@hanikrummihundursvin's banner p
BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 47d 14h 02m

hanikrummihundursvin


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 673


				
				
				
					
Banned by: @Amadan

				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
								
BANNED USER:
									
										Unhinged diatribe
									
								

								
>Unban in 47d 14h 02m

							
							

								
hanikrummihundursvin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 673


					
					
					
						
Banned by: @Amadan

					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's an easy deflection for whites to puff out their chest and present themselves as simply being too good to take ethnocentric hatred against them seriously. And whilst the Smithsonian definition might be well suited to that sort of backhanded flattery as a literal definition, it's hardly representative of the emotional sentiment being conveyed when Noel Ignatiev states that 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity', or what 'progressives' mean when they talk about 'abolishing whiteness' in general. They don't see whiteness as a collection of flattering traits.


The problem I have is the question of where trolling, dunking on and otherwise owning the libs will lead. If Hanania is playing by some sort of 4D chess rhetorical playbook, that's fine. But it elevates him only slightly below the typical 'conservative' he would otherwise lament when it comes to actual policy. Being against affirmative action and not going full bore HBD is like kicking a hornets nest without any protective clothing on.


On top of that, in his own words, Hanania can recognize the obvious motivations of folks who grasp at any straw to argue against subjects he likes, like immigration:




Some people are naturally tribal and don’t like immigration. So they’ll use whatever justifications they can come up with to argue against it. I’ve seen the topic of immigration make capitalists talk like trade unionists when thinking about wages, and people who’ve never shown any interest in climate policy start worrying about carbon emissions. There’s been a lot of controversy around whether immigrants litter too much, but I never see the people making this complaint talk about littering in any other context. It makes me suspect that it might not be their main concern.




So is Hanania just looking for justifications to argue against his 'main concern' regarding blacks, which have very little to do with affirmative action? Hoping that no one will notice the same obvious thing he notices with regards to immigration? Because on its face, there is nothing wrong with affirmative action until you try to fit it around a population group that has a normal distribution of traits below the minimum system requirements. Which is US blacks.


I can agree Hanania is incoherent, like you say, but I'm also doubtful his opposition is anything more than 120 IQ takes to own the libs and your racist grandma with. To that end expending effort on talking about him like he matters is degrading.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In that sense it's much less dog whistling than it is gatekeeping. Though I don't remember if Hannania goes full bore HBD or if he toes the 'conservative family values' line.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Hannania had some affirmative action takes lately.




It's a nice angle to constantly dab on the blacks and just call it 'being against affirmative action'. Do blacks emotionally read 'affirmative action' in the same way I read 'whiteness'?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
At this point being a scam is par for the course. Even our very best minds of rationality and reason found ways to funnel money into dead end policies for criminals.


At this point I'd call it fair to say that you donate money to feel good. There's no reason to assume that any monetary amount will fix anything. If you actually care about an issue you are going to have to do something about it yourself. With that in mind it seems most people don't care all that much.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Suddenly everyone is a luddite.


I just finished listening to a radio show where the hosts, a young man and woman, were fretting over the potential dangers of AI. Even managing to make a mock AI radio broadcast. (That's exactly where the real danger is, by the way, very scary). They even talked to a very concerned NPR journalist who made it clear the potential AI takeover was no laughing matter and was a threat facing journalism that needed to be met head on. And the list just keeps growing of the various educated folk fretting over their potential obsolescence.


However, it seems rather late to say that we can't do X, Y and Z after the last 30 years of mass immigration. Why should the economic slot of 'actor' or 'journalist' be better protected than construction work? If there was automation possible in any blue collar labor it would be automated immediately. But gasp my CAREER? How dare they...


On top of that the movie industry is a cesspit of nepotism, greed and every nasty human impulse you can imagine. Sorry, I'm not all that miffed that the last 2% of the new Marvel picture that isn't CGI is going to be AI generated CGI of a Hollywood actor instead of the real life unholy blend of nepotism and narcissism in human form. (they're so lifelike, almost like a real human beings)


And for opposite end of the movie industry I'm not all that bothered by the proposition that 'movies are art' or whatever. If I want real Hollywood art I can find it AI generated depicting the various Oscar nominated actresses attempting to suck on Harvey Weinsteins deformed penis, next to a compilation of them thanking him during their Oscar acceptance speech. Followed by their #metoo headlines where they claimed it was all rape. (No trade back though)


I'm ready for the hostile AI takeover of modern high culture. Crossing my fingers that the AI version of a man in a dress trying to sell me beer is more palatable than the real one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From a rhetorical perspective the upheaval of the great American man in the face of European bullying would mean a lot more if the European bully had been a product of anything other than American hegemony.


