BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 47d 19h 41m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
So big, in fact, that it would enrage Trump voters who are, as far as I can tell, still a sizeable portion of the Republican voting block. Like, what's the gameplan here? Get your voters to hate your party?
The narrative of the Republican party having 'never Trumpers' in it was a great thing for the party itself, since it kept Trump supporters from hating the party directly. But this? I'm not seeing it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Never Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo
I'd think the game plays out in a similar way as it did last time. Republicans denounce and disavow. Trump calls their wives ugly. Republicans then, a week later, pledge support for Donald Trump when they realize which way the wind is blowing.
I'd think the only hope for the establishment and DeSantis is the fact that Trump is old and he's spent a lot of his powder. In that sense Biden may manage to serve as a tactical landmine. You can't make fun of a geriatric dude for 4 years to then support another one without some part of your brain noticing. But ehh, maybe.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Zionist is exactly the word I was looking. How else would you describe people so desperately in favor of Israel?
Anyway, giving white people no options other than self-loathing and extremism is going to lead to extremists.
People have always been given the option of believing and doing exactly what they are told. And they wont do shit no matter how bad things get. Because they are told this is normal and they believe it, just like their idiot parents did back when a new normal was being established for their generation.
To that end the pool of 'extremists' has stayed the same.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I fail to see how. These same tactics won them their spot as the mainstream to begin with when they ousted everyone not sufficiently zionist out of mainstream publications like the National Review.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm not fond of language like 'hatred' but by the same token I don't live near poor black people. But even then, groups like Volksfront, a former neo-nazi street gang from the US, that was born out of the ethnic strife between poor whites and poor blacks, did not describe themselves as hateful. But by the same token they probably did do 'hateful things' against black people that they perceived as having wronged them.
What I'm trying to get at is this: I can easily recognize visceral hatred in most self described anti-racist people when the topic of rent comes up where I'm from. But why is rent so high? The market is extremely crowded. Why is it crowded? Well... We imported a bunch of foreigners.
You 'hate' high rent, but you don't hate the people who caused it. That's kind of a dilemma of ones own making. If you forbid yourself from 'hating' the cause of your ills then you will simply have to suffer. That sort of self inflicted suffering might be noble and make you a good person according to some anti-racist humanist 'ingroup everyone' ethos. But it is on some level self destructive and stupid. And I think that finger wagging at the people who notice that is a very easy, but very short sighted thing to do.
I'm not saying 'hating' is a good thing. I can certainly see excessive ingroup and outgroup bias make people act stupid. But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that it might be a necessary precursor for self preservation. I mean, my entire life I have seen nothing but openness and kindness towards the foreigner, and at the same time what I would call genuine living standards have gone down because of it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
No. You are still misunderstanding what's going on.
Like I stated in my first post, The Huffington Post and the like had already functionally 'cancelled' Hanania before they ever published anything about him. They did not publish anything from him, they did not report anything positive about him, they would not associate with him or his associates. At best they would slander him. So who can still effectively cancel Hanania after this 'dox' thing drops?
If he is not getting banned from twitter then Elon is not cancelling him. He was already considered a hostile element by the likes of The Huffington Post. So they can't cancel him more than what they had already done. So who can cancel Hanania? People who would or could potentially have worked with him!
Bari Weiss is tagged in the twitter thread because she can effectively gatekeep Hanania from the only gate he could potentially walk through to get more mainstream. That gate being the likes of The Daily Wire, Joe Rogan and any other smaller connected mainstream center/right wing media. If that gate is locked, Hanania can go nowhere and can't easily grow beyond the dissident right containment zone. That's the point of this 'dox' thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you are misunderstanding the dynamics at play. The Huffington Post is not cancelling Hanania, mainstream right wingers are. Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss have certain things they care about a lot more than the inane shibboleths of 'left vs right'. In fact these kinds of gatekeepers for mainstream right politics make no effort to hide their distaste for any outsider who potentially recognizes and therefor threatens their perceived ingroup.
