hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think the fine folks over at the Huffington Post had a pretty clear goal in mind. Fortify the media landscape and the Overton Window. Make noise about Hanania and then attempt to squeeze him out behind the scenes through people like Bari Weiss and Ben Shapiro before he is given any traction by them.
As far as I can remember there was a similar gambit against Stephan Molyneux after Dave Rubin decided on having a conversation with him. To that end I'd put my tinfoil hat on and say that the mainstream elements had already decided that this was something that needed to be done prior to the 'dox' thing of Hanania being published.
I think the idea of a 'cancellation' is kind of retarded without properly addressing who is functionally doing the cancelling. Yes, lib/left/progressives hate guys like Hanania. They have already 'cancelled him' by never associating with him and doing everything they can to make him fail. Like, this was always the case. So who is actually cancelling Hanania now and from what? If it's not Musk banning him off twitter, what is actually going on?
Well, it seems simple, now Hanania will never ever be on Joe Rogan or any show that exists in a mainstream sphere of center/right discourse. I.e. the Daily Wire and any affiliates. If you want in with the mainstream right wing grift you can't freely associate with Hanania anymore.
Or maybe that was always the case and now it's just official.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The fundamental premise in Idiocracy is not going against the grain of lib/left/progressives directly since it doesn't note race or group differences. It's the typical sort of 'dirtbag left bernie bro' nihilism: 'The world is getting dumber bro'. You're just expected to not think about it too hard or derive any logical conclusions from it. But I agree that if you do that, you do end up with some problematic conclusions.
As for Team America, if I remember correctly the message of the movie was the typical centrist libertarianism from Matt and Trey. Where they don't have much to say other than pointing out the political dialectic in the US and celebrating it. As in, there are good jews on both sides. So lets laugh together as we destroy a common enemy in the middle east.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's sort of a different topic. You're not really respecting their identity by being transphobic about it and maintaining that it's something to be cured, regardless of anything else.
But on that point, marginalizing the already marginalized doesn't, in my view, solve anything. All it does is reinforce the victimary discourse those groups rely on. Sure, it might change the discourse if transphobia wasn't banned to the extent it is now, but how much? For reference, no matter how much fun comedians in the 80's and 90's made of feminists they all have to toe the line today. Society has genuinely changed towards feminist ideals.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You're right.
My usual spiel relates to rapes, violent assault and murder, all of which are dramatically exasperated by race tensions and desegregation. But I forgot to mention the two latter ones.
On that front the issue of violence in prisons in general is separate to the additional violence added on top of that due to nothing other than desegregation. The amount of violence added due to that policy dwarfs anything trannies could do in a womens prison. So the meat of the argument is the comparison between those two policies.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree it's a good test, but if we are not extrapolating our thinking to the relevant larger things in this context, then what we can discuss becomes limited. I like the people I like and I dislike the people I dislike. There's not much there.
If someone I like has an identity, 'fake' or 'real', in whatever sense, I'm not all that fussed about it. If I like them and it's real to them then it's real to me no problem. Because I like them. If it's fake to the outgroup I don't care. So long as they are not harming the ingroup I'd want anyone I like to have everything they need. Especially if the perception is that what they need is coming from the outgroup in some way. (I mean, tl;dr: I tolerate my ingroup, not the outgroup.)
You made Madden an example because they are so very easily outgroupable. No one wants to own the criminally insane outside of extreme circumstance. But if Madden can be used to harm the prospects of the ingroup in some way then that will get called out. Which is the immediate perceptions trannies have whenever this kind of thing gets brought up. And I'd argue their perceptions are entirely correct.
If this topic is only about our personal likes, then we all dislike Madden and there is nothing more to be said. If this is not about our personal taste then it's about respecting people and their identities and how far one could or should go. The only reason this is a topic in modern discourse is because of trannies. This subject, if anything is to be discussed, can only be understood through the lens of trans-rights. And to that end the matter has already been settled.
Trannies will get ingrouped, they will be placed in womens prisons or an extremely expensive alternative. Some women will be raped as a consequence and that's fine. We already accept mass rape as an acceptable price for others to pay for our modern moral sensibilities. The potential fallout and harm that might be caused by a few women being raped in jail is chicken shit compared to what's already been done and celebrated in the name of ending segregation.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The counter argument here is rather simple. Edge cases don't need to be the basis for how we construct our society.
Yeah, it's hard to even imagine a more fitting example for the case against 'respecting someones identity' than what you just gave. But if we contrast that with the case of a harmless shut in depressed teenager who has tied their ego to their identity... What's the argument? Are walking contradictions like Madden's more or less common than the teenager? Obviously the teenager is more common and drastically so.
