BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 45d 10h 28m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point of the questions was to contextualize Griner's fame and why it would, in that context, make sense for them to get treated the way they did.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not sure if you just don't get meaning behind words because you are autistic or if this is intentional trolling but cutting up the question being asked isn't a valid way to answer it.
To give an example:
I think you're selling it
I am not selling anything. Why do you think I am selling something?
But that is neither here nor there considering what you say next:
I'm confident that a doctrine whose main point has been race and sex (especially race) has been in charge in America going all the way back its founding.
Then we don't have a disagreement.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why is she famous? Why is WNBA a 'thing'? It wasn't a 'thing' 20 years ago.
It seems kind of short sighted to just assume that the doctrine that has been in charge for a few decades now, that shaped the cultural climate as it is today, is not to do with race and sex when that's the main point it focused on. It would certainly seem odd to me if that weren't the case given the huge emphasis the powers that be place on those things.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think Bills wife allows him to make actual jokes about hot button CW stuff. If he did make a joke, he would turn it around on white people in the end.
'If it was Tom Brady white people wouldn't say a thing. They would be celebrating.' Or something along those lines.
His MO was always kind of predictable, but it got worse after he got, allegedly, cucked in real life.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What's interesting about it?
I found her (Goldberg's) arguments to be the complete opposite of good straight from the get-go. The first point that stood out to me in her opening statement, that 'the media' is not 'ideologically captured' is just wrong. Like she doesn't understand what people are talking about. To reinforce her point she brings up the 'Red Wave' phenomenon the blue mainstream media were pushing in unison. A phenomenon that can be characterized entirely as 'I am afraid my enemy is going to win like they did last time'.
It seems to miss the point of what people have been saying about media bias. The point of the 'displeasure' of how the media was shilling for Hillary Clinton in 2016 wasn't that the media was saying that she was going to win. That was just a consequence of the actual problem. That problem being that 'the media' was obviously and completely in the tank for Hillary and an ill-defined political direction that we can code as 'blue'.
Because of this lack of understanding Goldberg's whole concept of 'over-correction' is just irrelevant at best. The media didn't 'correct' itself in any sense that relates to 'ideological capture'. It's still just as captured, just expressing itself differently. They recognized that they might have harmed 'the cause' and changed gears. They didn't change gears to correct their own beliefs. They changed gears so that they would stop harming the cause. From their perspective, in hindsight, it was obviously folly to say to your prospective voters that the election was in the bag. If you want to aid 'the cause' you must gin up your voters to vote. So you tell them that the enemy is mounting for an attack and that you must brace the gates, or you will lose everything you care about.
At risk of being too uncharitable to a person like this. Is she just that stupid? How can someone in her position look at this entire debacle, ongoing for years now, and still be so far off the mark? Is she a malicious actor?
She then moves into 'the big stories'. And says the mainstream media got most of them 'right'. She doesn't expand on what that means beyond that Trump and COVID where events that happened. Which, as a standard of 'rightness' doesn't seem to elevate mainstream media far above 'alternative' media but that's neither here nor there since she backpedals the argument a bit and says that you would be 'closer' to the 'truth' if you followed mainstream media and not 'alternative' sources. This is not really a truth apt claim since the 'truth' given out by blue media and non-blue media is simply not the same. This muddy language is then used to support her argument where she says that the hysteria ginned up about Trump was largely correct because January 6 happened. The problem here being obvious, one 'truth' says J6 was a coup attempt, the other 'truth' says it was a valid protest. If she is malicious, she is brilliant at what she does. If she isn't, she is an idiot savant at making stupid arguments.
I don't think you could underpin the concept of 'ideological capture' better that Goldberg does in her opening paragraphs of her opening statement. Not only does she demonstrate what it looks like, and that she is suffering from it. She also demonstrates that if blue journalists were fish, 'ideological capture' is the water they swim in. Lacking self-awareness to the point of absurdity.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I could only presume those would be your presuppositions. And considering the implications of such presuppositions, I doubt anyone consistently holds to them. The primary reason that I ask that is the historical context of the region of SA. Most notably the fact that most of the black population there were recent immigrants.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why wouldn't white rule over South Africa be justified? Can you clarify your presuppositions?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Looking just at any metrics from TikTok, YouTube or any mainstream news outlet Tate is giant in comparison. I live in Scandinavia and there was, for example, a recent segment in the radio about Tate and how 'dangerous' he is. I don't understand where you are coming from here. Tate is obviously much bigger.
If I was a secret service agent that might need to vaporize potential evidence, I'd buy a Ford Expedition to have a handy excuse for the media to play with.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The drug overdose death rates are 10 times higher or more now than they were at any time since 1993. At which time the rate increased from 2.8 per 100k to what it was in 2020, 28.3 per 100k.
Your theory does not sync up to reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point being made was that Andrew Tate is mainstream popular. Everyone in my workplace knows who Andrew Tate is. None of them have heard of the other things you listed. The fact he isn't saying anything 'new' to you isn't the point.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
My brother, what you can get is your market value.
The comment you are replying to, in market terms, is predicting a 'crash', for a lack of a better term. The baseline ingredient for a crash is a mismatch of information. Deferring to market standards in a market that is suffering from a mismatch of information isn't much of an argument in relation to what the value of things should be.
