BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 12h 37m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The Communist Party supports the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice.
The CPB contradicting itself isn't a problem of mine.
I'm hesitant to attach myself to any specific theory or definition relating to 'trans-anything' since there are so many, but it's a common feature for the vast majority of them to define 'trans acceptance' as an acceptance of the trans person as their identified gender. That means that you don't get to hold biology or anything else over their head in any way shape or form. Trans women are women and that's that. Anything else is not trans accepting but trans exclusionary. If you are trans exclusionary you are not supporting the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice. You are in fact doing the opposite.
It’s quite possible to desegregate the prisons and penalise rape in prisons.
Rape is already penalized in prisons. That doesn't stop it from happening. The thing that would actually drastically stop a lot of it from happening, along with a lot of the beatings, murders and so on, would be to segregate the prisons. But the vast majority of people decided that the cost, that included torturous beatings, rapes and murders, was worth it for the sake of whatever racial ideology they believed in.
With that being the case I don't see how it could possibly be such a tough hill to climb to just let trans people into whatever prison they want to. Not to be a smartass but just apply the same rubric you just applied to mens prisons and desegregation. It's quite possible to allow trans folk into whatever prison they want and penalize whatever negative that comes of it. Is it not?
The Communist Party supports the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice. This attempt to change the law does nothing for their access to health, medical, housing, advisory and other services sensitive to their needs.
It's a very 'conservative' mealy-mouthed statement that seems desperate to look for an excuse to not put themselves behind placing men into womens prisons. Here's a pro-tip for center liberals and the CPB: If you say you are in favor of trans rights, open your eyes and recognize that these are men asking for the rights and privileges of women. If you are in favor of that don't act shocked or walk back your support or hide behind excuses when those men take advantage of those rights and privileges.
Worries about legal implications and consequences for the broader system are, in activist terms, called growing pains. To give an example of this, the desegregation implementation in the US impacted prisoners a lot. We are talking untold numbers of beatings, killings and rapes. All for racial justice. Similar stories can be found in British society and in British prisons as a consequence of immigration.
The morbid facts of those matters are not of any significant inconvenience to anyone who pushed for the policies of desegregation or immigration and integration. It's at best an inconvenient bump in the road that, in hindsight, should have been handled slightly differently, but never will be since doing so might make the whole thing look worse. But there's no grief there or anything. No one loses any sleep over it, ever. No matter how gruesome and horrifying the consequence of their advocacy was and continues to be. Most people never even think about it.
Compared to that, what is the worst case scenario here? What am I being asked to think and care about? A trans person rapes a woman in jail? Or, to put it in a way that is consistent with the CPB's own statement, a woman rapes a woman in jail? Sorry, compared to the rest of the progressive program, an increase in rapes in womens prisons isn't something I'm going to be losing sleep over. Nor should anyone in favor of desegregation or third world immigration if they in any way shape or form care about consistency. It's actually just a gender inclusive joke now. Don't drop the soap!
All in all, I find the whole clash between trans issues and womens issues to be highly illustrative of just how much more society cares for women than men. We are seeing strides towards gender equality that no MRA type could ever even have dreamt of. All off the back of a few guys who pretend to be women. Like, as a man, the actual mechanism for more equality is to pretend to be a woman.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't believe that to be the case for a non-trivial amount of people. Sure, you can justify what you have as being what you want. Or you can make the best out of the situation you felt you found yourself in and settle for someone. But if you give people the anonymous choice between a 9 vs a 6, accounting for an 'objective' height/bmi/status/money, and all else being equal, and neither 9 or 6 will know if they are not chosen so you are not hurting any feelings, people will go for the 9.
I think there are cases where people will intentionally lower their standards due to their own circumstance and insecurities. But if you told them that they could have a 9 that loved all the things they hate about themselves, or a 6 that does the same, I'd say, yeah, we are talking trivial amounts of people who go for 6.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The EU also threatened reducing financial support, if I recall correctly. In any case I'd say it's hard to call anything 'democratic' when there is so much pressure and influence from outside sources that are directly trying to push without shoving to get the 'people' to vote how they 'should'.
