BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 17h 13m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That it has any relevance to what I wrote.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
???
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Why should any man care? If the hobby can't 'maintain' men, for whatever reason, then you won't get men. It's of no greater consequence to the average 'bloke' that there aren't any men on some literary prize list than it is of consequence to them that 'Crochet Weekly' didn't feature many men yet again.
I mean, isn't it equally sad that the modding scene for Battlefield 1942 is dead? So much amazing work, some many hours of entertainment. Amazing feats of skill, long lasting friendships, memories of people who worked and played tirelessly for nothing other than love for their craft.
Men tend to just do great things wherever they are. Any creative exercise done by men has the potential to appeal to other men which snowballs itself further and further until the entire thing meets its end and the next thing takes its place. This is a process that has, for all my life, perpetuated itself without any need or input from women or some arbiter of what is good and what is bad. In fact I've only ever seen it hampered by the presence of women or these sorts of arbiters.
To paraphrase a young African American scholar: 'All a nigga knows is all a nigga loves'. There seems to be this unexamined notion that womens hobbies matter. Or that they should matter. Or that what happens around them matters. Which seems fueled entirely by womens sense of self importance. When the reality is that none of it matters any more than some random dead modding scene or that one flash animation on Newgrounds that no one will ever watch again.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In 10 years? Maybe I'm just a fuddy duddy but that seems optimistic to the point of delusion.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The point is there's no reason to start at all. You don't need to debate them when you can just silence them and tell lies about them.
Right, he gets flak for not debating them. But I was ignoring that because I figured we were restricting ourselves to his debates.
Well, kind of, he gets flak for platforming them and not making them look like they are evil. It's not about 'debate' in that sense. It's just about who the enemy is.
Also, I'm not sure where the flak is for appearing with Richard Spencer. Any examples?
I misremembered, it was the host that got flak.
I don't recall all the details, but my understanding is he got departnered from Twitch over saying that the rioting had to stop in an incendiary manner. Hardly for simply defending Rittenhouse at all.
Destiny had been building on the more lefty viewer pool from debating the nazis. Routinely talking about all the 'tankies' and 'socialists' he had in his chat. He was still a 'liberal' but there was a very clear crossover of viewers. That came crashing down when he did a debate with Vaush on the Rittenhouse stuff. After the pushback he got from that, a lot which coming from 'personalities' he went on a much more direct anti-left thing as a response.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't understand what technology you are going to be relying on for childrearing. From the way I understand the dangers of technology, they primarily come from very effectively distracting people from propagating themselves. I don't see why anyone would care otherwise.
You're implicitly speaking about Western "native" populations
I am talking about modern native populations. In that sense it might be unclear. I'm not talking modern as in 'exists today', but modern as in, 'has abundance food, electricity, clean running water and functional toilets and the ability to maintain those things'. That mostly encompasses East-Asia and the western world.
(as if the US even has a native population, they're almost all immigrants!)
There is no United States of America without the white people that built it. In that sense most white Americans are native to the US. Other than that I find the 'native' song and dance very tiresome and low brow. I don't think how long someone has occupied an area has much relation to the value of their existence. I'm much more interested in what they actually did whilst they were there. In that sense the short existence of America, measured in centuries, eclipses large swaths the brown world and all the millennia they had to make something out of themselves. But sure, those browns are 'native' to the travesty they call home whilst the Americans are merely 'immigrants' to the place most brown people wish they could live in.
Not that I particularly care about the West becoming a slightly more brown shade of brown, I'm only concerned with economic or social collapse, and those are not on the cards.
We are too reliant on the word 'slightly' here, for my taste. From what I can understand, the demographic change in the US is much more than slight, with a white minority already being a thing for 15 year olds. I'd call it a safe prediction to say that the current paradigm won't last for long. If you only care for the next 10 years then I can see why you wouldn't care. But for a longer term outlook, again, I'd predict rather drastic changes. The most notable one being a lack of a credible 'world police'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
People in that sphere primarily catch flak when the debate goes poorly for their side. You can't afford a string of bad debates, so as soon as one goes bad other lefties put the pressure on by asking why the person was platforming nazis in the first place if they couldn't perform.
Destiny gets slightly different kind of flak, for example by inviting Nick Fuentes on and being cordial with Lauren Southern or his most recent appearance with Richard Spencer on 'NoJumper' or whatever. To name a few examples.
