US I am in has a sizeable black/brown population that's been here since the 18th century. In short, my America isn't "browning" so much as it is brown and has been for longer than anyone can remember.
Your particular corner of America is not representative of America as a whole, which ued to be 85-90% white between 1910 and 1960. The social dysfunction that has followed the largest non-white group of 'Americans' has done so for the entirety of the countries history. These people are obviously a problem, regardless of what you think it is.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If you want to tie your future to third world politics, sure. That is exactly what happened to Reagan's California.
Democrats are not looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. Every single relevant immigration demographic votes Democrat. You are completely wrong in this assumption. To put things a different way, both Republicans and Democrats in the US face a demographic 'collapse' of their white voter base, as the white share of the population is shrinking. Both need their share of the voting block to grow, but it's only Democrats who are successfully doing it by. Republicans are doing worse than nothing for the last 80 years.
Trump has no 'anti-immigration' stance. As the man has repeatedly stated he wants as many people as possible to come in legally.
The "browning of America" is a non issue next to the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America.
The 'browning of America' counts everyone who is not white. That includes Asians and South Americans.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Naw. Even if there was some great conspiracy to brown america
Nawone said that there was.
intermarriage rates have been getting higher for decades.
80-90% of people are not intermarrying. The largest population increases are not from new births but immigrants, most of whom are arriving from rather ethnohomogenous places. I see no relevance to that graph unless you are talking about an America 200 years in the future. My point would be that until you have Brazil and full blown third world politics, you have more and more brown identitarianism. Which is what's already going on and has been going on with every single third world minority group that enters America.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It's not an odd thing and my answer was on topic.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
So nothing can happen anywhere with regards to voter fraud favoring democrats without it being under the control of this group called 'Democrats'?
I'm trying to highlight the contention I made. Which was that the assumption that there has to be a higher power making measured and deliberate decisions in order to facilitate voter fraud is fallacious.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I wasn't talking about where flat earthers get their beliefs from, but everyone.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I'm hard pressed to call 45% to the 44% of Bush Jr "serious headway".
The reason demographics is the only story here is that the group voting 45% for Trump is growing. Whilst the group voting 60% for Trump is shrinking. And despite allegedly "fleeing actual socialism" the majority of them has consistently voted for the closest approximation of it in American politics.
On top of that, the things drawing people towards the Democrat party are far more tangible than the Republican. Most notably money in your pocket and food in your belly. As can be seen in California where 55% of immigrant households accept some form of welfare benefits. This group, as a total % of the population, is growing. Whilst the "native" group with 25% accepting welfare is shrinking.
The main point that underscores all of this is that the demographics are pushing the country towards third world norms. If people care a lot about whatever third world hole they live in being controlled by people labeling themselves "Republican" instead of "Democrat" I can't fault them. But I point out, usually in complete futility, that once you've reached that point, it doesn't matter. You get to have Brazil level living standards and if you want something else it doesn't matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
This characterization assumes there is a group called 'Democrats' who 'do things' in some top down fashion that can include, among other things, directly manipulating votes. This group sees itself as a representation of all 'Democrats' and then takes into account whether or not doing something would be 'too risky' for them as a group.
To me this characterization makes no sense, and as it asserts a very conspiratorial mechanism for how things have to happen. In the real world it's real people who do things. They don't need to be controlled from the top down to do things that they think benefit their group. Even if there is a conspiracy to do something illegal it would very rarely be rubber stamped by some 'higher up'. Personafying events in the way you do feels very fallacious.
I have similar feelings every time someone misrepresents any assertions about group based behavior in a manner such as this. Not everything needs to be ordained from a higher power. People can just believe things and then do things based on that of their own volition. Their ideas can even be bad!
