BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 47d 00h 59m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
We keep returning to 'academia' as a current thing. Sure, current academia suffers from all the ills. My point is that an academic institution doesn't have to. To point at current academia and say that it had to become this way because it did is not very pertinent. Stricter oversight over what can be taught, rather than promises of more 'academic freedom' would be a step in the right direction, which is the opposite of the DeSantis rhetoric. Which at best deflates a small part of academia without removing its ability to inflate itself again.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Afghanistan has plenty of natural resources. They're just not being exploited properly. Although there are some ongoing Chinese mining operations.
Battlefield 2042: Middle East DLC
Iran and the Taliban had a little border scuffle recently. Leaving 2-4+ dead and some wounded.
The Taliban allegedly used material left over by the US, like the iconic Humvee. That is alleged(by me) to be occupied by a neo-conservative machine spirit.
It feels a rather hopeless situation. With both countries being alienated from the west by a large degree, it seems hard to figure out a typical 'resolution' to the conflict. Both sides need a scarce resource, water. It's a rather typical sci-fi scenario, and fiction would have one believe the only way forward is war.
But I reserve some hope for an alternative. At the same time as both countries are without western allies, it's not like the region is completely without value. And the pressure to go to a bloody and costly war might hopefully be averted by these nations forging alliances that they would otherwise not have considered. Though I'm not sure which way those would go. Having heard rumors of both China and Russia engaging in dealings with the Taliban post US occupation, they would be obvious candidates. But considering the alternative being potential war, one would hope the sky is the limit.
Then again, maybe this gets resolved without any issue. Time will tell.
You can have perfectly fine academic institutions that are not bloated with useless crap. My point is that these institutions in the west became bloated precisely because of the kind of attitude is being expressed by the DeSantis 'attack' on colleges and universities in Florida. The root cause is not academia in and of itself. It's instead whatever process that bloats it.
And Trump went after 'Sanctuary Cities' or whatever. Which ultimately amounted to very little since the root cause wasn't the cities, they were just a symptom. Very similar to the situation in academia. I mean, how did a 'Sanctuary City' come to be? Extremely lax immigration laws/enforcement? How did 'leftist' academia come to be? E.O. Wilson had a choice remark with regards to that:
We had a meeting to take the final vote on Lewontin at Harvard, and a group of the older professors said they were worried about reports of his behavior at Chicago—that he might be disruptive or might have gotten away from genetics, and so would not be the right sort of person to be at Harvard. I made the speech I will regret for the rest of my life: I said we should never accept or reject someone because of their political views. I felt so good about myself making that political speech!
Lewontin becoming one of the prime figures in the fraudulent Boasian anthropology cult that reigns supreme in every major institution in the western world to this day.
In essence, 'academic freedom' is worth about as much as a 'closed border' with an open gate. The decline is not irreversible, but reversing back to an earlier point of decline won't do much to prevent one from sliding down again.
A lot of the comparisons between Trump and DeSantis seem to rely on there being a consequential difference between them in power. I don't think that assumption is valid.
You can run a very explicit culture war campaign and 'actually do things' like DeSantis has done in Florida without doing anything of consequence in other areas. For instance, you can run a very traditional Zionist Heritage Foundation approved government that does nothing of value with regards to immigration and foreign policy and merely acts out on random anti-trans rhetoric. Can you imagine trans people not being allowed in womens sports and bathrooms? You can waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left. Otherwise the decline can proceed as normal.
Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him. Why do anything different? Pardon my cynicism but, is it for real now? Do we really believe? Are we fighting for real change this time?
On Trump:There was a very obvious tip-toeing going on with Trump and Christianity during the 2016 campaign. I wouldn't call the disposition of Christians to him a decline in their religiosity or a change of faith since that would place Christianity and religion in general on a pedestal it doesn't really occupy.
Being a 'good Christian' was always just as much about showing allegiance to the ingroup as it was about actually being a good Christian person. You can be accepted, as an outsider, to the ingroup as long as you demonstrate respect for and allegiance to it. Which is what Trump did. There's no hand of god involved with this. It's just ingroup/outgroup bias.
