BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 45d 13h 17m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The bullying part.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If someone thinks an ideology is bad but doesn't know the policies, they are just chasing labels and looking for an excuse after the fact to support their fashion statement. I find that silly.
For the second part, if I want to quickly categorize anything, this book isn't going to help. I don't live in the past, and neither do the people who control the meaning of labels and words. Gottfried, despite everything, can be 'quickly categorized' as alt-right.
As for the third part, I agree, but ultimately would also have to concede that I'm not the modern non-fascist republican conservative that Gottfried manages to cover for in this book. And I don't know how many people who aren't David French, Paul Ryan or Rod Dreher would manage to fit into that description of non-fascist.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This comment is irrelevant to what I wrote. I'm not unaware that there are rules and preferred etiquette here. The point being made was that due to the rarity and novelty of the post you can let it slide.
On the other hand, no, there are not legal reasons at play here. The post did not break laws, which is why it was not removed and the user only got a 3 day ban. You can, in fact, make very provocative statements about what you think should have happened or what you think will happen or should happen in some undetermined legal manner in the future to some group.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
For what it is, the book seems good. But as far as historical analyses of 'movements' and 'ideologies' go, I always find the topic somewhat silly. Tracing history back to its roots in this sense just seems pointless. Why care if something is marxist or fascist?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't understand what you mean.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You are muddying up the waters by using labels that have loose meanings. 'Liberal' or 'Monarchist' is a placeholder. Relying on a culture relative historical definition of monarchism to pontificate on what a 'monarchist' person was like in the past is nonsensical. Our historical definitions have no relevance to what people were actually like. They tell us nothing about what stimuli it was that made someone, in whatever sense you want to interpret it, a 'monarchist'.
Every single psychological trait is heritable. You are an expression of your genetic material in an environment. There is no partial cause. It's 100% total. Your response to stimuli is not accidental. I'm sure that, through some extreme environmental control, you could pacify someone by controlling their stimuli, but in a modern society, with the stimuli as they are, the people are as they are. If your reaction to the stimuli of modern society is anything other than acceptance you have in you some form of maladaptation to modern society that is incompatible with it.
This incompatibility is an existential threat to modern society as it creates bothersome things like the paradox of tolerance. If modern society wants to survive then people who are not compatible need to disappear from the face of the earth. It has no mechanism for that type of existence.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think it's kind of pathetic to not let the guy have a chance to respond. Just looks like effeminate bullying.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Banning comments like this is bad considering how rare they are. If they were more common I'd agree with a ban, but there is a genuine discourse to be had when people have put their obvious intent of destroying the outgroup into the open. Preventing people from engaging with it by banning the person who opened up leaves this space poorer for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't understand the relevance of the point or how it relates to anything Sailer, or anyone else, has said.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not unsympathetic to them. I'm unsympathetic to the people who would have, prior to this event, gloated about luddites being regressive or reactionary and used the term as a pejorative. This class of rainbow people who cheered on automation and censorship right up until those things were turned on them.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Seeing all of these progressives turn into luddites in this instance, and free speech advocates after the Musk journalist bans in another, I think it's fair to say that there are no principles. There is no political theory of friend/enemy anymore. It's a law. And anyone who pretends to, in any instance, be above that law or exist outside its scope is just, through the act, a self described moron.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The most notable overrepresented group is jews. Jews being around 2% of the US population, they are at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). In total, according to Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts from 1991, jews were responsible for 23.9% of all white collar crime.