I mean the latter. Not to make the 'debate' out to be too contrived or anything. There's still an objective truth out there. But people undeniably behave in this way.
There was a lot of 'liberal/left/progressive' pro-Union rhetoric in the US that got upended when the anti-black anti-immigration history of the unions was popularized in the new era of anti-white academia and media. The thing is that, unlike a lot of the anti-white stuff, there is a pretty solid historical base to make those arguments.
You literally can't have implicitly white and oikophilic unions. As history shows they will be at odds with uncontrolled influx of labor since new labour is a direct threat to their ability to leverage the value of theirs at the negotiation table, as well as being a direct threat to the sanctity of their 'home'. That was the case with freed slaves from the South coming into the American labour markets and it has been the case with the huge amounts of skilled and unskilled labour flooding the western world from the third. The end result is that you don't get to have effective unions in an international economy. 'Big business' can and will always leverage the new labour to get what they want.
I don't fully agree that these narratives are sprung from the theory that whites got rich from exploitation.
The founding cause is the notion that we are all equal. It logically follows that if one group got 'ahead' of another, that they did so at the expense of someone else. How else could you explain the fact that one group has so much whilst another has so little? And it seems to be an unfortunate case of basic human intuition to suspect foul play whenever two sides get widely divergent results, especially if they are supposed to be equal.
When you get into the weeds of debunking theories that arise from being logically necessitated you are just slamming your head into a concrete wall. A logically necessitated theory can't ultimately be untrue. It can't be false. It's logically derived from a greater truth. It's necessitated. It has to be true in some way.
So long as you don't engage with that greater truth you will never get anywhere. In fact, people are more likely to hate you for casting aspersions on their theory since any theory you have, that doesn't align with what is logically necessitated, has to be, in some way, untrue. A lie, a play on words, a twist on reason. And what kind of a person would do such a thing?
The larger problem is that the greater truth isn't always derived at via the same way. So you might have a person who believes because their teacher said all human beings are equal. And from there the Grand Theory of Evil Whitey intuitively followed. Or you have a person who was exposed to Civil Rights propaganda as a child and started seeing black people as inherently more virtuous than white people. Or a person who simply adopts and believes in the dominant opinion of their environment for no other reason than it being that. What science man says must be true.
I think these sort of articles act as a cross between two worlds. The activist HBD types, that frame themselves as challenging a hegemony of environmentalism or whatever. And the 'I'm just doing research' types, who make contradictory theories to the 'hegemony' but don't make explicit 'the hegemony is wrong' arguments.
There is a tendency to excuse the 'just doing research' types in 'rationalist circles' for being more 'pure of heart', along with the general appeal of stats and graphs. But I think ultimately the instincts of those who decry both types of HBD enjoyers as nazis are more correct than not. You can't entertain these ideas without abandoning the idea that everyone is equal. And regardless of your motives or intent, abandoning the idea of equality will inevitably lead to the same kind of logically necessitated truths that we find in those who embrace the notion of universal human equality.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The one data point of a guy in reality doing the thing I am talking about isn't a change to reality. It is reality. That's on top of every other benefit of carrying another rifle. Calling it 'silliness' in this context is far from warranted.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This doesn't contradict anything I've said. Pending on state and country you have higher or lower rates. For murder various states have marginally higher rates than many EU countries, and are lower or on par with others, such as Finland which stands at 1.5 when we look at intentional homicide victims. As I said before, poverty is a big problem, but if you account for race the problem looks completely different.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm giving a single example to your no example after you made assertions that contradicted what happened there. Saying reloading is massively faster than throwing away a gun and presenting one that is strapped to your chest just isn't true. I'm sure it can be true if you are a smooth operator that reloads his weapon every time without hesitation or hitch. But if you are less than perfect at any moment during a reload I'd be much more inclined to say that dropping a gun for another that is strapped to your chest is faster.
