BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 49d 00h 38m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
There is no 'we' here. There are vile people bargaining with the lives of innocent children and there are parents trying to protect them. Most people do not accept marginal risk for their children for no benefit if they can help it. Yes, people make these choices all the time and they are telling you in this case: No. You do not respect their autonomy or value the wellbeing of their children so you refuse the answer.
I'd trade a .1 decrease in GPA for my child any day of the week if it means they turn out to be a better-quality, more tolerant, open-minded person.
And the point I'm making is that this isn't in your control. Every single example and assumption you make is not based on the factor parents are using to decide where to send their children: Risk. You don't get to decide if its .1 decrease in GPA or bullying that scars them for life.
You create hypotheticals and make generalized assumptions based on irrelevant research to draw up a concrete picture when the reality is that you don't know. You just hold to an ideological firmament like a zealous crusader. Parents do not have this luxury as they have to accurately assess real world risk to the best of their ability. Since their primary focus is not ideology but the welfare of their children.
I also believe that some vague sense of diversity exposure (beyond simple racial categories too, as mentioned) is long-term beneficial.
More diverse schools have increased rates of bullying. Whatever benefit you think you are getting, you are not counting the negatives.
Plus, though I don't buy into it to the extent some people do (the whole performative white guilt thing is bullshit), there IS certainly a moral evil in saying "oh my particular in-group is happy and prosperous" and thus let's not do anything to help other, suffering groups. Especially when, you know, broadly speaking your in-group was directly responsible for those poor outcomes of other groups. That's literally dystopian.
White people do more to help brown people than any people on the planet have ever done. They are drawing the line at sacrificing their own children for an effort that defies any logic and reason.
The assumption of your argument is that the problems browns face can be fixed by whites. You also hold to a moral and ideological imperative that white people owe brown people. Neither of these things are true. It's just a classic example of a rape and revenge narrative. Regardless of anything else, no white person should ever listen to a person like you on anything relating to the welfare of their children, given how racially charged your ahistorical ideological viewpoint is.
There are plenty of mechanisms for which Black kids can have better outcomes other than some vague notion of proximity or magic, you are correct. I haven't listed them explicitly, but I could if you doubt they exist. Put briefly, part of the problem with US primary and secondary education has to do with the funding and geographical schemes used.
If the problem is money, which its not, you could just argue to give these schools more money without punishing white children. Yet that is not your argued course of action.
Overall, though, it's still so bizarre to me that you outright accuse me of racism. You blocked out a quote of mine and I fail to see anything racist there.
The assumption that white children turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if not raised in proximity to browns is racist. I explained this to you in the reply to that paragraph of yours. As I said then, white people raised in their homogenous societies produce the best people the world knows who drive the best societies. The only reason you would assume that they are somehow turning out evil is if you were making a baseless racist assumption. Which is exactly what you were doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
To make a long story short: If you care about your group you want people who care about your group in charge. Ben Shapiro doesn't care about the 'white America' group at all. This bleeds into his rhetoric. He does, however, care a lot about Israel. If he cared as much about white America as he did Israel there would be no problems, but he obviously doesn't.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that your entire argument is predicated on the belief that child-on-child, permanent-consequence outright violence is inevitable (or at least highly likely) to occur in deliberate group-mixing.
Where was this "acknowledgement" made? Also, where does this language come from? "Acknowledge"? Am I hiding something or doing things in a way you are not?
I take strong exception to that. I think your belief that somehow placing your presumably-white kid in with your thinly-veiled majority Black school has a significant chance of landing them in the hospital or something is unsupported and warped by media perceptions and fearmongering.
Not a "significant" chance. A greater chance. You clearly do not understand the argument. You can stop being glad.
Sure, we can go and agree that many Black communities have a violence problem.
Then there is no need to pretend there is a "fearmongering" part at play. Parents choosing to go to a safer school are doing what is best for their children if they value safety highly. We both agree which schools and which communities are safer.
I am aware and acknowledge your concern about how using kids to break a negative, self-reinforcing cycle feels a bit bad. But seriously, what else can we do?
If your only move is using other people's children, you need a new something.
Kids are sponges and need deliberate exposure to other ways of being and living while young.
Homogenous schools do just fine with their students and they, generally, have much better outcomes.
So I'd challenge this whole paradigm that parents are being somehow brainwashed by SJW-stuff into putting their kids in danger for no real return. Rather, I would like parents to acknowledge the time-lag danger of accidentally raising an intolerant, ignorant, or sheltered child.
