hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Then this would be the first time you do so for a name that is not inflammatory or provocative.
Which would not be analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation. It's not like the person is named AuschwitzKikeGrinder. In which case I would magnanimously approve a request for a name change.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
What everyone believes of themselves is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. But taking what you say into account, with reporting that has just been displayed here, I'm confident in my statement, comparatively.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just relaying the rules to people who have apparently been hiding under a rock for the past decades. White solidarity is racist. Black solidarity is not. That's what 80% of people believe. Hell, that number is probably higher with just the tiniest amount of moralistic framing from mainstream media outlets.
I do operate under the belief that I am talking with people who agree with the orthodoxy given that, from my personal estimation, I could count the number of people here who are against desegregation on one hand. I also operate under the belief I am talking with misandrist feminists in denial. As the only way to get these people to care about the rape and torture chambers we call prisons is to couch the debate in terms of women suffering, rather than men. To that extent not a single person has demonstrated to be anything other than what I assume them to be.
On that basis I argue that trans rights are human rights. I give no personal weight to these concepts. I just hate hypocrisy. Especially when it owes its existence to a lack of consideration for what is going on, and has been going on, in the western world. The aforementioned 80% don't deserve to pretend that they are anything other than what they are. The generations before them had to do the humiliation ritual of their time. Now it's this generations turn. That is what the dominant system that they support demands of them. Whining about it isn't brave, rational or even tantamount to qualifying as 'disagreement'. It's just hypocritical ignorance waiting to be crushed by the system. A valuable lesson for future generations, just like the opponents of civil rights in the past serve as a valuable lesson for the current one.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not seeing the problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo 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
11mo ago
The US is no better off than Canada on the immigration front, where 25% of the US population is now hispanic or Asian. Demographic projections are only going one way.
I don't care if you think Canada's gun control laws are 'extreme'. The fact is you can buy an 'assault rifle' in Canada. It might have a 10 round mag and your selection is more limited, but it's a rifle all the same. The rest is semantics.
I really don't sympathize with pretending
No one does. Which is why the feeling is so mutual. Americans are great at isolating themselves from the world around them since their country is so large. You can live a lifetime in the US without feeling any of the things being talked about in media.
I used to think of America as a silly place that, from my end, didn't really exist. All the news and media coverage felt similar to a reality TV show. It was striking for me to learn that most Americans feel the same way and that their own reality, like mine, is far away from 'America'.
In that respect the US is much worse than Canada. Most Americans have no idea what their country even is. How could they?
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
You're not resisting the government with handguns.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The US response to a muslim terror attack was to follow a plan laid out by philosemitic neoconservative zionists in the American government. I see that more as a self reinforcing circle of zionist influence than anything else.
But aside from that, yeah, most Americans supported the war effort at the time. Many European nations joined in, a lot of muslims got annihilated in the name of women in the workplace, NATO, burgers and freedom. But how does the 'west' look at that effort today? Positive or negative? I'd say overwhelmingly negative.
To that end Israel might be western by an older standard that was defined a fair bit by zionism in American politics, but I would not say that this standard would cut it today.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The politics of Joe Rogan, more or less.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
This is a great article, well worth the full read. Especially in context with the comments written about it here. It seems the author hits the nail on the head when he talks about the elusive nature of the point of contention and the issue he has with getting 'liberals' to engage with it. He is also conveniently vindicated as being correct as this issue is exemplified in the comments here post after post. Where every manner of framing the issue away from reality is tried. It would be a miss for me to not highlight those comments if not for the convenience of the columns author already doing it for me:
At this stage, short of some grand conspiracy of white people “to keep the black man down” (the Woke explanation) the cause of group disparities must come down to some combination of the following sources:
Genetic group differences stemming from human bio-diversity, as attested to by a growing mountain of evidence,
Deep historically situated cultural differences that are almost impossible to change,
Recently developed behavioral differences that cannot be modified with tools we consider "liberal" and acceptable in the modern world.
On paper, and when I talk to them personally, many of the liberal-centrist types tell me they understand this problem. They have read Steven Pinker, they have read the Bell Curve, and they know the issues with Affirmative Action and disparate impact in the context of persistent group differences. Their eyes are open. They've got this one.
So what is their solution? More individualism and objective standards for achievement. We need to go back to color blindness, the legal fiction of equality, and judging everyone like a blank slate even though they are not. We can just call that a "meritocracy" as we did in the 1990s. Let the chips fall where they may, and be done with the matter once and for all.
