hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
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
2mo ago
And a racist would disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a colored go to a white only bathroom.
Trans activists were originally promising none of this situations will ever happen.
It's a dishonest association regardless of what some trans activists said or not. If a criminal who happens to be trans further commits crimes in prison then they can be dealt with like other criminals who do the same.
You seem to be assuming that the case for trans rights requires no justification, and any disagreement must stem from lack of knowledge. I disagree, and believe the case for "trans rights" is simply unsupportable.
Then we have an obvious disagreement. I would argue you could much more readily say the same for civil rights in America. The cost and scale is far greater, yet it's easily glossed over by the proponents of civil rights and desegregation. Doing the same for trans people is trivial in comparison.
Again, I completely disagree, and believe this renders the concept of "crimes against humanity" meaningless.
Reading first hand accounts followed up by official definitions of crimes against humanity, you don't have a rational leg to stand on when you say this.
You have to look no further than what happened with El Salvador's crime rates to see that the benefit to the rest of society is quite obvious.
What exactly about the prisoners suffering makes the streets they no longer occupy safer?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Are the mods asleep?
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
I don't think there are that many who can realistically look at speedrunning as a career path. Especially not relative to how many participate in the activity. On top of that, many of those that are living off of it are living a sedentary isolated lifestyle where they have no responsibilities or costs that reach beyond their personal needs. Needs that usually don't reach beyond their bedrooms. Their 'living' doesn't cost all that much, and, sad to say, probably isn't worth all that much.
I'd also add that, relative to a 'good' hobby, you don't need an excuse like 'it makes me money' to confidently partake in it. You spend money on kayaking to go out on the water to paddle around and you still look far superior to someone who takes five hundred to a thousand dollars per month streaming their speedruns of Mario.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo 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
4mo ago
but I think discussing with someone about their posting is more direct and productive than just clicking report.
I am doing exactly the same thing, minus the report. To that extent we agree.
And, OP has -12.
I don't know what this means. I already see moderation here as way too user dominated. I'd prefer it if the mods weighed the quality and effort of the post put forth rather than buckling to dislikes and mass reports. Though that seems to be the opposite of what they are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo 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
7mo ago
It's not an odd thing and my answer was on topic.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Counting illegal immigrants I'm not sure the US is that much better off. Maybe 'time', before their European population is dwarfed?
Canadians can own all the relevant firearms needed to resist the gubment. The only relevant strike is 10 round magazines, as far as I can tell.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I mentioned my coworker as a shorthand for the pervasive phenomenon of people complaining about their marriages in relation to a pontification that marriage was easier than having an employee as a billionaire. To that extent you're not even elevating a point by imagining things about my coworker, just bloviating a cope.
Your axiom says that marriage is a materialist, utilitarian contract that is not of any utility for a billionaire. But the evidence of your own eyes is that very nearly every billionaire on Earth appears to find some kind of utility in it.
'Some kind of utility' is not relevant as a point of comparison between whether or not delegating a duty to your wife or an employee is an easier way to go about organizing your lives together. The post I replied to gave examples of the utility of having a marriage. I asserted that these examples and others categorically like them are not relevant for a billionaire and are therefor not arguments in favor of marriage for a billionaire.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I dunno dude, the idea of thinking of a wife as like some kind of utility calculation around chore maxxing or whatever seems like the kind of thing that deranges radical feminists.
That's not what is being done by me to any greater extent than it was being done by the person I replied to.
I'm not interested in your selective disagreement with me. Marriage in this thread was leveraged in two contexts, a material function one, i.e. you wife can do things like organizing, doing housework etc, and an emotional function, i.e. you love them, they are your soulmate etc.
My point was that Bezos, on account of being a billionaire, does not need a wife for material function. So leveraging the utilitarian functions of marriage in support of an argument that marriage is beneficial to Bezos is asinine. I'd even argue that such a thing would be stupid. He probably has more than one giant house. Do we expect the wife to clean all of that? Of course not. Same for organizing big social gatherings. Hell, why even bother to cook when you can have a learned chef cook for you? It just doesn't make any sense.
For the emotional function, you don't need marriage to love a person or spend your life with them.
As for your definition of marriage, I'd argue that the only coherent view of marriage is when two persons want to start a family together. Marriage is a contract, Both a legal and not, between two people who a binding themselves for the ultimate task procreating. It can be because two people feel a very special connection and want to be with one another forever and start a family. It can also be because two people who don't really know one another all that much were pushed together because of necessity, and everything in between. Marriage is important and sacred all the same as a starting point for procreation.