So, when you say 'lots' with regards to Russians and Eastern Europeans, how large a percentage are you talking about?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't feel your post has much relevance to the tweet given it specifies homicides. Considering that specification it seems completely correct.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I always thought Sailer had managed to find some sort of protected status similar to what I assumed Richard Spencer or Ann Coulter had. Which I assumed was because of Taki mag being known to someone at Twitter. At least that was, to my knowledge, the only distinguishing feature between many of those folks who did not get banned and someone like Jarred Taylor, who did get banned. Pure speculation though.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
He also has a Northern Ireland accent
Rings of Pyre
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Most normies don't have an opinion on a thing like crypto beyond 'it's a thing that exists, wow someone got rich when they bought it when cheap'. FTX and SBF are things that get mentioned on a news site, a single headline for a single day, and then it's gone like all the rest.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see how it's less blurry. With every new fossil that comes to light you have a repeat of what constitutes a homo sapiens debate. Regardless of that I don't see how that relates to rigor. It's not for a lack of rigor that this happens, it's because of a lack of information.
Those objections would only be relevant in a world much more mixed than this one. This argument isn't even relevant to race in particular. It's just a catch all universal 'boo' against any measurement done against anything that is not 100% cut and dry. You could just as well employ this sort of tactical nihilism against the concept of marriage.
Hispanic isn't useless as a category when compared with other categories. Even a simple distinction within the category into Mestizo's and Castizo's can resolve the entire issue. If, say, 80% of 'Hispanics' in the US are Mestizo or 'latino', then you can just assume that and take it into account when seeing a stat like this.
I don't understand why you think non-east Asian is a useless category. I can understand for both Hispanic and Asian, why one would want more clarification and finesse in general. But in the context of contrasting 'Asian' with the larger racial groups in the western world, such as white, the term functions just fine. I was not under the impression anyone was mistaking 'Asians' for whites, unlike the case with Castizo's.
For what it's worth I'd be willing to wager that most normies are far more sane when it comes to race and recognizing race in their own lives. That is, being able to tell that their marriage was interracial. The sort of autism that seeks to play word games of chess around definitions and categories is something generally reserved for the mental world of words and forms, rather than being based in an observation about the world. Though I am sure, such as with any self report data, that it has issues. But, again, that applies to all of it, for nigh any category of anything.
White isn't doing so great either after they let Sicilians and the Irish in.
No one ever considered the Irish anything but white. This doesn't belong in the conversation and you diminish your own presence in it by engaging in this sort of nonsense.
I don't believe this is a very serious question. Those are a lot of examples. Some are edge cases, others are not. None of them in any way change the fact that a Northern European and aboriginal Australians are very clearly different races. No one has any problem or issue recognizing an interracial marriage for the vast majority of cases. That might change if people mix more, but then you could, like you are doing here, make a more detailed analysis of racial admixture or make some other compromise based on the fact that the subjects in question are explicitly mixed race. In any case, as it stands this is not a credible issue. And for a lot of mixed people, considering, for instance, mulattos versus hapas, there are still very clear phenotypic differences.
Worst case scenario you get to ape the colloquial racial categorizations of a place like Brazil.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I can make up a nonsensical version of speciation too. That doesn't mean its relevant to anything. The reason I asked the question is that speciation as a categorization method is no more noisy or inconsistent than racial categorization in humans since racial categorization is just speciation by another name. In fact, speciation in humans is less noisy and more consistent since we have studied the humans a lot more than most other animals.
The only thing here that is unrigorous is your understanding of the concept of race.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's also an interracial marriage if the two partners are very different ethnically. Say an ethnic Nigerian and an ethnic Norwegian. No one would consider the marriage anything other than interracial even if the two people checked the same box on a form.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No one blinking at it doesn't change the fact that it's interracial. The 'arc of the universe' also has a strong bent towards more people coming from India, Africa and China. Regardless of how many people from there intermarry in the west, those groups are not becoming less meaningful as a dividing line considering they are the largest and fastest growing populations on earth.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What makes homo sapiens sapiens more rigorous than racial categorization?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Nope. At worst he gets the Trump treatment of a fashionably late pardon. Best case, an early release. Unless this guy somehow managed to screw over the wrong jews I don't think he will face anything real.
'Gather followers'? This is silly. Akin to calling someone responding to your comments 'harassment'.
More options
Context Copy link