Perhaps this is a great “debate club idea”, but who is going to own the consequences if indeed we were to tear down all disparate impact regulations, equal opportunity programs, and affirmative action? I don’t think an appeal to "meritocracy" would cut it.
Many commenters here seem to have missed this part of the article and what follows. It would be much better for everyone if they didn't. Though I would suspect the problem they have with it is hard for them to verbalize. Since any movement in this direction on their part is an explicit admission that they are willing to break baseline social taboos. To stand up in person and say you don't care about starving children in Africa because you don't recognize borders, would be an obvious low status signal. You would have to be stupid or of low moral character to say such a thing. The same would also be true for saying you don't see a problem with extremely poor black educational attainment or medical conditions like obesity and heart disease, because you don't see race. You would have to be a fool or the most brilliant of racist comedians to earnestly say such a thing in public under your own name.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
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'?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
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?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Do Jewish intellectuals just originate all (American) political movements?
I don't think so. But even if that were the case, our incredulity toward that fact, if true, would not make it any less true.
Also, you still need to make the very important causal link from this academic movement to the actual war in Iraq.
Neoconservatives pushing for war predates the Gulf War. And as I stated in a prior comment, according to prominent neocon White House insider William Kristol, neoconservatism was the driving force behind the war:
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
He had similar remarks towards Cheney
“Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.”
Both camps referring to the tug of war between neocons and 'pragmatists' within the White House at the time. A tug of war that the neocons ultimately won. It's not a claim of mine and mine alone that there is a causal link. But beyond neoconservatives taking credit for it at the peak of their influence and confidence, it is an accepted belief on both sides of the 'fringe' political spectrum:
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/neoconservative-responsibility-for-the-iraq-war/
Beyond that I don't know how to further argue the point. Neoconservatism had been gunning for war in the middle East for a long time. They move to positions of influence and power and at a flashpoint the US goes to war with Iraq. Arguing the more specific agitating factors surrounding that is the subject of multiple books like The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. And though I'm not imploring you to read a book as an argument, I would present the existence of the book, along with the existence of a host of other similar material as evidence for the plausibility of the causal link.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Neoconservatism as a movement is jewish. Just like the Italian Mafia is Italian despite the barman being Spanish or the guy driving the concrete truck being from Algeria.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In general, it’s part of a wider gish gallop strategy on the part of revisionists that should raise the suspicions of anyone attempting to examine their arguments.
Because all holocaust revisionists are part of the same cabal, employing a 'strategy'. But they are so stupid that they can't get their story straight.
This is unlike holocaust believers who all believe exactly the same thing with regards to the holocaust, how it happened and why. Which we can see being the case in this thread...
Honestly, this rhetoric is so ridiculous and 'boo outgroup' it's self defeating. It's so far below the general standards of discourse here that I can hardly believe you wrote it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
No. What was being said is that statistically, in western society, being a woman is better, and that inserting our imagined important factors into the conversation is irrelevant since we can already see the statistical outcomes. You might value physical fitness, for whatever reason, and I don't need to care about it since every single metric shows that women still have it better than men despite men being stronger than women.
To illustrate, what good did superior physical fitness do for men? They get killed more, assaulted more, get less wages in multiple white collar professions, are more likely to die on the job, are more likely to kill themselves, more likely to be homeless. When we collapse everything, the end result is that if you are born a woman in the west then you are far less likely to fall into any of the big negatives. And controlling for intelligence, you are far more likely to fall into the big positives outside of the top .1% of western society. And even then you have mandated government programs pushing women into those areas.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Banning comments like this is bad considering how rare they are. If they were more common I'd agree with a ban, but there is a genuine discourse to be had when people have put their obvious intent of destroying the outgroup into the open. Preventing people from engaging with it by banning the person who opened up leaves this space poorer for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.
According to privileged white people who have overseen decades of oppression over blacks. Robin DiAngelo is there to remind you that your white privilege does not hold more value than black suffering just because you are currently benefiting from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The part where you, just moments ago, said you did not have specific rules on this. It's hard to say that I am stuck on any part when you contradict yourself comment to comment.
You gave examples which were not analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation.
In reply to this you said there were no specific rules on this type of stuff. Now you are saying there are specific rules and that those rules are 1488 = banned when talking about crypto. Whilst, pending clarification, 'SuckItWhitey' is "probably" not allowed "if" they being racist against white people. Who knows if they just talk about crypto and AI all day.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If that's the case, why don't they say that? Just be open about the angle of the slippery slope we are going to be sliding on.
If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.
More options
Context Copy link