This is an extremely racist statement that has no basis in reality. White children that come from homogenous environments are some of the happiest, healthiest and smartest in the world. There is nothing bad, comparatively, about them or their education to be found. If there was any benefit to be had from studying with lower income blacks, then those lower income blacks would surely have found it. Instead the first thing they find is delinquency, illiteracy and worse.
Again, in case I lost some focus: the whole point of my post is to point out that otherwise-benign and rational actions like the self-sorting only when in strongly minority situations can have severe, negative consequences for society at large. Think of it like a game theory problem. All we need is to tweak the rules slightly and we can fix the game! In this case, acknowledging that there are negative consequences of growing up in excessive homogeneity.
That is based on the assumption that white children can somehow fix black kids through their white supremacy via proximity. Considering that this is obviously not true, you have nothing outside of fancy game theory that looks great in an interactive blog post to defend your, frankly, vile and racist ideologically driven social intervention that would see children suffer in the name of ending racism or whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You’re ignoring the obvious counter point, which is “it is useful for children to learn to interact productively with people that neither look, act, nor think like them, lest they become unemployable social outcasts.”
This is a counter point to what? Homeschooling works great, sex segregated schools work great. Highly homogenous schools work great. Where are you getting the impression kids from these backgrounds are growing up to be social outcasts?
If your child is the smartest person in their school, then it is likely they will continue to be one of the smartest people wherever they go.
I highly doubt that. Maybe if they're in a very big school, but even then there are a lot of smart cookies in the world.
Learning to interact with 100 IQ “subhumans” is essential to becoming anything more than a white collar grunt who takes orders for a living.
What even is this... Like, I don't know where you are coming from but you don't need to go to school with brown people to learn how to interact with people who have lower IQ's than you.
But this is all very much besides the point, which is that the people proposing these changes, like the one in the article, are not proposing we do this for the benefit of the white children. Your attempts to tease out some necessitated benefit after this has been pointed out are bizarre to a point of self refutation.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I am in favor of homeschooling and sex segregated schools.
On a different note, the school system in general serves a purpose. I.e. daycare for kids. Desegregation does not serve a purpose, as there is no magic dust sprinkled on white kids that can make the brown children behave better via proximity. All you're doing is drowning out the statistics that would otherwise be very noticeable.
Putting your children in school is a risk, but the assumption being made is that it's something you must do if you want what is best for your child. The assumption is not 'if I sacrifice the potential wellbeing of my child some brown people some other place might become more literate'.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Counterpoint: Your neighbors child(A smiley square) got its head stomped on repeatedly by schoolmates(smiley triangles). Its head bounced off the pavement again and again and now its braindead in a hospital bed. Are you happy with your child(a smiley square) attending that school knowing the persons responsible are going to attend it again in a year?
To make my point clear: I am not against social interventions. I don't understand why you would think that. I am against putting innocent children in harms way for the sake of some ethno-sadomasochistic ideology. The squares and the triangles are not equal in the real world. We can abstract the real world to a point where we don't see the relevant details. But basing our arguments on those abstractions is no different from lying.
To further elaborate, maybe if this particular act of triangle on square violence was an isolated abnormality, we could excuse it as such. But it's not. It just so happens that smiley triangles, despite being 13 percent of the population, commit over half of all violent crime. It just so happens that smiley triangles are more likely to engage in bullying. More worryingly, smiley triangles are more likely to view bullying activities as high status, unlike smiley squares.
So yeah, we can pretend that our extreme child-sacrifice based interventions are not actually that by using smiley faces. But I am not going to pretend with you. I will, as politely as I can, point out that you are intentionally throwing children into a chain of causality that has many more bad outcomes than they otherwise would have had. This is evil and you should be punished for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I was spurred to ask this question by this article and especially this paragraph where author builds logical sequence connecting segregation with various social ills:
The author doesn't build any connections, he just asserts them. To that extent there is no reason to make any assumptions based on what he writes as being true. It could all just as well fall under the umbrella of baseline brown inferiority and white supremacy when it comes to the gaps between the groups.
More to your question: There is no world in which parents accept placing their children into worse education facilities than they have to. The only way 'desegregation' is done is through direct or indirect coercion. It has long been the case that the poorest and worst off whites have to suffer living with the browns. Nothing about this will change. It's only now, as is evident in the comment section of the article, that the white middle class is feeling the heat it once left the white lower class to sweat in.
There is certainly justice involved in the disintegration of the white middle class in America. But it's not to anyone's benefit. Schools will still have to segregate the bad browns from the good. And for every brown that might be uplifted by white excellence, there might just as well be a white child dragged down by brown inferiority.