I think the big breadtube channels make it seem like there is no specific reliance on networking but you can't really exist without being in the green, so to speak. Outside of channels like Contrapoints and others, that are practically too big too fail, there are plenty of channels that are one scandal away from ostracization. If they don't have friends behind the scenes they are just as likely to be drama fodder for the other channels, since they all partially share the same pool of viewers. Unlike someone like Destiny who kind of has his own dedicated base of hardcore supporters. But even then Destiny felt the squeeze during the whole Rittenhouse thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This only holds up to a point. Destiny can get away with saying things in the moment that would torpedo someone else. In part due to having an audience that seems a lot more antifragile and less 'normie' than most. On top of that Destiny has been very careful in selecting who gets to talk to him. And depending on who he is talking to he will drop all pretense of believing anything at all.
His 'debate' with Sean Last was illustrative of that and his inability to argue against 'race'. Prior to that he 'debated' with Mike Enoch where Destiny all but ceded the ground to American white nationalists that pro-white advocacy was valid and needed. Not being able to pinpoint exactly what the problem with something like the American white nationalist project that Mike Enoch was associated with.
Destiny can do that. If things go bad he just rolls with the punches. His audience will stick by him and nothing really happens. It's not like the far right has any platform to advertise their victories on anyways. But if you are a lefty that exists in and relies on a network of media personalities that feed on drama and purity spirals, you can't afford any of that. You really don't have the wiggle room. Not debating the nazis and just doing the mainstream thing of calling them evil and stupid seems a lot more optimal play.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's assuming population decline in a vacuum. The 'transitory' nature of selecting for high fertility in, for example, the US would leave it with, proportionally, a lot of Amish and traditionalist types. The transitory nature of selecting for high fertility alongside mass immigration, however, means those who inherit the earth are not the fertile native but rather the excess population of whatever foreign country.
In real world terms that means that the country that is backwards for the longest and in turn manages to maintain its high pre-modernity birthrates the longest will be the one that wins out. There's no reason to hold to any optimism for any modern native population. Profit motivated immigration + low native birthrates + high foreign birthrates = ethnic replacement.
I think the primary part is that transexuals with 'gay face' can, to straight men, look very 'gross' in makeup. Since the makeup tends to exaggerate the 'gay face'.
On top of that, seeing full body pictures of him, he has extremely 'mannish' features. Very narrow pelvis, very broad shoulders and big head for his frame. There is nothing feminine about the guy. He just looks gay. His mannerisms are also just... gay.
I think the most plausible explanation for his behavior, as has been pointed a few times already, is that he, on some level, saw 'trans' as a business opportunity. And no one can say he is wrong.
That being said, I don't think that alone would explain why so many people take great issue with him and not someone like Hunter Schafer. I think that is much better explained by the fact that he, as a woman, just looks 'gross' from almost every angle. No joke, there are former bodybuilders who 'transitioned' that look less 'gross' than Dylan as women.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Seems like an effective strategy. 'I put myself out there and everyone hates me. Oh how vulnerable a woman I am at the moment.'
I don't see what the big deal is with this particular instance. Outraged men looking at reality defying 'mating requirements' lista made by women... It feels like one of the oldest internet culture war topics.
It reminds me of this TED Talk. Where, to make a long story short, a 'data driven' woman realized that she simply wasn't being picky enough when her 'mating requirements' list had left her with only 35 possible men to date in her city. Prompting her to go online to widen the net.
It has a heartfelt 'Sex and the City' ending where a woman finds true love against all odds. Sending an inspiring message to women of all ages, that there is someone out there for everyone.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
But the market is not made out of perfect information. You will never catch a fish if you don't throw out bait.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Alas, he can’t come out and fire the transitioned member without losing corporate sponsorship and reputation.
He would also be losing a friend. Regardless of anything else, sticking by your friends is admirable. Especially when it actually hurts.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
My heuristic is that the narrative is plausible.
You circle between plausibility and belief. This is why I asked you about the Katyn massacre.
And for the one who keeps privileging evidence, you haven't provided a single link.
A link to what? To what end?
That's ridiculous. The Judeo-Christian neo-conservative plot wasn't to exterminate Iraq, they could've done that in half an hour with a nuclear strike.
