BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 45d 07h 25m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Gambling for children is the new frontier.
With much of the gambling market having sat at relative stagnation compared to the explosion of other recreational markets through various internet activity, we are finally seeing a proper proliferation of gambling. From kids buying lootboxes through ingame apps, which sits at a similar place as kids buying Pokemon cards. Which, differing from Pokemon cards, devolves into straight up gambling through third party websites. Where there is no definitional difference between third party websites that facilitate the gambling of various video game tokens and actual online slot casinos that accept direct money deposits. You have an entire arc where you can go from child to adult and develop a compulsive gambling addiction.
This is then compounded through video game streaming culture where people are gambling away 'fake' money to promote gambling facilities. Where, through affiliations with streaming sites and gambling sites, they receive money from every aspect of their activity. Be that persons who watch and give money to the stream, or kickbacks from the gambling website for each person that signs up through their affiliate link. The fakeness of the endeavor then reaches glorious heights when sometimes the streamer owns a part in the gambling website they are gambling on and receive better odds at winning. Giving them a perfect opportunity to advertise just have much fun 'can' be had. Outside of that there is also always the incentive for the streamers and gambling facility owners to do dealings under the table.
This isn't some dark corner of the internet, or some little known website run out of Malta where you can play online versions of slot machines at a slightly higher RTP. These are the biggest mainstream titles in one of the biggest entertainment industries in the world. These are made to be addictive to children. Specifically engineered by our fine class of programmers and designers to get them to spend money. To get them hooked on gambling.
I mean, could you imagine, when you were a kid, your parents buying you a toy that came equipped with a functional slot machine? Where you could take a 20 dollar bill, put it into the machine, and potentially receive a new toy? What if, instead of being saddled with the reality of having to make a new toy, the company that owns the toy can just print out a card that you want? But that still costs some money. What if the company can just conjure up a pixel that it displays on a screen? Completely divorced from the burdens of traditional money based gambling, these fantastic designers, psychologists and programmers can create a gambling environment where the only worry is how to most effectively direct children and teenagers into a cycle of gambling addiction.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The binary isn't false. Either blacks are suffering more than whites, or they are not. It's not up to you as a white person to dictate the safest possible way for equality to come about anymore. Whites have had decades to put their preferred methods into action and none of them have worked. The gaps between blacks and whites are the same.
Sorry, but you don't get to sacrifice more black bodies for your white comfort anymore. The suffering and oppressed have no reason or moral obligation to value the continuation of the system that hurts and oppresses them and their children. If we can't achieve racial harmony within the white structures of power, then they will have to be abolished just like black and brown bodies had to abolish the white structure of slavery.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don’t care one way or the other what you do or don’t care about.
I care about racism and the harm that it causes. Don't you? Are you a racist?
But you’ll need to define “the most privileged people on Earth” more broadly than the the capital-owning class to make your point, which proves mine.
Being a white office worker makes you top 1% in the world when it comes to nigh every metric possible. If you think you are making a point by recognizing this fact then you will have to elucidate me.
Also, what evidence do you have that even a simple majority of people subjected to bizarre EDI sessions are “self-described anti-racists”?
You have to follow the context of the conversation if this is going to work, you can't just go comment by comment.
Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more?
Either the people are anti-racist and not doing a good enough job and should be scolded, or they are racist since they don't want to do anything real to help fight against racism.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Nothing you say changes the fact that self-described anti-racists are sitting on their asses in positions of power doing nothing to help black people who have been suffering for centuries. Sorry but no one should care about the crocodile tears of white overprivileged liars and hypocrites when they are finally confronted with the reality of their being.
All you are doing is shifting the conversation away from the plight of blacks and instead focusing on the fact a privileged white person doesn't like being called what they are. If you don't believe black suffering matters stop pretending and get out of the way of progress. The free market, that white people love when it benefits them and helps them exploit others, is now finally, in the tiniest way possible, affecting the most privileged people on earth slightly negatively by comparison. Forgive me for not caring when this 'inconvenience' is contrasted with literal slavery.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.
According to privileged white people who have overseen decades of oppression over blacks. Robin DiAngelo is there to remind you that your white privilege does not hold more value than black suffering just because you are currently benefiting from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Forced at what stage?
If they are forced into identifying as anti-racist then they are just racist cowards. Why shouldn't we apply more force to racist cowards?
In any case it seems you are valuing the comfort of white inaction above the suffering, oppression and death of black victims.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree with your point but I think 'conservatives' and the like are correct in playing this association game for a different reason. In short it would be bio-leninism + high heritability of certain political ideas.
