BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 48d 05h 08m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
There are plenty of 'deniers' who have larger historical narratives about what happened, like David Irving and others. I'm not one of them. I find historical narratives in general to be nonsense. The world, as I've lived in it, doesn't objectively move in easily digested narratives. Sometimes there are things I don't understand. Causal chains of events that are beyond me. But history somehow doesn't have this problem ever. I'm inherently skeptical of history because of this. Same with news media and the like.
I have seen real time how one narrative can make way for another. I mean, do we need to imagine how history according to mainstream news sources looks with regards to someone like Trump? Seems awfully important to recognize who is writing the story.
As for German deaths, this is the article I read They float all the same theories a 'denier' would float relating to jews and how difficult it can be to estimate things.
I agree that the scale is different. But you can't go from that to the mainstream historical holocaust narrative without contradicting the methodology used to ascertain German civilian losses and the inherent skepticism baked into that narrative. Holocaust history has its own standard. On top of that, the Germans have the luxury of not having to deal with the Soviet Union. A regime that has many a time been caught intentionally distorting its demographic data. That in and of itself is a big factor and to that end I find 4 million as opposed to 6 to be very reasonable based on nothing but population estimates.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The movie is a revenge fantasy. The point of the scene is to desecrate the virtues of the outgroup and humiliate them. Which is why the latter part of the scene includes a German soldier submitting immediately after the brave soldier is beaten to death.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's enough to recognize that there is a great discrepancy between pre-war population estimates and post-war ones. Asserting that because the discrepancy exists, you therefor know what happened is not rational.
Doubly so for the motive and method of the killer after eyewitness testimony that is relied on to evidence the occurrence has in some cases been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be baseless lies, and in others eyewitness testimony stands as completely unbelievable, as with masturbation machines, German soldiers throwing toddlers into the air for target practice or electric flooring.
I think something bad certainly happened to a lot of jews during this time, but the scale of which is not accurately reflected in mainstream holocaust history and it does not lend itself to much credibility so long as it relies on eyewitness testimony.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Inbetween German children playing, they have a crazed German soldier screaming Valhalla as he shoots into a bonfire filled with dead jews. This shit is surreal, not humanizing. It perverts the image of a normal German as being just a goosestep away from maniacal slaughter. The individual humanized German characters are the exception in every piece of media I remember consuming about the topic, not the norm.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Yes, I did read your claims.
Then why say that millions of people do not just disappear when they do? Whatever.
I believe in the Holocaust in the same way I believe we landed on the moon and that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit by planes.
I guess that's a difference between us then. I try to not hold strong opinions on things I don't know a lot about in general. If someone brings up an alternative hypothesis to something mainstream I'm not super animated that to the point of asserting that they are in fact a hateful person and then try to implicitly lump them in with low status people. That kind of a disposition would, in fact, indicate that I cared a lot despite admitting I don't know a lot. Which is stupid and arrogant.
Of course people pushing a conspiracy that requires ignoring all evidence except the very carefully curated bits they want to be considered always pull out that "you drank the Kool-aid" line.
Considering I just wrote an entire post describing why I consider 4 more plausible than 6, this is just asinine. So is the attempt at psychologizing me as a conspiracy theorist. Jewish eyewitnesses lying about gas chambers in Dachau is not a conspiracy.
Is my claim uncharitable and unfounded?
Yes, extremely so. You misrepresent my positions as well as asserting that I "hate" when I don't.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In my comment to Stefferi, which you have obviously read, I give a very specific example where, in fact, millions of people seemingly just untraceably disappeared. The death counts can swing in the millions in specific instances, and sometimes dozens of millions over the course of the entire war, because the data is very inaccurate. Recognizing this fact instead of asserting certainty is a far cry from not caring about historical accuracy.
This is a very obvious truth that is easy to recognize.
As I went over in my comment to Stefferi, The Germans, post war, recognized this and used the most reliable data available. They had two things: A limited number of certified dead, and a rough population based estimate. The rough estimate said 2.2 million. The certified dead said 500k. So 500k it is. This isn't seen as denial, this isn't seen as some psychological ailment fueled by ideology and hate. It's just the most accurate data available.
