BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 45d 20h 55m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I always assumed it was predetermined by multiple parties with leverage that CK was out. And then 'they' just executed 'their' hit as an excuse, taking advantage of convenient times.
That theory is evidenced by the fact that he was striking out a bit on his own prior to this more recent ad friendly comeback. Doing stand-up with even more crass jokes, hanging around outsiders like Shane Gillis and so on. Indicating that he was hanging out with a new crowd doing less cucked comedy(for his standards).
Considering the bottom barrel high school tier clique based social networks that seem to dominate the 'comedy crowd' in the US, and the rumors within that space that CK could be a socially deaf asshole that treated people with less clout than him with indignity, I'd wager CK managed to step on enough toes, or at least the wrong ones, and found himself with too few friends in higher places, and too many people who hated his guts.
I know this might sound a bit like far fetched fan fiction, but I'm always reminded of how Dane Cook managed to be treated like the worst comedian in the history of the universe whilst he was selling out tickets to his shows. Only because the 'comedy crowd' in the cities didn't like him. Presumably just because he coded red and wasn't doing the George Carlin 'nihilism' bit like most everyone else. Meaning that it doesn't necessarily take much to find yourself without any friends in the US comedy scene(gutter).
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm talking about the de-nazification policies after the war. Not so much the end of war massacres and war crimes tribunals. Nazis got canceled.
That's not a relevant distinction. It would still fall under the definition I am giving of it just being warfare. The term 'cancel culture' is obfuscatory and redundant. It's just cultural warfare.
I'm talking about social media accounts versus powerful organizations like US government.
So am I. I still don't understand why you would say that it's risible for 'ordinary people' to engage in warfare when all warfare is enacted by ordinary people.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's risible because ordinary people are assumed to have a responsibility to find a way to live in peace with each other within a country. Ordinary people refusing to do so in Russia and Germany are a big part of the reason WWII came about.
That's not an answer to the relevant follow up question pertaining to the lack of reasons people had to find ways to live in 'peace'. I mean, I can certainly understand why an impoverished Russian farmer didn't quite fancy the 'peace' of a perpetual state of starvation, which would lead to conditions which would ultimately bring about the Soviet Union. And I can also understand why a German might not like to live under Weimar conditions. I would, in fact, sympathize more with them than the person who considers those situations tolerable.
It's not. Groups matter. Russia, Germany, The American North and South in the Civil War and after, all were shaped far more by social dynamics than by atomic individual choice.
This statement is completely irrelevant to what you are replying to.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think you have things backwards. What the allies did to the nazis wasn't 'cancel culture'. It was just warfare. The enemy was the nazis and they hunted the enemy down and murdered them. That war was a total war. Not just in the economic sense but in every sense possible. That's why the allies executed Julius Streicher despite him not having fired a weapon or commanded any troops. Same goes for the monuments and art the allies intentionally destroyed due to the connections to nazi ideology.
What I don't understand is why you would say it's risible for 'ordinary people' to try and give other people the nazi treatment. It was always ordinary people who did these things. From the soldier and his rifle to the largest institutions in the world. It's all individual people.
If you don't live in an actual nation with a national ideology then I don't see why you would expect the society you live in to not devolve into a state of warfare.
The black-white IQ gap could mean that whites are less likely to get caught. It's reasonable to assume smarter criminals will take precautions to avoid being caught.
Crime victimization surveys cast shade on this theory. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I would also say that it's reasonable to assume that a lot of white criminals are not very bright. I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
If you just look at homicides, excluding serial killers, then blacks are way overrepresented.
Of the total % of serial killers by race whites are underrepresented at around 30% whilst black are overrepresented at around 60%.
Outside of that point #2 is valid. Though I have reservations about considering violent crime on the same level as financial crime, for various reasons.
Counter point to that theory is crime victimization surveys. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's not how it would work for someone like Rowling. Who ingroups women and minorities.
For someone like myself, yes, the NAACP is a racist hate group just as much as David Duke and his former KKK chapter was. Yes, the affirmative action programs have the racial hatred of white people at its core just like Jim Crow laws had hatred of black people at its core. Yes, a scholarship only for women is sexist and hateful towards men just like men only being allowed into school was sexist and hateful towards women. Now, at no time did either side of any of these issues describe themselves as hateful in any way. But that doesn't change the fact that the victors of history describe their defeated foes that way.
To clarify, I would not use the word hate to describe these things, just ingroup bias. But people like Rowling have been using terminology such as 'hate' for a long time. Since they accept the cultural narrative of the victors. I just think it's fair it gets applied to people like Rowling by the same standard.
Did Rowling actually say any man who is not actively working for a feminist movement is doing harm to women?
I doubt I could find a direct quote. But considering the feminism she supports which demands that men do give their power away to women or be branded whatever slur is popular with the feminists I don't see why I would need to. I think it would be a fair statement to say that people like Rowling believe the patriarchy does harm to women. And we can just work our way back from there.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Does Rowling make such considerations for others? I don't think she does. I think she if fine with calling people racist misogynists regardless of the nuanced truth value of their statements. I find it hard to sympathize with such a character. By her own philosophy she is a transphobe.