The fact that a person is a devout marxist isn't a coincidence most of the time. Depending on what type of marxist they are and why boils down to biology. They have brain chemistry that makes them like X more than Y. And 'conservatives', for a lack of a better term, like Y over X. So it's not about the academic intellectual tradition being a poisoned well, it's that the people who can stand to drink from it are different from you in ways so drastic that you can't trust anything they have to say. Everything that extends from their thought process, by dint of their divergence from you, is therefor most likely toxic to you and the things you care about.
The fact they were 'marxist' or something else is just a signal or a uniform of sorts that helps you mark them as being neurologically different from you.
You could also try to fit Jonathan Haidt's work, specifically 'The Righteous Mind', into this.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Robin DiAngelo didn't come up with anything per se. She just published and popularized a very salient critique against white liberal/progressive/leftist inaction in the face of the enormous gaps between blacks and whites in the US. A critique that had been floating about in academia for a while. (It should come as no surprise that she cites Noel Ignatiev & friends a lot.)
Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more? From that point onward every word that exits your mouth is white fragility in action. Why do you think blacks are poorer? Have worse educational outcomes? Have worse jobs? Everything you say here that isn't explicitly racist is either white fragility or an invitation for DiAngelo to ask you why you aren't doing more to help. And every answer you give to that question that isn't 'Yes Mam' followed by extensive plans for action is white fragility in action.
Robin DiAngelo walks into institutions filled to the brim with white self-described anti-racists and tears them a new one for not actually being anti-racist. And she is right. A person who says they care about racism and all the gaps between blacks and whites but doesn't do anything about it is either a hypocrite or a liar. Why shouldn't a group full of self-described anti-racists be called out on their lack of action? Black people are literally dying whilst you fret over what is for lunch.
Robin DiAngelo isn't breaking any rules here. Why shouldn't people who say they care about matters of race and the oppression be forced into action? Why should the plight of one overprivileged fragile white person who loses their job and healthcare matter more than the plight of millions of black people? Why should their personal worries be allowed to act as a bulwark against real anti-racist action? Why should the free market system that ties jobs with healthcare be used as a rhetorical moral shield for white people when it has been used as a sword against black people for centuries?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Because Hitler was fighting for a truth that would in the long run reduce the amount of human suffering by a magnitude far greater than anything that has come after him.
Because even eliding over things like the Holocaust or the near-conquest of Europe, if you take the most overly-charitable view of Hitler, all you see is a guy who riled people up, picked fights his country couldn't and shouldn't have, and then proceeded to lose so badly that he didn't even have the courage to face his people about the loss, let alone the wrath of two superpowers coming to tear down his government.
That's not the most charitable view of Hitler. I am sure you can steelman Hitler better than that.
If anything, even National Socialists wouldn't (and didn't) want to identify with a loser
Why? Most National Socialists I know identify a great deal with flawed figures like Hitler and Goebbels.
Even Confederacy aesthetics and revanchism from American Southerners is pitiable by comparison--Nazis only have copium.
Is this just 'boo outgroup' or were you trying to make a point? Because if you are trying to make a point it's not very salient considering all the losers of wars. I mean, I find the struggle of jews during the war far more pitiable than anything else. According to them they just lined themselves up to a slaughter house that was staffed by other jews who participated directly in slaughtering their co-ethnics because they thought it would buy them life. That's a level far lower than Hitler and friends banding together to fight those they think are their enemies to their dying breath in the name of their co-ethnics. You can argue that the result was the same but in that case I'd say that the option Hitler took displayed far superior moral character.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
We have specific rules, just not an exhaustive list of ways to break them. No stealing is a specific rule even if it doesn't explicitly state all the possible methods of theft.
In the same way that 'Don't piss off the admin' is a specific rule but not really. The actual rule is 'no symbolism or possibly implied meaning relating to sexism, racism, homophobia, or transphobia, and especially not any sort of neo-nazism in usernames'. But saying that doesn't meet the aesthetic preference of the mods. Kind of like how many 'conservatives' would say that they don't have a problem with gays getting married 'since the state shouldn't be involved in such affairs anyway'. Instead of just saying 'Yes, I support gay rights'.
I think maybe you're harboring the false belief that this is intended to be a conservative forum. It is intended to be a be a forum that takes all and encourages difficult conversations.
The criticism of 'conservatism' I was referencing was referenced precisely because so many people who use this webspace levy it against 'conservatives', or are at least aware of it, when the topic comes up. I mentioned this because the same lamentable lack of self-awareness and context is just that no matter where it expresses itself.
I don't understand why you think I am harboring in a false belief about this webspace. The point was not that its users hold 'conservative' opinions. The point was that the mods are engaging in the pattern of behavior that, in a different context, many recognize to be lamentable.