To contrast this with your view, you can pay an assistant to functionally have undying loyalty through sickness and health, and you can marry a person who doesn't have that. I'm sure you have an enviable marriage, but I'm not sure if you leveraging that is conducive to a coherent argument.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Jeff Bezos is one of the rarest.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I understand the point but in relation to Jeff Bezos you are not explaining how having a wife is easier than having paid assistants do all of the things that need to be done.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
My recently divorced coworker begs to differ.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
That would be a relevant point if we knew nothing about Iran. But we do know things about Iran so I don't see the need for games of analogy.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
That might be true but I'm not sure what that changes.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
I wasn't trying to contradict any of your reasoning. That's why I said that propaganda is what you say, and then I elaborated further on what you were missing to understand my point.
By blocking I mean people with certain views and impulses can't have an outlet to vent their emotions or resonate with others.
As I tried to get across before, Rogan acts as a lightning rod for those people who fall outside the mainstream media ecosystems. He amplifies their impulses and ideas through resonance. Without him they are much like the now splintered audience of TotalBiscuit. They hate many things about the current state of affairs, but they don't do it because they are told to do so by Rogan. They already did. That's why they are there.
Exactly what my argument would predict.
Then I don't understand your contention about the limits of propaganda. So long as the left can exercise power over existing mediums and curate media ecosystems, they just continue winning. They dropped the ball on Rogan, but similar things have happened in the past. I mean, how could Rush Limbaugh have been so popular whilst laughing about gay people dying from AIDS? Why can't the left have their own radio shock jock?
Fixating on the idea that the 'left' can't have a Joe Rogan, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else when the only reason such people have relevance in this context is that they are not 'left' seems asinine. Due to total cultural dominance the left have half the population isolated and starved of emotional resonance. This population then gravitates like flies to whatever guy shows them light. And even then half the flies are too scared to go against the mainstream programming anyway.
To me this all seems like a product of total left victory. Sure, it's a problem to set up a concentration camp for your enemy. And the partisans hiding in the forest are an issue. But you still won the war.
It's hard for me to address your claims when you keep the intentionally vague.
As an example, you say that my descriptions of Caplan don't ring true. You don't say which ones, but one of them was obviously true: That the environment Caplan inhabits purposefully prohibits certain things from being discussed.
My problem here is that earlier in this comment chain you rested one of your claims on the fact that Caplan has done a lot of work within this gestapo environment to be a point in his favor. This irks me a bit, since instead of arguing against an actual argument I made relating to the fact that a person purposefully inhabiting such a stifling environment and that the work produced within is not 'serious', you ignore it.
Related to that, you assert I am not familiar with Caplan and his work. Insinuating that my lack of familiarity is a point against me. But by the same token, you assert that Caplan could probably not address these points publicly, given the environment mentioned above. So how could my alleged unfamiliarity with Caplan be of any relevance?
My description of Caplan was that he has not engaged with population group differences within the US and the lackluster result of immigration into the EU when it comes to his assertions. I, as a consequence, said he is not a serious person. I am, given all of this, at a loss as to how my descriptions are not true.
To top it all off: You, despite having allegedly far greater knowledge of his work, don't point to where he addresses these contentions. Instead you just spend one too many a comment floating the possibility that he has. Well, you now say he has written about them, but you're just not telling. OK man.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I don't see the deflection. People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals. Nor did popular support much to save segregation. It's about the context. Rosa Parks didn't matter until a bunch of media outlets made her a front page story. By that point the 'argument' presented is: Should nice old ladies who are no different from us except for the amount of melanin in their skin be allowed to sit where they want on a bus they paid to be on? And only inane morons would ever bother to engage with that argument in the negative. Same goes for respectable men walking down a New York street wearing suit and tie demanding equal rights under the law. Why should they be deprived of holding their loved ones hand during their final moments on a hospital bed?
The entire discourse is premade. All the relevant points of contention that predicate the 'arguments' accepted by all relevant parties. So long as you exist within that context without recognizing and rejecting it, all the arguments are irrelevant. We're just a few decades of well made movies and documentaries away from lowering the age of consent by a few years. The only hope against that outcome is that the progressive disgust response activates for enough of them at some point to be against that. Outside of that, the march of progress will continue.
