hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
But the market is not made out of perfect information. You will never catch a fish if you don't throw out bait.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Alas, he can’t come out and fire the transitioned member without losing corporate sponsorship and reputation.
He would also be losing a friend. Regardless of anything else, sticking by your friends is admirable. Especially when it actually hurts.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
My heuristic is that the narrative is plausible.
You circle between plausibility and belief. This is why I asked you about the Katyn massacre.
And for the one who keeps privileging evidence, you haven't provided a single link.
A link to what? To what end?
That's ridiculous. The Judeo-Christian neo-conservative plot wasn't to exterminate Iraq, they could've done that in half an hour with a nuclear strike.
Using the rubric you supplied to me I wrote this paragraph for you to demonstrate just how ridiculous that rubric is. You said that because we knew the Germans did not "like" the Poles, and we know this because they invaded. Well, Neo-cons did not like Iraq. We know this because they invaded. From there all else follows and you can't do anything about that because you pretend to not look at specific evidence for specific claims prior to weighing whether it was possible for something to happen or not. You don't bother maintaining your heuristic and I'm not surprised.
Either way they were getting rid of Jews from Germany. Expelling people with various levels of forcefulness isn't the same as working with them.
Contrasted with what you said Hitler was doing with the Poles, which you mean to say is somehow significantly different from what he was doing with the jews:
Did Hitler like Slavs? Not really. Was Hitler planning to exterminate them all? No, there were various plans to subjugate or relocate them if possible. He would've settled for working with them.
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing on here.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In general, it’s part of a wider gish gallop strategy on the part of revisionists that should raise the suspicions of anyone attempting to examine their arguments.
Because all holocaust revisionists are part of the same cabal, employing a 'strategy'. But they are so stupid that they can't get their story straight.
This is unlike holocaust believers who all believe exactly the same thing with regards to the holocaust, how it happened and why. Which we can see being the case in this thread...
Honestly, this rhetoric is so ridiculous and 'boo outgroup' it's self defeating. It's so far below the general standards of discourse here that I can hardly believe you wrote it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Do you think I lack material evidence?
I think you are going in circles just like I described above. You keep circling back to the narrative being true. When I proposed an evidence based approach to specific claims you wanted to rely on a heuristic that's partly based on the narrative being true. When I call that heuristic into question you are now circling towards an evidence based approach that's based on the narrative being true. Like I said before, I can't do anything here. If you just presuppose that the holocaust happened then it always did regardless of anything else.
The Sportspalast Speech is not Allied war propaganda, it's German war propaganda. Almost nobody reads through these Web 1.0 text files from Calvin University.
I didn't say it was allied war propaganda. And you're not the first person to quote Goebbels to prove how evil the nazis were in pursuit of proving claims made against them without having to propose any specific evidence for any specific events. The point being made is that you can quote war propaganda to produce sentiment of genocidal intent because war propaganda is generally about killing the enemy.
These assumptions of knowledge aren't based on thin air - we know the Soviets and Germans disliked the Poles, they partitioned the country earlier. If I were in 1942 or whatever, I'd be uncertain whether Germany or Russia killed those Poles.
In 2003 the USA along with its NATO allies invaded Iraq because they hated Iraqis and wanted to genocide them all. Every single civilian death was part of a genocidal judeo-christian neo-conservative plot to exterminate Iraq. We know this because the USA invaded Iraq and toppled its government. In fact, public sentiment at the time included rhetoric about 'glassing' the region. Directly invoking and promoting a nuclear holocaust. This is proof of murderous intent for every single Iraqi casualty during the war and subsequent occupation.
Well what choice do I have?
I am not asking you to do primary research. You can simply stop believing in the holocaust or be compelled to defend it. Stop maintaining differential standards for historical methodology based on social factors. You don't believe in other historical events in the same way. If someone calls the mainstream narrative of the war in Burma into question you don't care. You don't feel the need to weave together some methodology that can sustain the narrative. Belief in the holocaust, for 99,99% of people is just ridiculous.
The whole point of arguing from capability and motives is that we can bypass the masses of facts that clog everything up.
See the genocidal invasion of Iraq above. You are not bypassing anything except your own critical faculties. Why do you need to believe in the holocaust?