Outside of that I'm not sure if there exists any reality to the US vs Europe dialect anymore. Both have moved so far away from any defining baseline. It's like looking at two sports teams as they were 20 years ago compared to now. Neither team resembles what they once were to a point where I feel like there is no sense in cheering either team on anymore. I might as well cheer on a clothes hangar given that all that's left are the symbols and uniforms. Sorry but I am not yet prepared to accept a Chinese civil war by proxy in the math Olympiads as a serious expression of anything 'American' or 'European'. No matter how genuinely they salute their flag.


But insofar as there is a reality, and insofar as it has any relation to rhetoric, Europe has lost a lot of the advantages it had. But I'd be hard pressed to call that a win for the US.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A woman not having sympathy for men is a very woman thing that has very little to do with upbringing. Women naturally ingroup other women and outgroup men and a woman that doesn't do this is exceedingly rare. The only open example I know of is Karen Straughan.


Generally the type of sympathy men get from women is a sort of backhanded sympathy. Where it exists more to excuse the actions of women and any negative consequences those actions may have, and to alleviate any negative emotional pressure. Like the classic 'You're a nice guy, don't worry, you'll find someone, there's someone out there for everyone'. It's completely vapid and empty as anything else.


Listening in on two married co-workers talking about their home finances, both had the situation that their money was the families money, the wife's money was her money. And they could both share stories of how hostile and defensive their wives got if they ever questioned where 'her' money was going or if it could be better spent somewhere else. That's on top of stories from former co-workers working as fishermen , all of whom had stories to share on either their own former partners or a shipmates where all the money that had earned on tour was gone by the time they got to shore. One particularly inventive spouse had, as a way to make amends for wasting all the money on clothes and alcohol, wasted what was left of it on buying the dude an Xbox as present for when he got home.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your argument means less to me right away since I already said the process is expensive. But whatever.


I don't understand why the import country should care about 'fairness' or where you are getting the idea of 'fairness' from in this context. The process is at no stage fair to anyone. It's literally designed to be the opposite. The import country is picking and choosing to suit it's own need.  Nor do I understand how it is unwise to have an exclusion criteria based on race/country of origin. So long as there is no shortage of applicants from higher IQ places there is no problem.  And if that shortage ever comes about the economic landscape of the world would be so radically different from what it is now we would have to have a separate conversation, since this one is predicated on people actually wanting to come work in western countries.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Except it's not really a problem. The benefit I am pointing out still exists even with that accounted for so long as there is not a shortage of applications from higher IQ countries.


But besides that, your solution is much more restrictive than mine. I'm not sure why you are so eager to discriminate based on current wealth over race.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My argument is that we don't need to use proxy measures like race when we have actual measures. Look at the actual schools that people attended, or the actual employers that they had.




Like I already said, even with information like education, race still gives a lot of information. Which can be better than education. There is no reason to not factor that in.




The comment to which you were originally replying said




And that comment was replying to the suggestion that countries focus more on Asian countries than African for immigrants.




My whole point is that you don't need proxies when you can evaluate people individually, and since individuals give detailed checkable applications, and pay for them such that you can hire as many examiners as you need, you don't need proxies, and therefore don't need to pool.




Like I said before, pooling is not something you do. It's something that is. There is no reason to not use all the information available, which includes country of origin, when selecting applicants so long as you don't have a shortage of applicants. Country of origin is not a proxy any more than education is. Outside of a US context there is an extremely clear benefit to limiting your selection to higher IQ countries before you go for lower IQ ones. I don't understand why someone would be against it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The incredibly detailed applications that the potential immigrants submit. Which are then reviewed in detail via the staff hired with the very high fees the applicants pay.




We are talking about two separate things then. Where I am from immigration officials are not paid by the applicants. They work on the tax payers dime.




It's not a search through a pool! You process all the applications.




I don't know what point or to what end you are making with this assertion anymore. I explained what I meant by 'pool'. If that contextualization is still going over your head I can't help you.




A lot of them are pretty easy to verify. If someone claims to have a job offer in the US, you can track down the employer and check. TOEFL is a serious test.




Which is completely separate to the matter at hand. If all we needed to vet immigrants was a company willing to hire them this discussion would not exist. The question pertained to where immigration was being pooled from.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Where I am from the process is very expensive. But regardless of that, I would just kick the question back to you. Why have a more expensive less efficient immigration system? I don't get it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense. Imagine you had a list of 1000 numbers and wanted to find the top 100.