The historical Holocaust narrative has a problem. The most reliable data available isn't super reliable. It's often based on eyewitness testimony and a lot of the alleged incriminating physical evidence is alleged to have been destroyed, lost in time, or not properly captured. So annoying guys called 'holocaust deniers' start poking holes in specific elements of the story. Those discussions are technical and beyond the scope of most people. So the fallback is generally: Well, then "where did the jews go"?
Well, they went the way of the 1.5 million missing Germans who disappeared post-war. They went the way of many a man who never existed despite being counted as alive and well when a demographer decided to assume a certain population growth when calculating a population size based on an estimate carried out sometime before he was even born.
To make it simple, you are presupposing things to be that are not in any way proven. The only reason you do this is because you already believe in the Holocaust. You already drink the Cool-Aid. In any other neutral situation, like with the ethnic cleansing of Germans from the eastern regions post-war, this isn't a topic of contention for anyone.
My position isn't complex. You don't need to be ideologically motivated to recognize the reasoning behind it because it's not presented as an ideological position. You can assert that motives invalidate reason, and I would respectfully disagree.
As for the rest of your post, both you and DoW seem incapable of understanding the scope of my comment. If you want to argue about something other than the specifics of the claims regarding the Holocaust, why reply to my comment here? It pertained very specifically to people who believe in the historical holocaust narrative. That narrative does not just say that jews were genocided. It makes very specific claims about how many, when, why and how. And the people who believe the historical holocaust narrative do so with great confidence.
I'm not here to tell people what to think beyond the fact that 6 million is, as it stands, highly implausible. And that people have an unexamined and undue confidence in the mainstream historical holocaust narrative.
I think it serves those who are ideologically motivated to inflate the holocaust, for whatever reason, to poison the well of justified skepticism exactly like you are doing now. With uncharitable and unfounded assertions of hate and whatever else.
This feels a little like the Eric Turkheimer argument against HBD. Where the actual truth value of HBD doesn't really matter because of the potential consequences of belief in it could be negative. The peculiarity of that view is that it pays no heed to whatever problems the anti-HBD narrative causes for whites.
I kind of care that Germans are painted as remorseless monsters that murder for sport in mainstream Holocaust propaganda. I find it kind of gross to see a people dehumanized in such a way. When the 'Bear Jew' is depicted as smashing a German soldiers skull in, and his actions are seen as righteous and jovial, I kind of get sick in my stomach.
To what end do I owe the mainstream reassurance, and of what?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You appear to have just completely missed a good chunk of my original post
I didn't at all. You make factual assertions that have been the contention of many a holocaust debate in your reply. You act like you are above the details yet rely on them.
Me telling you that your outlook did not belong in the conversation didn't pertain to just the numbers. It pertains to all the pocket anecdotes and tit bits of history that people assume to be true before they make grand sweeping statements about things and why X and Y happened as if all the happenings of history can be reduced to the consequence of things that fit into a soundbite from the History Channel.
The problem with revising the Holocaust is that a lot of the evidence is contingent on other things. If those things didn't happen or happened in a different way or scale then the whole story changes.
No it isn't, the deliberate attempt to exterminate Jewish non-combatants on a mass scale is proof of a holocaust. You don't need to be at war to do that.
You are not just arguing for your pocket theory of the Holocaust and why it matters, you are arguing against mainstream theories like Functionalism in the process.
I don't pretend, there are plenty of people who believe they can benefit from trying to play the numbers up and they sound just as motivated to anyone that wasn't born yesterday. That said they also tend not to try and rely on the usual attritional approach of "spew bullshit, try to sound authorative and drown anyone who disagrees with leading questions until they get bored and leave", instead preferring "get very emotional and hope everyone stops thinking".
This describes your own post. I don't know what else you want me to say.
If the number is not 6 million but 4 million then the Holocaust narrative isn't correct and people would not be correct in believing in it. If you don't believe those kinds of details to be important then your perspective isn't very relevant to a discussion on the Holocaust. Especially not as I defined it in my post.
that narrative is that during the second world war the German government deliberately killed a lot of jews on the basis of their ethnicity.