Appealing to some greater understanding, be that the assertion of a 'true' cost benefit analysis, personal experience or framing the whole discussion as 'video game logic' just isn't relevant to me. There are plenty of obvious use cases for an extra rifle. And whilst there is a cost associated with that, I don't see why that cost is so obviously high that it renders the act 'silly' or 'comically wrong'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It didn't look like something out of a silly videogame when Tarrant did it in practice. He, in fact, looked far more vulnerable when he had to reload his rifle compared to when he had to chuck away an empty shotgun to present a loaded rifle. And as I stated before, I don't see the focus on weight being relevant here. You are not traveling long distances. You are not shooting and scooting like John Wick. You are walking door to door shooting children. Worst case scenario is either that you are unable to fire at someone tackling you or that your gun stops working. Carrying an extra gun, ready to fire, solves both of those issues.
I don't see the assertion of a 'true' cost benefit analysis being relevant unless substantiated. There is a very obvious benefit to carrying a secondary rifle. There is a cost that comes with that. But considering the situation I don't see why that cost would be so prohibitive as to be called silly.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's true and not true depending on what state/country you are looking at. Vermont has a very similar homeless population to Ireland, for example. I'm also terminally skeptical of any white perpetrator rates coming from America considering whites and hispanics are often lumped together. And whilst there are certainly parts of America that are poor, the same can also be said for European countries that aren't western.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm still at a loss as to why it is silly. On the other hand I can see a very clear benefit in minimizing the time you are not able to fire. Considering the most immediate threat before police show up is being tackled by someone who is unarmed, the only time you are vulnerable to that threat is if you are not capable of firing. Other than that you are, in theory, going door to door shooting children. What is 8 pounds of extra weight on your chest compared to a rifle backup that is quickly and easily presentable? For a cost benefit analysis I don't see the obvious cost and lack of benefit that render the approach silly.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Why? A rifle to dump and drop followed by a second one, with a pistol as backup. Assuming 30 round magazines that's 60 rifle rounds before the first reload. Considering you are, at least in theory, going door to door shooting children I don't see what's so obviously silly about it.
As an example of this in practice, Brenton Tarrant carried a shotgun and a rifle. A shotgun he fired until empty which he then dropped for an immediate rifle follow up.
It's boring at this point but considering that, apparently, the 'progressive' line on poverty hasn't changed much, it's worth noting that race is a factor that shapes what poverty looks like. It has never been a valid move to go from Detroit to Copenhagen and act thunderstruck as to how much better the 'Nordic Model' is to the American one.
That is not to say that there doesn't exist a big problem with poverty. The effects of inflation with regards to basic things like housing are felt everywhere. But since the immediate solution to that problem of reducing immigration isn't allowed by lib/left/progressives, nor, in fact, conservatives, I don't see an end in sight to the 'housing issue' in particular. And I feel like you could run down the list of every single element that constitutes the problem of 'poverty' and come away with a similar result for the vast majority of them.
I think it's ultimately easier for the kind hearted to look at the harrowing reality of poverty and just feel bad about it. To imagine that those suffering are just victims of circumstance. That their true humanity is drowned by the horrors of an evil capitalist system that values profit over kindness. Greed over empathy. And to the extent that they would be right, I'd agree that 'something should be done' to lessen the suffering. To get those who are able 'back on the right track'. To lessen the burden on those who are struggling with 'fighting the good fight'. But, in my experience, there also exists a kind of person that invited every single issue they are facing into their own life. And solving their issues is much more complicated and difficult than any mainstream conception can deal with.
Then I feel like you need to properly engage with the issues of Boas's methodology. The primary one being that his thesis rests on him comparing the faces of children with the faces of their parents to conclude that they are not similar. I had thought most people knew that the faces of children change with age. Sometimes referred to as 'growth'. And that, as detailed in the linked article, the dominant force for all such traits, on closer review, was genetic. Leading to the reason why it is possible to tell the geographical ancestry with of a skeleton with "90% accuracy" from skull alone. And why children take after their parents in one way or another.