And who can blame them?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The big enemy is a North Korean piñata. If you hit it enough times with a stick a bunch of justifications for the war on terror fall out.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It sure did?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It all depends on the framing. Like I said, you can derive some problematic conclusions from recognizing general intelligence, but what if you just don't ever recognize those? To quote Eric Turkheimer:
Why don’t we accept racial stereotypes as reasonable hypotheses, okay to consider until they have been scientifically proven false? They are offensive precisely because they violate our intuition about the balance between innateness and self-determination of the moral and cultural qualities of human beings. No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.
A universal truth like 'we are all getting dumber' is not ugly. Though it's not far from it depending on how you look at it.
On the other hand I don't disagree that lib/left/progressives tie themselves to a whole host of nonsense and woo to get closer to universal truths they find beautiful. Like, as you point out, Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. And that they flatly deny IQ research and otherwise slander IQ researchers as being dogmatic racists. But you won't find these same people balking away from the idea of complimenting someone on how smart they are.
Telling someone they are smart is beautiful, telling someone they are dumb is ugly. Just live in the emotional moment and float from one to another and don't think about any uncomfortable conclusions you could possibly derive from anything. Cognitive dissonance is hard, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Maybe? https://youtube.com/watch?v=_4l5J4V733E
The ending seems pretty clear to me: 'Sure, the US has blundered a fair bit. But there are real baddies out there and if the US won't do what needs to be done no one will.'
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think the fine folks over at the Huffington Post had a pretty clear goal in mind. Fortify the media landscape and the Overton Window. Make noise about Hanania and then attempt to squeeze him out behind the scenes through people like Bari Weiss and Ben Shapiro before he is given any traction by them.
As far as I can remember there was a similar gambit against Stephan Molyneux after Dave Rubin decided on having a conversation with him. To that end I'd put my tinfoil hat on and say that the mainstream elements had already decided that this was something that needed to be done prior to the 'dox' thing of Hanania being published.
I think the idea of a 'cancellation' is kind of retarded without properly addressing who is functionally doing the cancelling. Yes, lib/left/progressives hate guys like Hanania. They have already 'cancelled him' by never associating with him and doing everything they can to make him fail. Like, this was always the case. So who is actually cancelling Hanania now and from what? If it's not Musk banning him off twitter, what is actually going on?
Well, it seems simple, now Hanania will never ever be on Joe Rogan or any show that exists in a mainstream sphere of center/right discourse. I.e. the Daily Wire and any affiliates. If you want in with the mainstream right wing grift you can't freely associate with Hanania anymore.
Or maybe that was always the case and now it's just official.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The fundamental premise in Idiocracy is not going against the grain of lib/left/progressives directly since it doesn't note race or group differences. It's the typical sort of 'dirtbag left bernie bro' nihilism: 'The world is getting dumber bro'. You're just expected to not think about it too hard or derive any logical conclusions from it. But I agree that if you do that, you do end up with some problematic conclusions.
As for Team America, if I remember correctly the message of the movie was the typical centrist libertarianism from Matt and Trey. Where they don't have much to say other than pointing out the political dialectic in the US and celebrating it. As in, there are good jews on both sides. So lets laugh together as we destroy a common enemy in the middle east.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's sort of a different topic. You're not really respecting their identity by being transphobic about it and maintaining that it's something to be cured, regardless of anything else.
But on that point, marginalizing the already marginalized doesn't, in my view, solve anything. All it does is reinforce the victimary discourse those groups rely on. Sure, it might change the discourse if transphobia wasn't banned to the extent it is now, but how much? For reference, no matter how much fun comedians in the 80's and 90's made of feminists they all have to toe the line today. Society has genuinely changed towards feminist ideals.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You're right.
My usual spiel relates to rapes, violent assault and murder, all of which are dramatically exasperated by race tensions and desegregation. But I forgot to mention the two latter ones.
On that front the issue of violence in prisons in general is separate to the additional violence added on top of that due to nothing other than desegregation. The amount of violence added due to that policy dwarfs anything trannies could do in a womens prison. So the meat of the argument is the comparison between those two policies.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I agree it's a good test, but if we are not extrapolating our thinking to the relevant larger things in this context, then what we can discuss becomes limited. I like the people I like and I dislike the people I dislike. There's not much there.