But when it comes to Jews, there was never any desire to work with them, they were implacable enemies of Nazism. And they still are today!
Not true. See the Haavara Agreement and the Madagascar plan.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This methodological standard for historical evidence is, to put it lightly, unsustainable. By the same logic you can look at any war propaganda and use it as proof of genocide. Not genocidal intent, but actual genocidal events.
Who killed 22 thousand Polish military officers in Katyn forest? How could you know? You don't look at physical evidence. But going by the war propaganda that you happen to know, which just so happens to be the propaganda the victors of history want you to know about, everyone knows just how much Hitler hated the Slavs and wanted to kill every single one of them. Everyone also knows, because it is so true of course, that Hitler thought Poles were Slavs, not Aryan. So going by our methodology it just makes sense that the Germans committed the Katyn forest massacre.
I want you to be self aware of your position here. Your claims of not being persuaded that there were even 'accounting errors' is completely meaningless. You have already represented yourself as someone who acquires belief in historical events not through evidence but inference from broader historical narratives. You have no basis to question these narratives. You have no knowledge of what even constitutes historical evidence or proof in the context of these events. All you have are inferences based on what sounds plausible to yourself as a person who doesn't question historical events or the broader historical narrative you were raised with.
This position is unassailable. I can't do anything. Because no matter the fraught nature of specific evidence for any specific event, you always have the broader narrative to fall back on. And because you fall back on the broader narrative to protect individual claims, no individual claim can be refuted and the narrative can never be called into question.
You can read the historical national socialist express his ideology in his most famous work, and it maps out pretty well as the kind of ideology that would lead to a genocide of Jews in territory under his control.
No it doesn't.
In a sort of man bites dog analogy: holocaust education, like you describe it, is like listening to a CNN pundit explain why people voted for Trump with a CGI rendering of Capitol Hill on fire in the background.
Very similar to how people will frame National Socialism as an elaborate Rube Goldberg style mechanism to hate jews. With a hatred that practically sprung out of thin air via philosophies and theories, Hitler was just a sort of 'whacky idea man' and the German people voted for him because they were insane.
Yeah, I think so.
Maybe it's just me but when I first learned that I had been heavily mislead by a supposed arbiter of truth I started questioning things that came from that arbiter. I mean, if they'd lie about the holocaust why wouldn't they lie about "Nazy ideology"? How could you trust them? Have you ever heard "Nazi ideology" expressed by an actual historical national socialist? Has anyone aside from select soundbites and quotes? Who selected those?
And don't get me started on the idea that this is just an error. If historians can collectively make errors like this there is no reason to take the field seriously.
The notion that megadeaths buy you moral superiority points is ridiculous. Otherwise we'd never be able to say a bad word about Russia or China, yet we're clearly happy to do so.
I don't hold to that notion nor do I know anyone who does. The holocaust is pushed because jews have a lot of power in western society. There's nothing objective about the standard of placing it front and center in victimary discourse.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The theoretical possibility of something happening is not proof of it actually happening. The specific claims made as to what happened and how matter far more in determining that.
There is nothing ridiculous about the logic relating to the size of an alleged gas chamber and the amount of people you could possibly fit into it when the claim made is that people were fitted into it and killed at a necessitated rate. If it turns out that you can't fit as many people into the chamber as you would need to maintain the rate then what can you make of the claim? You would have to revise it.
Do you revise back to a different estimate of killings? One false claim doesn't disprove a narrative based on a thousand claims, afer all. Well, what if we do this for most of the claims of the holocaust and come away from them with the conclusion that the vast majority of them don't hold up to scrutiny all that well. Does it then matter that it sounded plausible to us that the Germans could have done it?
This is rather pertinent since it calls into question on just what we are grounding our belief in the holocaust. I mean, yeah, of course, it sounds plausible to me that the Germans could have done it. After all I've been told all my life that they were evil back in the day, on top of being industrious and efficient. If that is our basis for belief is it even possible for us to question the holocaust at all? Won't it always sound plausible to us that the evil regime would do whatever evil thing?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
There was a bit of back-and-forth on the archaeological evidence and witness testimony, which I eventually gave up on because SS (very subtle username, by the way) clearly knew much more about the subject than me, and could thus, as the saying goes, drag me down to his level and beat me with experience. Calculating the number of corpses that can fit in a given volume definitely felt like I was being dragged down a few levels.