Using the rubric you supplied to me I wrote this paragraph for you to demonstrate just how ridiculous that rubric is. You said that because we knew the Germans did not "like" the Poles, and we know this because they invaded. Well, Neo-cons did not like Iraq. We know this because they invaded. From there all else follows and you can't do anything about that because you pretend to not look at specific evidence for specific claims prior to weighing whether it was possible for something to happen or not. You don't bother maintaining your heuristic and I'm not surprised.
Either way they were getting rid of Jews from Germany. Expelling people with various levels of forcefulness isn't the same as working with them.
Contrasted with what you said Hitler was doing with the Poles, which you mean to say is somehow significantly different from what he was doing with the jews:
Did Hitler like Slavs? Not really. Was Hitler planning to exterminate them all? No, there were various plans to subjugate or relocate them if possible. He would've settled for working with them.
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing on here.
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
Do you think I lack material evidence?
I think you are going in circles just like I described above. You keep circling back to the narrative being true. When I proposed an evidence based approach to specific claims you wanted to rely on a heuristic that's partly based on the narrative being true. When I call that heuristic into question you are now circling towards an evidence based approach that's based on the narrative being true. Like I said before, I can't do anything here. If you just presuppose that the holocaust happened then it always did regardless of anything else.
The Sportspalast Speech is not Allied war propaganda, it's German war propaganda. Almost nobody reads through these Web 1.0 text files from Calvin University.
I didn't say it was allied war propaganda. And you're not the first person to quote Goebbels to prove how evil the nazis were in pursuit of proving claims made against them without having to propose any specific evidence for any specific events. The point being made is that you can quote war propaganda to produce sentiment of genocidal intent because war propaganda is generally about killing the enemy.
These assumptions of knowledge aren't based on thin air - we know the Soviets and Germans disliked the Poles, they partitioned the country earlier. If I were in 1942 or whatever, I'd be uncertain whether Germany or Russia killed those Poles.
In 2003 the USA along with its NATO allies invaded Iraq because they hated Iraqis and wanted to genocide them all. Every single civilian death was part of a genocidal judeo-christian neo-conservative plot to exterminate Iraq. We know this because the USA invaded Iraq and toppled its government. In fact, public sentiment at the time included rhetoric about 'glassing' the region. Directly invoking and promoting a nuclear holocaust. This is proof of murderous intent for every single Iraqi casualty during the war and subsequent occupation.
Well what choice do I have?
I am not asking you to do primary research. You can simply stop believing in the holocaust or be compelled to defend it. Stop maintaining differential standards for historical methodology based on social factors. You don't believe in other historical events in the same way. If someone calls the mainstream narrative of the war in Burma into question you don't care. You don't feel the need to weave together some methodology that can sustain the narrative. Belief in the holocaust, for 99,99% of people is just ridiculous.
The whole point of arguing from capability and motives is that we can bypass the masses of facts that clog everything up.
See the genocidal invasion of Iraq above. You are not bypassing anything except your own critical faculties. Why do you need to believe in the holocaust?
But when it comes to Jews, there was never any desire to work with them, they were implacable enemies of Nazism. And they still are today!
Not true. See the Haavara Agreement and the Madagascar plan.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This methodological standard for historical evidence is, to put it lightly, unsustainable. By the same logic you can look at any war propaganda and use it as proof of genocide. Not genocidal intent, but actual genocidal events.
Who killed 22 thousand Polish military officers in Katyn forest? How could you know? You don't look at physical evidence. But going by the war propaganda that you happen to know, which just so happens to be the propaganda the victors of history want you to know about, everyone knows just how much Hitler hated the Slavs and wanted to kill every single one of them. Everyone also knows, because it is so true of course, that Hitler thought Poles were Slavs, not Aryan. So going by our methodology it just makes sense that the Germans committed the Katyn forest massacre.
I want you to be self aware of your position here. Your claims of not being persuaded that there were even 'accounting errors' is completely meaningless. You have already represented yourself as someone who acquires belief in historical events not through evidence but inference from broader historical narratives. You have no basis to question these narratives. You have no knowledge of what even constitutes historical evidence or proof in the context of these events. All you have are inferences based on what sounds plausible to yourself as a person who doesn't question historical events or the broader historical narrative you were raised with.
This position is unassailable. I can't do anything. Because no matter the fraught nature of specific evidence for any specific event, you always have the broader narrative to fall back on. And because you fall back on the broader narrative to protect individual claims, no individual claim can be refuted and the narrative can never be called into question.