The rest of your comment is just a framegame where instead of looking at the issues from a sympathetic view, which from reading your comment seems to hurt your personal sensibilities for sounding too much like incel trutherism, you instead just describe the problem in terms of others being losers.
The problem with this is that the frame doesn't change the questions being asked. To phrase the question in terms that don't offend a person of such a grand social stature as yourself: Why are there more losers now?
if you think the responses here are anti-male, try posting the same story but for women being unable to find a good man, and watch the claws come out. The responses aren't anti-male, they're anti-whiner.
Reducing all arguments to group conflict isn't relevant. Sure, there is group based pathology in play like always, but that fact doesn't change the fact that there is also an objective reality in play. Just like many early 2000's feminists were objectively wrong in their assertions about men and women being 'equal' in terms of mental and physical competition in various sporting activities, it can also be true that women who can't find a 'good man' are pathologically complaining about a problem that has less to do with reality than men who can't find a 'good woman'. Just because both 'whines' are pathologies doesn't mean they are of equal relation to reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Considering the stranglehold anti-white and pro-immigration extremists have on media, the possibility is irrelevant. In the UK not even a large-scale gang rape scandal involving possibly tens of thousands of children spanning decades could wake the people there up. By the unlikely time the attitudes of Europeans in the UK change, their political opinions will be irrelevant.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Supposing you ever stop immigration. Which is, I'd say, not very likely.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The realities of 'being a good person' instead of being a selfish person aren't a mystery and your stated beliefs are not relevant to me next to the lived reality of people who have actually gone out of their way to be a good person, putting in all the hard work and effort, only to find themselves completely burned out in a year or two as the seriousness of the situation becomes clear to them. Examples of people 'being good', where I have first-hand accounts of people completely giving up on the situation are: Missionary work/general aid work in Africa, helping the homeless, helping stray animals.
In all of the examples there was a common line that, eventually, the people doing the aid hit a wall. If you have some way of helping people get over the wall, in whatever capacity it is that you imagine these folks becoming 'better persons' I am all ears. Because as far as I can tell, nothing about EA involves a replacement for actual people doing actual physical work on the ground.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I didn't say it wasn't relative. What I am saying is that the emotions you feel are real and you are not going to fake it till you make it. Like is demonstrated with people making 6 figure salaries choosing to live lifestyles that make them unable to 'expand their circle of love' more effectively.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Oreos and french fries.
The illusion of veganism as 'healthy' persists because a lot of vegans are 'health nuts' compared to the normal person. If the normal person was vegan they could easily supplement their diets with certified vegan High Fructose Corn Syrup and Palm Seed Oil.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What cynical view of humanity? Altruism in effect is just called love. You get it from those who love you and you give it to those you love. Beyond that people are not giving anything they can't afford to give. The same way a gambler isn't really gambling if he is only betting money he can afford to lose.
I think people are shrouding their own nature in these words. 'Altruism' 'kindness'. I don't see it as cynicism to recognize that I am not giving away any of the money I can't afford to give away and that I am no different from anyone who finds themselves under the umbrella of 'Effective Altruism'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
red tribe and universal appeal are not mutually exclusive.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Congratulations to Effective Altruism. For those of you not understanding why this whole thing isn't good for Effective Altruism: You are now officially a group! Just like Atheism became a group through the infamous fedora/quote maker incident, you too are now an easily identifiable and targetable entity. No one will ever need to engage with what you say.
If anyone cares to ask what the difference is between Effective Altruism and just Altruism: Altruism is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give the money to powerless people who don't have money. Like Robin Hood. And then you go the way of Robin Hood, either getting killed or jailed for life.
Effective Altruism, on the other hand, is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give very powerful people with even more money all of the money. That way, unlike Robin Hood, when the jig is up nothing will happen to you, and you can go back to your polycule.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You might as well say moral panics about pornography are nothing new and point me to some concerned mothers group from 1000 BC worrying about a suggestively shaped rock as if that has anything to do with modern trends of porn consumption and their effects.
I relation to the internet, yes, it is a new frontier. I don't know what you would allow to qualify as being a new frontier but to me the explosion of these markets is very new. Back when I was younger there were two places to gamble, sports betting, which was heavily regulated, and a single state regulated slot machine hall. Needless to say, it was only the most dedicated who managed to rack up large losses. Fast forward to today, I know 4 people personally who have each lost, in total, more than half a years' worth of wages or more through betting tokens for some video game.
Maybe you live in Las Vegas and this is nothing new under the sun for you, but this didn't exist where I live until in recent years.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I guess we had different experiences growing up. My mom and dad were very adamant that all of this arcade nonsense was just to steal your money and would never give me any if I asked to go play the machines.
Other than that, I don't follow your point.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Maybe I'm late to the party on this but I found the pan-African Nationalist colors to be the most striking feature of the flag. If they wanted that kind of symbolism why not go for something Indian, given how many of the slave laborers are from there.
If Poland were not patriarchal, but was under threat from a patriarchal force, would a non-patriarchal Poland not defend itself?
This is not really a question. Feminist LARP is just that. But I don't understand, in the spirit of proper world building LARP's like Anarcho-Capitalism and such, what the feminist answer to the 'defense issue' is.
The lack of self-awareness needed to stake every single one of your positions on the presupposition of a utopia without ever acknowledging it in the context of real-world issues is an embarrassment.
More options
Context Copy link