I'm pretty sure she is being called a transphobe precisely because of that belief of hers. Am I missing something?
But regardless of that:
'Believing black people are dumber than whites isn't racist. It's a question regarding psychological matter of fact.'
'Believing women shouldn't be allowed to vote isn't misogynistic. It's a question of democratic franchisement'
I don't think Rowling would accept that logic. I think she would call anyone who said that a racist misogynist.
It's not about what I, you or any people outside the Overton window think. It's about what Rowling thinks in every other context. This is her world. She broke the rules. And now she wants her case to be heard on grounds she would reject for anyone else.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Because it's not her opponents terminology any more than it is hers. The only problem she has with it is that she is the target. Outside of that she accepts every single premise around such rhetorical devices. Racist, homophobe, misogynist. That's her home. That's how she judges others.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.
I didn't say that being against the excesses of the modern black activist movement required you to create a homeless shelter for white people only.
The point being made is that you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored. Even by Rowlings own standard such a thing would be considered wrong. She would, like most people, consider a white only space to be racist. Yet in her defense of herself she plays that exact same scenario out by making trans people the outgroup and women the ingroup. All the while saying, just like all the racists before her, that she doesn't hate anyone, she just wants to protect her ingroup.
If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.
I don't think you have any idea what a world without black people would look like. Considering the massive costs associated with propping up every black population on the planet with the labor of white people. I don't accept your statement.
That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.
Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports. Western society has been gearing themselves towards this exact goal on behalf of women for decades. Your preference for arguments, logic and reasoning is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant. The point here is that Rowling supports this stuff on her behalf. She sees no issues with the logic of men handing women their 'money' and that any man who doesn't accept that is a misogynist. But now that she has 'money' as a woman, she refuses to acknowledge the paradigm she would have been arguing in favor for a few decades ago and balks at the notion of being called a transphobe.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Within the context of victimary discourse, which Rowling accepts on her end as a woman, there's nothing inaccurate about it. Feminism says men are obligated to do their part in helping women. You might think that this reasoning is 'inaccurate' and have your own preferred outlook on it but that's just a very obviously not congruent with what is happening in reality. Western society is geared towards this. Laws have been written, action taken and Rowling likes this when it benefits her.
But now that the power is in her hands she is a lot more conservative with who gets to benefit from it. Suddenly women should not be obligated to help trans women.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Same is true for racists or anyone else who believes the outgroup is harming the ingroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's not clear at all. The caricature of the racist who blindly hates everyone that's not like themselves is just fiction. Most e-celeb racists I know of make a very clear point of displaying themselves as not being that since it's recognized as a dehumanizing trope perpetuated by their enemies. They'd say they like black people just as much as the liberals who keep moving into areas with 'better schools' which coincidentally leaves them living in ever less black neighborhoods. Even the founder of Volksfront, in an interview, said that they don't hate anyone. That it's all about justice and being able to live in peace.
Hell, you might even say that they like white people like Rowling likes women. And that they dislike black people like Rowling dislikes trans people. It's not that they actually dislike anyone. Rowling just recognizes that men are dangerous to women and that trans women are men. I mean, that wouldn't fly past Rowling when David Duke says it about blacks, but here Rowling is going for that gambit anyway. It's just silly.
On a side note, if you offered racists like GLR or WLP a compromise of being allowed the legal and social privileges to treat black people like women treat men, they'd jump on it.
I don't think "homeless shelter for white people" works at all as an equivalent.
I think it obviously works as a demonstration of bias. You can't deny shelter based on group favoritism without having to answer for the obvious nature of the favoritism. Sure, in modern society you don't have to so long as you favor and discriminate the correct groups. But here in the abstract I think we can recognize the similarity. If you favor white over black or straight over gay or whatever, are you not then, by the vocabulary Rowling would use without hesitation, some sort of -ist or -phobe? I think that by Rowlings position in totality she is by definition a transphobe. A bigot. A hater. And I think it's fair to call her those things considering how she treats her outgroups. It's literally the same script just turned against her.
Even the most comical caricatures of evil racism can rationalize some sort of justifying mechanism or system for why they discriminate against the outgroup. I think people very obviously recognize that sort of thing for the poor cover that it is. Rowling is not an old school liberal just like modern day racists are not 19th century progressives. She is a transphobe like David Duke is a racist.
I don't like this defense of Rowling. By the same token the actual position of George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke or William Luther Pierce isn't what their enemies say they are. But everyone on some level understands that these guys are ultimately not on the same team as BLM, the ADL and whoever supports those things.
To play with the context a little bit, and introduce some snark: If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist? I mean, I have a lot of black friends, and I do want them to have civil rights, just not the same civil rights I as a white person have. I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.
