hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It is a genuine position regardless of everything else.
And no, just stating the argument in the abstract is not the same as actually having the argument in earnest. When you cut the argument from context you remove all necessity and connection to reality. It just becomes a meaningless game of words where someone can, with no reservation, say that they will be having their cake and eating it to.
hanikrummihundursvin
21d ago
We also have photographic evidence of bigfoot along with eye witness testimony, for what that's worth. Point being, the conversation pertains to looking at the actual evidence.
A great example of this would be the alleged death camp in Dachau. It has every single element used to prove everything the article you cite uses to prove the holocaust. Except for the fact that an SS document detailed there was no 'gas chamber' ever built at the site. So hundreds of jews who testified to American detectives about the killings lied. All the images from the camp alleging it was a death camp were not from a death camp at all. History rewritten at the stroke of a pen. Reality altered forever. Or, well, for us at least. The people executed for their participation in guarding a death camp that never was could not benefit from the correction.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
Your argument is that when your side kills civilians its collateral damage and when the other guys kill civilians its evil barbarity. The rest is sophistry.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
To put things in perspective there have been more drug deaths due to a poorly secured border and a few predatory jewish pharmacutical companies than there have been jewish deaths at the hands of Palestinians by a ridiculous factor. On top of that, prior to this event there were even more European deaths at the hands of Arab terrorists than there were jewish ones.
I think jews all around the world have a very keen understanding of exactly who is in and who is out. What you are supposed to do is apologize for your jewish privilege and do better. Accept more immigration, do more for assimilation and focus heavily on functional integration. Of course no one will do that when it's their own ingroup at stake. No one will entertain some well reasoned and rationalized argument regarding the benefits of integration, diversity and rehabilitation. Just look at the rhetoric, 'they are raping our women!'.
This is an open invitation to leverage every single anti-ethnocentric argument against jews. Never again will I have to entertain a Zionist, jew or otherwise, when they start whining about the far right or anything similar. Black on white crime in the US alone dwarfs this conflict. You have an enemy at the gates? Open up and apologize for having gates you racists.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
No, it's still not.
It is and the Wikipedia link in your linked comment says exactly the same thing I did.
While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.
Like I said in my comment, the only reason for nuking Japan was to induce unconditional surrender. And my overarching point was the US did not need Japan to surrender in the first place.
Elie Wiesel on intentionally lying and inflating Holocaust deaths:
"Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential."
On a related note, Germany Must Perish!
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't see anything sad about this story.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Then this would be the first time you do so for a name that is not inflammatory or provocative.
Which would not be analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation. It's not like the person is named AuschwitzKikeGrinder. In which case I would magnanimously approve a request for a name change.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
This is a great article, well worth the full read. Especially in context with the comments written about it here. It seems the author hits the nail on the head when he talks about the elusive nature of the point of contention and the issue he has with getting 'liberals' to engage with it. He is also conveniently vindicated as being correct as this issue is exemplified in the comments here post after post. Where every manner of framing the issue away from reality is tried. It would be a miss for me to not highlight those comments if not for the convenience of the columns author already doing it for me:
At this stage, short of some grand conspiracy of white people “to keep the black man down” (the Woke explanation) the cause of group disparities must come down to some combination of the following sources:
Genetic group differences stemming from human bio-diversity, as attested to by a growing mountain of evidence,
Deep historically situated cultural differences that are almost impossible to change,
Recently developed behavioral differences that cannot be modified with tools we consider "liberal" and acceptable in the modern world.
On paper, and when I talk to them personally, many of the liberal-centrist types tell me they understand this problem. They have read Steven Pinker, they have read the Bell Curve, and they know the issues with Affirmative Action and disparate impact in the context of persistent group differences. Their eyes are open. They've got this one.
So what is their solution? More individualism and objective standards for achievement. We need to go back to color blindness, the legal fiction of equality, and judging everyone like a blank slate even though they are not. We can just call that a "meritocracy" as we did in the 1990s. Let the chips fall where they may, and be done with the matter once and for all.
Perhaps this is a great “debate club idea”, but who is going to own the consequences if indeed we were to tear down all disparate impact regulations, equal opportunity programs, and affirmative action? I don’t think an appeal to "meritocracy" would cut it.
Many commenters here seem to have missed this part of the article and what follows. It would be much better for everyone if they didn't. Though I would suspect the problem they have with it is hard for them to verbalize. Since any movement in this direction on their part is an explicit admission that they are willing to break baseline social taboos. To stand up in person and say you don't care about starving children in Africa because you don't recognize borders, would be an obvious low status signal. You would have to be stupid or of low moral character to say such a thing. The same would also be true for saying you don't see a problem with extremely poor black educational attainment or medical conditions like obesity and heart disease, because you don't see race. You would have to be a fool or the most brilliant of racist comedians to earnestly say such a thing in public under your own name.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm sure the author of the article feels the same way about your comment.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Hannania had some affirmative action takes lately.