The history you bring up has little to do with the point being highlighted in my writeup. The book was review bombed because the climate of anthropology had drastically changed. Being swept up in the Civil Rights culture war where, as you point out, Coon found himself on the side of segregationists.
Coon wrote the book in 1962 after having resigned as president of the AAPA. Coon resigned because a group of anthropologists had pressured him to defame a book that, upon closer inspection, Coon deduced none of them had even read, bar one. It was pure culture war. And the two sides were the classical scientific racists going up against the theories of Boas.
Though it's not important to my main point, since it's not claimed that every single 'member' of the 'new' elite is jewish, nor that every single 'member' of the 'old' is gentile, the biggest opponent of Coon at the time was a student of Boas, Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg.
Doesn't really sound like someone advancing "Jewish interests".
Who are you quoting? Though this is mostly unrelated to what I've been talking about, I'd fall back on Kevin MacDonald and his theory for the specific nature of Boas and his motivations. But to be clear, I made no mention of "Jewish interests" in my original writeup. Which pertained to the new elite vs the old elite, and the difference in incentives between them that could explain the nature of differing emergent elite consensus.
If you have points to make on what "Jewish interests" are and who is advancing them vs who is not then I think you need to flesh that out in more detail beforehand.
Yeah you're right. the ACLU has always been aggressively jewish. I felt the difference was that back then it had to play by old structure rules to get what it wanted with the Civil Rights stuff. Compared to now when it doesn't need to bother with such games. But I think that historical narrative is born more out of mythology than reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't see anything sad about this story.
I don't like the idea of the elite consensus being an emergent property of being elite without it being taken into account what shapes these emergent properties.
As an example, I think it makes sense from an elite perspective to be, to make a long story short, 'pro-Heritage Foundation'. If you own a lot of the economy it makes sense you want 'line' to go up. Simple.
But there are also cases where this doesn't make as much sense. For example, there is nothing self evident about wanting to tear down the old structures or make drastic changes to the order of society. Why would an elite, that is already on top, want to do such a thing? It makes no sense. Unless, of course, the 'elite' sees themselves as an outsider to those structures. Which was the case for the new elite of jews and Catholics that started making up significant portions of the elite in America from 1930's onwards.
The balance of the elite shifted from what it was due to this influx of outsider elites who had different incentives from the old elite of, what was mostly, Liberal Protestants. This led to the many debates and intellectual clashes that made up the culture war of old. Where the 'old guard' stood behind the old structures whilst the new elite was tearing them down and building new ones out of the rubble. The one I'm familiar with, on race, is highly illustrative of this. From Boas and his fraudulent anthropology, that is the bedrock of modern American anthropology. Which helped facilitate the landscape that pushed men like Carleton Coon away. To Gould and his alternative timeline of evolutionary biology and what would later be recognized as completely fraudulent biology. Contrasted with Wilson and his fights against Gould and Lewontin and I think you have, at least in a specific area, a good illustrative example of what was going on at every single level of academia where anyone was putting up a fight against the new elite. And whilst the ratio of old vs new, WASP vs jew, was still balanced enough that you could have an explicit culture war at the elite level, the ratio kept skewing further and further 'new'. Giving us what we have today.
Another illustrative example would be the drastic change at the ACLU. Which I assume most are familiar with.
This wasn't an emergent change that happened naturally because elites are how they are because they are elites. There was a stark change in the demographics of Americas elite. New faces. New races. And the drastic change is not just correlated with this new ethnic makeup and overrepresentation of jews but also corroborated by specific historical examples where these jews ousted the old to make way for a new ideology that better suited their being.
It's hard to write in support of the WASP elite since it, along with the white American middle class, is finally getting what they've had coming for a long time now. And though it may be the fault of the WASP to have ever let the new elite in, ultimately the real driving force behind the change was the new elite.
I think there's a great segment from the linked interview with E.O. Wilson that illustrates the failure of the old mindset:
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!
