BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 02h 15m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I am not saying they are less likely to be considered valuable. I am stating that they are and were always not valuable. Not as a matter of perception but as a matter of fact. That's why I likened it to snake oil. The snake oil might have been believed to be good when the prospective buyer didn't know it was snake oil but thought instead that it was a rare elixir that cured all illness. But that belief never made the snake oil a good investment. It was always snake oil and the buyer was always a fool for believing it was an elixir that could cure all illness.
Another way to say this, just because a company believed that something was valuable doesn't mean that it was. Or that the company was reasonable for having believed it was valuable in the first place. It was always a money pit designed by grifters.
Fashion statements are not necessarily wasteful, especially if you are a very public facing company who markets their goods to the general public.
But they can be. Like the wardrobe of a bored housewife of a rich husband. Sure, it might be very good for the image of the husband and wife for the wife to be well dressed at social gatherings. That fact does not preclude us from recognizing that you don't need a gigantic wardrobe filled with dresses that will never be worn to present yourself properly 4 times a year at company conventions. On top of that, buying into a bad fashion trend might hurt your company as well. Like the case with the anti-men Gillette razor commercials.
Again, just because a company believed something or did something doesn't mean it was good or smart or reasonable or anything else. Decisions are made by people. You can't shield those decisions behind the fact they were made by a company. You have to look at them as they were taken. Which is why, sometimes, companies go bankrupt and CEO's get fired. Regardless of how good they believed their decisions were at the time.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Rowling is hated because she is a transphobe. She could have bent the knee but she didn't. She chose a different team. No one was hating Rowling before the trans stuff. Before that, at best she was being mocked a bit for being a hamfisted fuddy duddy about retconning all of the characters in her books as being either gay or black. At worst she got involved in UK politics criticizing Corbyn and co for not being anti-Brexit enough.
This changed when she was obviously tangled with TERF stuff. First by liking a tweet that referred to trans women in a derogatory manner, which a PR person of hers lied about and said it was 'liked' through an accidental slip of the finger. And then later when she got involved with the Maya Forstater thing. Maya being a person who made very explicit transphobic comments including the statement that men can not change into women. Rowling stood up for this person explicitly.
Imagine a different scenario, where Rowling accidentally likes a tweet about race and IQ research that says blacks score lower than whites. Oops. What an accident. Why would she even be reading that? Anyways, a year later she, out of the blue, stands up for Noah Carl and talks about how ridiculous it was that he was fired. That doesn't mean she is a racist. Right? She just likes academic freedom stuff. Later she writes a lengthy blog post about the reality of evolution in humans. She doesn't say anything explicitly, she just says that we are all different and that this is great. But that the differences are real and immutable. OK. She then starts tweeting about the excesses of the black rights movement and how the movement is promoting conditions that make white people unsafe. She then writes a novel about a black serial killer... lol
Now, at which point do you think the real Rowling would call the 'different scenario Rowling' a racist? I'm pretty sure it would happen as soon as the support for Noah Carl came out. And she would never look back or bother reading a blog post about some racist 'explaining their views'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If your perception of what is reasonable changes depending on how much money you have, and you are more likely to find more things to be reasonable when you have more money, and assuming the perception of what is reasonable is more tolerant towards risk when you have more money, how are you not then more susceptible to waste money when you have more money? Sure, no one couches their investments as 'waste'. But it's hard to call it anything else after the fact has been revealed that you 'invested' in a bunch of snake oil.
