hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Illegal immigration enforcement had its worst years since the establishment of ICE in 2003.
Legal immigration fell during COVID but otherwise it only slightly decreased.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
"MAGA" from the 2016 campaign trail or "MAGA" from the 'legal immigration is actually good for the economy' that Trump started parroting in office after one too many a meeting with the fine folks from the Heritage Foundation?
"MAGA" is an empty political slogan that one too many 'right wing' American pours all their hopes and dreams into. It's vague enough to fit all of them. Vote for change!
To give a factual example of why "MAGA" is a marketing thing and not a political thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown
"MAGA", if it ever was a thing, caved in, got on all fours and kissed the ring of TPTB. No wall, no deportations, more immigration. That has been its state ever since.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
That depends on birth rates, intermarriage rates, and the actual rate of immigration from different nations and races. Non-hispanic whites and asians currently have the same birth rate, which presumably means east-asians specifically are even lower.
It actually doesn't. Unless you are proposing an immigration policy of a % based immigrant population and zero intermarriage rates, the constant stream of foreign DNA into the native population will change it.
Lets define, for the sake of argument, the current white population to be 100% white from now on. Lets take that population and say that only asians are allowed to live with it as a 5% of the total population... Any white making a family with an asian is a white not making a family with another white. That's a minus. Every child of theirs that makes a family with a white is another minus. The effect of every single mix raced person is compounding.
As you correctly point out, hapas can look very European. An asian/European quadroon certainly doesn't carry as much visual baggage as a white/black quadroon. But how do you count those people? Are they white now? Does that mean we can bring in more immigrants to maintain our 5%?
Unless you envision a world where the white population can grow endlessly, the presence of a constant stream of foreign DNA will inevitably change the white population.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
AFAICT 'yes' outspent 'no' by orders of magnitude. Another nail in the coffin for those who think that you can just buy any election.
I'd be very tentative with this. 'Yes' might not have bought this election in particular but the fact there's money being thrown at it means they can continue bargaining. Who knows, maybe one day, unbeknownst to most, this particular issue might go on sale and if one side happens to have money in the pocket it's an easy buy.
I think this is a problem with the right in general where they don't have a positive affirmational stance to rally behind. Instead they lean on the implicit racism of the public. With how hands off the right is with cultural institutions it's just a waiting game until the Overton Window shifts far enough along that the publics implicit racism doesn't cut it. Or, of course, the demographics shift in such a way that the Abbo rallying cry gets carried along in a coalition of ascendent minority groups.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
When you designate civilian infrastructure as a military target you are just playing with words. The existence of 'collateral damage' as a term is completely meaningless in this context. It is only invoked as a self serving defense for when the ingroup kills civilians.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
Really? Never seen that as a stated goal from them. Are you sure it's not just 'boo-outgroup'?
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
Troll post or not(it is), the meta argument still stands. At a certain point you realize that people who ingroup jews never accept in any sense that there is any rhyme, reason or responsibility to be found when the subject of anti-semitism comes up. Which is why you get these inane arguments to begin with.
The framework for the discussion is of a victim and oppressor, not cause and effect. Which is at odds with the 'rationalist' disposition on most other topics.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
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.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
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.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.
There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.
West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I was having a conversation with another person before you showed up with a bunch of nonsense, the relevance of which you can't substantiate when asked. You have been antagonistic and rude and I have no reason to put any value of your subjective moral/ethical opinions, which never held any relevance to the conversation in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
That's not what was said, so I repeat my question.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo 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
1yr ago
OK, but I want to recognize, in the context my original reply to Supah, that we are going very swiftly from 'not all jews' to 'of course all jews'.
I would also like to recognize the inherent problems with the fact that jews naturally outgroup non-jews. And that some jews have displayed extreme neuroticism when it comes to interpreting whether the ingroup is being persecuted or not.
I think we can also recognize that there are inherent issues with this dynamic that are very conducive to causing problems. As is argued in the OP, the very nature of something like the narrative of the holocaust transcends just matters of historical fact. It has to be defended tooth and nail at every point, like you mention, regardless of whether it be true or not. Because it's perceived by jews as a matter of survival. Same goes for the variety of other social memes like the authoritarian personality, critical theory and their derivatives. Say what you want about those memes, but they are not there to help gentiles. They are there to help jews.
I feel that there is an alleged proposition inherent to all of the jew apologetics surrounding these issues. That is that, ultimately, whether it harms gentiles or not is irrelevant. It doesn't ultimately matter if the jew running around defending every bunk social theory or historical narratives is doing good or bad or telling truth or lie. We are just implicitly supposed to recognize and appreciate the inherent logic to the actions of the unapologetic jew. Regardless of its consequences.
I didn't say that being against the excesses of the modern black activist movement required you to create a homeless shelter for white people only.
The point being made is that you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored. Even by Rowlings own standard such a thing would be considered wrong. She would, like most people, consider a white only space to be racist. Yet in her defense of herself she plays that exact same scenario out by making trans people the outgroup and women the ingroup. All the while saying, just like all the racists before her, that she doesn't hate anyone, she just wants to protect her ingroup.
If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.
I don't think you have any idea what a world without black people would look like. Considering the massive costs associated with propping up every black population on the planet with the labor of white people. I don't accept your statement.
That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.
Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports. Western society has been gearing themselves towards this exact goal on behalf of women for decades. Your preference for arguments, logic and reasoning is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant. The point here is that Rowling supports this stuff on her behalf. She sees no issues with the logic of men handing women their 'money' and that any man who doesn't accept that is a misogynist. But now that she has 'money' as a woman, she refuses to acknowledge the paradigm she would have been arguing in favor for a few decades ago and balks at the notion of being called a transphobe.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The bullying part.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The point of the questions was to contextualize Griner's fame and why it would, in that context, make sense for them to get treated the way they did.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
We have specific rules, just not an exhaustive list of ways to break them. No stealing is a specific rule even if it doesn't explicitly state all the possible methods of theft.
In the same way that 'Don't piss off the admin' is a specific rule but not really. The actual rule is 'no symbolism or possibly implied meaning relating to sexism, racism, homophobia, or transphobia, and especially not any sort of neo-nazism in usernames'. But saying that doesn't meet the aesthetic preference of the mods. Kind of like how many 'conservatives' would say that they don't have a problem with gays getting married 'since the state shouldn't be involved in such affairs anyway'. Instead of just saying 'Yes, I support gay rights'.
I think maybe you're harboring the false belief that this is intended to be a conservative forum. It is intended to be a be a forum that takes all and encourages difficult conversations.
The criticism of 'conservatism' I was referencing was referenced precisely because so many people who use this webspace levy it against 'conservatives', or are at least aware of it, when the topic comes up. I mentioned this because the same lamentable lack of self-awareness and context is just that no matter where it expresses itself.
I don't understand why you think I am harboring in a false belief about this webspace. The point was not that its users hold 'conservative' opinions. The point was that the mods are engaging in the pattern of behavior that, in a different context, many recognize to be lamentable.
Reactionary means what I as a pretend mod believe it to mean. Just like the mods here believe that the 88 in 1488 stands for Heil Hitler and not the 88 Precepts. There is nothing viscerally objectionable to either. You can argue, like I tried, that there exists ample wiggle room in both 14 and 88 for it not to mean what you assert it must. But those arguments were not had and simply ignored in favor of mod subjectivity. Which, in your case, would be something along the lines of 'misogynist incel wants to chain women to the home'. It's not fun when your positions are reduced from their actual state to something along the lines of
"the Holocaust didn't really happen the way people think, but the Jews deserved it anyways."
But that's what we have from more people than just the mods, I guess.
What you are doing here is exactly what I was trying to do when I asked the mods to clarify their ruling. The mods did not clarify the ruling on the terms of my arguments. They just told me to stick a sock in it. If you want a genuine response from me, as a pretend mod, to all the stuff you wrote its: lmao, banned.
To give a copy paste response to what I got, just with changed labels:
Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your
Reactionaryfreak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Reactionaries," you're right.
.
I don't think the Mods said exactly that they are "asserting their aesthetic preference.
I didn't say that they said that. I said that this is what they are doing. What they said is what is quoted above. I'd appreciate you extend some charity in interpretation here. If you can't understand what I mean by 'aesthetic' you can just ask. The reason I used that term is because the mods have no way of knowing what the person intends, nor what the effect the persons actions will have. What they do know, however, is that they want their website to look like something. And, as we can tell by their actions, that something doesn't look like 1488 regardless of any argument made or reason given. It's not about the content, it's about the look and feel. It's not based on reason; it's based on subjective preference.
You can argue that there can be value in the choice regardless of that, and I'd agree. But that's not relevant to the contention being made.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You have the causation reversed. If someone sufficiently marks themselves as low status or a member of an outgroup you turn your brain off.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I should have clarified, an 'imported' or foreign born asian wife. What I was saying is that this single data point doesn't necessarily point in the direction you need it to. It's not a matter of how many, it's a matter of recognizing that the course of your life and your expressed political beliefs don't always line up 100%. And just because they don't doesn't mean you don't feel how you feel regarding politics and your in and outgroups.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Race isn't the question. The question is instead just a proxy for race. Repeat ad infinitum.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
And you didn't answer the immediate question and you do not answer the context relevant question in this post either. The answers you propose are not time specific so there is no reason to assume that they are more relevant now than any other time.
hanikrummihundursvin
12hr ago
I don't know why you keep dunking on rationalists when most people here are not rationalists and don't claim to be.
I don't know why you reply to my comments when I do. I also don't know why people here rail against their outgroup when most of them are not here. Yet that's been happening forever... A strange observation.
But I don't think even rationalists would claim that "the side that suffers more" automatically carries greater moral legitimacy.
I didn't say they would. I said they stop employing reason in favor of moralism when their ingroup is at risk or when it is otherwise needed. The voice of centric reason only applies to the neutral observer when it suits him.
I do find it ironic that you speak of "transparent intentions," given that you speak with shuddering horror of Palestinians crushed beneath rubble and yet, I must admit I find myself having a very hard time believing that you really care overly much about Palestinian lives per se.
I don't feel the need to earmark a 6 year old with missing legs as anything in particular to feel revolted by the suffering on display. Are things different for you?
That's been the program so far.
No one asks these questions in any other context. I mean, isn't a lot of suffering self inflicted? No one forces the third worlders to continually make mistakes. We just keep giving them money and privilege them in our first world societies. Their populations keep growing and we just accept more immigrants for the greater good.
The pro-Israel narrative doesn't compute with the rationalism or moralism behind all the other oppression narratives. People are continuously trying to carve out some special clause that allows us to ethnically cleanse the browns just this once. The inconsistency is glaring and the ethnic motivation behind it transparent, as this is only being asked because it's jews and Israel.
More options
Context Copy link