It's not a bridge too far to say that we can respect people on the basis they wish to be respected. We do that all the time. Baked into your example is a whole bunch of protected identities. Jew. Woman. Gay. How far should we go to respect those? And what is the view people generally have towards those identities, and why? Well, the punishment for not respecting these identities is jail time. On the flipside there are special events to celebrate them and belonging to them can offer a variety of special privileges. I mean, women who torture and kill children get a comfy womens prison to go to. Men who can't pay child support get locked in a cell with an AIDS riddled rapist.
If you don't like trannies just say that. Because respecting someones identity goes all the way and no one disagrees with the notion that their ingroup should be respected and protected. If you want to engineer a social norm that says trannies are not kosher, then talk about that. But currently the powers that be are working overtime making trannies into a protected identity just like jews, women and gays are. One schizophrenic jew is not going to stop them. We've paved over far worse to get to where we are today.
It would be a fitting end for that line of thought to see Hanania completely ostracized. Left with nothing but a substack and a horde of disgruntled wignats in his comment section.
Wignat politics being a dead end always rings hollow when the ones who turn up their nose and sneer at it end up contorting themselves to speaking in riddles and code to not offend their overlords. Which is a complete conspiracy theory by the way. There are no overlords of course, Hanania just can't be allowed to speak his mind and has to hide his name or weave his truths with mainstream politics for the same reason the sun rises and sets every day. It's just the way of the world, right?
The zionist takeover of the conservative party happened decades ago. Men much better than Hanania were tossed out for saying much less than he did. He made his bed in the containment zone created for and by those men. His antics do nothing but rustle and agitate those already in that sphere. All this talk about him as if he matter at all is, from that standpoint, just inane. He would at best be the brightest snowflake in a dissident right snow globe, but he's not even that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I am using the term 'best' in the same sense you used it in your previous post where you said their best bet for romantic success was 'virtuous masculinity'
This is genuinely starting to feel like an exercise in futility. The point I'm making isn't hard to understand. It feels more like you are trolling or deliberately being obtuse so you don't have to engage with the topic.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I explained what I mean by 'loser' here :
Because, as I maintained in my reply to OP, getting women is a competition. If you lose the competition it doesn't matter what you've done or how hard you have worked. And ultimately every man understands that if you are not successfully getting women, you are in a sense a loser compared to those who are successful. You can't be masculine and a loser.
But you are missing the point of the question. Which was sort of rhetorical and intended to help you understand what is being talked about, but your answer will suffice. As a followup:
If being prosocially masculine was not the best way to become a winner, why should anyone who wants to be a winner do it?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Let me put it to you a different way then; If you can be masculine and a loser, why should a man who gets no attention from women but wants attention from women want to be masculine? Especially in the sort of prosocial sense as described by you and the author of OP's article.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
To play your own game, if someone uses the term 'conservative' to refer to conservatives, I don't really know what they mean either. A conservative in rural Kentucky is not the same as a conservative in Washington party politics. A conservative today is not the same as a conservative from 60 years ago. What people are talking about and referring to is derived from context. Who they are, who they are referring to specifically and to what end.
I can, for instance, recognize that some person on twitter calling some 'conservative' a nazi is probably a lib/left/progressive voicing their emotional distaste more than they are making a relevant 1:1 comparison between 'conservatism' and the National Socialist German Workers Party of Adolf Hitler from the 1930's. By the same token I can disagree with their terminology I can recognize their actual contention.
As for the rest of the points you make, I feel like you are going a bit beyond the relevant subjects.
True, different men, like different women, have to work more or less hard to get romantic success.
On this we agree. The rest of the paragraph, however, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is not a dissection of the sex wars from a point of view of who has it better or worse. Even if men in their current state are on aggregate more happy than women the problems they are having still exist and they can still be miserable. On top of that, men who can't even get a reply on Tinder are not gatekeepers for relationships. Looking at the situation from this angle loses sight on the topic of: attention from women, prosocial behavior and masculinity.
Now, why is working harder to get what you want through labour, exercise, study etc., rather than largely getting it due to inborn attractiveness, not "masculine"?
Because, as I maintained in my reply to OP, getting women is a competition. If you lose the competition it doesn't matter what you've done or how hard you have worked. And ultimately every man understands that if you are not successfully getting women, you are in a sense a loser compared to those who are successful. You can't be masculine and a loser.
How we see things in the abstract, infused with all our idyllic romanticism, is completely irrelevant. Like the Japanese veteran turned beggar shows. The heroic soldier doesn't return to the women of the country he fought for, where they await him with open arms in recognition of his struggle and feats of bravery. He returns to see them fornicating with the guys who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And he is forced to beg them for scraps.
We don't need a hypothetical analogue from the animal kingdom to dispel our fantasy notions of how things ought to be. Some men need to own a house, at the very least, to get any attention from women. Other men don't.
