hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I wasn't talking about where flat earthers get their beliefs from, but everyone.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm hard pressed to call 45% to the 44% of Bush Jr "serious headway".
The reason demographics is the only story here is that the group voting 45% for Trump is growing. Whilst the group voting 60% for Trump is shrinking. And despite allegedly "fleeing actual socialism" the majority of them has consistently voted for the closest approximation of it in American politics.
On top of that, the things drawing people towards the Democrat party are far more tangible than the Republican. Most notably money in your pocket and food in your belly. As can be seen in California where 55% of immigrant households accept some form of welfare benefits. This group, as a total % of the population, is growing. Whilst the "native" group with 25% accepting welfare is shrinking.
The main point that underscores all of this is that the demographics are pushing the country towards third world norms. If people care a lot about whatever third world hole they live in being controlled by people labeling themselves "Republican" instead of "Democrat" I can't fault them. But I point out, usually in complete futility, that once you've reached that point, it doesn't matter. You get to have Brazil level living standards and if you want something else it doesn't matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This characterization assumes there is a group called 'Democrats' who 'do things' in some top down fashion that can include, among other things, directly manipulating votes. This group sees itself as a representation of all 'Democrats' and then takes into account whether or not doing something would be 'too risky' for them as a group.
To me this characterization makes no sense, and as it asserts a very conspiratorial mechanism for how things have to happen. In the real world it's real people who do things. They don't need to be controlled from the top down to do things that they think benefit their group. Even if there is a conspiracy to do something illegal it would very rarely be rubber stamped by some 'higher up'. Personafying events in the way you do feels very fallacious.
I have similar feelings every time someone misrepresents any assertions about group based behavior in a manner such as this. Not everything needs to be ordained from a higher power. People can just believe things and then do things based on that of their own volition. Their ideas can even be bad!
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you are misrepresenting where people get their beliefs from. Most people don't look at any evidence for or against in some rational vacuum. We're just told what is and what isn't. Most of the time in a setting where we are completely incapable to question what's being said. This is true for the roundness of the earth and the 'leftist' theory of evolution. To compare and contrast two narratives that are believed in the same way on a basis that's irrelevant to why they were believed in the first place is missing the point of the comparison.
I think that's a big part of why flat earth guys can exist in the first place. Most people have no idea why they believe the earth is round and are completely incapable of defending their belief without appealing to a higher power. Same for the 'leftist' theory of evolution.
Outside of that, I'd argue that population differences are much more immediately obvious, like I said in my comment. It's very hard to get a good first hand look at the roundness of the earth or experience the curvature in action. But it's very easy to notice different phenotypic differences between population groups.
Fact of the matter is that population differences are just as real as the roundness of the earth. There is no wiggle room or 'softness' to this fact.
and to the degree that flat-eartherism exists today outside of a "birds aren't real"-esque joke it seems most prevalent amongst PMC types who, interacting with the world chiefly through screens, seem to have difficulty thinking in three dimensions.
This runs contrary to my experience, though brief, running through flat earth circles and debates. I found the most common character type to be working class dudes used to relying on their own senses and to a lesser extent belligerent basement dwellers. I'd find it very interesting if PMC types were going in on flat earth.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The problem with this is that there is a very clear record of condemning people for their thought crimes on this exact basis.
You can't kick a non-white person and call them a slur without making the attack racially motivated.
You can't create a right wing political movement whilst owning ethno-based political material without being labeled a neo nazi terrorist organization.
By the very same token, you can't stab children in the face whilst owning an Al Qaeda training manual without being labeled a muslim terrorist.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think these people have been in the spotlight for so long, mouthing other peoples opinions or regurgitating talking points, that when they are finally allowed to be themselves they don't know where and when to stop. They already stepped over the line to follow their convictions. That line was much clearer and held more immediate consequences than belief in flat earth Satan bigfoot or whatever.
If everyone gave an earnest list of views they hold or are curious about or share any sort of odd thing that gave them an emotion that they felt was worth exploring the umpteenth time they have to fill 30 minutes of dead air I think there is not a single interesting person left that doesn't hold to some odd belief. Hell, most people are so uninteresting that they would never get to a point of being a political talking head in the first place.
On the flipside, the lunacy people believe on 'the left' is no different. As an example: most people believe in a theory of human evolution that's much dumber, consequential and more immediately and obviously wrong than flat earth.
But more directly to Tucker, it feels like he's throwing away a sort of sacred status he built for himself. He could always present himself as kind of untouchable. From a persona perspective it's like he decided to give himself a weakspot. Feels like an odd thing to do for a man like him but, barring it being a conspiracy by TPTB to weaken a persona that's becoming too powerful, it's just a whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You would have expected "white supremacists" to pounce on this immediately, but they didn't... So why are you talking about them?