It's a nice angle to constantly dab on the blacks and just call it 'being against affirmative action'. Do blacks emotionally read 'affirmative action' in the same way I read 'whiteness'?
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
You've done this a few times now. Said something false or incongruent, then when called out on it, just ran away to a brand new line of reasoning.
The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews. But there certainly were jews in Europe and they certainly did not ally themselves with Hitler. Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Do Jewish intellectuals just originate all (American) political movements?
I don't think so. But even if that were the case, our incredulity toward that fact, if true, would not make it any less true.
Also, you still need to make the very important causal link from this academic movement to the actual war in Iraq.
Neoconservatives pushing for war predates the Gulf War. And as I stated in a prior comment, according to prominent neocon White House insider William Kristol, neoconservatism was the driving force behind the war:
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
He had similar remarks towards Cheney
“Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.”
Both camps referring to the tug of war between neocons and 'pragmatists' within the White House at the time. A tug of war that the neocons ultimately won. It's not a claim of mine and mine alone that there is a causal link. But beyond neoconservatives taking credit for it at the peak of their influence and confidence, it is an accepted belief on both sides of the 'fringe' political spectrum:
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/neoconservative-responsibility-for-the-iraq-war/
Beyond that I don't know how to further argue the point. Neoconservatism had been gunning for war in the middle East for a long time. They move to positions of influence and power and at a flashpoint the US goes to war with Iraq. Arguing the more specific agitating factors surrounding that is the subject of multiple books like The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. And though I'm not imploring you to read a book as an argument, I would present the existence of the book, along with the existence of a host of other similar material as evidence for the plausibility of the causal link.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Neoconservatism as a movement is jewish. Just like the Italian Mafia is Italian despite the barman being Spanish or the guy driving the concrete truck being from Algeria.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
In general, it’s part of a wider gish gallop strategy on the part of revisionists that should raise the suspicions of anyone attempting to examine their arguments.
Because all holocaust revisionists are part of the same cabal, employing a 'strategy'. But they are so stupid that they can't get their story straight.
This is unlike holocaust believers who all believe exactly the same thing with regards to the holocaust, how it happened and why. Which we can see being the case in this thread...
Honestly, this rhetoric is so ridiculous and 'boo outgroup' it's self defeating. It's so far below the general standards of discourse here that I can hardly believe you wrote it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
No. What was being said is that statistically, in western society, being a woman is better, and that inserting our imagined important factors into the conversation is irrelevant since we can already see the statistical outcomes. You might value physical fitness, for whatever reason, and I don't need to care about it since every single metric shows that women still have it better than men despite men being stronger than women.
To illustrate, what good did superior physical fitness do for men? They get killed more, assaulted more, get less wages in multiple white collar professions, are more likely to die on the job, are more likely to kill themselves, more likely to be homeless. When we collapse everything, the end result is that if you are born a woman in the west then you are far less likely to fall into any of the big negatives. And controlling for intelligence, you are far more likely to fall into the big positives outside of the top .1% of western society. And even then you have mandated government programs pushing women into those areas.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Banning comments like this is bad considering how rare they are. If they were more common I'd agree with a ban, but there is a genuine discourse to be had when people have put their obvious intent of destroying the outgroup into the open. Preventing people from engaging with it by banning the person who opened up leaves this space poorer for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.
According to privileged white people who have overseen decades of oppression over blacks. Robin DiAngelo is there to remind you that your white privilege does not hold more value than black suffering just because you are currently benefiting from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The part where you, just moments ago, said you did not have specific rules on this. It's hard to say that I am stuck on any part when you contradict yourself comment to comment.
You gave examples which were not analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation.
In reply to this you said there were no specific rules on this type of stuff. Now you are saying there are specific rules and that those rules are 1488 = banned when talking about crypto. Whilst, pending clarification, 'SuckItWhitey' is "probably" not allowed "if" they being racist against white people. Who knows if they just talk about crypto and AI all day.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If that's the case, why don't they say that? Just be open about the angle of the slippery slope we are going to be sliding on.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The entire point of this incident was that the person wasn't speaking in code. They literally put 1488 in their name.
An angry Bob in middle America has no power to formulate plans for middle East invasions and then put them into action.
Many Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. The direction those emotions were guided in and the actions those emotions were used to justify were completely the work of neocons and zionists. To pretend those two movements are not extremely jewish goes beyond any reason.
More options
Context Copy link