This is broadening the scope of the topic to a point where any act of war is now proof of a holocaust. Germans deliberately killed Russians as part of the war. Russians deliberately killed Germans as part of the war. If this is your view of the narrative it is just irrelevant to the critiques being made against the historical holocaust narrative.
If your point is that Germans killed jews because they didn't like them, and that's the only important part of the story, then I have to say that you don't have much to stand on when it comes to the complaints Russians have. The Germans sure did kill a lot more of them.
This is supported by such a weight of evidence supporting this that it's accepted by pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives for trying to weaken said narrative.
Yes, people dying in WW2 is supported by a lot of evidence. Other than that your sentence is such a shitball I can't believe you wrote it. "pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives"? Really?
No one is claiming no jews died. No one is claiming Germans liked jews. But to what end Germans pursued the killing of jews, the actual scope of said killings and the deliberation behind it are all important parts of the historical narrative. Questioning those parts is valid and the truth stands on its own no matter what motives you feel are behind it.
On that point it would be something if all that rhetoric you spout could be turned back at you. Say, for instance, if a jew like Simon Wiesenthal admitted to deliberately lying about how many people died in the Holocaust to make the thing seem more believable to non-jews. I mean, would jews really do that? Just lie to support a narrative like the Holocaust? Would jews really lie about being put into gas chambers? I mean, being the center of victimary discourse in the west sure has its perks. So there's a motive. Can I just paint you as another Simon Wiesenthal or a Dachau jew who lied about gas chambers? After all, we all know that most reasonable people who investigate the evidence for the holocaust come away feeling very skeptical about it! ;)
Seems like your rhetoric fits rather snugly on the other foot. I would say that just as much as some have motive to question the narrative, others have a motive to uphold it. Recognizing that is one thing, but pretending only one side is doing it? Now there's some motivated reasoning.
There was a war in Europe. A lot of people died. The end.
If you want to presuppose that population estimates for the jewish diaspora in Europe were 100% accurate, and that post war you could accurately estimate exactly where those jews ended up after the war, you are very correct in deducing that those jews had to go somewhere if not counted somewhere. If you then want to conclude that every single jew not accounted for had to have been killed by Germans, go right ahead.
However, if you hold that in contrast with any other similar event in the history of the war, you would conclude that the above standard is insane. The best illustration of this being the post-war German population that was ethnically cleansed from the eastern regions. What are those estimates like? Give or take 2 million. No certainty, no assurances, no grand narrative that holds the truth hostage. Everyone just accepts that available data is extremely bad. No one pretends to know anything.
Now, because the Germans are not a sacred cow beyond reproach, they did a more thorough investigation and found the confirmed number of dead to be closer to 500k. Imagine that. An expulsion of 16 million people, 14 million can be roughly accounted for. Not by name or anything, just by looking at broad population numbers that Germany had. Instead of just blindly counting the missing 2 million as confirmed dead at the hands of evil slavs who hate Germans, they can just not know the answer of where the last 1.5 million went or if they ever were, since they are not bound by a theory of history that is illegal to question.
As a side note: People looking at the ethnic cleansing of Germans post war don't cite anti-German war propaganda from the Soviet Union as proof of hateful intent to lend credence to the notion that these 1.5 million were definitely killed by slavs. I mean, there is no lack of accounts of rape and murder done by Russian soldiers in the occupied areas. There's no lack of intent, as can be seen in speeches and other war propaganda. That's proof of something, right? At least enough to add another 500k, right?... See how insane this looks? Yet somehow the 'convergence of evidence' is, seemingly, the most popular go to excuse for why people here believe in the holocaust.
Do we really know how many Germans died? We don't. And no one loses any sleep over not having a grand theory of exactly what happened. There was a war in Europe. A lot of people died. The end.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The baseline assumption for belief, for people who don't know a lot about Holocaust history, is that there is a coherent narrative that makes sense, the historians have consistently agreed on, and the historical evidence has consistently supported.
