BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 04h 44m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think there are enough 'IQ nationalists', especially in the 'fringe rationalist world' to warrant some expressed reservations regarding the alleged supremacy of IQ.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Some of the arguments are sourced, some are not. I think, as poorly argued as the position is, there are undeniable expressed differences between divergent population groups. I don't know on what basis anyone can deny this considering the widely divergent cultural norms and expressions. Let alone physical and psychological differences. I also, like you, don't know exactly what the person is arguing towards. It reads similar to anti-China CIA threads on /pol/, without the industrial accident webm's.
If, as you seem to think, Asians are unfeeling automata who may neither comprehend art nor build genuine rapport...I'm not seeing the problem. Explain to me why the existence of such people is a bad thing.
I think there is an undeniably obvious problem to develop between two people, one an unfeeling automata and another who deeply feels and sympathizes with everything around him. Now neither the Chinese nor European live up to those descriptors, but I think the principle holds firm regardless. That there is a clash of 'values' there.
I think a lot of the world has been playing by western rules for a while now. And I see no reason to assume that any country anywhere in the world would continue to do so if the west fades as a power. I don't see it as a ridiculous deduction to say that this potential loss of power, coupled with different values of a rising power, represent a threat to the people who value all the things the 'west' has stood for internationally.
I don't think you necessarily need to demonize the Chinese to make this argument, but there does seem to be a numbness to the western population when a threat is proposed that is anything other than the media flavor of the month. A sort of automatic assumption that, no matter what, the status quo established by White expansion and global dominance throughout the recent ages is a universal that was always the case and that it will hold no matter who is 'in charge'. I think that assumption is obviously faulty. But, again, I don't think you make those arguments literally, like is being tried here. I think you just show a Chinese person boiling a dog alive and let the 'visceral logic' do the speaking for you.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Both. And at risk of being to curt here, none of what you say necessitates a man wanting a woman with a degree.
But I wouldn't say that this is because men want women with degrees. I'd say it's because men with degrees by 'chance' were around women with degrees, specifically in universities or workplaces. It wasn't a requirement on the men's part that the women have degrees. So I don't think the way you phrase things is accurate. Educated men are not locking out uneducated women from their dating pool. The university and workplace is. It might be true that the social stratification we are seeing is leading to extreme rates of assorted mating, but the driving force behind that is not the mating preferences of men.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Do men really care if a girl has a college degree or not? I've never heard the need for education expressed by any man. Be it one I know or any real life media.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The person referred to in the latter half of the episode as being a very active transmitter of AIDS was probably Gaetan Dugas.
The Wikipedia article on Dugas manages very artfully to gloss over the 'disgusting' aspect of his story by 'debunking' a theory that Dugas was the person who introduced AIDS to America/various cities. And under that debunking sweep the very insidious nature of a person that allegedly intentionally spread a deadly contagious disease, even if he wasn't the first one.
"I've got gay cancer, I'm going to die and so are you" He is reported to have said after sex. Not my idea of pillow talk.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Valid for what?
Everything that it can predict. I don't think it's pointless to have a correlate that outperforms economic factors, considering the weight people place on those. If there's a metric that is better or worse, you as a person who doesn't care about race has no reason to care about using the race metric or not. Telling stories about how your black neighbors were better than the white ones in some area you lived in is not you not caring. Which is why I asked what the big deal was. Some people are a different color and commit more crime. Using that one can predict various things. Given that it can predict this, I'm inclined to believe that it has some value. I can not possibly understand why you take issue with this. Like I've said countless times, it's not either or.
For instance, black people have ingroup bias greater than that of whites. Black children are more likely to bully than white children. These two things might show up on some direct metric like crime or school evaluation, but they also might not. Since no metric is perfect. Considering we don't care about race, do we care that one group of a different color has a baseline higher rate of bullying than another when we are choosing a school? Knowing that bullying can be very insidious and go under the radar of any stat collecting authority for a long time. Maybe that's parental paranoia, and the factors that account for bullying are reliant on not just the bully but the victim and whatever else. But regardless of that, if we don't care about race, why on earth would we place our lot with a group that has a baseline higher than another? All else being equal.
So why are you investing so much in pointing it out?
I asked a question that relied on you acknowledging the fact that you were implicitly avoiding blacks. You, for some reason, said you weren't implicitly avoiding blacks. Now that we have that finally sorted maybe you could just answer that question.
I surely have no problem recognizing the fact that Don Lemon said it.
That's not the fact I was asking you to recognize. I was asking you to recognize that there might be truth to the proposition that different racial groups have different problems that don't show up in crime reports. And that this might influence ones decision about where to move. You said you have better metrics, but don't elaborate on what those are. I think expressed racial kinship is a relevant factor. If it's one black neighbor, I see no reason to assume anything. If it's a group of black neighbors or a black neighborhood, they seem to have decided to live with 'their own'. I don't find that irrelevant regardless of how well behave they are.