Reactionary means what I as a pretend mod believe it to mean. Just like the mods here believe that the 88 in 1488 stands for Heil Hitler and not the 88 Precepts. There is nothing viscerally objectionable to either. You can argue, like I tried, that there exists ample wiggle room in both 14 and 88 for it not to mean what you assert it must. But those arguments were not had and simply ignored in favor of mod subjectivity. Which, in your case, would be something along the lines of 'misogynist incel wants to chain women to the home'. It's not fun when your positions are reduced from their actual state to something along the lines of
"the Holocaust didn't really happen the way people think, but the Jews deserved it anyways."
But that's what we have from more people than just the mods, I guess.
What you are doing here is exactly what I was trying to do when I asked the mods to clarify their ruling. The mods did not clarify the ruling on the terms of my arguments. They just told me to stick a sock in it. If you want a genuine response from me, as a pretend mod, to all the stuff you wrote its: lmao, banned.
To give a copy paste response to what I got, just with changed labels:
Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your
Reactionaryfreak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Reactionaries," you're right.
.
I don't think the Mods said exactly that they are "asserting their aesthetic preference.
I didn't say that they said that. I said that this is what they are doing. What they said is what is quoted above. I'd appreciate you extend some charity in interpretation here. If you can't understand what I mean by 'aesthetic' you can just ask. The reason I used that term is because the mods have no way of knowing what the person intends, nor what the effect the persons actions will have. What they do know, however, is that they want their website to look like something. And, as we can tell by their actions, that something doesn't look like 1488 regardless of any argument made or reason given. It's not about the content, it's about the look and feel. It's not based on reason; it's based on subjective preference.
You can argue that there can be value in the choice regardless of that, and I'd agree. But that's not relevant to the contention being made.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This seems like quite a thing to draw out of not wanting our standards for discourse to include blatant and known trolling names.
It's not.
Objective isn't the right word for what the moderation of this place is going for, which is consistently content neutral but tone policing.
That's not the case. From Amadan:
That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right.
Mods are not content neutral.
No, actually I think we have pretty good reasons to dislike that political figure.
And we have a pretty good reason to dislike Genghis Khan, that doesn't mean we place him as a central figure for our moral compass. Nor do we constantly fret about potential Mongol hordes when someone erects a gigantic statue of the guy in Mongolia. In fact, most users have pretty good reasons to dislike what they dislike. But that's not the point. The point is that some likes and dislikes are more equal than others because of mod subjectivity.
But that's not even what is at issue here, we have rules about being unnecessarily obnoxious that such a name trivially violates, if it helps to appeal to equal treatment something like KillAllChristians would also deserve to be moderated.
You don't actually have specific rules on this, as the mods have said. What you feel deserves to be moderated has no relevance to anything since you are not a mod and the mods apply their rules subjectively. And though I am sure the mods would step in for something obvious like that, it's not the point. The point was that when there is ambiguity, the rulings are not consistent.
I must have missed it 10 years ago when Hitler references were really big with the red tribe and blue tribe was barely censoring them.
You are missing the point. The reason why so many lament 'conservatism' and label it as being '10 years out of date liberals' is not primarily because of the content of their beliefs. It's because of where these beliefs come from. It's because of the 'conservatives' complete lack of contextual awareness and understanding. These 'conservatives' don't know where their views come from or why. They don't see themselves as the end result of the culture wars of the generations that came before. They instead see themselves as being stalwarts in an ongoing battle that they are genuinely fighting to win. Instead of recognizing that all of their firmly held beliefs are just the undertow of those who are actually in charge. And that their 'conservative' inheritance is just the white flag of their predecessors.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't disagree, I just don't like people maintaining the pretense of objectivity when it comes to rules and mods when that is simply not the case. And the case is instead that we are collectively adhering to some boomer social justice aesthetics that demonize a 100-year-old political figure ahead of everything else because we've seen a lot about that guy on TV.
It just seems so absurd in relation to how much people like chastising 'conservatism' for being 'progressive-liberalism just 10 years out of date' when the majority of people seem content to play by the exact same 'conservative' ruleset when they are in power.
The Motte, AKA Conservareddit. 10 years out of date.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Calling yourself a reactionary means a lot of things to a lot of different people and it would get you banned in a lot of places. Same with traditionalism.
I am neither, but it amuses me to describe myself this way.
So it's just a shit post that doesn't subjectively irk the mods as much.
The comment you replied to was making the point that the ruleset was not objective. That it was instead just the mod team asserting their aesthetic preference. The mods have now said exactly that. You are just wrong in your prior assertion about the rules.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's wrong. Read the thread.