If someone I like has an identity, 'fake' or 'real', in whatever sense, I'm not all that fussed about it. If I like them and it's real to them then it's real to me no problem. Because I like them. If it's fake to the outgroup I don't care. So long as they are not harming the ingroup I'd want anyone I like to have everything they need. Especially if the perception is that what they need is coming from the outgroup in some way. (I mean, tl;dr: I tolerate my ingroup, not the outgroup.)
You made Madden an example because they are so very easily outgroupable. No one wants to own the criminally insane outside of extreme circumstance. But if Madden can be used to harm the prospects of the ingroup in some way then that will get called out. Which is the immediate perceptions trannies have whenever this kind of thing gets brought up. And I'd argue their perceptions are entirely correct.
If this topic is only about our personal likes, then we all dislike Madden and there is nothing more to be said. If this is not about our personal taste then it's about respecting people and their identities and how far one could or should go. The only reason this is a topic in modern discourse is because of trannies. This subject, if anything is to be discussed, can only be understood through the lens of trans-rights. And to that end the matter has already been settled.
Trannies will get ingrouped, they will be placed in womens prisons or an extremely expensive alternative. Some women will be raped as a consequence and that's fine. We already accept mass rape as an acceptable price for others to pay for our modern moral sensibilities. The potential fallout and harm that might be caused by a few women being raped in jail is chicken shit compared to what's already been done and celebrated in the name of ending segregation.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The counter argument here is rather simple. Edge cases don't need to be the basis for how we construct our society.
Yeah, it's hard to even imagine a more fitting example for the case against 'respecting someones identity' than what you just gave. But if we contrast that with the case of a harmless shut in depressed teenager who has tied their ego to their identity... What's the argument? Are walking contradictions like Madden's more or less common than the teenager? Obviously the teenager is more common and drastically so.
It's not a bridge too far to say that we can respect people on the basis they wish to be respected. We do that all the time. Baked into your example is a whole bunch of protected identities. Jew. Woman. Gay. How far should we go to respect those? And what is the view people generally have towards those identities, and why? Well, the punishment for not respecting these identities is jail time. On the flipside there are special events to celebrate them and belonging to them can offer a variety of special privileges. I mean, women who torture and kill children get a comfy womens prison to go to. Men who can't pay child support get locked in a cell with an AIDS riddled rapist.
If you don't like trannies just say that. Because respecting someones identity goes all the way and no one disagrees with the notion that their ingroup should be respected and protected. If you want to engineer a social norm that says trannies are not kosher, then talk about that. But currently the powers that be are working overtime making trannies into a protected identity just like jews, women and gays are. One schizophrenic jew is not going to stop them. We've paved over far worse to get to where we are today.
It would be a fitting end for that line of thought to see Hanania completely ostracized. Left with nothing but a substack and a horde of disgruntled wignats in his comment section.
Wignat politics being a dead end always rings hollow when the ones who turn up their nose and sneer at it end up contorting themselves to speaking in riddles and code to not offend their overlords. Which is a complete conspiracy theory by the way. There are no overlords of course, Hanania just can't be allowed to speak his mind and has to hide his name or weave his truths with mainstream politics for the same reason the sun rises and sets every day. It's just the way of the world, right?
The zionist takeover of the conservative party happened decades ago. Men much better than Hanania were tossed out for saying much less than he did. He made his bed in the containment zone created for and by those men. His antics do nothing but rustle and agitate those already in that sphere. All this talk about him as if he matter at all is, from that standpoint, just inane. He would at best be the brightest snowflake in a dissident right snow globe, but he's not even that.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I am using the term 'best' in the same sense you used it in your previous post where you said their best bet for romantic success was 'virtuous masculinity'
This is genuinely starting to feel like an exercise in futility. The point I'm making isn't hard to understand. It feels more like you are trolling or deliberately being obtuse so you don't have to engage with the topic.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I explained what I mean by 'loser' here :
Because, as I maintained in my reply to OP, getting women is a competition. If you lose the competition it doesn't matter what you've done or how hard you have worked. And ultimately every man understands that if you are not successfully getting women, you are in a sense a loser compared to those who are successful. You can't be masculine and a loser.