Aside from that, what can you expect to find? Some hidden genetic evidence that shows that, actually, white people are stupid, ugly and short? It seems rather obvious the only evidence you can find will support the fact we can all observe every day of our lives: Compared to any other race on the planet, White people are the opposite of that.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The point of a Hitler comparison is that Hitler is Satan. Satan is obviously bad to everyone who shares the western religion so the negative association is not to anything specific, it's just definitionally evil to be like Satan. Saying someone is like Napoleon or Caesar is not the same, since those two are not the antagonists of the ruling religion.
If you want to make an earnest comparison between Trump and Hitler I'd stop you are the part where Trump is Trump and Hitler is Hitler. If you feel the need to invoke mythology and shared religious gestalt to get your observations across I'm not super interested, but would prefer 40K lore as the medium.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This rigamarole has gone on forever. Repeat from 2016 onwards:
Anti-Trump: "He's like the nazis! Who were bad!"
Pro-Trump: "He's not like the nazis! Who were bad!"
High minded, mentally elevated and euphoric: "He's like the nazis, who were good."
Hitler was good at public speaking, holding rallies and a lot of other stuff. Being as good as Hitler, to the point of it warranting comparison, is a compliment. Having a 'Hitler' that wants to deport the immigrants, secure the borders, kill the drug dealers, clean the streets of crime and in any other way protect the rights and privileges white coding people care about, and uphold their preferred political order, is good!
The problem here is that people are so religiously captivated by the mythology of Hitler that they can't get over it when the comparison is made. Hitler occupies the 'devil' portion of the western brain. You can't be like the devil and not evil in some way or another. That's just definitionally true. Like being more like Jesus or MLK makes you definitionally good.
Since most people are unable to recognize their true religion, for whatever reason, we get pro-Trumpsters contorting themselves around meaningless concepts and baseless associations in order to defend their chosen one. 'Fascism' 'Hate' 'Holocaust' 'Hitler' '1939'. None of it matters, none of it tracks. It's meaningless nonsense. You'd have a better time deconstructing someone calling Trump a doodoo head.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You're being antagonistic and argumentative to the point that you don't even understand what is being written. My guess is you saw the word 'transphobia' and your head went spinning.
One thing missing here is an actual argument for doing things your way.
What is "my way"? I don't particularly like the changes to western society, but I can observe that they have been and are happening. I can therefor also recognize that pretending that some 'sacred' bubble called 'the Olympics' can exist unaffected is dumb. Especially when most of the people who want the bubble to remain also cheer for the change in society.
Not sure who you think you're owning with this one.
The people who cooked shit in a pot and now don't want to eat it.
This is, in my mind, one of the great unsung tragedies of the rise of the trans movement.
'Real women' being hurt by the trans movement is not an unsung tragedy. It's the fife and drums of transphobia everywhere. Especially when it's coming from women.
Sports in general and the Olympics in particular have always had a large gray area when it comes to innate physical differences between competitors. Doesn't matter if its male/female or, thick or thin, tall or short. Instead of going into these differences in more detail the Olympics decide to live in muddy waters, which allows for incidents such as these.
In a broader context I find it hard to sympathize with anyone even remotely attaching themselves to this nonsense. People want things to 'stay the same' and not change whilst society around them is in the process of ditching whatever quaint conservatism they still hold on to. Whatever purity or sanctity is imagined to live within the Olympics is long gone or in the process of being removed. I mean, who knew the Swedes had such a knack for the long jump?
To an extent I agree with you. If seeing women getting hurt activates some almonds and folks want the display to stop, that's fine. But to pretend this is about sports or the sanctity of categories or whatever is just inane at this point.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Wealthy leftists are an easy scapegoat. In reality all they are doing is the same thing everyone else is doing. Existing within the Overton Window and not pushing the boundaries beyond their own comfort zones.
You can see the same effect in play whenever the police accidentally a black person. Or when someone brings up black/white sentencing disparities. People who would otherwise be in favor of harsh punishments for crimes and a stricter and stronger police force immediately fold. The institutions that desperately need support are abandoned in favor of short term emotional stimuli. Being on the 'right side' of discourse. Not falling into an 'extreme'. Not wanting to burden themselves with any of the cost of the harsh policies they otherwise say they support. Because people really do not want to live with the consequences of their ideology. Leftist or otherwise.
In turn we get George Floyd riots and Disparate Impact legal theory. Unsafe streets and people OD'ing on the sidewalk. An increase in physical suffering and pain. More neglected and dead children. This could have been prevented but people choose comfort and short term happiness over harsh reality. This is history repeating itself and a few chickens coming home to roost. This is not because of white leftists. And there are very few people here that don't themselves deserve whatever it is they wish on the white leftists.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Fair chance that was her husbands doing. I remember a similar anecdote from the 2016 campaign where Bill, allegedly, admonished Hillary's lack of attention to the rust belt. The anecdote was given to exemplify the reigning political strategy for the Dems at the time. That being the 'Coalition of the Ascendant'.
To be fair to Hillary, her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to decide whether or not to allow same sex marriage. Whilst Hillary used gay men getting married in her commercials. So it might not have been that crazy of an assumption to make to say that 'times have changed'.