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think you are misrepresenting where people get their beliefs from. Most people don't look at any evidence for or against in some rational vacuum. We're just told what is and what isn't. Most of the time in a setting where we are completely incapable to question what's being said. This is true for the roundness of the earth and the 'leftist' theory of evolution. To compare and contrast two narratives that are believed in the same way on a basis that's irrelevant to why they were believed in the first place is missing the point of the comparison.
I think that's a big part of why flat earth guys can exist in the first place. Most people have no idea why they believe the earth is round and are completely incapable of defending their belief without appealing to a higher power. Same for the 'leftist' theory of evolution.
Outside of that, I'd argue that population differences are much more immediately obvious, like I said in my comment. It's very hard to get a good first hand look at the roundness of the earth or experience the curvature in action. But it's very easy to notice different phenotypic differences between population groups.
Fact of the matter is that population differences are just as real as the roundness of the earth. There is no wiggle room or 'softness' to this fact.
and to the degree that flat-eartherism exists today outside of a "birds aren't real"-esque joke it seems most prevalent amongst PMC types who, interacting with the world chiefly through screens, seem to have difficulty thinking in three dimensions.
This runs contrary to my experience, though brief, running through flat earth circles and debates. I found the most common character type to be working class dudes used to relying on their own senses and to a lesser extent belligerent basement dwellers. I'd find it very interesting if PMC types were going in on flat earth.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The problem with this is that there is a very clear record of condemning people for their thought crimes on this exact basis.
You can't kick a non-white person and call them a slur without making the attack racially motivated.
You can't create a right wing political movement whilst owning ethno-based political material without being labeled a neo nazi terrorist organization.
By the very same token, you can't stab children in the face whilst owning an Al Qaeda training manual without being labeled a muslim terrorist.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think these people have been in the spotlight for so long, mouthing other peoples opinions or regurgitating talking points, that when they are finally allowed to be themselves they don't know where and when to stop. They already stepped over the line to follow their convictions. That line was much clearer and held more immediate consequences than belief in flat earth Satan bigfoot or whatever.
If everyone gave an earnest list of views they hold or are curious about or share any sort of odd thing that gave them an emotion that they felt was worth exploring the umpteenth time they have to fill 30 minutes of dead air I think there is not a single interesting person left that doesn't hold to some odd belief. Hell, most people are so uninteresting that they would never get to a point of being a political talking head in the first place.
On the flipside, the lunacy people believe on 'the left' is no different. As an example: most people believe in a theory of human evolution that's much dumber, consequential and more immediately and obviously wrong than flat earth.
But more directly to Tucker, it feels like he's throwing away a sort of sacred status he built for himself. He could always present himself as kind of untouchable. From a persona perspective it's like he decided to give himself a weakspot. Feels like an odd thing to do for a man like him but, barring it being a conspiracy by TPTB to weaken a persona that's becoming too powerful, it's just a whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You would have expected "white supremacists" to pounce on this immediately, but they didn't... So why are you talking about them?
Aside from that, what can you expect to find? Some hidden genetic evidence that shows that, actually, white people are stupid, ugly and short? It seems rather obvious the only evidence you can find will support the fact we can all observe every day of our lives: Compared to any other race on the planet, White people are the opposite of that.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The point of a Hitler comparison is that Hitler is Satan. Satan is obviously bad to everyone who shares the western religion so the negative association is not to anything specific, it's just definitionally evil to be like Satan. Saying someone is like Napoleon or Caesar is not the same, since those two are not the antagonists of the ruling religion.
If you want to make an earnest comparison between Trump and Hitler I'd stop you are the part where Trump is Trump and Hitler is Hitler. If you feel the need to invoke mythology and shared religious gestalt to get your observations across I'm not super interested, but would prefer 40K lore as the medium.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
This rigamarole has gone on forever. Repeat from 2016 onwards:
Anti-Trump: "He's like the nazis! Who were bad!"
Pro-Trump: "He's not like the nazis! Who were bad!"
High minded, mentally elevated and euphoric: "He's like the nazis, who were good."