What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
I personally don't believe that people who argue against trans rights but not the overarching context have a leg to stand on. They can make no claim to any of these things. To that end I agree more with the trans people. At least they are consistent to the program. It's also super easy. I can farm downvotes but no coherent arguments that don't boil down to an essential admission of transphobia. If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash. And all the people who pretend to stand on the principles of biology and whatever would practically vanish.
I mean, it's practically convenient that this place mods out the heat that keeps the progressive flame alive. Otherwise dissent from progressive orthodoxy would become a bannable offense in just a few months. It's why this place is here and not on reddit.
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context. The progressives will just keep on with their lies. History will remember anti-LGBTQA+ people as hateful losers, just like we remember those who were against segregation.
My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know. I don't think it's possible. Nor should it be, if that persons faith is true and they value and protect it.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's
Not unbelievers, people who want to cast away the parts of the religion that inconvenience them, but hold the parts that don't. I can't demonstrate that without bonking them on the head with a Bible. Progressive morality is the dominant morality. Not just as words on the internet, but what guides 80% of people as they listen to the radio, watch TV or do anything. People then want to carve out special caveats for their own predilections but still scoff at those who do the same for all the rest of progressive fake morality, rationality, reason and history.
but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty. To what grand moral narrative would you appeal? It's partially why I make an appeal to rape in mens prisons and the fallout of desegregation. How can trans people be a bigger issue than that?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
There's no cost benefit analysis of desegregation or whether fighting the Nazis was worth it. 80% of people, at the very least, just default towards the fake progressive history. There's not a single person who can claim rationality whilst being wrapped up in all that religious dogma. There are no skeptical or rational or less wrong people doing tonally amoral utilitarian deepdives into these topics, measuring minorities in 'utils'. In fact, every single one of the allegedly rational will kowtow to the religion of our age as soon as these topics are brought up.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not a fan of the moderation here in general. But it is here, and I'd prefer if it was applied to others as it's applied to me. To that end I'd already be out the door if I wrote like you did here about certain things I believed to be factually accurate.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Why wouldn't we get the full story if the 'elements' are within Israel? I think some people might understand that sort of a cut off as a dark hint. Especially considering how outspoken Ian Carrolls is on the subject of Israeli influence in the US.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
I find the idea of externally 'atoning' for your sins and/or expelling them in some way disturbing. If you do wrong and feel bad you deserve it. These emotions are yours now and you must carry them on with you. Trying to get away from this burden or attempting to ameliorate the pain through some self afflicting physical process is an act of rebellion against your own conscience. You are running away from pain your 'being' is telling you to feel. Paying a price for wrongdoing, for example a legal price, should not be seen as an excuse to free yourself from your deserved emotional turmoil.
Reading about pious pilgrims flagellating for faith, I'm reminded of people who speedrun video games. I feel sad when I see videos of them getting a new best time, springing out of their crusty chairs in a dimly lit room, screaming in elation: A new world record! Who knows how much effort, how many hours these folks spend on this completely insular and self driven compulsion to get the best time that is of no consequence to anything at all. But this perversion of effort and strife gets paraded around as an important accomplishment by similarly minded people.
Much like a sad teenager playing Super Mario for the millionth time, a pious pilgrim will do a real life barefoot desert speedrun. This is not an external exercise. It's completely internal. Completely useless and devoid of value beyond the perverted compulsion of the speedrunning pilgrim.
Reflection is important. Twisting and contorting your body to push yourself towards a better understanding of what life is for you can be noble and good. Struggle and strife for its own sake can also be good. But it has to be done for the sake of something actually 'real'. I think it's universally recognized that the only actually 'real' thing is having children and raising them. Anything else that is not working towards this goal is ultimately fake.
As an aside: To that extent you can pinpoint an ultimate 'gotcha' on the new religious right. As far as Christianity being a proxy for people successfully having children, it is obviously good. Beyond that, it's very little beyond philosophical speedrunning.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Seems to belong there.
Why would men and women sharing a cell blow up definitions any more than black and white men sharing a cell? To that end, if we care about biological realities, aren't we way past that threshold?
I don't see the logic follow for any of your statements. The very argument for 'put this person in the white ward of the jail' is 'this is a white man not a black man'.
On top of that, why should one elevate pregnancy over the gravity of post-rape suicides in mens prisons?
More options
Context Copy link