On a final note, something about this topic always strikes me as disturbing. Maybe it's a personal problem but I find it hard to tease out some cosmic righteousness through the suffering of children. If the fine folks in favor of these policies want to volunteer theirs to make things right, so be it. But if they want to volunteer other peoples children for this sort of endeavor I would find it more right those same people be thrown off a cliff. Because there is an inevitable increase in suffering coming the way of children that would otherwise be free of it, if not saddled with browns. I don't feel like anyone owes society their children in an effort to facilitate some devils bargain to differently distribute suffering amongst children. But considering the support for desegregation across the board, I'm not surprised the discussion crops up from time to time. People accept the suffering in the name of social justice.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Any skill requiring 3-demensional thinking and hand-eye coordination favors men. Video games and chess have proven this beyond all doubt.
I can't comment on the viability of women as drone pilots in the absence of men, but if you have men available you would obviously want them as a first option.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
As well as judaism or philosemitism, we need to protect our kids.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I'm no Jew.
I didn't say you were.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough why I was arguing things. I read your argument as follows: Jews want these things in Europe, but act differently in Israel.
I don't understand how. It seemed you just wanted to get Israel apologia into a comment.
Of course, there would still need to be further steps to back up your stance in the current conflict, for reason 3 that I mentioned (even if that addresses reasons 1 and 2): there's a pretty meaningful difference between people who are actively trying to kill all your people versus whatever's happening throughout the first world.
I don't know what you mean by 'current stance'. The default in Europe is to treat the outgroup kindly. Despite wars, despite terror attacks, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders. Israel does not do this, nor do most jews.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I do not understand how you are reading these things from what I write.
On top of that you seem very interested in Israel apologetics. To the that extent your comment reads like a copypasta. To that end I can only congratulate you on your dedication to your ethno-centric cause.
I mentioned a crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide to span the width of the spectrum of jewish influence in European political culture. Be that from Jihad Watch or jews promoting open borders and general anti-whiteness. The point was that I don't concern myself with what Israel does in its backyard beyond what Israel concerns itself with in mine.
To make a long story short: Jews want inclusion from everyone else, but exclusion for themselves when it comes to Israel. I don't like that. Jews around the world stand behind Israel and its hypocrisy. I don't like that either.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I see very little of them, especially in the aftermath of Oct 7. I can't say I agree that defenders of past colonialism and the defenders of Israel are basing their arguments on common ground.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Defenders of western imperialism like the aforementioned men defend said imperialism on the basis that it was good for the conquered people. I don't understand what parallel you are trying to draw on unless you are saying Palestinians are better off with Israel ethnically cleansing them.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't care to propose any actions for them beyond what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them. Be that a new crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide.
I think that is only fair. If Israel thinks the rules of the western democracies are unfair then I'd be more happy to play by Israels rulebook and expunge every jew into Israel and make it into the Greater Gaza Strip. Should I think different?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The west comes in and does whatever it wants. They're paying for everything after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
And? Douglas Murray also exists. Fielding a similar point of view. His wiki page is filled with a similarly long list of 'controversial comments'. None of them go against the bigger elements of the white mans burden. All of them hold to the typical conservative ideals of 'family values are the reason the browns are the way they are' or 'Islam is the problem'. If they even stepped a foot near total expulsion of the brown or flirted openly with the ideas you have entertained their heads would be on a spike.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't disagree. I just wonder why that criticism of the white mans burden is only pushed when the topic of jews, Israel and Palestine are on the docket. Outside of that you would only hear it from ethno-nationalists. Yet the people pondering these things now don't consider themselves as being ethno-nationalists. At least they don't advertise themselves as such. So what gives? Does it just happen to be that in this case we can actually genocide the browns for the greater good and not the other way around?
I mean, just as a point of honesty, for how long could anyone back in 2016 or so uphold the idea that they were just rational skeptic centrist logic lords whilst constantly railing against the white mans burden? Wouldn't everyone just see that they are white nationalists? Isn't that transparently obvious?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That's been the program so far.
No one asks these questions in any other context. I mean, isn't a lot of suffering self inflicted? No one forces the third worlders to continually make mistakes. We just keep giving them money and privilege them in our first world societies. Their populations keep growing and we just accept more immigrants for the greater good.
The pro-Israel narrative doesn't compute with the rationalism or moralism behind all the other oppression narratives. People are continuously trying to carve out some special clause that allows us to ethnically cleanse the browns just this once. The inconsistency is glaring and the ethnic motivation behind it transparent, as this is only being asked because it's jews and Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
My point would be that the selectiveness in application of when might is right or when suffering and oppression count will be transparently self serving to an undeniable degree.
When was the last time people weren't cheering for the brown and oppressed? That seems like the default. Suddenly that's just obviously up for contention when it's Israel? Are we really still just trying to be 'less wrong' or whatever? I find that hard to believe.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr 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
1yr ago
I don't know why you keep dunking on rationalists when most people here are not rationalists and don't claim to be.