That's not enough. Metric A being imperfect doesn't mean you go grab for any random metric B. You have first to show metric B is actually less imperfect than metric A. But this is clearly not the case here.
Like I said before, it's not an either or. I'm not looking to placate your baseless need to only use one metric when making a prediction about something. I honestly find it ridiculous and I don't believe you would be so adamant about only using a single metric in a different context. Considering I've given use cases for race in areas that crime rate does not cover I don't see the objection as being relevant to anything I'm saying.
Thus, this correlation is not useful for me for the purposes of choosing a low-crime neighborhood.
Right, the link to spurious correlations threw me for a loop. The point I was making wasn't that it would be more useful than direct metrics, like I've said many times now. That doesn't mean it isn't a useful predictor for related things, like if the neighborhood is growing darker or lighter or whatever else. In that case, moving to an area that is growing darker would likely be bad in the long run. But you could not tell by looking at crime stats for the past year.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That very well may be - but I don't need a predictor if I can get the actual thing measured!
I never said you needed it, like I have said multiple times now. I was saying that it was valid. Furthermore, that's not what that line of argument was about. It was about whether or not you were implicitly avoiding black people via your stated preferences for safety and the added measures of 'good schools'. By the same token you self described as avoiding poor people you are avoiding blacks, that was the point.
To reiterate again, no one said race as a proxy was needed. I, however, maintained that there was no reason for a person who did not care about race to dismiss the metric since it still contains information.
Possible, but why invent such proxy if there's no need in it?
It's not an either or. Having more is better than having less. For example, as Don Lemon said, even in the rich black neighborhoods he was living in there were problems there he did not see in white ones. You, as a person who says they don't care about race, should have no problem recognizing that fact. It might contradict your experience or it might not, but there is no basis here to act as if it has no value.
Well, yes, but there are more direct metrics for the quality of schools, why anybody would be interested in metrics that are secondary or tertiary?
Because no measure or metric is perfect. Why not have an interest in a wide array of metrics? Even though they are not all equally as good at some specific thing there might be cases where one happens to matter more. If say, schools start implementing a policy of suspending their black students less despite their behavior, then race seems like a very pertinent metric. I mean, I wouldn't want my kid growing up in such an unfair and racist environment.
Ok, there's a correlation. But so what?
There are a lot of spurious correlations that can be made so therefor what? If you think the correlation between %black and violent crime is not informative in this context then I don't know what on earth you were talking about when you insinuated that you were implicitly avoiding poor neighborhoods earlier. Given that the correlation between %black and violent crime is higher than economic factors in the vast majority of cases.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
But it doesn't. It makes me avoid living in poor neighborhoods with bad policing and so on.
You imply that it does. Race is a stronger predictor of crime than poverty in the majority of the literature that looks at this. By the standard you allow yourself to say you are avoiding living in poor neighborhoods you are by definition avoiding living in black neighborhoods. I would even hazard a guess that, proportionally, a poor neighborhood would be more likely to be safe and have a good school than a black one in the vast majority of cases.
I don't care.
I never said you did. The point of the 'implicit' example was precisely to say that it's not about it being a stated preference.
Again, if I look for good schools, I'd just look for good schools. Why would I again need a proxy if I can just find out which school is good?
I didn't say you needed it. I said that it was valid. I said it wasn't necessarily as precise as directly looking at the metric as measured, but that there was undeniably information there. Considering that no metric, not matter how direct, is a crystal ball I don't see why a person who professes to no care about race would ignore it if it had valid and relevant information. You are making inferences about reality based on metrics and proxies.
That's the point - it is not.
The correlations between black and every single relevant metric are higher than practically anything else. To couch it as luck or insanity to deduce something from race as a proxy goes far beyond any realm of rationality. On top of that, I'm not proposing an either or. I find your analogy completely inapplicable to what I've been saying.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think this was ultimately a respectable move from Adams. If you wanted to get canceled for street cred then it's harder to imagine a more irrelevant legacy media artifact than newspaper comic strips. But it's just as valid a cancelation as anything else.
Assuming it was deliberate, like many are doing, then it's interesting to note that this move is potentially alienating to a lot of the mainstream right. From the IDW, Triggernometry, Joe Rogan, Jordan Petersen, along with the thousand and one other names. Race stuff that is not extremely benign is a third rail for a lot of these folks. So if this was an intended springboard into right wing media world: where to, Adams?