As for the boycott thing: it's an exciting change. From a broad perspective it seems like, to some extent, the American system has, though from a narrow populist standpoint at best, worked. As an example, white nationalism 2.0 was killed off in its infancy. Banned from all platforms. And to this day any resurgence or reinvention gets a very similar treatment. From an idyllic and naive standpoint, the 'system' was corrupt in that instance. But red tribe conservatism was to some extent left to live. Aside from the massive anti-Trump thing, and in part because of it, red tribe conservatives managed to fumble their way into organizing on Facebook. And from there, luck their way back on Twitter.
You don't need all that much meme power to appeal to a group of disgruntled folks who have been left politically marginalized for a long time. Remember the TEA Party? I mean, most of the chest pounding group affirming rhetoric had been relegated to a loser like Glenn Beck. Every other conservative avenue for proper group formation got strangled dead or acted as controlled opposition, at least in my lifetime. Caring more about 'respectability' than winning. But now there seems to be a soft resurgence of the red tribe conservative movement that is, to some extent, free of the mainstream media right.
Maybe I'm tying too much optimism to this. There have been multiple iterations of this old dog called 'conservatism' growling back at the leg that's kicking it. It's never amounted to much of anything. Assuming this will be different is naive. Especially since the whole 'gay' thing is a red herring for more unfixable issues like mass immigration, which has already 'doomed' the country. But having a common enemy is always a good baseline for organizing. Maybe the rainbow colored flag can act as a unifier for the red tribe as well. I certainly wouldn't mind the dog getting a good bite out of that sadistic leg before it finally gets put down.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I've already made my point, you misrepresenting it again isn't very interesting to me.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Just saying "it was chaotic" is hand-waving.
Thankfully that's not what I 'just' said. As my point pertained to the general inaccuracies of demographic data collection in general confounded by the tumultuous times, where people were moving in great numbers. And not just via boats to Palestine and the US, as your reply suggests. This was said by me to further the broader point that claims of confident certainty, to a degree that the holocaust narrative seems to require to fill its minimum baseline of jews, are unwarranted. Admitting to a certain level of uncertainty with regards to the data in general seems much more prudent. But, again, prudence is not something exterminationists can afford.
Can I just chalk this misrepresentation of yours up to you being a liar? I say this half jokingly.
I pointed out where you employed rhetoric and how. Maybe I should have pointed out how repeatedly accusing people of lying isn't productive to anything either so you could have dropped that as well. Otherwise I feel you are on a fast track towards the endpoint of all Holocaust arguments, especially for those who put a lot of time into the game, where both parties default to accusing one another of insanity.
I don't think all sources are created equal. Especially with regards to history. Which is why I said that there is not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. For starters I don't think the practice of looking at estimates like this is all that valid to begin with considering the error margins and the chaotic nature of events. All that is sufficient, from my point of view, is that the error margin for the discrepancy of 'missing' jews can exist as an alternative hypothesis to the question of 'where they went'. Which would also hinge on taking whatever estimates of the total number of jews to begin with as being valid. Keeping in mind that the question is open ended. To whatever extent jews went missing, there exists no baseline that necessitates they went into a camp and not somewhere else.
Any revisions downward seem to pose a rather obvious problem. Which prompts, in my view, a completely unwarranted confidence in any estimates that maintain a sufficient number of jews to fuel the holocaust narrative from the exterminationist side.
It is much easier to be born in a Jewish shtetl unnoticed than to get on a ship to Palestine or the US unnoticed.
Like I said, for every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story for another. What was being pointed out is the aforementioned unwarranted confidence in any estimates that fuel the holocaust narrative. 80% is 'absurd' not because you have any knowledge of actual events, but because it breaks too far from the baseline you need to maintain.
My standard for history is that historical evidence can be extremely bad. Battles and assaults during the war could go overlooked or misreported for decades despite them involving entire frontlines and death tolls in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. The largest tank battle of the war only existed as an anomaly for most of recorded history. To stand up with any degree of confidence and say that they know for sure, down to the 100k is the hallmark of someone who should reconsider their disposition towards what they are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm going to try and separate the rhetorical flair and the numbers, just for my own sake.
For starters, saying that it's "Sanning's numbers" when he quotes a source for said numbers obfuscates things quite a bit. Especially when it is present throughout the entire text. As an example, “Opinion of the Institute for Contemporary History” is not Sanning. They say 100k per year emigrating from Poland between a certain time period. Sanning repeats the claim made. You reference other sources, which give a lower estimate. This is not a competition between your sources and Sanning, which is how you frame things. This is a discrepancy between different sources.