The problems with this mode of thinking are multiple, but the relevant one here arises when people are asked to evaluate specific parts of the narrative. It becomes a self reinforcing circle. Looking something like: Given that X happened it seems very likely that Y also happened.
Take 3 big Holocaust events that definitely happened. 1, 2, 3. Take one Holocaust event that definitely didn't happen. 4. Say that events 2 and 4 are equally evidenced. Except in the case of 4 there was, by chance, completely exculpatory evidence discovered. Can you still take event 2 as undeniably true?
Both events were equally evidenced. Eyewitness testimony by the hundreds. Both camps were liberated mostly intact. Memoirs written of the horrifying events that unfolded when hundreds of people were crammed into a small chamber to be executed. Infant children trampled under the panicking mass of soon to be slaughtered jews as their mothers wailed in absolute horror. Clawing at the walls, begging for mercy... Except in one case we know for 100% fact that it was all lies conjured up by some guy. Literally just made it all up. Not just that, hundreds of eye witnesses testified jews were being gassed to American investigators. Every single one of them lying.
I have a problem with this. For me, 2 now seems a lot less likely to be true. If 4 was false, but is otherwise exactly the same, the entire catalog of evidence for 2 should now be under serious scrutiny. Eyewitness testimony is no longer enough. You need hard physical evidence because it has been discovered that the bar for evidence that has been set can be met with nothing but lies.
But for people who believe in the narrative, not evidence, they can't do that. 1 happened, 3 happened... What are the odds 2 didn't happen? All the historians agree. All the mainstream. Not even Alex Jones would deny the Holocaust... 2 obviously happened or the Holocaust historians wouldn't say it happened.
I don't know how to better express it. As soon as you find 2 to be within the scope of scrutiny due to the similarity to the standard of evidence used to prove 4, you are a denier. It's no longer 6 million, which it never was. It's no longer 5.2-5.8 million. It's now around 4 million. Congrats. You are a denier. Have fun reasoning with people who, through a reality defying congruence of evidence manage to piece together that every single data point relating to jews from 1900's onwards reinforces the fact that German Nazis killed 6 million of them for ideological reasons between 1939-1945.
It's honestly not worth the effort. You start seeing things. Becoming crazy. Arguing about nothing with people who never looked at any evidence in the first place. The notion never entered their mind. To them it's just a feeling. A self reinforcing circle of things that had to happen.
It should feel disheartening to see this sort of brazen nihilism when it comes to error and wrong thinking. But where else can these people go? Most of them have locked themselves away from anything relevant, like the SSC comment described.
I think this sort of nihilism should be recognized for the ultimate cowardice that it is. These things, heredity, psychometrics and all the rest aren't meaningless. They are incredibly meaningful. And these people wallowing in nihilism aren't powerless, they are in fact quite powerful. But when they've already decided they wont do anything because the truth rests outside the Overton Window, the nihilism is entirely predictable and entirely self serving.
The article and the person who writes it are hiding. Cowering. Running away. Psychology's loss is the field itself and everything it impacts. The lives of tens of thousands of people who kill themselves every year after useless morons who are following 'the research' fail to help them. Millions of lives directly made worse due to policy based on fraudulent research.
It's not just that the author of the article is responsible; every social network of people who really should know better but pretend they don't due to whatever personal reasons they have are directly causing this to happen every single time they reinforce the status quo.
To see these people, the sorry state of the field and for them to shrug their shoulders as if this all just fell from the sky... What assholes. Take some responsibility. The fight for sanity has been ongoing for decades. There was nothing stopping these creatures from joining the losing side of truth to try and turn the tide. But they didn't. Instead they actively fight against it and then wonder why people laugh at them at parties when they say they're a psychologist.
No, you are not even remotely close to being a Rennaissance fair actor. They are a lot less embarrassing than you.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think there is an emergent strategy bubbling with dissidents who are not neck deep in grifting.