This reads a tad bit uncharitable. If he knows more than you it could hardly be fair to say that he is dragging you down. As for calculating the number of bodies that can fit in a room, the nature of the revisionist talking points can only be fairly compared to the nature of the evidence presented by mainstream theorists.
Aside from that:
The Alternative Hypothesis made a video on this topic. With a text version available, linked below. I've heard that the arguments presented come from Walter N. Sanning.
The general gist is probably best summarized on page 35 onwards of the text version. Long story short, the amount of jews Germany had access to in the Poland/USSR regions is lower than the amount of jews that are missing from the census. Attributing the deaths of 4.4 million jews to Germans who only occupied Polish/USSR regions with a total of 1.9 million jews is problematic.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Do they support their existence and see their interest aligned with them? What kind of proportions of the American jewish population are we talking here? From the opinion polls I've read that are some pretty uniform opinions that jews have that seem plenty represented in their larger organizations.
There are a lot of "Jewish" advocacy organizations and charities in the same way that there are thousands of Catholic organizations.
I mean, yes and no. Can you clarify the point here?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
OK, but I want to recognize, in the context my original reply to Supah, that we are going very swiftly from 'not all jews' to 'of course all jews'.
I would also like to recognize the inherent problems with the fact that jews naturally outgroup non-jews. And that some jews have displayed extreme neuroticism when it comes to interpreting whether the ingroup is being persecuted or not.
I think we can also recognize that there are inherent issues with this dynamic that are very conducive to causing problems. As is argued in the OP, the very nature of something like the narrative of the holocaust transcends just matters of historical fact. It has to be defended tooth and nail at every point, like you mention, regardless of whether it be true or not. Because it's perceived by jews as a matter of survival. Same goes for the variety of other social memes like the authoritarian personality, critical theory and their derivatives. Say what you want about those memes, but they are not there to help gentiles. They are there to help jews.
I feel that there is an alleged proposition inherent to all of the jew apologetics surrounding these issues. That is that, ultimately, whether it harms gentiles or not is irrelevant. It doesn't ultimately matter if the jew running around defending every bunk social theory or historical narratives is doing good or bad or telling truth or lie. We are just implicitly supposed to recognize and appreciate the inherent logic to the actions of the unapologetic jew. Regardless of its consequences.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Then it would behoove those jews who are apparently not being represented by the 'elite' jews to stop supporting them through ethno centric advocacy groups that go as far as to say that any talk of 'international' or 'cosmopolitan' elites is inherently anti-semitic.
You can't have AIPAC, the ADL, and the thousands of jewish advocacy groups in the US and act like the concept of a 'jew' doesn't hold any value and that it can just be brushed away by mention of the fact that poor jews exist.
Unlike the anti-white racial theories of unconscious bias and systemic racism, anti-semitism doesn't need to go that far to make its point. It just needs to point to any one of the widely supported explicitly racially exclusive jewish advocacy groups.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Mealy-mouthed:
afraid to speak frankly or straightforwardly
If the CPB doesn't support trans rights then they shouldn't say that they support trans rights.
If rape were properly penalised in prison it wouldn’t happen. In the US at least rape is part of the process.
Brushing aside what appears, to me, to be an unfortunately 'low resolution' view on prison rape, pending clarification. What is the problem with letting trans people into womens prisons? Just "properly" penalize them so they don't do anything wrong.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The Communist Party supports the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice.
The CPB contradicting itself isn't a problem of mine.
I'm hesitant to attach myself to any specific theory or definition relating to 'trans-anything' since there are so many, but it's a common feature for the vast majority of them to define 'trans acceptance' as an acceptance of the trans person as their identified gender. That means that you don't get to hold biology or anything else over their head in any way shape or form. Trans women are women and that's that. Anything else is not trans accepting but trans exclusionary. If you are trans exclusionary you are not supporting the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice. You are in fact doing the opposite.
It’s quite possible to desegregate the prisons and penalise rape in prisons.