I think there is a very obvious ingroup and outgroup distinction that people can very obviously see past. It doesn't matter what the fine print says. Ultimately Rowling is not on the 'correct' team. And in the name of the ideological/intellectual wave that carried feminism: Just like a black person need not define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of white people with power, trans people should not need to define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of women with power. Just like, in the past, women said that they need not define what is 'acceptable' by the wants of men with power.
Rowling, and women, have power. If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them. The prison example is especially obvious with regards to this.
I don't think there is an ideological/intellectual tradition worse equipped to deal with trans arguments than feminism. The only way that has been demonstrated is to out yourself as a caricature of a conservative that is pulling the ladder up behind him before the poor people show up. That then mocks them as he is up there and they are down there by telling them to hoist themselves up by their bootstraps.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm assuming life in some parts of rural Kazakhstan is similar to some parts of rural Russia where many people are behind on modern high quality living standards. It's not about Russia vs Kazakhstan. It's about rural vs city. I'm not making some far out prediction that people in rural areas could be enticed to move to a more densely populated area. It's a tale as old as cities themselves.
And again, you are super fixated on Kazakhstan, which I mentioned only because it's in the list of countries with the highest immigration to Russia already. The idea that Kazakhstanis don't want to immigrate to Russia is already counterfactual so what is your argument?
and that's without a hypothetical plan to resettle a warzone.
At this point I'm just going to have to ask you to read what is written. To help you along the way here is a part of what I wrote: "No one said they would be moving into warzones."
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see the misconception. The point being made is that in a war of commodities having control over resources is important. Controlling more of X is better than controlling less of X. It's not about the sky falling on the heads of those who get economic sanctions applied to them. Of course markets adapt to their conditions as best they can. But the more or less leverage you have, the more or less impactful the sanction.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Ukraine is unlikely to be a first world country for quite a while after its conquest by Russia, or for that matter after repelling the Russian invasion.
Market speculators seem quite optimistic about the potential gains that can be made in Ukraine after the fighting dies down. Or so they say on the news. I don't see a reason to doubt that claim considering the wealth of resources in the region.
I'll buy that a lot of the stans are poor, but it's not like people moved to Ukraine for the economic prospects in the 2010's
The immigration conditions in the 2010's would not be the same as in the hypothetical where Russia is actively trying to repopulate the region. Considering the wild differences between those who live in cities and those who live in more isolated rural areas, I'd think the chance to move to a more centralized city with guaranteed employment would be quite enticing to many.
let alone if it's a bombed out wreck ruled by a heavily sanctioned isolationist kleptocracy.
This is counterfactual. Russia accepts immigrants from all of the countries I listed. I specifically listed them because they are some of the countries that have had the highest levels of immigration outside of Ukrainians into Russia. To reiterate, considering the prior condition that this would be an option Russia wanted to take advantage of I don't see the relevance of your objections.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't agree with this claim and find it highly dubious.
If you didn't cut the claim up into pieces then it would be easier to digest.
This is also a very dubious claim. Canada is a settler state. Open immigration predates the modern era. What's new is unconstrained mass immigration from non-whites.
Yes, it's new. Which was my point. How is the claim dubious? The immigration numbers into Canada today are completely unprecedented. Settling unsettled land is not the same as migrating into a city like Toronto.
It's the same situation as Australia; it has always been a land that took migrants.
Every land, by definition, has always been a land that has taken migrants. Or by definition could be called a 'settler' state. This is exactly the kind of corner cutting history I mentioned in an earlier comment. The point being made is the obvious difference between what is happening today and what was taking place earlier in time. Since you have already acknowledged the obvious differences I am at a complete loss as to what you are trying to say.
And I think those options are vastly more constrained than you imply.
They're not. You could bring up every single one of these arguments in relation to muslim immigration into Europe. Still doesn't change the fact that it can take place. It doesn't matter how incompatible the Koran is to French liberal egalitarian values. You just need to move people around. Moreover, you don't need to replace every single person in the country. You just need to have enough working age people to fill in the bigger industries. Your argument is simply not serious or thought out. We are talking 10 million tops. At a migration rate of 500k a year we are talking 20 years. Which is exactly why I said that it could be done in a few decades time.
I thought the whole point was the unification of ethnic Russians!
Nowhere did I mention 'the unification of ethnic Russians'. This is bordering on not being worth my time.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No one said they would be moving into warzones. No one said Kazakhstan was a Borat sketch. No one said they were stupid.
On top of all of that, it's just a single source of potential immigrants out of many.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Doesn't have to be a great environment by first world standards to be better than third world standards. Besides that, the sky isn't falling in Russia despite all the sanctions. I don't see the relevance of your objection.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Better paying jobs, higher quality of life. Indoor toilets. And all the other stuff that makes the third world move to or as close as they can to the first.
Relying on vague terms is obfuscatory to recognizing anything real. Calling something 'cancel culture' diminishes the impulses being acted upon. These are people looking to destroy the enemy. Trying to disassociate that process from normal people by acting as if these impulses are different than when acted upon by people in historically significant contexts only obfuscates the universality of the process and the depth of the cultural divide.
More options
Context Copy link