Another example of this sort of thing being that the Polish government can matter of factly undercount the numbers of jewish births by up to 60-some percent and that's completely normal. But to consider they undercount the numbers of jewish emigrants by 80% is somehow very obviously in the realm of absurdity. If it is incompetent enough to do one why not another? For every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story reason for the opposite.
I'm sure Faulk and friends do this as well. But there's an obvious point to be made that everyone is transparently working towards separate finish lines through motivated reasoning.
To make a long story short, if the sources cited by Sanning are closer to reality than the sources cited by you, there is a matter of degree to which the question of 'where did the jews go' is answered. To that end I think the revisionist side has an obvious case that is based on sources and assumptions that are no greater or lesser than the ones used by exterminationists.
I fail to see how laymen can come to an obvious conclusion that the revisionist citations are not 'persuasive' in revising the holocaust narrative considering that, even if wrong to a degree, they would still exist as revisions to the total count and by extension cast aspersions on other claims made that rely on a minimum amount of jews present in the area Germany had access to.
The Alternative Hypothesis made a video on this topic. With a text version available. I've heard that the arguments presented come from Walter N. Sanning.
The general gist is probably best summarized on page 35 onwards of the text version. Long story short, the amount of jews Germany had access to in the Poland/USSR regions is lower than the amount of jews that are missing from the census. Attributing the deaths of 4.4 million jews to Germans who only occupied Polish/USSR regions with a total of 1.9 million jews is problematic.
As for 2, It depends on what you mean by "it". There were camps. They had guards. What exactly is not being denied and what does it prove? The Holocaust narrative that had already been 'litigated' during the Nuremberg Trials? Or the Holocaust narrative that didn't see the light of day until in the late 1960's? Or the Hollywood Holocaust that gets depicted in pop media? If the crime was putting jews into camps then they are guilty of doing that. That's not what Holocaust revisionism is taking issue with for the most part. So I don't see how its proof of any of the contested claims like the total number of deaths, specific number of deaths at specific camps, Zyklon B running through showerheads and whatever else any 'eyewitness' imagined.
The treatment of officials and public figures post-war is best illustrated by looking at someone undeniably influential like Carl Schmitt. Who was barred from teaching by the Allies since he refused to be 'denazified'. In broader terms I think your interpretation of what life was like for those who refused to bow their head to the new world order exists completely outside the bounds of reality.
If you wanted a life, which was hard to come by for a lot of Germans, going out in public and doing Nazi apologetics when you can barely feed your family is probably the last thing you do and very low on the list of immediate things to worry about. No matter how true your position could be. It's not like the German could go out there and post on twitter or make public statements about the kangaroo court that was the Nuremberg Trials on the radio. Or write about it in a newspaper, at least not without getting the same treatment as Schmitt got at the minimum.
It would be more comforting if people actually applied a theory of mind to others instead of uncritically imagining that the outgroup is just a gang of monsters that exist on an emotional spectrum completely different from you and I. Worse yet is making the realization that your enemy is not like in the cartoons, and drawing the conclusion that this makes them even more evil. So evil, in fact, that it's hard to comprehend. The cartoons simply don't do it justice. It's very reminiscent of the 2007-12 internet atheism days where guys like Steve Harris and others would create scientific tests and moral theories about the inherent differences between the 'religious' and those who were not.
It's genuinely disheartening to see just how moronic peoples baseline sense of being is and how ineptly it is applied to other people. If evil is so banal and atrocity can be made so mundane, where does that potentially place your banal and mundane existence? The 'vegans' have the answer, we are all monsters because of factory farming. And so to does any group that cares a lot about X.
A more functional and useful view of this moral framework is that any group that has the power to dictate the moral framing of any issue can make these arguments. jew lives don't actually matter more than the Ukrainian lives jews exterminated during the Holodomor. All the Russians that died during the siege of Leningrad, all the Germans that suffered and died post-war. Comparatively they get no movies, no museums, no monuments.
The only factual realization that can be drawn from the everpresent bombardment of jewish victimary narratives is that jews care a lot about themselves in a way few others do. Simply put, other nations don't do this weirdo shit of constantly reminding everyone of how big a victim they were. It's weird. And in the few cases where it is being done it's for obvious reasons. Like Poland perpetually trying to bleed more money from Germany due to WW2. Or Russia grandstanding and accusing everyone else being fascist nazis. It's transparent and fake and people don't hesitate to point to the obvious motive behind it.