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
How is that an exception to what I said? My point was that such a debate is contrived, obfuscatory and self serving. The more control a person has over their environment, the more powerful they can make their feedback loop. The mechanism for how they do that is irrelevant to that point. Limiting the scope of the debate to specific groups or mechanisms only serves to obfuscate the veracity of the problem.
The reason I said that liberal science men and rational free thinkers are not in a position to do anything about that is not because of their real world political power or influence. It's because they are at their core liberals who at every turn have fought for people to have more control over their environments. And that's the elephant in the room. Because the problem isn't specific mechanisms. It's people. When you give people control over their environments they will mold it to form feedback loops.
If one is a liberal, free thinking, open minded, live and let live kinda guy one is probably not going to have a big overarching vision about what kind of lives other people should live. No higher power to live up to, no universal or group specific ideal to strive for. In essence: no strictly enforced social norms that can infringe upon thy freedom. Such a person is probably more inclined to just say: 'as long as it's not hurting anyone and everyone consents'. The problem with that is that people are almost guaranteed to destroy themselves when they happen upon a stimuli they enjoy too much. We have been witnessing that for decades now. All under the noses of the liberal free thinkers who did nothing about it since the world around them happened to suit their predilections and preferences for an 'open and free society'. As well meaning as they may think themselves to be, they are simply put not equipped to deal with the problem in its totality. Their failure now surrounds us all.
Another issue I take with people like Haidt and the like broaching the topic the way they do is that it is inherently self serving. I mean, what a coincidence that the guy who doesn't like 'woke' politics is talking about how 'woke' women are mentally ill. Sorry, but I put about as much stock in the sincerity of the endeavor as when progressive science men create studies about how stupid racists are. To say nothing about the truth value of those claims, nor the actual sincerity of those involved. There are just too many arrows pointing in one direction, for a lack of a better explanation.
And to that end, if the people that are going on this navel probing expedition into the problems of progressive women are actually serious about solutions to the problems afflicting them, for instance by removing smartphones, then I'd expect them to be able to muster up many times the enthusiasm and effort for the host of issues of the same variety that are afflicting the majority of the western world today. But because of who they are, I hold no hope that they will. So I find their presence here as irrelevant and futile and the topic of their discussion as particularly self serving and gross. Not only because of the inherently otherizing nature of the endeavor but because it obfuscates the actual problem, which their liberal ideals helped maintain.
I don't like 'external causes' theories. When you are in charge of your environment you create feedback loops for stimuli. The fact people seek out whatever stimuli in the first place is always the primary cause. Other than that, I find the scope of the question depressing.
Well, here folks are talking about forcibly modifying peoples environments to cut them away from stimuli they think is harmful for the very low stakes of lib/left/progressives being more mentally unstable than some obese conservative. This irks me quite a bit since, unless folks are intentionally proposing half measures, you can't stop at phones. It's computers, TV's and every other screen that can show you the equivalent of a Kardashian. It's magazines, pictures, makeup, mirrors, the next door neighbor. It's food, it's work, it's your home. There is no environmental fix for an innate cause, and there is no 'one neat trick' solution. And if your stakes are so low to begin with, how could you not justify such drastic measures of environmental modification for much more destructive things?
I get that modifying the eldritch horror that is modernity into something more hospitable to human life is a noble effort, but I don't see any of the liberal science men and free thinking rational bloggers as being in position to do any of that. They've constructed just as thick a barrier against any practical solution as the most hysterical bipolar liberal. They have their own feedback loops that they want to protect. Seeing them point at 'crazy liberals' and phones is just so whatever I literally can't even.
It's as if the question itself from ground up is constructed in such a way as to help whoever asks protect their own environment from scrutiny. I mean, hell, everyone here hates 'Group', right? Why not find an area where they are lacking and talk about how we can modify the environment of our outgroup to better suit our ingroup? Brilliant. What an interesting question! Very open minded.