Ryan Faulk of the Alternative Hypothesis mused a lot on how to influence people into believing 'race realism' or HBD. One of the key points he raised was that it seemed like distrust of the mainstream was a prerequisite for belief in HBD. The important part here is that the 'mainstream' doesn't necessarily refer to academia, but news media. As soon as people associate the mainstream press with horseshit, you, as a dissident, have more inroads with them.
It looks like more people are finding their way towards this mechanism. It wouldn't be the first time the more respectable and socialized 'dissidents' find their way to the path trodden by white nationalists. Now we can wait for the respectable dissidents to utilize this mechanism and ride it victoriously to crush all the fake mainstream narratives, gain popular support and save the West!... Or maybe not.
A key element that keeps people from going all the way is right wing media. Ultimately their cause is based on the same environmentalist priors that fuel the 'left'. And it's guarded just as religiously. Not only that, there is an added weight of getting scolded by ones own side when going too far outside the bounds of the mainstream. On top of that there is a self congratulatory perception that you are proving your side to be good to the outgroup when you toss your own into the fire for any racist heresy. A sort of sacrificial lamb that you hope will quench the hate directed your way.
In any case, the gate that holds truth at bay isn't locked by what right wingers in general perceive to be the outgroup. If that were the case there is no way it could remain locked. The key to the gate is held firmly by a trusted member of the ingroup. And it will stay that way.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You need to explain what you mean by "disarmament". I don't understand what you mean.
They should just get off without any charges?
That's the opposite of what I am saying. My point is that if your legal framework can't work itself around an obvious criminal then the problem might be with the legal framework.
I'm not advocating for lawless vigilantism or witch burning. I'm pointing out that one party engaging in power politics doesn't necessarily disqualify their legitimate complaints.
And I'm saying there are two parties engaging in power politics and that makes it a fair game for both. I don't understand what you want here. I am very sure Rubiales thinks he has legitimate complaints as well.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You also can't point to some mild opportunism and say it delegitimizes all other complaints. That leads to pure who-whom, which sucks.
That's not what is being done. You can be a SJW or an anti-corruption advocate or whatever thing it is in the culture war that animates you, just say that's what you are. Don't pretend to be one to pursue the other or some variation thereof.
Your protest is like asking why the USG went after Al Capone for tax evasion instead of his actual crimes. The answer is obvious and it doesn't make him innocent.
It's not but whatever. If we know the witch floats why bother throwing her in the water? Maybe, if you can't oust a corrupt president or prosecute a guilty criminal for his actual crimes, the issue is broader than those specific individuals and throwing them to the dogs won't do much to solve it. In either case I am not impressed by people who insinuate they are acting better than others when they are transparently not.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't think you realized how entrenched in corruption the various heads of FAs are and how widely they're despised by everyone.
Followed by
This is the perfect opportunity because his misdeeds are dragged into the limelight; nobody cares about Rubiales siphoning off millions for sex orgies or cocaine
It can't be both. Either everyone knows and cares enough to despise them, or they don't.
I can tell you don't follow football at all
Your comment sucks.
I know, from playing and watching plenty of football, that most people who watch don't care at all about corruption. They 'know' about it, sure, but they are not activists in any sense. Events like the Calciopoli corruption scandal in 2004 don't mean anything. People still show up to watch the next game and cheer for their side because it's a hobby. Every event is just more entertainment. And what else can you expect? Football is not a democratic thing.
You just don't have an argument. Which is why you need to leverage your culture warring with the appearance of being in the know, when all you are doing is projecting your own opinion into the world and trying to mold it around it.
But maybe that view of mine is wrong. To help me understand your position here: Do you not care about womens rights at all? Is this all just a shadow campaign to fight corruption?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I do that too but I don't use quotations, I either use italics or 'apostrophes'. It's not that I don't understand this practice, it's that I can't engage with a person without making it clear that what they are quoting isn't actually a quote.
It's doubly important when the person is using the quotation as a springboard to make an argument when that argument isn't relevant to anything I've actually said. But it sure does look that way when they are using quotes to start off their spiel.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If these are not my supposed to be quotes from me then I am at a loss as to what the relevance of the paragraphs is.