You might really like the notions of masculinity and chivalry you express, or notions similar to 'constructive masculinity' as expressed by the author of OP's article, but that's just that. I'm not going to repeat what I've said on the problem prosocial masculinity faces, as I've already written a comment on it here
But I think it's safe to say that, again, it's dead in the water and a lot of men realize this.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
They're not. You are working towards being high status to get the woman. The relevant context here is the man and what he has to do compared to other men. If you have to work to get what another man does not have to work for you can't consider yourself better than him.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The woman decided that you were attractive based on a thing you had to work for. It's not you, it's the thing you worked for that she wants. That was the point. Do you get it?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If you know a woman would not consider you attractive if you don't work at Goldman Sachs, so you seek to work at Goldman Sachs, what word would you use to describe you working at Goldman Sachs in relation to that woman and their attraction to you? I like the term 'bargaining chip'.
It might not be verbal, but that woman weighed you as 'attractive' on her scale because of that job. You needed that 'bargaining chip'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I have no idea what you are doing anymore. I've told you that I don't care what you call it, so long as we are talking about the same thing. At this point you seem to be fixating on words and definitions to get away from the meat of the matter. It just looks like you want to reject a framing of the conversation without saying it.
When someone is talking about the 'sexual market place' in the context of dating in the western world they are obviously not talking about brothels and prostitution. You are not being rational or precise with language when you play these word games. It is at best obtuse and obfuscatory.
The point I'm making is extremely simple. Man A gets approached by women, gets replies on dating apps and in general finds casual sex and relationships very easy to come by. Man B gets none of those things. In fact women don't even look at him for longer than 2 seconds to decide that he is not attractive.
Man A doesn't need to think about his life goals in terms of what he needs to garner attention from women. Man B does. Man B recognizes that if he does not come by some form of 'thing' or 'currency' or 'bargaining chip' or 'whatever word you want' to balance out his apparent unattractiveness to women, he will likely end up alone or unhappy. Both of these guys might be similar otherwise, but their struggle is not the same. Both want sex and affection. One needs the 'thing' to even be able to play the game, the other does not.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Generally special interest group characters fail since they take power away from the player.
The super special trans character can't be seen, as you point out, as anything negative. Now you, as a character in the game, have to contend with, to use old terminology, a special snowflake in your game world. A Mary Sue of sorts. You know this character is not going to betray you or anything like that. You are supposed to like them. That's the sole reason they are there. Because of that they will always lord over your world.
It's made even worse by the fact that since the trans character is almost always a self insert of some trans author, they get an elaborate backstory. They are painted out as being perfect and sympathetic. They are now contending with you as a main character in the story. This is bad and stupid.
To borrow from the old Diversity Propaganda playbook on how blacks were integrated: When you want to normalize something and integrate it into the ingroup of others, make it passive, harmless and subservient. When that has been established, make them valuable and endearing.
The ultimate version of this is making the trans person a love interest for the main character. Not that the MC needs to reciprocate. It might even be better to not give the player a choice to reciprocate. But making it clear that the trans character desires the MC gives the MC all the power they need to feel responsible for that character. Which is very powerful.
To that end you need to make the character look more like a trans persons anime profile pic on twitter than what a trans person who cares a lot about trans representation in gaming actually looks like in real life.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You can bargain with whatever you have. Party X wants something from party Y, and to get it tries to... 'convince' the other party by 'showing' them that he has something they want. How that is not bargaining I don't know and I don't care.
Raising the bar for definitions like this is, to me, an irrelevant game of words at best. If we don't disagree on the factual matter at hand then I have to ask again, what are you insinuating my argument is when I use the term 'bargain'?
This seems similar to objections to general manosphere terminology regarding the 'sexual market place'. Where the accuracy or utility of the terminology is disregarded due to it being too vulgar.
I mean, this is about love and companionship and all those nice, beautiful things, right? A relationship just can't be so ugly. True love is beautiful.
Well, from the perspective of a woman, maybe that's the case. They don't see their requirement for money as something vulgar and emotionally negative. They just see it as the way of the world at worst and a necessary stepping stone towards true love at best. But for a man, at least speaking for myself, it does seem rather crass and vulgar to gatekeep something as talked up as affection or 'love' behind a financial requirement. Really betrays and diminishes the entire concept. I mean, that's not something men are supposed to let get between their affection or 'love', right?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
(I'm going to agree with what you said with more words)
Kind of. You can increase your bargaining power. Like, owning a house or a decent sized apartment is enough to bag yourself a single mother. But in a Venn diagram of three items, 'prosocial', 'attractive' and 'realistically feasible for a young man', you have a very small intersection between all three. Small enough to justify saying, in my view, that these are not realistically achievable. Or at least I would not prescribe the prosocial constructive masculinity framework to anyone I actually care about.
There's a distinction we can make between personal life advice and social commentary. Yes, bettering your life is very possible and for most, easy. Study hard, get a good job, work hard. You get rewarded for this by the time you are 30 compared to if you don't.