Modernity is poison that finds and feeds on your worst innate predilections until you are no longer a functional human being. For most people that exists as sitting in front of a screen watching the life you wish you could have being lived by a millionaire whilst you grow ever weaker, dumber and more obese. For others its perpetual bipolar rollercoaster where the scenery is your life passing you by. I don't see why one would excuse musings of environmental control for one over another.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I give up. You initially: "are very aware that they are not gentiles" and that that demonstrates that they don't see themselves as white.
I didn't say 'because of this logical argument this is true'. I stated it as something that's obviously true. I put it in bold and everything. I then gave examples of jews very obviously and consistently considering themselves as jews. I did this, and called what you were doing a wordgame, because who qualifies as 'white' doesn't matter to the proposition of whether or not jews insist on being separated as their own group. It can be true that jews pass as white and that they say they are white when they feel they benefit from it, but never actually consider themselves as being white. That they, in fact, otherize 'whites' and see them as an outgroup to their jewish ingroup.
So, finally, the truth comes out: If a White person is not "pro-White," whatever that means, they are not really White.
I assumed that the "opposite" of hating whites was to be pro-white. I guess that's asking too much. I'd settle for non-hating and non-otherizing. Though that's not "opposite" by any means. I still draw quite a blank.
Other than that you said the statement I made about jews and their hatred and maliciousness towards 'whites' could not be justified unless I had data on how many jews say the opposite. I gave the answer that aside from a handful of individuals, there are none that I know of. You say that, actually, there are some Orthodox Jews who qualify as pro-white. Sure. I don't feel like my statement has been invalidated. But, as per request of mods, and in recognition that my post was not specific enough, I'll amend the original qualifier and say that when I talk about jews hating white people I am referring only to around 80% of jews rather than 90%.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Catholic and jew are not the same since jew is an ethnic group and a religious group. But regardless of that I don't see the relevance. Jews can write they are white on the census and still be separating themselves into a group distinct from other whites in every other aspect where being white doesn't provide any benefit. I certainly don't see many Catholics go 'I'm not white I'm Catholic'.
Not unless you also have data re how many say the opposite. And then there is the claim that Jewish people intentionally pretend to be white for nefarious purposes,which of course is the silliest part.
Outside of a handful of people there are no publicly visible or notable pro-white jewish elements that I know of. The closest you get is IDW types deconstruction white identity and prescribing individualism as part of judeo-conservative media. This is contrasted with thousands of examples of white hating jews and countless organizations made for the express purpose of advancing jewish interests.
As for the 'silliest part' I may be in error of prescribing jews agency when they spew their hateful rhetoric against white people. Maybe it's just a subconscious function? Considering how silly I am you can tell me why jews act like this. Why does a jew say 'my fellow white people, we are the worst and the cause of everything bad' and then a few tweets later go 'I'm not white I'm Jewish'
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Dude, gentile doesn’t mean "white." It means "non-Jewish."
I know. The point being made was that jews calling themselves 'white' is meaningless when they don't see themselves and being a part of the vast majority of folks that make up the group 'white'. It's rather plainly stated in the second half of the paragraph you cut off: "Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews." There's no 'white solidarity' there. Hence why pointing out that jews call themselves white on a census is a meaningless wordgame. Jews very obviously see themselves as different from 'whites'.
This is hilarious for a forum in which every other post is about HBD.
Why?
Now you are just being silly.
I made a strong statement, but considering I just scrolled past the 100th jew claiming to be white whilst talking about how unbearable, insufferable and stupid white people are, in between blood libel about how white people are the source of all evil, just before a tweet shows these very same jews talking about how much they love being jewish, I think it's a completely accurate and justifiable statement to make.
Mealy-mouthed:
afraid to speak frankly or straightforwardly
If the CPB doesn't support trans rights then they shouldn't say that they support trans rights.
Brushing aside what appears, to me, to be an unfortunately 'low resolution' view on prison rape, pending clarification. What is the problem with letting trans people into womens prisons? Just "properly" penalize them so they don't do anything wrong.
More options
Context Copy link