But you are missing the point of the question. Which was sort of rhetorical and intended to help you understand what is being talked about, but your answer will suffice. As a followup:
If being prosocially masculine was not the best way to become a winner, why should anyone who wants to be a winner do it?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Let me put it to you a different way then; If you can be masculine and a loser, why should a man who gets no attention from women but wants attention from women want to be masculine? Especially in the sort of prosocial sense as described by you and the author of OP's article.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
To play your own game, if someone uses the term 'conservative' to refer to conservatives, I don't really know what they mean either. A conservative in rural Kentucky is not the same as a conservative in Washington party politics. A conservative today is not the same as a conservative from 60 years ago. What people are talking about and referring to is derived from context. Who they are, who they are referring to specifically and to what end.
I can, for instance, recognize that some person on twitter calling some 'conservative' a nazi is probably a lib/left/progressive voicing their emotional distaste more than they are making a relevant 1:1 comparison between 'conservatism' and the National Socialist German Workers Party of Adolf Hitler from the 1930's. By the same token I can disagree with their terminology I can recognize their actual contention.
As for the rest of the points you make, I feel like you are going a bit beyond the relevant subjects.
True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success.
On this we agree. The rest of the paragraph, however, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is not a dissection of the sex wars from a point of view of who has it better or worse. Even if men in their current state are on aggregate more happy than women the problems they are having still exist and they can still be miserable. On top of that, men who can't even get a reply on Tinder are not gatekeepers for relationships. Looking at the situation from this angle loses sight on the topic of: attention from women, prosocial behavior and masculinity.
Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"?
Because, as I maintained in my reply to OP, getting women is a competition. If you lose the competition it doesn't matter what you've done or how hard you have worked. And ultimately every man understands that if you are not successfully getting women, you are in a sense a loser compared to those who are successful. You can't be masculine and a loser.
How we see things in the abstract, infused with all our idyllic romanticism, is completely irrelevant. Like the Japanese veteran turned beggar shows. The heroic soldier doesn't return to the women of the country he fought for, where they await him with open arms in recognition of his struggle and feats of bravery. He returns to see them fornicating with the guys who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And he is forced to beg them for scraps.
We don't need a hypothetical analogue from the animal kingdom to dispel our fantasy notions of how things ought to be. Some men need to own a house, at the very least, to get any attention from women. Other men don't.
You might really like the notions of masculinity and chivalry you express, or notions similar to 'constructive masculinity' as expressed by the author of OP's article, but that's just that. I'm not going to repeat what I've said on the problem prosocial masculinity faces, as I've already written a comment on it here
But I think it's safe to say that, again, it's dead in the water and a lot of men realize this.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
They're not. You are working towards being high status to get the woman. The relevant context here is the man and what he has to do compared to other men. If you have to work to get what another man does not have to work for you can't consider yourself better than him.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The woman decided that you were attractive based on a thing you had to work for. It's not you, it's the thing you worked for that she wants. That was the point. Do you get it?
And my point would be that abstracting yourself away from the problem like that is a first step towards never solving it. Or, should I say, the first symptom of a person who doesn't have the gumption or the psychological fortitude necessary to solve it.
No matter how you slice it, Mauricio needs to go regardless of how nice of a guy he is and no matter how much he is a victim of circumstance. But when people can't bring themselves to even label Mauricio as a part of the problem then they will never actually solve it. Because the ultimate solution is to remove Mauricio from the country and make sure he can't come back.
Focusing on the policymakers is a psychological copout. It might be true to some extent that policy is a big part of creating the problem and an important part in ending it, but I don't think that's what's driving people towards it. I think that for most, 'disliking' Mauricio is a step too far for them.
More options
Context Copy link