Doubling down on your annoying argument won't make it any stronger. How would Google Trends look if he had made a public apology? Don't know. All I can tell is that the media gave Rubiales another cycle and made it a big news story. People heard the news and googled Rubiales.
On that front what Rubiales did might make a bigger media splash than doing one of those pathetic apologies that never help the one who makes them. But how that is making things "worse" is still a mystery. People got more angry and that's bad because people being angry is bad? OK, but from the perspective of Rubiales who wants to keep his job, I don't think he made things worse for himself. That is unless you are assuming that people would just accept the apology. Which, in light of how much he was apparently disliked, I'm doubtful of. And considering how poorly apologizing has worked when the SJW mob comes knocking, I'm even more doubtful.
This isn't the result of an "SJW mob" out to fire him
Yes it is. None of the arguments you give following your statement in any way impact the truth value of it so I'm just not going to bother with more.
Why is he being applauded?? Actually why? This guy just brought an absolutely massive embarrassment on the entire organization singlehandedly, even if it was totally innocent, so how on earth is he somehow a hero?
How can he be an embarrassment if he is being applauded? Maybe SJW's think he is embarrassing, but their worldview is rather distorted as compared to some dude listening to the news. I know from listening to my colleagues that the more they hear about his antics and the more he sticks to his guns, the more they like him.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm not advocating for disarmament or lamenting the actions of Rubiales or the people who want him gone. I am lamenting the posturing of people here who are acting like they are just on the side of reason and common sense as opposed to the people 'waging a culture war' when in reality they are just waging a culture war from a different angle.
You can't call out the actions of Rubiales as being nefarious or less sympathetic, like was done by OP, because he is transparently playing out some power game when you then admit that the whole thing is a power play to begin with designed to get the guy fired.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This post and OP annoy me since they accuse others of looking for a culture war angle when they are doing the same thing.
I mean, I don't actually care about the Spanish womens national team. Like, at all. Never spared them a thought or wondered if their bureaucracy is efficient. It might as well not exist. But I am sure that if it were a mens team being retarded by some women in positions of power that I could muster up some ingroup bias to care. At least enough to add it as another mark against an outgroup. Hell, my carefree disposition of indifference towards this is all a product of my biases.
Point here being that I'm not here pretending that I'm not on a side even if this thing isn't emotionally animating. And I think it would do a lot of 'rational' minded people a lot of good to recognize how their indifference is not indifference at all.
If Rubiales was incompetent he should be removed on those grounds. But that's not what's going on. Instead the public incident is being used as a weapon to oust him. On that front, how can you say, from a culture war neutral perspective, that Rubiales isn't just playing an optimal power game? If his detractors wanted him gone, why not go after the actual substantive stuff? Instead they hand him this publicity stunt to play around with. Now they can't remove him without perceptions being that it's because of a kiss.
I never called him a "victim" so I don't know who you are quoting. I would appreciate if you didn't construct your paragraphs around 'quotes' that I didn't write.
Regardless of that, reciting the timeline accurately does nothing to change the fact that your original point is not in any way affected by it since the conclusion you reach is close to antithetical to it. So how it is important is still a mystery. Unless, of course, my original assumption was just accurate. In which case I would like to ask you to be more plain with what you are advocating for, rather than trying to hide it under the guise that it's something other than SJW activism.
nor is actually in danger of losing his job, until he decides that angry confrontation is the way to go.
This is a really annoying argument. We only have the timeline of events as they transpired. That timeline is not proof that if he had done something differently that things would have gone better for him. Citing it as if it were is, again, annoying. There are plenty of examples of people who gave a heartfelt sincere apology to the beast and where then immediately eaten.
As far as I can tell Rubiales is just as emotionally intelligent and socially savvy as the people who want to get him. He is also just as hungry for power and cognizant of appearances. On that front he seems to be playing the game as well as you can. Asking such a person for a sincere apology is about as smart as expecting the SJW mob to forgive him.