I don't think you represented a mild version of what was said. But rather a PR coded version that fronts the notion that companies don't waste money. I don' think the notion of a return on investment was ever on the cards for companies that hired professional racists to do in-house struggle sessions on white supremacy. I think that you could, at best, define it as a wasteful fashion statement.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
For example, better moderation would look like
I disagree. The less the moderator inserts himself into the moderation the better. I am not writing comments to appease the moderator. I am here to appease my own vanity. To that end I am writing comments to a standard that reflects what I want other comments to look like. I am here because the stated goals of the motte align with mine. The more the moderator inserts himself into the motte, the less space there is for my aspirational fantasy of what the motte is.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Your disposition towards the topic seems very similar to what I described in my earlier post.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's true in a sense. Though I always found culture explanations to just be environmentalism with its roots cut off. Existing more in the realm of 'how do we solve this immediate problem' rather than being a theory on why the problem exists in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you are missing the flow of argumentation that drives lefties into anti-white corners.
Why do blacks rape a lot? Because of poverty. Why are blacks poor? Because whitey made them that way.
It's not that anyone goes out there and says 'whitey gets raped and that's good'. Or at least not any notable person since George Jackson, though there are probably a lot who share his black activist sentiments chirping on twitter right now. It's more that this is an ugly truth derived as a consequence of lefty priors.
It's very similar to 2nd Amendment arguments that flare up when the topic of mass shootings pops up. I don't think any gun control advocate would rest their case against a 2nd Amendment advocate who says that 'all mass shootings should be investigated and the culprit found'. That's not really a relevant answer. The relevant answer would be to a question of why people should settle for this as a status quo. How many mass shootings do we need before we do something about guns? How many white victims of black crime to do we need before we do something about blacks?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I am not sure that this is exactly news.
I think it's an interesting item to have people look at and then see what their response is. The one thing that usually stands out to me is that a lot of the responses don't couch this as an issue to be solved, unlike many other items of a similar nature with differing races. Gun control, for instance, only exists as a solution when you look at shootings as a problem to be solved. But that's not the response these items ever get. It's always in the vein of 'why is this here' or 'the author is racist'. The item itself is seen as a problem to be solved. Not the actual reality that it represents.
2.
I don't understand the point being made. Some of the discrepancy is because of X. OK. How much? And what about the rest of it? Obviously blacks rape a lot. So here we can either do HBD or roundabout justifications for why the white folk are just reaping what they sowed. Or is there a third position?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Post WW2 jews are in the most prominent positions in media and academia in the country that dictates the 'Overton Window' of the western world.
The 14 words for the state of Israel are not a problem. And so long as the worker revolution is communist and so long as the communism is jewish there are no issues with it. There might be some grassroots opposition to both Israel as a white supremacist ethnonationalist colonialist state and communism as a satanic force of godless mass murderers who don't understand Austrian economics. But that resistance gets mowed if it ever grows to far in an antisemitic direction. Even if it's just Glenn Beck accidentally rattling off all the jewish founders of the Frankfurt School live on air, or an innocent hippy on a Facebook group wondering why Israel isn't taking in more refugees. There are control elements in place to shut those things down. Both Glenn Beck and the hippy will get a talking to about what acceptable opposition to these things looks like and they will either fall in line with the astroturf or get ripped by the root.
That's, for me at least, a theory that neatly explains why things are how they are today with regards to these things.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I made appeals to the opposite of what you call 'the advocates of innate cognitive differences'. More specifically when I said that not all teaching methodologies or environments need be equal. On top of that I mentioned that there are other issues with schooling that are outside of the scope of specific teaching methodologies.
It's not that the difference between us is that I don't recognize the pathologies that naturally come about when people have grouped up, regardless of the topic. It's that I don't assume I'm better than you. So I don't base my arguments around that.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It would only be evidence of bad teaching for blacks though, since other groups have much better literacy rates with similar teaching methods. To that point I asserted that you have no baseline for what the literacy rates for blacks should be.
Again, if the point was not about blacks, why specifically mention blacks? If a method is bad since it can't teach blacks then would it be, by the same token, good since it can teach Asians? This rubric is obviously faulty. I don't buy the sincere proposition that we are specifically mentioning blacks because that's the best way to illustrate the problem.
It is not difficult to imagine a world where kids with advantages, whether of nature or nurture, can overcome bad teaching, and other kids can't. In my post and in this thread, no one except you is talking about the black-white literacy gap.