In any case its a great saga so far. Primarily due to the way Adams is responding to the media. As far as I know, no apologies. The only thing he gives them is mockery. I don't think this is a hard template to follow for anyone with even half a spine. Someone at EA should get in touch with him, or at least take notes.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't know if it's the same. It might be the 'next generation of the neurotype' for a lack of a better term, but when I think of emo I think of things like this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GaNFqd5eTX0 or this https://youtube.com/watch?v=s1o8WpTXfCY
Where the group identity itself is known as being something more than just a fashion trend, where there is an obvious ingroup and outgroup dynamic going on. Where you distinguish yourself as being something through your expression, i.e. makeup and clothing, and are recognized as being different by other groups.
But maybe it is the same where you live, I would not know.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You are reading into 'existing' too literally. The 'look' still exists, but emo as an identity exists today the same way being trans existed in 2001. In other words it's people putting on a costume in isolation. Outside of that every culture I listed still exists and I never said they didn't.
It is also not clear to me that "being trans" is more like "being goth" or "being emo" as compared to "being gay."
What's the difference? As groups there's no distinction. Gays have always existed but not as a group like we see today.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think we have seen the consequence of that. The free marketplace of ideas ends up just like the free market. With government interventions, monopolies and all the other fun stuff.
Any culture that exists gets identified. Once it has been identified it can be mocked. Once it gets mocked those who stand on the outside of that process will steer away from it and look for new cultures that have not been identified yet and are therefor free of mockery. Until we repeat the cycle.
Emo, scene, hipster, goth, metal head, jock, nerd, car guy, metrosexual or whatever other 'culture' that exists within a population.
Now imagine if we had enshrined some of the cultures with an inordinate amount of media and political power. Being emo is actually a medically recognized thing. There are special news stories every week about the emo suicide rate and how emo kids are bullied in school and how that is a giant social problem and how society as a whole has to come together and fix these issues that afflict this very special group. There are support groups and specific institutions and outlets dedicated to the group specifically.
How about instead of media mocking the whole emo thing as being a phase for insecure teenage girls who lack personality and are looking for attention and an excuse to use excessive amounts of make up whilst pretending their PMS is chronic suicidal ideation, we rather make laws that outlaw such verbiage.
Regardless of anything else, I'm sure being emo would still exist today if it had been sanctified in victimary discourse instead of having been mocked. Let alone if it was a pathway to some form of power or social capital.
Now, I think there are reasons outside of all of this that contribute much more to the survivability of LGBTQ stuff compared to things like being emo. But I do think it's an important element. If the words to describe what you see are removed from your brain, all attempts to discuss it will be in vain.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If your preference for safety leads you to implicitly avoid living with black people, then this is fine.
If your preference for safety leads you to explicitly avoid living with black people, then this is... fine? Or no?
On top of all of that, race as a proxy functions on a much broader level than just crime. Which is why I mentioned schooling. When you have picked a safe area with a 'good' school you won't be living near black people. Those are just two things that you can virtually guarantee via the race proxy. It might not be as precise as looking directly at the safety of the area and the 'goodness' of the school, but there is undeniably a lot of information there. Not just information about the immediate circumstance, but also as a predictor. Is the area and school close to blacks? Are there signs of these areas getting 'darker' or 'lighter'? I'm not saying this information is 'better'. I'm simply recognizing that it is undeniably information relevant to the things cared about. Not to mention race based ingroup bias where many blacks otherize whites.
I guess I am not understanding where the need to even express this distinction comes from. People use and live by countless imperfect proxies their whole lives. In ways that directly and indirectly impact people close by them or far away from them. No one cares. But for some reason we won't allow ourselves to use this very obvious and highly informative proxy because, what? We can imagine a hypothetical situation that negates it? Or because we can recognize that information about groups doesn't reflect on all individuals of that group?
I could understand a person who ingroups blacks being mad at someone who is outgrouping blacks. But your post strikes me as being written by someone who is doing neither. Not a racist, not an anti-racist. 'People are just people and when they do good its good and when they do bad its bad.' Maybe I'm wrong on that impression, but regardless, I don't see why such a person would hold any reservations about taking away information from race as a proxy. It's just people. Some of them are a different color and commit a lot more crime. What's the big deal?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The relationship between whites and blacks in the US would be the absolute worst example to make that argument though.
I would like to be able to say that such arguments are only salient for the likes of David French. But I honestly think you're right on the money.
Adams was giving a practical advice to white people: 'get the hell away from black people'.
I don't see the angle you are gunning for here. Unless you are arguing against racism in thought but not practice.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Area A has higher risk than area B. Which one would you like your family to live in?