Hitler was good at public speaking, holding rallies and a lot of other stuff. Being as good as Hitler, to the point of it warranting comparison, is a compliment. Having a 'Hitler' that wants to deport the immigrants, secure the borders, kill the drug dealers, clean the streets of crime and in any other way protect the rights and privileges white coding people care about, and uphold their preferred political order, is good!
The problem here is that people are so religiously captivated by the mythology of Hitler that they can't get over it when the comparison is made. Hitler occupies the 'devil' portion of the western brain. You can't be like the devil and not evil in some way or another. That's just definitionally true. Like being more like Jesus or MLK makes you definitionally good.
Since most people are unable to recognize their true religion, for whatever reason, we get pro-Trumpsters contorting themselves around meaningless concepts and baseless associations in order to defend their chosen one. 'Fascism' 'Hate' 'Holocaust' 'Hitler' '1939'. None of it matters, none of it tracks. It's meaningless nonsense. You'd have a better time deconstructing someone calling Trump a doodoo head.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You're being antagonistic and argumentative to the point that you don't even understand what is being written. My guess is you saw the word 'transphobia' and your head went spinning.
One thing missing here is an actual argument for doing things your way.
What is "my way"? I don't particularly like the changes to western society, but I can observe that they have been and are happening. I can therefor also recognize that pretending that some 'sacred' bubble called 'the Olympics' can exist unaffected is dumb. Especially when most of the people who want the bubble to remain also cheer for the change in society.
Not sure who you think you're owning with this one.
The people who cooked shit in a pot and now don't want to eat it.
This is, in my mind, one of the great unsung tragedies of the rise of the trans movement.
'Real women' being hurt by the trans movement is not an unsung tragedy. It's the fife and drums of transphobia everywhere. Especially when it's coming from women.
Sports in general and the Olympics in particular have always had a large gray area when it comes to innate physical differences between competitors. Doesn't matter if its male/female or, thick or thin, tall or short. Instead of going into these differences in more detail the Olympics decide to live in muddy waters, which allows for incidents such as these.
In a broader context I find it hard to sympathize with anyone even remotely attaching themselves to this nonsense. People want things to 'stay the same' and not change whilst society around them is in the process of ditching whatever quaint conservatism they still hold on to. Whatever purity or sanctity is imagined to live within the Olympics is long gone or in the process of being removed. I mean, who knew the Swedes had such a knack for the long jump?
To an extent I agree with you. If seeing women getting hurt activates some almonds and folks want the display to stop, that's fine. But to pretend this is about sports or the sanctity of categories or whatever is just inane at this point.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Wealthy leftists are an easy scapegoat. In reality all they are doing is the same thing everyone else is doing. Existing within the Overton Window and not pushing the boundaries beyond their own comfort zones.
You can see the same effect in play whenever the police accidentally a black person. Or when someone brings up black/white sentencing disparities. People who would otherwise be in favor of harsh punishments for crimes and a stricter and stronger police force immediately fold. The institutions that desperately need support are abandoned in favor of short term emotional stimuli. Being on the 'right side' of discourse. Not falling into an 'extreme'. Not wanting to burden themselves with any of the cost of the harsh policies they otherwise say they support. Because people really do not want to live with the consequences of their ideology. Leftist or otherwise.
In turn we get George Floyd riots and Disparate Impact legal theory. Unsafe streets and people OD'ing on the sidewalk. An increase in physical suffering and pain. More neglected and dead children. This could have been prevented but people choose comfort and short term happiness over harsh reality. This is history repeating itself and a few chickens coming home to roost. This is not because of white leftists. And there are very few people here that don't themselves deserve whatever it is they wish on the white leftists.
Maybe I'm delusional regarding the cost of things but it feels like you could do so much more with all this money. Just hire Mr. Beast and give him 100 million. Hell, go to a swing state and spend 20 million on some small scale infrastructure project. Or just hire a different candidate.
More options
Context Copy link