After all, if he were really sorry, he would resign, right? ;)
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I appreciate the writeup, but I can't help thinking you are just 'reading the phonebook' and not supporting your point. You go from:
Another commenter below posted a take decrying it as a case of classic excessive modern SJW-type media cancel culture crusades gone too far. This is not just a wrong take, it's a flagrantly wrong take and a significant misunderstanding of the "read between the lines" of everyone's statements.
To:
Ladies and gentlemen, this statement demonstrates almost exactly what feminists have been saying for years.
It seems your actual argument is not that SJW's have gone too far, but that they clearly have not gone far enough.
To that end I don't think you are playing a game all that different to the likes of Rubiales. As feminists in general have managed to poison their own position and ideology quite heavily. I can only have so much sympathy for people decrying men and their 'old boys clubs' when their alternative is just the inverse of that and worse.
Recognizing the beast he is dealing with, Rubiales could choose to fight or get eaten. He chose to fight. Telling everyone how good he would taste doesn't change anything.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The constant news reports of the event in my local news media make the whole thing seem more comedic than serious. The reporting is definitely not supposed to make light of the 'heinous' event that took place. Yet with every new detail and development the story just gets more absurd and childish so one can't really help it.
I think most people intuitively recognize the absurdity of it. How male vs female ingroup bias is pushing each side further along a childish rollercoaster. But it's also very easy to just hop on, represent your side and have some fun.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Tourists coming into the space was always a thing. They would either get curious and lurk after getting told off or they would leave. That doesn't explain why old communities were culturally replaced.
It's not the normie who has the power to 'weigh' in on anything. Mod cliques do what they want to do. They enforced their rules from the top down. And it's not even that they catered to normies. They just enforced lib/progressive/leftist ideological orthodoxy because that's what the lolcows like in real life. The ultimate ideology that says you can't laugh at them anymore.
Take any regular reddit post that gets locked because too many users are noticing something about black people. You get the typical condescending reddit mod "I guess we just can't play nice today" or whatever. Normies just put up with it because they are normies, they have a real life to live and care about, after all. The mods see themselves as curators of comments that the normies can be allowed to see.
/v/ was a great example of how extremely top down things are. Moot bans discussion on GamerGate because of his real life social circle. This was so contrary to the wants of the userbase that it spawned an entire splinter site.
Same thing, to a lesser extent, with reddit and voat.
I think it would be much fairer to say normies don't actually have opinions. They just read them. In a war of internet minorities, no-lifers lost to the lolcows.
I have read books (yes, actual full-length books) about it. I have watched documentaries and interviews. I've lived under jewish cultural norms and experienced personally how they influence discourse and national politics where I live. I've also read reports where jewish eyewitnesses directly lied about jews being murdered in a concentration camp.
The fact you said you believed in it the same way you belief in the JFK assassination, the moon landings and 9/11. I concluded you didn't know much about any of these events but just generally believed in them with ambivalence towards details and alternative narratives. I thought that because that's how I feel about those events. And the fact your disagreement with me included little but thinly veiled insults.
I called you animated because you were asserting ridiculous things about me and lumping me in with low status groups rather than just engaging with what I actually wrote. Yes, when you do that and assert someone is 'hateful' you are clearly super animated by something.
To answer this and the question you ask at the end: I often get animated about jews when I see they are exerting influence in a way that harms me and those I care about. I feel animus towards those jews in specific and the people that support those jews and help uphold societal norms that allow them to exert influence in such a way.
I don't have a 'feeling' towards jews. They represent themselves as an outgroup against me and I feel like I am defending myself. I really do wish they would just leave me alone and stop trying to socially engineer every society to better suit their needs at the expense of others.
The most clear and illustrative example of this would be Boasian Anthropology.
Calling someone hateful whilst trying to lump them in with low status groups and calling them conspiracy theorists is antagonistic. Please follow the rules. I've not said anything that would equally impugn your motives beyond what your opening post said about 'deniers'.
I agree. But the way you disagreed was only possible because you already believed in the Holocaust. Which was one of the problems I mentioned in my first post. That's why I said you had drunk the Kool-Aid. On top of that, you did not engage with the argument I made, you just tried to associate holocaust critique with conspiracy theories.
More options
Context Copy link