This jewish cause, and by extension the character of the jewish people insofar as it is perpetuated by them suffers greatly for this incessant propaganda. Not just for its weirdness, but also the history of lying about it to an extent that defies most peoples knowledge of history, despite how much the Hollywood made Holocaust makes us emotionally invested in the suffering of an insignificant number of semitic nomads.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Mayor Adams Announces Plan to Combat Retail Theft in New York City
NEW YORK – New York City Mayor Eric Adams today announced the release a comprehensive plan to combat retail theft across New York City’s five boroughs. With the exception of 2020, the total number of citywide shoplifting complaints has increased year over year since 2018, with the largest increase — 44 percent — taking place from 2021 to 2022. The increase in retail theft has had a particularly significant impact on retailers that are still recovering from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Retail Theft Report — created through a collaborative effort between retailers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders that came together through a summit hosted by Mayor Adams at Gracie Mansion — includes both upstream, program-oriented solutions and enhanced enforcement efforts, as well as information on existing efforts across New York City agencies to combat retail theft.
From the Mayor himself:
“Last year alone, 327 repeat offenders were responsible for 30 percent of the more than 22,000 retail thefts across our city. This hurt our businesses, our workers, our customers, and our city. This plan will help us invest in diversion programs and in underlying factors leading to retail theft, works upstream to stop some of the factors leading to a crime before one takes place, trains retail workers in de-escalation tactics and security best practices, and takes numerous actions to increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts."
The plan is detailed as follows:
-
Establish two new diversion programs — “Second Chance” and Re-Engaging Store Theft Offenders and Retail Establishments (RESTORE) — to allow non-violent offenders to avoid prosecution or incarceration by meaningfully engaging with services to help address underlying factors that lead to shoplifting.
-
Install resource kiosks in stores to connect individuals in need to critical government resources and social services.
-
Launch an employee support program to train retail workers in de-escalation tactics, anti-theft tools, and security best practices to help keep them safe in the event of an emergency and to support employees who have been impacted by thefts.
To increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts, the administration will:
-
Create a Precision Repeat Offender Program (PROP) in which retailers can submit dedicated security incident reports to the NYPD to better identify and track repeat offenders and facilitate stronger prosecutions by the five District Attorneys’ Offices.
-
Establish a neighborhood retail watch for businesses in close proximity to one another to share real-time intelligence with each other and with law enforcement in the event of a theft. This program builds upon the NYPD’s Operation Safe Shopper initiative created under Mayor Adams’ leadership as Brooklyn borough president to expand video surveillance camera usage among participants.
-
Advocate at the state and federal level for additional online sale authentication procedures to prevent the resale of stolen goods to build upon the federal Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (INFORM) for Consumers Act, which goes into effect in June 2023.
-
Establish a New York City Organized Retail Theft Task Force, comprised of retailers, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders to collaborate and respond to retail theft trends.
From my end: What prompts this entire rigamarole in the first place? Why can't you just go to jail for repeat shoplifting?
On the other hand I have no relatable experience from my own environment with this sort of thing. Shoplifting was just something teenagers did to get a free Snickers, or the much more rare person stealing clothing. This kind of behavior seems so alien and weird. Can you really maintain 'normal' shopping culture with this sort of thing happening? Or will this be 'solved' by more technology and automation where the most you will see of what you buy is an image on a screen until you pay the machine. Moving us one step closer to real life idiocracy.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The position described by The_Nybbler accounts for your type of "actual nuance".
To put my spin on it, I think it's important to recognize ones own biases and contextualize ones own thinking process. That doesn't mean our views and opinions stop being relevant or valuable, as much as they ever were. In fact, recognizing what we think and how we likely came to think it changes very little.
But on the flipside, recognizing that our minds are, most of the time, just playing third rate magician parlor tricks does wonders to help oneself realize that we are in fact not bending the laws of physics and we can in fact not read minds. We knew the card drawn was going to be the ace of spades because every card in the deck was the ace of spades because we, at some point, through whatever process, chose that deck to perform with.
To put that in context, here's your deck:
I think here is the key: some witnesses report that Neely was throwing trash at people. If that was actually the case, then I think that it was reasonable for Penny or anyone else to attempt to restrain Neely. If Neely was just ranting and threw nothing, then I am not so sure. This is all aside from the other question of whether Penny's particular method of restraint was reasonable.