I don't disagree. I just can't manage to fit all those pieces together. I mention the black white gap because of the implications that has to any methodology that assumes that you can in one way or another uniquely affect the literacy of blacks whilst assuming that blacks and whites are of equal cognitive ability. I assumed the people doing the podcast were not race realist HBD types. That was a complete guess on my part though. But for anyone that is not, I don't know how you piece that narrative together. It's not as if most kids that aren't black are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Phonics. The podcast did lead with that.
The reason I said you didn't lead with that is because you didn't. The point made by you was not a study controlling for relevant factors concluding that kids learned to read better using phonics and that this would greatly benefit all children. It's was: "The results, the podcast claims, are dismal. As evidence, it includes some agonizing statistics, like that 80+% of African American 8th graders do not test as proficient readers."
What an egregiously obnoxious, antagonistic way to describe my post. I can no longer imagine a benefit to continuing this conversation.
You're right. Those adjectives all apply. But by the same token the constant reliance on black tears to garner sympathy sickens me on a fundamental level. I mean, are the illiteracy rates of poor white kids not good enough? Do we really need to weave a narrative including the white kids that have vs the black kids that have not when talking about what methodology works best to teach kids how to read? Like, really?
In any case I explicitly responded to vitriol I felt was implied but that might not have been warranted when directed at you. My bad.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Considering I made appeals to the opposite this is just bizarre. I guess it makes more sense to equivocate fiction with reality than look at multiple population groups deriving drastically different outcomes from similar environments.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Then how on earth would the example of 80% illiteracy for black students be relevant to anything? If you are suggesting that the current methodology is uniquely bad for blacks then I made the point in my post to point out that such examples are not necessarily relevant for all students. If you have a methodology that is better for all students then why not lead with that? Why squeal for sympathy by winding on the blacks?
Low literacy rates in this population are evidence of ineffective methods because 18% seems like such a very low estimate of the proportion of black kids who are educable to an 8th grade reading level.
You have no idea one way or another what the literacy rate for black students should be nor do you know what the reason for the comparatively low literacy rates for blacks is. I'm sure you could raise it. But I seriously doubt you could do so to any meaningful extent by telling the teacher to focus on 'phonics' instead of something else. On top of that you don't considering turning your example around. Is the high literacy rate among Asians not an example that the method works? This rubric you employ is obviously faulty.
Again, I'm not saying 'phonics' is worse, I'm inclined to believe you could teach kids to read using 'phonics' quite quickly. At least it seemed to work for me though I have little to compare against it. What I am saying, however, is that the implication of the examples you gave is that you can produce meaningful change in the literacy of blacks by changing the methodology. I don't see that belief being warranted. I do instead recognize it as part of an endless line of argumentation that proposes that we can meaningfully impact the gaps between blacks and whites using 'this one weird trick'. I see no reason to acknowledge that line of argumentation as anything other than what it is. And hopefully dismissing it so we can talk about something that actually matters.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
English is my second language. But when I went through elementary school there was a big push to teach kids English. So there was a kind of parallel thing going on where kids who weren't even alphabetically literate in their first language were doing the ABC's in English.
I'm pretty sure you could teach an English speaker how to read English by just slightly modifying the way you learned to read Dutch and you wouldn't have many problems. Learning to read might be very important but it's ultimately not hard. Literally, kids can do it. It just takes a little time.
My nonsense detector goes off every time blacks are used as an example for why X is bad. It's the typical Boasian anthropology 'cart before the horse' thinking that permeates every single mainstream explanatory theory relating to the gaps between blacks and whites. So when a person who subscribes to Boasian anthropology presents a new battleground where they can potentially excuse the drastic differences between people with innate cognitive differences with some half baked social theory my brain just shuts off. I mean, honestly, do people never tire of this ridiculous rigamarole that is repeated again and again? Do they never start questioning or doubting the hope they feel in their hearts when this sort of theory gets peddled? The differences are there. They will always(within lifetime) be there. Just like there are dumb white kids who can't into reading properly there are dumb brown kids who can't either. And the distribution of these dumb kids between the different population groups is not the same.