Rape is already penalized in prisons. That doesn't stop it from happening. The thing that would actually drastically stop a lot of it from happening, along with a lot of the beatings, murders and so on, would be to segregate the prisons. But the vast majority of people decided that the cost, that included torturous beatings, rapes and murders, was worth it for the sake of whatever racial ideology they believed in.
With that being the case I don't see how it could possibly be such a tough hill to climb to just let trans people into whatever prison they want to. Not to be a smartass but just apply the same rubric you just applied to mens prisons and desegregation. It's quite possible to allow trans folk into whatever prison they want and penalize whatever negative that comes of it. Is it not?
The Communist Party supports the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice. This attempt to change the law does nothing for their access to health, medical, housing, advisory and other services sensitive to their needs.
It's a very 'conservative' mealy-mouthed statement that seems desperate to look for an excuse to not put themselves behind placing men into womens prisons. Here's a pro-tip for center liberals and the CPB: If you say you are in favor of trans rights, open your eyes and recognize that these are men asking for the rights and privileges of women. If you are in favor of that don't act shocked or walk back your support or hide behind excuses when those men take advantage of those rights and privileges.
Worries about legal implications and consequences for the broader system are, in activist terms, called growing pains. To give an example of this, the desegregation implementation in the US impacted prisoners a lot. We are talking untold numbers of beatings, killings and rapes. All for racial justice. Similar stories can be found in British society and in British prisons as a consequence of immigration.
The morbid facts of those matters are not of any significant inconvenience to anyone who pushed for the policies of desegregation or immigration and integration. It's at best an inconvenient bump in the road that, in hindsight, should have been handled slightly differently, but never will be since doing so might make the whole thing look worse. But there's no grief there or anything. No one loses any sleep over it, ever. No matter how gruesome and horrifying the consequence of their advocacy was and continues to be. Most people never even think about it.
Compared to that, what is the worst case scenario here? What am I being asked to think and care about? A trans person rapes a woman in jail? Or, to put it in a way that is consistent with the CPB's own statement, a woman rapes a woman in jail? Sorry, compared to the rest of the progressive program, an increase in rapes in womens prisons isn't something I'm going to be losing sleep over. Nor should anyone in favor of desegregation or third world immigration if they in any way shape or form care about consistency. It's actually just a gender inclusive joke now. Don't drop the soap!
All in all, I find the whole clash between trans issues and womens issues to be highly illustrative of just how much more society cares for women than men. We are seeing strides towards gender equality that no MRA type could ever even have dreamt of. All off the back of a few guys who pretend to be women. Like, as a man, the actual mechanism for more equality is to pretend to be a woman.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't believe that to be the case for a non-trivial amount of people. Sure, you can justify what you have as being what you want. Or you can make the best out of the situation you felt you found yourself in and settle for someone. But if you give people the anonymous choice between a 9 vs a 6, accounting for an 'objective' height/bmi/status/money, and all else being equal, and neither 9 or 6 will know if they are not chosen so you are not hurting any feelings, people will go for the 9.
I think there are cases where people will intentionally lower their standards due to their own circumstance and insecurities. But if you told them that they could have a 9 that loved all the things they hate about themselves, or a 6 that does the same, I'd say, yeah, we are talking trivial amounts of people who go for 6.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The EU also threatened reducing financial support, if I recall correctly. In any case I'd say it's hard to call anything 'democratic' when there is so much pressure and influence from outside sources that are directly trying to push without shoving to get the 'people' to vote how they 'should'.
I mean the latter. Not to make the 'debate' out to be too contrived or anything. There's still an objective truth out there. But people undeniably behave in this way.
There was a lot of 'liberal/left/progressive' pro-Union rhetoric in the US that got upended when the anti-black anti-immigration history of the unions was popularized in the new era of anti-white academia and media. The thing is that, unlike a lot of the anti-white stuff, there is a pretty solid historical base to make those arguments.
You literally can't have implicitly white and oikophilic unions. As history shows they will be at odds with uncontrolled influx of labor since new labour is a direct threat to their ability to leverage the value of theirs at the negotiation table, as well as being a direct threat to the sanctity of their 'home'. That was the case with freed slaves from the South coming into the American labour markets and it has been the case with the huge amounts of skilled and unskilled labour flooding the western world from the third. The end result is that you don't get to have effective unions in an international economy. 'Big business' can and will always leverage the new labour to get what they want.