Now help me understand why the fact that 'many black people are not violent and hateful' should influence your decision. Do the same for the school you will send your kid to.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Seeing news about James Bond being next on the chopping block. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/25/james-bond-books-edited-remove-racist-references/
Having mixed feelings about this. On one hand I wasn't fond of Ian Flemming's James Bond, though I only read one of his books as a teen. On the other hand the re-writing of history makes me irrationally angry. 'Sensitivity readers' are not something I like, I guess.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think it's an interesting step though. Regardless of what the headlines say, Adams was doing 'racism' from a rather 'queer' angle. Whilst people can shout about racism from the sidelines I don't think there are any salient right of center arguments against the position Adams put himself in.
As a white person, is your safety and wellbeing secondary to your obligation to help black people that hate you?
We've gone from 'blacks' to 'leftists'. But that's rather besides the point, which would be to answer the question Adams supposedly thinks is being asked: Do black people in America like white people? I'd guess that a 50/50 split on the question is not beyond the realms of reason.
If we remove this question from the 'black' context and put it in a 'leftist' context then I think the red herring of 'white supremacist dog whistles' becomes even more clear. Western leftism has an entire doctrine specifically dedicated to verbalizing the hateful otherization of white people and everything that relates to them. I would hazard closer to a 80/20 split with the majority harboring wild anti-white sentiments.
Is my intuition completely off here?
SCOTT ADAMS has had ENOUGH. Renounces black heritage. Calls for SEGREGATION from HATEFUL BLACKS.
www.youtube.com/live/K6TnAn7qV1s?feature=share&t=894
In his recent #2027 episode of 'Real Coffee with Scott Adams', Adams gives a piece of advice for white people living near black people: Move away from them. The advice is prompted by a recent opinion poll. Adams said the poll changed his view on the subject of living with blacks in general and being one in particular. Stating that he no longer identifies as black. The Rasmusen opinion poll in question found that 46% of black people say that it's not OK to be white.
Adams further clarifies that he will no longer be making black people's problems 'his own'. And advices other white people to do the same. Stating that the solution to the problems facing black Americans is simple: Focus on education. And that if they can't do that then it's no longer his problem.
On top of the opinion poll, as a stated reason for his change of heart, he opines that living in a more black area is more dangerous. To this end he cites Don Lemon's observations on the matter. Who had previously stated that living in black areas came with 'problems' he did not encounter in white areas. Adams also stated that, although anecdotal, he had grown weary of the never ending stream of black on white violence. Specifically videos of the acts, of which, Adams stated, there was no shortage. Remarking that he was sick of it.
This rather drastic heel turn from Adams has prompted critics to wonder if the real cause for the famed cartoonists sudden change of heart is to win himself into the good graces of his more vocal and extreme base of supporters. Whose relationship with Adams had turned sour after his alleged support for the COVID vaccine. Though Adams later recanted his support of the vaccine and disputed some of the claims made about his alleged support, he stated that those who never supported the vaccine only did so because of luck. Sparking controversy and the moniker 'CLOTT' Adams.
Others mourn the loss of yet another black American life at the hands of right wing extremism.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you're right on the money. Group pathologies are all very similarly expressed but that doesn't mean the reality on the ground is necessarily similar. But that's also a convenient excuse for whenever ones own group is in contention.
You could easily make the sort of argumentation against gays that get made against trans people. Be it cost to society, pedophilia or broader 'they are gross' derived arguments. But I think the key differentiating factor is that anti-gay stuff never had a consistent group to form around that wasn't already otherized by the mainstream. It was always vague argumentation based on theoretical 'conservative' principles, like the 'sanctity of marriage' stuff. Which are very much unlike the current circling of the wagons arguments we see against trans people that revolve around 'protecting' the girls and women.
There's also a pretty obvious difference between appealing to a vague premonition you have about the future, which is based on caring about the conservative ingroup, and simply pointing to a crying little girl. Most people don't really care about the future of conservatism. Even most conservatives don't when their vague ingroup, that they are only allowed to express through theories and principles, gets pitted against the wants of women. I think it demonstrates just how utterly pathetic conservatism as a group is. I believe it genuinely could not stand against trans people on its own. Which is why they are now hitching a ride with women that have an actual ingroup.
I don't think the 'conservative' arguments were necessarily wrong. It seems rather ridiculous that society should just contort itself to accommodate the bad cultural habitat of the modern gay man that seems to focus a lot on risky sex, alcohol and drugs. And then, under the false pretense that gays are 'just like us', bend your institutions and rituals to accommodate them. But you can't make those arguments properly if you don't otherize gays and fortify your own 'conservative' ingroup. And since the mainstream banned the otherization of gays and branded any instance of it 'homophobic' whilst simultaneously ridiculing the 'conservative' ingroup, the battle was lost before it began. You need something more than just ideas and principles.
The whole saga has some major plot points that are missing here. I think it would have been better to hold off on posting until it's all together.
More options
Context Copy link