It's important to be able to help dumb kids function in modern society but you can't couch that concern as a universal worry for all children. Kids have been learning how to read for centuries. With time, methods and materials that are so lacking by today's standards that it's not even comparable. By the same token I've seen kids take special classes for years with specially trained teachers that ultimately amounted to very little comparatively. I am sure the extra time helped compared to not having it, but you would never blame the problem those kids were having on the method. Those were obvious cases where the kids had issues.
So whilst there might be an interesting discussion relating to the efficacy of various teaching methods on 'normal' children there simply isn't any space for it in mainstream society. We have retarded ourselves to the point of being unable to accurately categorize reality and have methodologically reduced ourselves to rely on hopeful fiction. That is leaving aside the larger problems with 'teaching' kids in a classroom regardless of their affinity or ability.
But on the actual topic, I only have anecdotal experience as a student.
As a kid I remember not liking 'phonics' since I had a much easier time reading text than doing specific exercises. Especially if I had some way to contextualize the text I was going to be reading. I would not read letters but instead look at the words as symbols. So I lagged behind in reading through first and second grade since most of the 'reading' was just exercises. But through third grade and onward I had great scores for reading since the exercises were more narrative based. Which, I found, was much more entertaining than the boring exercises that centered around individual letters or words disconnected from context. Reading a text I could contextualize two or three times with someone next to me that could tell me what a word I didn't know was helped me learn quickly comparatively.
On the whole, if you can't teach normal kids how to read when they are locked in a room with you for hours, 5 days a week for years then you have issues beyond state mandated methodology and are probably just a bad and incapable person. I remember hearing stories of my relative's teacher from their years in elementary school in the early 80's. The teacher had no qualification other than his own literacy. They had only a few 'books' and of those the only ones designed for children were handwritten by the teacher himself. Yet somehow learning how to read was not an issue in that class despite the kids spending much less time there than they would today.
I feel that illustrates just how low the bar is when we are talking about teaching normal kids how to read. And how inconsequential teaching methodologies, textbooks and all the other crap that gets brought up might be when it comes to teaching something basic like reading. That's not to say all methods or environments are equal. But after a certain point, that is set very very low, you quickly start seeing diminishing returns. So when folks start looking that way for solutions to obviously giant problems I think it's more pertinent to ask why people are looking in such an obviously wrong direction.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
These sort of brave 'hold the line' moments of trans exclusionary feminism always lack self awareness. Where the typical scenario of a desperate plea in the name of 'women's health' are paraded about like a holy shield. Not recognizing the 'health' that will be sacrificed in the name of these 'women', notably the health of trans women. But on top of that not recognizing the 'health' that has already been sacrificed in the name of feminism at the cost of men.
The core mode of feminist 'meta' discourse is that of designating who is in and who is out. Who the 'actual women' are. You know feminists are in disagreement when some of them have started talking about what is best for 'actual women'. Women who find themselves on the out realize this very quickly. They are not 'actually women'. They are the outgroup. Being pro-life, for instance, functionally makes you not an 'actual woman' since your values are not going to be carried out by the people who 'actually care about women'. You might think that you are a woman and that being pro-life is good for women but you are wrong. The 'actual women' are pro-choice.
Taking this framework of feminist 'meta' discourse and applying it to the trans thing, the display is obvious. Trans is in. Even if it's just certain institutions, you can see the lightning quick reflexes. The Florida Highschool Athletic Association is not standing on their heels. There are people there who know what's up. They know what's 'in'. And in the name of every single element of society that feminism crushed to get where it is today all I can say is lol.