But from a social commentary standpoint, what does the life of an 'unattractive' man who does this look like between 16-27 compared to someone who doesn't need to? To echo Elliot Rodgers: "It's not fair!".
You piously work your way through your youngest and most exciting years starved of attention from the opposite sex to do what? Get settled for by the time you hit 30 by some woman who expects you to pay down all the loans she took to fuel her party days of college? Where she had sex with guys she actually wanted to have sex with? Meanwhile you, for all intents and purposes, are in a platonic monetary relationship with this person. You know she doesn't like you the same way she liked those other guys.
I think every man knows in their heart that such a state of affairs is tragic and humiliating. Potentially more tragic and humiliating than just folding. After all, is such a life really worth working hard for?
I think that, regardless of everything else, the 'prosocial' crowd has a lot of heavy lifting to do. Though I agree with @TheDag to an extent. You need meaning, a greater purpose, a true faith to overcome this. There's no way you can tell a non-insignificant percentage of young men that they will simply have to ignore their own emotions and bootstrap themselves through the loneliness whilst there's an ongoing propaganda war on social media where everyone is trying to out-advertise and out-sexualize everyone else to show off just how much fun they are having.
But short of resurrecting Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, I don't know the intended way to do that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
None. It's not that you are bargaining that's the point. It's what you are bargaining and what for.
You can't consider yourself 'masculine' after working away to become 'high status' to attain the thing some other guy has been getting without having to 'work'. It just doesn't add up. Which leaves all of these prosocial 'constructive masculinity' prescriptions dead in the water.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think you are employing the 'I don't like the connotations of this so I'm going to call it a fallacy' fallacy. I'm not stretching the meaning of 'bargaining' here at all. Beyond that I don't know what you are insinuating that I am arguing for. I am giving a description of reality. If you want to use different words to describe it, go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that most men have to learn that just being themselves isn't good enough. They need something more. Which is where the entire self improvement become masculine and worthy crap comes from.
Is a woman wearing makeup to attract men "bargaining" too?
Kind of. She's leveraging what she already has.
To help elucidate a bit, a part of the frustration monetarily successful women have described in media is that they want to be able to bargain for a better man than their looks could command but can't since a lot of men don't care about their money. I.e. their money has no bargaining power over the men they want. So they write articles about how men are intimidated by successful middle aged women or whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You are bargaining with the hypothetical woman when you decide to become a tall guy working at Goldman Sachs to garner her interest. You bring being tall and having money, she brings whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Just attain high status and signal interest
I.e. bargain.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't find my 'dismissal' callous. I explain it in the rest of my post.
You can't be 'masculine' when you have to bargain with women for access to their genitals. They give it away for free to those they actually like. And how much you work has nothing to do with it. That fact doesn't just leave the authors 'constructive masculinity' dead in the water, it leaves practically every 'socially positive' definition of masculinity dead in the water.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
These articles are the dumbest thing. There's seemingly an entire industry of women giving men bad advice on whatever topic women know nothing about. 'Masculinity' is probably the worst one. What is only slightly less worse is the retreading of ground everytime it comes up. Where people pretend 'masculinity' is even a thing.
You are not your grandfather or great grandfather when it comes to physicality, but you are your grandfather when it comes to your brain.
In the 1940's a bunch of American soldiers came to Iceland to occupy it due to WW2. The social consequences where that of Icelandic women falling for the exotic soldiers. This became recognized as a social phenomena. Icelandic men didn't like it, Icelandic women didn't care insofar as there were no consequences. Given that the occupation forces almost outnumbered the male population of Iceland there was plenty of Icelandic male 'hysteria' surrounding the issue.
I like that example since it gives way to some very obvious truths. It doesn't matter how 'masculine' you are. There is no objective barometer. If the woman wants you then that's that. If she doesn't, you eat shit. No matter how much you work, no matter how big your hands and forearms get, you are always liable to be outcompeted and women will never apologize for choosing what they want. This is a competition. Be a winner, not a loser. Because believe me, you will never work as hard as an Icelandic farmer in the 1930's.
Similar story to be heard from Japan after the war. Was this veteran turned beggar not masculine enough? Did he not prove his worth? Fighting for the cause? No, because he's a loser.
You can replace the nerd lore of this guy with all the nonsense of 'becoming masculine' or in any way 'worthy'. It's the same dude otherwise.
Not to sound too much like something from MEMRI TV but in a world where a woman is opining on how men should best prove themselves to win her affection there is no 'masculinity'. Just pathetic men with no control over their society.
Maybe? https://youtube.com/watch?v=_4l5J4V733E
The ending seems pretty clear to me: 'Sure, the US has blundered a fair bit. But there are real baddies out there and if the US won't do what needs to be done no one will.'
More options
Context Copy link