No dude, what you are doing became complete nonsense. It starts of with imagining a hypothetical that is antithetical to reality. We don't have a list of 1000 numbers, we have applications earmarked by a list of traits. Country of origin, country of residence, employment status, spousal status, education and so on. The point made by me was that accepting applications from countries with low IQ ends up wasting a whole lot more resources than applications from higher IQ countries. There is nothing nonsensical about this proposition. It is extremely simple.


Maybe this is a difference of governance, but where I am from the processing of any foreign born people, be it migrants or any other sort, is extremely costly. It takes time to go through the various bureaucracies to confirm the authenticity of the claims made. It's not picking 95 over 91.




What you are proposing is randomly splitting the list into two halves with a very slight weighting so that larger numbers go into the first half, and then picking the top 100 from the first half.




It's not random and the weighing is not "very slight".




It is blatantly obvious that this is not going to give a very optimal outcome.




From a purely mathematical perspective, picking from the higher number group is very obviously more optimal than picking from the lower number group as soon as you factor in that every pick has a cost and that sorting through the list of numbers is not as simple as your hypothetical makes it out to be.




This topic more than any other seems to produce nonsensical logic like the above that I know people here (including you) would immediately catch talking about anything else.




How mutual this feeling is.




I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude except agreeing with the progressive point that discussions about racial differences are always going to be ruined by the mother of all cognitive biases.




This is not a discussion about racial differences. So far no one has gone off the deep end into denying IQ. So what we are left with is optimizing policy based on reality. Or making banal insinuations about biases whilst pretending we are immune to it ourselves.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You do have to select from pools of people. Where do you think immigration authorities are getting their data from? People are pooled together into races and countries by birth. If authorities choose to accept data from both pools they have to sift through the 90 IQ pool and the 100 IQ pool. If they just flat out refuse every single person from the 90 IQ pool on the basis of very easily identifiable characteristics they don't have to do that and can as a result be more efficient in their search through a higher quality pool.


Education, skills and employment are not the same country by country. You care about the box 'race' because it serves as a proxy for a whole lot of information. Hell, even within countries the difference in ability despite education level, like in the US, you have big differences between races. The first few paragraphs of this article demonstrates this point


On top of that, 'race' to some extent, and ethnicity and country of origin to a greater extent, serve as great proxies for the credibility of claims made by hopeful migrant laborers. I know from experience there exists great stigma around foreign laborers in construction work, often times for good reason. I've heard similar things from my programmer friends deriding 'Indian code'.


I, from experience, would conclude that a lot of the claims made by foreign laborers are lies. Getting your foot in the door is much more important than being true to your own abilities. Especially since most imported labor is not working high skill jobs for high pay, but working low skill jobs for low pay. And they know this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Most accurate ≠ most useful.


If I can select from two pools of people, one Asian with an average IQ of 100, one Middle-east/African, with an average IQ of 90, why should I spend time looking for candidates in the group with a lower average IQ?


Hypothetically I might be able to devise a mechanism to accurately sift through both populations that finds 100% of the qualified people from both groups. But given I know one population is just a better pool of candidates there is little utility in going for the lower IQ group so long as the higher IQ group has enough qualified candidates, which it does have. All you are doing is wasting time and effort.


In a real world scenario the situation is abundantly clear. You don't want to waste any time on a worse pool of candidates since your error margins are going to be wider with a pool where the unqualified outnumber the qualified. This error margin is not just relating to work performance but baseline function in society. These errors cost lives and I find it very hard to weigh the alleged 'economic benefit' of mass immigration with descriptions from little girls of how they were gang raped over years, pictures of little children torn to pieces after someone intentionally drove over them in a truck, or descriptions of teenagers tortured to death in their own homelands, that were much safer prior to these 'economic benefits' arriving.


As for your own argumentation, sidelining peoples instincts as racism does little to foster understanding between two differing viewpoints. I don't insinuate that you suffering from some psychological ailment because you seemingly favor immigration from Africa. I assume you have good intentions and that your tend and befriend instincts are a valuable part of your humanity that has great utility and benefit to those around you. But it's not for a lack of issues that your instincts cause others that I refrain from such insinuations. I'd appreciate if you could do the same.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
More than that, formerly shelved and sold Disney projects like "Sound of Freedom" were outdoing Indy. Considering Disney's apparent cavalier attitude towards money, seeing that kind of ideological adversary gain a win at their expense has to speak to someone. Or maybe it just further cements the idea that these stupid peasants deserved nothing good to begin with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think this is the case at all. Money trumps personal belief on the priority list, that doesn't mean personal belief isn't there.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Most of the utility from 538 was plausible deniability for 'free thinkers' to be on the "neutral"  side. They had the numbers and the data. Nate Silver is a nerdy numbers guy. I mean, just look at him. ABC are taking a mechanism to be 'safely' "neutral" and ruining it. And Nate recognizes it.