You can read the historical national socialist express his ideology in his most famous work, and it maps out pretty well as the kind of ideology that would lead to a genocide of Jews in territory under his control.
No it doesn't.
In a sort of man bites dog analogy: holocaust education, like you describe it, is like listening to a CNN pundit explain why people voted for Trump with a CGI rendering of Capitol Hill on fire in the background.
Very similar to how people will frame National Socialism as an elaborate Rube Goldberg style mechanism to hate jews. With a hatred that practically sprung out of thin air via philosophies and theories, Hitler was just a sort of 'whacky idea man' and the German people voted for him because they were insane.
Yeah, I think so.
Maybe it's just me but when I first learned that I had been heavily mislead by a supposed arbiter of truth I started questioning things that came from that arbiter. I mean, if they'd lie about the holocaust why wouldn't they lie about "Nazy ideology"? How could you trust them? Have you ever heard "Nazi ideology" expressed by an actual historical national socialist? Has anyone aside from select soundbites and quotes? Who selected those?
And don't get me started on the idea that this is just an error. If historians can collectively make errors like this there is no reason to take the field seriously.
The notion that megadeaths buy you moral superiority points is ridiculous. Otherwise we'd never be able to say a bad word about Russia or China, yet we're clearly happy to do so.
I don't hold to that notion nor do I know anyone who does. The holocaust is pushed because jews have a lot of power in western society. There's nothing objective about the standard of placing it front and center in victimary discourse.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The theoretical possibility of something happening is not proof of it actually happening. The specific claims made as to what happened and how matter far more in determining that.
There is nothing ridiculous about the logic relating to the size of an alleged gas chamber and the amount of people you could possibly fit into it when the claim made is that people were fitted into it and killed at a necessitated rate. If it turns out that you can't fit as many people into the chamber as you would need to maintain the rate then what can you make of the claim? You would have to revise it.
Do you revise back to a different estimate of killings? One false claim doesn't disprove a narrative based on a thousand claims, afer all. Well, what if we do this for most of the claims of the holocaust and come away from them with the conclusion that the vast majority of them don't hold up to scrutiny all that well. Does it then matter that it sounded plausible to us that the Germans could have done it?
This is rather pertinent since it calls into question on just what we are grounding our belief in the holocaust. I mean, yeah, of course, it sounds plausible to me that the Germans could have done it. After all I've been told all my life that they were evil back in the day, on top of being industrious and efficient. If that is our basis for belief is it even possible for us to question the holocaust at all? Won't it always sound plausible to us that the evil regime would do whatever evil thing?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
There was a bit of back-and-forth on the archaeological evidence and witness testimony, which I eventually gave up on because SS (very subtle username, by the way) clearly knew much more about the subject than me, and could thus, as the saying goes, drag me down to his level and beat me with experience. Calculating the number of corpses that can fit in a given volume definitely felt like I was being dragged down a few levels.
This reads a tad bit uncharitable. If he knows more than you it could hardly be fair to say that he is dragging you down. As for calculating the number of bodies that can fit in a room, the nature of the revisionist talking points can only be fairly compared to the nature of the evidence presented by mainstream theorists.
Aside from that:
The Alternative Hypothesis made a video on this topic. With a text version available, linked below. 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.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Do they support their existence and see their interest aligned with them? What kind of proportions of the American jewish population are we talking here? From the opinion polls I've read that are some pretty uniform opinions that jews have that seem plenty represented in their larger organizations.
There are a lot of "Jewish" advocacy organizations and charities in the same way that there are thousands of Catholic organizations.
I mean, yes and no. Can you clarify the point here?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr 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.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Then it would behoove those jews who are apparently not being represented by the 'elite' jews to stop supporting them through ethno centric advocacy groups that go as far as to say that any talk of 'international' or 'cosmopolitan' elites is inherently anti-semitic.
You can't have AIPAC, the ADL, and the thousands of jewish advocacy groups in the US and act like the concept of a 'jew' doesn't hold any value and that it can just be brushed away by mention of the fact that poor jews exist.
Unlike the anti-white racial theories of unconscious bias and systemic racism, anti-semitism doesn't need to go that far to make its point. It just needs to point to any one of the widely supported explicitly racially exclusive jewish advocacy groups.
Then you can care all you want. Just like there are a few guys who still care enough to update an 19 year old mod for a 21 year old game that is played by less than a few hundred people.
More options
Context Copy link