I don't fully agree that these narratives are sprung from the theory that whites got rich from exploitation.
The founding cause is the notion that we are all equal. It logically follows that if one group got 'ahead' of another, that they did so at the expense of someone else. How else could you explain the fact that one group has so much whilst another has so little? And it seems to be an unfortunate case of basic human intuition to suspect foul play whenever two sides get widely divergent results, especially if they are supposed to be equal.
When you get into the weeds of debunking theories that arise from being logically necessitated you are just slamming your head into a concrete wall. A logically necessitated theory can't ultimately be untrue. It can't be false. It's logically derived from a greater truth. It's necessitated. It has to be true in some way.
So long as you don't engage with that greater truth you will never get anywhere. In fact, people are more likely to hate you for casting aspersions on their theory since any theory you have, that doesn't align with what is logically necessitated, has to be, in some way, untrue. A lie, a play on words, a twist on reason. And what kind of a person would do such a thing?
The larger problem is that the greater truth isn't always derived at via the same way. So you might have a person who believes because their teacher said all human beings are equal. And from there the Grand Theory of Evil Whitey intuitively followed. Or you have a person who was exposed to Civil Rights propaganda as a child and started seeing black people as inherently more virtuous than white people. Or a person who simply adopts and believes in the dominant opinion of their environment for no other reason than it being that. What science man says must be true.
I think these sort of articles act as a cross between two worlds. The activist HBD types, that frame themselves as challenging a hegemony of environmentalism or whatever. And the 'I'm just doing research' types, who make contradictory theories to the 'hegemony' but don't make explicit 'the hegemony is wrong' arguments.
There is a tendency to excuse the 'just doing research' types in 'rationalist circles' for being more 'pure of heart', along with the general appeal of stats and graphs. But I think ultimately the instincts of those who decry both types of HBD enjoyers as nazis are more correct than not. You can't entertain these ideas without abandoning the idea that everyone is equal. And regardless of your motives or intent, abandoning the idea of equality will inevitably lead to the same kind of logically necessitated truths that we find in those who embrace the notion of universal human equality.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The one data point of a guy in reality doing the thing I am talking about isn't a change to reality. It is reality. That's on top of every other benefit of carrying another rifle. Calling it 'silliness' in this context is far from warranted.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This doesn't contradict anything I've said. Pending on state and country you have higher or lower rates. For murder various states have marginally higher rates than many EU countries, and are lower or on par with others, such as Finland which stands at 1.5 when we look at intentional homicide victims. As I said before, poverty is a big problem, but if you account for race the problem looks completely different.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm giving a single example to your no example after you made assertions that contradicted what happened there. Saying reloading is massively faster than throwing away a gun and presenting one that is strapped to your chest just isn't true. I'm sure it can be true if you are a smooth operator that reloads his weapon every time without hesitation or hitch. But if you are less than perfect at any moment during a reload I'd be much more inclined to say that dropping a gun for another that is strapped to your chest is faster.
Appealing to some greater understanding, be that the assertion of a 'true' cost benefit analysis, personal experience or framing the whole discussion as 'video game logic' just isn't relevant to me. There are plenty of obvious use cases for an extra rifle. And whilst there is a cost associated with that, I don't see why that cost is so obviously high that it renders the act 'silly' or 'comically wrong'.
Seems like an effective strategy. 'I put myself out there and everyone hates me. Oh how vulnerable a woman I am at the moment.'
I don't see what the big deal is with this particular instance. Outraged men looking at reality defying 'mating requirements' lista made by women... It feels like one of the oldest internet culture war topics.
It reminds me of this TED Talk. Where, to make a long story short, a 'data driven' woman realized that she simply wasn't being picky enough when her 'mating requirements' list had left her with only 35 possible men to date in her city. Prompting her to go online to widen the net.
It has a heartfelt 'Sex and the City' ending where a woman finds true love against all odds. Sending an inspiring message to women of all ages, that there is someone out there for everyone.
More options
Context Copy link