I don't know why you reply to my comments when I do. I also don't know why people here rail against their outgroup when most of them are not here. Yet that's been happening forever... A strange observation.
But I don't think even rationalists would claim that "the side that suffers more" automatically carries greater moral legitimacy.
I didn't say they would. I said they stop employing reason in favor of moralism when their ingroup is at risk or when it is otherwise needed. The voice of centric reason only applies to the neutral observer when it suits him.
I do find it ironic that you speak of "transparent intentions," given that you speak with shuddering horror of Palestinians crushed beneath rubble and yet, I must admit I find myself having a very hard time believing that you really care overly much about Palestinian lives per se.
I don't feel the need to earmark a 6 year old with missing legs as anything in particular to feel revolted by the suffering on display. Are things different for you?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
'Rationalism' always makes way for 'moralism' when the ingroup starts taking too much flak. The quantifiers and metricians who usually like to count things and make grandiose utilitarian arguments to figure out the best course of action suddenly just can't even. The conflict is just too messy, there are no simple answers here, and so on.
In simple utilitarian terms Palestinians obviously suffer more. The end. Taking up any position other than this collapses every other position 'rationalist' or 'progressive' people hold. As you are no longer rational or progressive. You're just another nazi taking up the cause of your people. 'The barbarians are at the gates and something must be done.' Except we have tied ourselves up a little too much in rationally disciplining the outgroup so now we have to cover our tracks somehow.
It reminds me of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape. An entire book written by a man in an effort to convey an 'ought' without using the word. We have a few people in a very similar spot here. To them 'jews and Israel > The rest'. But getting to that point would break their own perception of themselves so we get to play this game of words instead. Where, like Harris, if we space our very transparent intentions far enough apart from one another, using just enough words, we can proclaim that by the ordained will of science, morality or whatever else, Israel must survive above all else.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
All justice is "social justice". All politics is "identity politics". It's just a matter of who you care to ingroup and outgroup, how far into the future your mind can wander, and how good your brain is at pattern recognition.
No one who has been forced into a precarious situation settles for equal suffering and death. Everyone wants to live. What separates people is how daring and how prepared they are to do what must be done. And anyone who sits on a fence, safe and sound, warm and well fed, commenting on the situation like a disembodied brain pretending to be above it all is stupid. Walking their progeny from a good place to a bad one. You are going to have to fight. If not you then your descendants or theirs.
Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents made the point that what separates most people from right wing radicals is foresight. I feel this echo throughout a lot of western culture and politics. There seems to be a distinct lack of care or awareness of the future. Even with regards to the most salient 'future' driven contention of 'the left'; the environment. It is fraught with short sighted stupidity. The warming of the globe is not a bad thing for the globe. It's bad for the people living on it. Yet overpopulation is not seen as a problem. Immigration is great and so on.
There is no serious thought going on. No realism. No foresight. It's all short sighted nonsense that leaves an entire portion of the world incapable of understanding sacrifices for their future.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That could all be true at the same time as every philosemite and zionist vote for Israel 20 times. Since there are very obviously a lot of philosemites and zionists clawing for every straw they can to bundle up in support of Israel in any manner they can. They are not tired of politics.
On top of that, Croatia won the popular vote with a not so gay song. If people were really tired of all the politics then they wouldn't vote for Israel, a country embroiled in a whole lot of politics. In fact, they wouldn't watch a whole lot of Eurovision to begin with. But if they did, they would probably vote for Croatia.
The best schools on earth are in Finland, Japan and Denmark. These schools are very homogenous.
These children raised in these "bubbles" are well liked and sociable everywhere they go in life. Stop lying about people you know nothing about.
No they're not. What a hateful, ugly and bigoted thing to say. The vast majority of the research says otherwise. And if you knew anything about homeschooling you'd know that the kids get a lot of social interaction outside of school, such as in various club or sporting activities.
Anyone who graduates HS and goes to a competitive workplace or university will very likely not be the smartest person around. I point this out just as a simple statistical fact.
But that's besides the point, which is that you don't need to interact with brown people to be able to socialize with people who are less intelligent than you. Like, that's just nonsensical. White societies work just fine and there are plenty of not so smart people in them.
This is completely untrue and you are ridiculing yourself by saying such obviously untrue things. A simple google search can show you how wrong you are, as homeschooled children faire just as well or better than publicly and privately educated children.
Again, this is ridiculous.
What? You're not generalizing, you're just saying obviously untrue things.
Again, what even is this?
More options
Context Copy link