That being said, it's all a sham. Nate Silver, just like so many of his 'followers' are always looking for plausible deniability to be on the "neutral" side because not being on the "neutral" side is way too much work. And much more importantly, you can't be anything other than "neutral" if you expect to participate in 'civilized' urban society, let alone show up on TV and be respected for your work. The guy was not slightly wrong or missing a few steps in 2016, he was off on the numbers and way off with his attitude.


It's not that "conservatives" accidentally got this one right against all odds against all polling against all reality. It's that there was a manufacture process going on with an extremely biased media complex doing everything it could to push one candidate forward whilst pulling another back. If you recognized this you would have no issue predicting, at the least, a very tight race.


If you didn't recognize it you were either stupid or willfully complicit. The 2016 election cycle was genuinely insane in its bias and one should not take people who missed the insanity part of it either too seriously or too trustingly.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not. Do you have any evidence to back that claim? You seem to be going far outside any mainstream.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The mass delusion that is 'Integration' and 'Assimilation' keeps on giving.


These two concepts mean the same thing, functionally. Do I have enough plausible deniability to call the obvious outsider I am ingrouping an insider?


Note that this definition has nothing to do with real life. It's purely conceptual.


Outside of that these terms hold no meaning at all. Have I assimilated into a country when all I do is participate in its economy? That seems to be the barometer for most. It's hard for anyone with practical experience to get behind that definition but after we've deconstructed most of our societies down to economic blocks there's not much else to go on. So our newly arrived Syrian who just got gifted a new home renovates a newly furnished living room and kitchen on the local governments dime to separate them with a wall so he does not have to see his wife cook is just as 'assimilated' as any local because... OK, maybe not in real life. But he shows up for work and seem nice so my tend and befriend instincts tell me there are inroads to be made here. So I'll weave a fictional representation of reality in my head to support my instincts and admonish any representative of my ingroup who doesn't conform as being an evil person. I mean, who doesn't want to make friends? Such combative instincts can only lead to conflict and are obviously dangerous. The Syrian is assimilating, even if he talks arabic at home, even if he changes nothing of his behavior, even if he lives nigh entirely on the governments dime and gets treated to luxuries most people can hardly afford nowadays, like a single family home, whilst working a minimum wage job...


This is not 'assimilation'. This is a bribe. Please be my friend.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Murdering Jews was one of main goals for starting war.




That's not true. Since it underpins the rest of the comment I can understand your misapprehensions.




BTW, is you capitalization of Germans and Jews intentional?




Germany is a country, the Germans are German. They have to own it. Jews on the other hand can be a nation, a religion, a tribe, or some cultural thing depending on what argument suits them best at the time. Half the time if you talk about jews or something jewish people simply deny it exists at all. Until it's decided what they are or want to be there is no reason to capitalize.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You've done this a few times now. Said something false or incongruent, then when called out on it, just ran away to a brand new line of reasoning.


The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews. But there certainly were jews in Europe and they certainly did not ally themselves with Hitler. Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And the Germans were waging war against the jews. By your own morals, presented here, and excuses given for allied bombings of civilian targets taken as valid, there is no issue with Germans murdering jews. As it was just a poor attempt at waging war when they should have focused the effort elsewhere.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If the humanitarianism is superficial then what problem are we facing? By the sound of things many on the far right in Europe are not against the EU per se. I don't see why, if we're not maintaining some facade of treating native first worlders and foreign third worlders the same, that the sky will fall as a consequence. European nations can continue working together despite that.


As for Djibouti, the French already have a military base there. Which they could run with an additional prison complex for as cheap as the French can run things overseas given they have the French Foreign Legion stationed there. It would be much less Guantanamo Bay and much more refugee camp you can't leave.


But that's kind of besides the point. I'm not attached to any one mechanism for doing things like that. I mentioned it more in passing than anything. The third world manages to house their criminals. I don't see the task as being impossible or even that hard for France. Nor why it would end up being prohibitively expensive.


If France had third worlders with no land to call home that commit crime, ship 'em out to prisonland.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
International agreements of the 'humanitarian' kind only matter to western nations in any meaningful sense. If they go far right, and it would only take two of the big ones, I don't think anyone will care enough or afford to uphold them.


To that end there would be no problem with France sorting the good from the bad in their society, relegating the bad to some purpose built prison hole in Djibouti.