You are not allowed to talk about how much you love gassing jews, you are not allowed to discuss things in a vulgar way if you are not making a point with it. But you are allowed to talk about and advocate for National Socialism and White nationalism.
There are many nazi places on the world wide web, there is no need for one more, while this site is supposed to be unique.
This place would be far more unique if it did allow those kinds of names, given the fact that the number of places and the number of places that matter that ban such names dwarfs those who don't.
But that's neither here nor there.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You said you had no explicit rules and then you said you did. You are just floundering around the definition of explicit as if mod rulings aren't rules.
I said nothing about crypto.
That's correct, I said something about crypto since the person getting modded was commenting on crypto and not Hitler or white nationalism.
If someone puts 1488 in their username we're not going to ask them "Do you mean that in a crypto way or a Nazi way?" and then allow it if it's the former and ban it if it's the latter. Let's be serious now.
The example you gave about 'SuckItWhitey' came with the caveat that "if" the person was being racist against whites then they would "probably" get modded. If the caveat was not important or at all relevant, why add it?
We apply the same general rule we apply to posts (if you couldn't say it in a post, you probably can't say it in a username).
Which is why I explicitly asked about 1488 and its connotations and noted that there was wiggle room there.
We are not going to try to enumerate every offensive or inflammatory username someone might come up with. Codifying it like that just invites people to try to game the rules and then squawk indignantly that we didn't explicitly say that you can't phonetically transliterate "I Hate Jews" in Cyrillic or whatever.
No one asked you to.
Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your Nazifreak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right. We actually had a mod discussion about what we'd do if someone posted outright "I'm a Nazi and Hitler did nothing wrong," and honestly I'm not sure we came to a unanimous consensus. We allow people to advocate white nationalism and Holocaust denial, as you are well aware. But if your disgruntlement here is that we're not inclined to let Nazis make themselves comfortable here, even if we don't instaban them, continue to be disgruntled.
I'm not disgruntled, I'm content with you admitting the point I was making.
I'm not. Or at least I'm not holding them to a different standard I would hold for anyone that supports, for example, Western hegemony in whatever ideological form it expresses itself. The ideological pretense of peace, freedom and democracy didn't save any of the victims of US foreign policy. No matter how much it was repeated in Western propaganda.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The part where you, just moments ago, said you did not have specific rules on this. It's hard to say that I am stuck on any part when you contradict yourself comment to comment.
You gave examples which were not analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation.
In reply to this you said there were no specific rules on this type of stuff. Now you are saying there are specific rules and that those rules are 1488 = banned when talking about crypto. Whilst, pending clarification, 'SuckItWhitey' is "probably" not allowed "if" they being racist against white people. Who knows if they just talk about crypto and AI all day.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Because Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of white people in all history, anyone who cares about "continued existence of white people" should condemn him ten times stronger than mainstream normie history does.
Those alleged fact is irrelevant to the context of the argument. It's not the job of the mods to enforce that everyone subscribe to the 'correct' theory of white supremacy.
Because one nazi attracts another, and mods do not want this site to become nazi sewer, more than enough of such places on the internets.
If the nazis follow the rules as they are enforced on everyone else, why would this place become a sewer?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Having a username state a partisan and inflammatory statement is the opposite of proactively providing evidence for it. It's just a username, it's not a complete argument that people can respond to and tear apart. It's a way to shit post.
...
Esoteric Traditionalist Mystic Reactionary
I shouldn't need to say anything else but in the spirit of clarity: A point I made some effort in making was that the ruleset was not applied equally. And that the mods are just enforcing their own bias when attributing 'inflammation' and 'partisanship'. This bias is not in line with any objective reason or knowledge. It's just the social justice of the 1990's, as advertised on TV. I don't see why, when not beholden to reddit, the mods enforce that everyone be beholden to their partisan view of the world.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If that's the case, why don't they say that? Just be open about the angle of the slippery slope we are going to be sliding on.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The entire point of this incident was that the person wasn't speaking in code. They literally put 1488 in their name.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Then this would be the first time you do so for a name that is not inflammatory or provocative.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You have the causation reversed. If someone sufficiently marks themselves as low status or a member of an outgroup you turn your brain off.
Generally, with regards to Football, the term 'penalty' is reserved for a foul made inside the 'penalty area' which would result in a 'penalty kick' being given. If you say a player was 'given a penalty' you are saying that the player was rewarded a penalty kick for being fouled inside the opposition's penalty area.
In general, the term used when not referring to a penalty kick is 'penalized'. I.e., the player was penalized with a yellow for a foul.
More options
Context Copy link