The parameters of your 'nuance' are not accidental. They are not tethered to some objective metric linked to the fabric of reality. They are chosen by you. Now why did you choose them? Do you think it is likely Neely was throwing trash at people? I don't.
Elie Wiesel on intentionally lying and inflating Holocaust deaths:
"Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential."
On a related note, Germany Must Perish!
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Reads like some amalgamation of AI and MK-Ultra coming together to write the most incendiary CW paragraph possible.
'A Karen with a potential abortion attempted to appropriate indigenous peoples culture right in front of a PoC! When the seasoning police caught wind the Karen lashed out in a racist tirade! Don't worry, justice has been served: she has been identified and suspended, and she will never be okay again.'
On a more relevant note, the NYPost reports she rented the bike. (As has been pointed out.) Otherwise it might be 'man bites dog' story of the year.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
When you take your own 'culture' for granted it might seem like others are 'distorting' the meaning of words. When in reality you were always a fish swimming in water.
The dialectic of 'white' left-right politics is over. The battle lines drawn around slight ingroup neurodivergence or the slightly different financial incentives of two neighboring municipalities that expresses itself as mild disagreement over questions like taxation and where to place the bridge are outdated. We are in the throes of a total redefinition of 'western' politics.
It's no longer a few teams fighting in the same sports league. We are now fighting between leagues over who gets funding. It's no use complaining that the basketball players are using their hands, those guys simply don't see European 'football' rules as applying to them. In fact, they see them as restrictive. And why shouldn't they? Why on earth should a basketball player accept a ruleset that takes away all their advantages? You can argue that your 'feet only' sport is the best or whatever, but that's obviously self serving even if you very dearly believe it to be true or even if it is by some objective metric true.
A real lie example of this where I live is trans people. If you belong to this group, in my very 'western' country, you can argue for special privileges for your group. These don't apply to anyone else. You are not seen as a political party or anything of the sort, that would otherwise exist in the 'normal' western political dialectic, no. Instead you are seen through the lens of 'victimary discourse'. And because you have a lot of marketing behind your victimary narrative, people cave in to your demands of receiving preferential treatment at the doctors.
The same is true for immigrants or any non-white. They exist as themselves. They advocate for themselves. They form group coalitions, they weave an animating myth of victimhood and grievance against white people and then they try their darndest to funnel everyone behind their cause. This dialectic isn't born out of circumstance or the natural curve of history. This is a pathological mode of group bias.
There is no onus on one group to adopt the language tradition of another. If it doesn't suit your group, don't use the language. Find something else. The outgroup is always evil, no need to call them good.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Trans people are the opposite of grey. They fit into a category with no issue. It's just not the category they want to participate in. This is opposite to an intersex person who can not find a fit in either category without issue.
To your point on opposite sex hormones, I think you are overstating the case a fair bit. But even if it was all as true, or even more true than you state, it would not change anything. Every single trans person that had a 'normal' body made a choice to disqualify themselves from traditional sporting events by altering it. No surgery or hormone can change the fact that a trans person is cutting into the development cycle of a traditional sex and altering it. It's possible to maybe get away with that sort of thing within a category, but to move categories? That's just moving out of bounds.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Performance enhancing drugs or any other sort of 'doping' is a huge loophole for everyone competing in anything. Having natural born advantages is a loophole for everyone at the elite level. Swimmers aren't short, gymnasts aren't tall and nigh every single athlete worth anything has received some form of extra 'supplementation' to their 'diet'. None of that in any way opens the door for trans people to participate in anything since none of that changes the fact that trans people don't fit into the main categories.
If you are not a traditional woman or a traditional man you don't fit and are excluded. No one should need to leverage their ruleset against the demands of those who don't fit. There need not be a special category or a special class. Trans people are simply not allowed to compete according to their 'gender identification' because it falls outside the scope of the categories. If you want to compete, you need to follow the rules like everyone else.
On top of everything else, where do people get the idea that compromising or meeting the demands of a vocal politically motivated minority is in any way necessary or required? Like, why on earth should anyone even entertain some unsound logic pretzel that exists only as a thin veneer for the deconstruction of a century long tradition which is only being pursued so that trans people can 'express their gender identity'. It's total hogwash from start to finish.