How on earth can radical feminists or feminists in general pretend that the sort of radical change in society, to the point of floating ideas that are to the direct detriment of someone else's health, are somehow beyond them? I've lost count of the times a radfem will stomp their foot on the ground and proclaim that no matter anything else, 'what is best for the mom is what's best for the baby'. Even if that means killing the baby so mom can continue chasing her dreams in marketing. Hell, where are the old radfem forum threads where women were floating the idea of not breastfeeding their boys so that they would become more physically equal to women? Those notions were, admittedly, radical. But the notions of drastically changing society to make these sort of 'equalities' come about via different means were not. In some aspects they've just become policy.
Feminist discourse has a very simple mode for how to view itself and 'actual women': Everything that is not 'actual women' takes a backseat. No matter what that entails. There is no principle. There is no line in the sand it will not cross. It is always and has always been a very simple mode. The ingroup always comes before the outgroup. There is no debate about anything else on that topic. The only debate is what qualifies as the ingroup. And that debate is, as it stands, over. The feminism of the past would not have batted an eye if they had to discuss this in any other context. At best they would only have acknowledged any resistance with mockery.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If you're this skeptical then I don't understand why you would say 'gender identity' exists at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I always find those attempts very annoying. Not just due to the fact that it intentionally distorts basic intuitive assumptions that a fantasy desperately relies on to create a believable world. But that it's an obvious admission of the reality of those intuitive assumptions. It's only pretending they're not there because they obviously are there.
It's the equivalent of taking a Rubik's cube, recognizing that it does look satisfying when there is obvious order to the colors, jumbling it up until it's an incoherent mess and then presenting it saying 'There. Isn't this satisfying?' No. It's not. It's a jumbled incoherent mess and the only reason you jumbled it up is because you recognize order and the inherent reality congruent intuition everyone has about these things. But for reasons that are purely derived from modern political norms authors predictably and performatively distort them without acknowledging that without the intuition and order they would have nothing to write about in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
These are not semantic debates when the people who instigate them insist that the bleeding unconscious mess on the floor loves them.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
So the people of Iraq, that hate America and wish for nothing more than to see it destroyed, can now vote and this is a win for the US because? Not that this is an actual worry since Iraq, by some think tank standards, has not been less democratic since they starting measuring the country in 2006. And is categorized as "authoritarian", ranking 124th out of 167.
I'm reminded of the color revolution in Egypt and the democratic upheaval in the country that resulted in the most backward Islamic rule in recent times to win control over the country because, contrary to the words of liberal-progressive English speaking university students that could give interviews to CNN on the ground, the voting majority was anything but. This then lead to a hastily organized military coup to correct the record of the peoples will. Democracy indeed.
I guess I am asking what on earth 'you' won.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
A recent tragic event: Mother accused of killing three children in Massachusetts
A mother is accused of strangling three of her children before she jumped out a window in an attempted suicide at their suburban Boston home, officials said Wednesday.
An arrest warrant had already been issued Wednesday for Lindsay Clancy for two counts of homicide in connection with the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son. Her 8-month-old son, who she's also accused of strangling and was "grievously wounded," has since died, NBC Boston reported.
First responders found three children in the home in Duxbury. The children were unconscious and “with obvious signs of severe trauma,” Cruz said. "Preliminarily it appears that the children were strangled,"
The Culture War angle: Following this event some TikTok accounts have released videos in support of the mother and voicing concern over mothers and their mental health, leading to discussion. Examples: https://postimg.cc/NKpX61ty, https://postimg.cc/vxT8d6jK, https://postimg.cc/CnnyNC9w, https://postimg.cc/8FvttKzK, https://postimg.cc/TK6wKhWK, https://postimg.cc/K3cXXSKv
Considering the nature of the crime I find the wording in the TikTok's off putting. This isn't phrased as something the mother, Lindsay Clancy 'did'. It's something that 'happened to her' and that she 'needs support'.