There is a double edge to the nihilistic view on race that whites are allowed to have. That being as soon as someone flips the narrative on its head, you are greeted with all the same nihilistic arguments facing any other ethnic group. Best exemplified in the 90's era rhetoric of 'everyone is racist'. It deflates the whole victimary discourse and drives it towards whatever pit of nihilism awaits it. Further than that, if you set up teams, it's only a matter of time before someone starts to genuinely root for theirs, even if it's the designated bad team.
People against European-white ethnocentrism, like Jordan Peterson, saw this coming a mile away and have spoken about the dangers of invoking any sort of ethnic identity for European-whites. Instead preaching the universalist individualism stuff.
There are multiple reasons for doing this if you are against positive white identity in general. The most obvious being that if you ever lose the reigns on that particular horse you might not get it back. Even if it's all supposed to be negative, you might end up with an institutional structure where the power ladder you have to climb drives you towards ethnocentric action in favor of whites. It might seem impossible today, but give it a generation or two and you have no idea what priors the youngest generation has.
On top of that, having white people not think about themselves in collective terms is simply better. You can just tell whites to not commit to any rational group action and they wont. They will seemingly buy into any individualist ethos regardless of how obviously stupid and suicidal it is. Just wrap it up in some novelty and have it appeal to their vanity and off they go. There is no risk there. Comparatively, even with a negative identity, there is always risk that some pathological nerve gets struck one too many times which, as mentioned prior, can easily spread. I'm worthless? We are all worthless. You are worthless.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's the first anime profile picture I've seen attached to a research paper.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I mean, it doesn't really. Rich people playing golf is a meme. He has all that time to get good at golf because he's not doing real work. He just passed a wealth threshold where his money works for him now.
It's not hard for a lefty to spin this as just another manifestation of Trump being a bad guy.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I feel like Donald Trump being good at golf is like Hitler being an animal lover. "See! He wasn't all bad..."
As for that, I don't think it matters a whole lot. The general blue-ish public is likely not going to stumble upon political content about Trump that's not negative. Media polarization and algorithmic bubbles do a powerful job. If you like Trump you can like him more. If you dislike Trump you can dislike him more.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
There is a lot of untapped frustration after the Floyd riots. Just like there was with endless sob stories about immigration and refugees. People just need someone mainstream to channel their emotions.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You and I are talking (typing) at cross-purposes. And for my part I'm not "accusing" you of anything, except possible pointless hostility.
You wrote: "I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons." Insinuating I believe or said something to the tune that glossing over violations of public trust is preferable or in some way good. I did not say anything of the sort. I would in fact argue that it's near impossible for the public to determine whether something was a violation or not in a media landscape as toxic as the one we have.
How do you want me to reply to such behavior on your part? You do this again here:
I agree that releasing this footage was shittily political.
I never said anything about releasing the footage or not. Like, what are you doing?
But enough of that. You replied to a comment of mine that was very expressly about the political angle of this. You take a personal stance. My point would be that your personal stance is counterproductive to your stated support of the police. Your personal feelings towards a specific incident are irrelevant. The broader context is shaped by a political media machine that is propping up specific cases at specific times for their own gain.
If you don't realize that political reality I don't know what to tell you. Why bother stating your political stance of generally favoring the police if you don't care enough to stand against a force that very recently dealt some very serious blows to policing in the US off the back of exactly this type of situation?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You are defending the foundations and principles when you stand against politically motivated mass media attempts at smearing and weakening the institution. You do the opposite when you don't. Officers will make mistakes. You don't crucify those who make them in media.
If the institution itself is deteriorated and bad, you need to cast a light on that, but the fake news narrative of racist police and black victims is a lie, so this event is very clearly not it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Most people would prefer the police shooting someone than being scalded, yes. I don't know how or if that fits your 'constitutional' priors.
Policing is whatever it has become. Its sanctity lies in its foundations and principles, not individual events.
Policing in the US has degenerated a lot to face third world challenges. Sometimes old ladies get shot. The police are still sacred, though, for all the old ladies that don't get shot. Or so goes the tale of why we need police in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
When the alternatives are race riots and 'prison reform' I have a hard time sympathizing with the "high road". Whatever that even is, aside from tut tut's.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons.
No one said this should be done. No one said this should be 'condoned', no one said anything about what you advocate.
By the same token I can accuse you of a similar thing. Hyperbolizing an event like this in an effort to throw a bunch of gasoline on an ACAB fire and then say you back the boys in blue. Which seems counter intuitive to me, but you do you.
You can stand by officers in cases like these by letting due process run its course, or by recognizing these cases as statistical outliers, or by recognizing that policing a third world population with a first world police force simply doesn't work. Not by swirling around in a media fueled frenzy. If your takeaway from any of the previous media fueled ACAB frenzies was that policing got improved or things got better in some way I'm not sure what planet you are coming from.
So nothing can happen anywhere with regards to voter fraud favoring democrats without it being under the control of this group called 'Democrats'?
I'm trying to highlight the contention I made. Which was that the assumption that there has to be a higher power making measured and deliberate decisions in order to facilitate voter fraud is fallacious.
More options
Context Copy link