Even in a good faith debate about the grains of gray that exist when categorizing men and women, trans people in no way, shape or form fit as a 'gray'. From their time in the womb to everything else. From the tips of their fingers, shape and size of their brain, to the soles of their feet. Men and women are not the same. Categories are never perfect, but that doesn't mean they are therefor subject to our own want and whim.
Where I live there is practically no military spending. The budget issue is centered around balancing debt with all the other things people rely on, like general healthcare. We could, instead of building a new hospital, just expand the facilities for the mentally ill. But there is an obvious cost there. Personally, I would much rather take the hospital and more doctors since there is a dire need for both.
I am sure the US is in a much worse spot than where I'm from. And could benefit from trimming a lot of the fat off the Pentagon pig, but my point was that even a Nordic model state could not fit the population proportions that the US had to deal with. Simply put, there are, proportionally, too many socially unfit. I am sure there is a solution or a fix that can better the situation by a lot. But unless people are willing to sacrifice some of their own safety and quality of life, I don't see a 'humane' solution like is often imagined existing somewhere in Europe.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This is a willful misreading.
Your power fantasies are just that, the revenge fantasies of every bullied nerd ever, the copes of someone telling himself he's smarter and better and "biologically superior" to the jocks picking on him.
I can't read this statement to mean anything else. Maybe I'm retarded. Or maybe I'm just not a bullied nerd so I can identify with a lot of fantasizing, coping and seething due to perceived injustice without framing those fantasies through stereotypical jew Hollywood movie tropes about insecurities and the 'revenge of the nerds against the jocks'.
I agree with pretty much everyone that a schizophrenic homeless career criminal getting his ticket punched after harassing one too many people is no tragedy.
I didn't say you found it a tragedy or in any other way sympathetic. My point was that you are not answering the question pertaining to 'might makes right'. Either the schizos rule the subway or someone else. The police won't do anything about it, so what's the less wrong angle here? Sit in silence as yet another Asian granny goes on the rails? Your observation on being careful of the pointy sticks has long become irrelevant. There are pointy sticks. Now what do we do about them? Not in the abstract, not in theory. We know where schizo supremacy leads. Are we so certain that if otherwise law abiding citizens stand up for themselves against this tyranny without getting crushed by the system that we will have worse outcomes? I sincerely doubt it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
To both you and @aqouta , I feel like you are missing the point. You are still helpless sitting in the subway car whilst some maniac, hopefully I guess, molests someone else. 'Feeling like you could take them' is, again, just a false sense of security. Hoping that they will see you alone because you believe you look swole is, again, just a false sense of security. The actual problem, the schizo in the subway car, is still there. Feeling confident about your chances of not being the unlucky one to catch his attention, knife or a bullet is completely irrelevant to the actual problem.
Not saying this applies to either of you, but it feels like there is this sentiment dominating this thread of conversation that hinges on the idea that physically fit or fight capable people don't have power fantasies, or don't feel the constraints of society around them when faced with potentially physical altercations. They do. But the more smart or experienced of them usually recognize that choking out the schizo on the subway is a very risky thing. Not just in the moment but every moment after that. You kick the schizos ass and then what? Wait for him to find you on your regular commute? Ah, the schizo lunatic is holding a grudge against me, what a great spot to be in.
I can't stress enough, again, the feeling of security you get from having a high opinion of yourself is always liable to be false. You might be helping yourself improve your chances if you ever are unlucky enough get into a bad spot, but you are not getting away from all the other things that weigh everyone down anyways. Not to sound to bellicose but it's literally a cope.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't disagree with the advice in general, but specifically here, being physically fit can also lead you to a false sense of security.
There's a reason every single 'street fight' guru tells you to run away every single time if you can. Even if you are in shape, even if you know how to fight, you are potentially one moment away from a knife in an artery, just to name a single life ending risk out of a thousand.
And nothing done about immigration, his biggest promise. I don't think it counts for all that much to make the establishment right show their 'true colors' just before you join them. Does anyone love Israel more than Trump? By the same token I don't think you can make much hay about his SC picks, given they are all basic establishment right shoe-ins. Trump had his chance with leveraging his wall funding with the government shutdowns. He caved and in return the US still has infinite illegal immigration.
If we go by rhetoric alone, he was the Che Guevera of US politics. By action? It was business as usual. Along with record low black unemployment numbers...
More options
Context Copy link