On a tangential note: This reminds me of an older sex war question surrounding female violence towards children and how women are treated in society. Specifically the terminology of SIDS. Sudden Infrant Death Syndrome. Which became a notable issue when multiple women who murdered their own children ended up, after a few years, being released scot-free. Neven Sesardić, a Croatian philosopher, wrote a very interesting article published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Specifically relating to Sally Clark, a woman in the UK who was accused of murdering two of her children, and some relevant statistical analysis that cast aspersions on the validity of SIDS as it was relied on by expert witnesses to defend Clark in court. Along with leveraging statistical critiques against the Royal Statistical Society.
The tangential relevance here is whether or not Lindsay Clancy will be afforded similar legal leniency on top of everything else. Though with the hellish nature of the crime, one could only really hope for punishments that far exceed all the comforts that a lifetime in a women's prison will afford her.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Mind-killed seems strong. A sufficient explanation of their actions would be to say that they are consistent in the application of the belief that any discrepancy between groups that benefits whites or disadvantages blacks is a racism.
Considering how many people hold to that belief only when convenient I can only congratulate the democrats and media in general and the NYT in particular for their consistency.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
People hated him and it had very little to do with stealing jokes. Much more the fact that he was extremely successful along with the reasons I gave prior. I don't think it says that in his Wikipedia article, but it's lacking all relevant context anyway so I don't think you are in a position to make the argument you are making if you are also lacking the relevant context.
To put things in perspective, I don't think you can look over any recent interviews or people talking about Dane Cook of the past without them mentioning how hated he was.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The issue I would have with that is that it decouples the act from context.
When the term 'cancel culture' is allowed to sit as an individual entity it serves to diminish the nature of the act and its gravity. Which serves those who engage in it when they want to excuse it.
As an example, from a material perspective Louis CK getting 'cancelled' is stupid. Caring about it is stupid. The guy isn't going to starve on the street. He's made multiple lifetimes worth of money. And he has fans who actively seek out and pay to hear what he has to say. Same goes for nigh every single high profile example of 'cancel culture'. Often times the people getting 'cancelled' even have huge social media platforms to advertise their 'cancellation' to others. By becoming upset at someone like this being 'cancelled' you are being, at best, hyperbolic. It's completely nonsensical from a material perspective to care about 'cancel culture' in all but the vast minority of cases.
Yet these 'cancellings' still animate people. The reason for that, from my perspective, is obvious. It's a weapon of war being used against 'your side' and being angry that your side was attacked is a natural response. In that context it makes sense to me to get a little perturbed when some conservative talking head can't repeat their talking points to 100 students in some college and has to cry about it to their million followers on twitter.
I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the selective rejection of otherizing language. Where we want to have our cake and eat it to.
'Transphobe' was always an otherizing dehumanizing term. And as soon as it's applied to oneself it becomes obvious. What is less obvious is that the deconstruction of 'transphobe' applies to all the other terms as well. Racism, homophobia, misogyny or any other group defining otherizing language. The point of these words is not to accurately describe, the point is to otherize and dehumanize anyone who is not sufficiently demonstrating themselves to be a member of the ingroup.
I can't join a pity party for people like Rowling who have excessively enjoyed the luxury of being able to dehumanize their opponents instead of actually making an effort in understanding and discussing things with them. This is her world. She does not bother with reading blogs detailing the finer points of the position of some racist or misogynist in their own words. She allows herself the convenience of dehumanizing them as members of the outgroup. She doesn't weigh herself down with the effort of understanding them as human beings. No, she just otherizes them. That's the game being played and she sees no issue with it so long as she is the playmaker.
Well, now Rowling dun goofed and found herself enemies that are doing the same thing to her. They are not bothering with her blog, or mealy mouthed excuses. They are just recognizing her as the enemy. And they are not wrong. Rowling is against trans women having the same rights as women. Why should a trans person accept that? Why should the boundaries of acceptability for trans emancipation be tied to the sensibilities of some author?
This is a battle in the culture war. Rowling picked a side. She is a transphobe.
More options
Context Copy link