hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's true and not true depending on what state/country you are looking at. Vermont has a very similar homeless population to Ireland, for example. I'm also terminally skeptical of any white perpetrator rates coming from America considering whites and hispanics are often lumped together. And whilst there are certainly parts of America that are poor, the same can also be said for European countries that aren't western.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm still at a loss as to why it is silly. On the other hand I can see a very clear benefit in minimizing the time you are not able to fire. Considering the most immediate threat before police show up is being tackled by someone who is unarmed, the only time you are vulnerable to that threat is if you are not capable of firing. Other than that you are, in theory, going door to door shooting children. What is 8 pounds of extra weight on your chest compared to a rifle backup that is quickly and easily presentable? For a cost benefit analysis I don't see the obvious cost and lack of benefit that render the approach silly.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why? A rifle to dump and drop followed by a second one, with a pistol as backup. Assuming 30 round magazines that's 60 rifle rounds before the first reload. Considering you are, at least in theory, going door to door shooting children I don't see what's so obviously silly about it.
As an example of this in practice, Brenton Tarrant carried a shotgun and a rifle. A shotgun he fired until empty which he then dropped for an immediate rifle follow up.
It's boring at this point but considering that, apparently, the 'progressive' line on poverty hasn't changed much, it's worth noting that race is a factor that shapes what poverty looks like. It has never been a valid move to go from Detroit to Copenhagen and act thunderstruck as to how much better the 'Nordic Model' is to the American one.
That is not to say that there doesn't exist a big problem with poverty. The effects of inflation with regards to basic things like housing are felt everywhere. But since the immediate solution to that problem of reducing immigration isn't allowed by lib/left/progressives, nor, in fact, conservatives, I don't see an end in sight to the 'housing issue' in particular. And I feel like you could run down the list of every single element that constitutes the problem of 'poverty' and come away with a similar result for the vast majority of them.
I think it's ultimately easier for the kind hearted to look at the harrowing reality of poverty and just feel bad about it. To imagine that those suffering are just victims of circumstance. That their true humanity is drowned by the horrors of an evil capitalist system that values profit over kindness. Greed over empathy. And to the extent that they would be right, I'd agree that 'something should be done' to lessen the suffering. To get those who are able 'back on the right track'. To lessen the burden on those who are struggling with 'fighting the good fight'. But, in my experience, there also exists a kind of person that invited every single issue they are facing into their own life. And solving their issues is much more complicated and difficult than any mainstream conception can deal with.
Then I feel like you need to properly engage with the issues of Boas's methodology. The primary one being that his thesis rests on him comparing the faces of children with the faces of their parents to conclude that they are not similar. I had thought most people knew that the faces of children change with age. Sometimes referred to as 'growth'. And that, as detailed in the linked article, the dominant force for all such traits, on closer review, was genetic. Leading to the reason why it is possible to tell the geographical ancestry with of a skeleton with "90% accuracy" from skull alone. And why children take after their parents in one way or another.
The history you bring up has little to do with the point being highlighted in my writeup. The book was review bombed because the climate of anthropology had drastically changed. Being swept up in the Civil Rights culture war where, as you point out, Coon found himself on the side of segregationists.
Coon wrote the book in 1962 after having resigned as president of the AAPA. Coon resigned because a group of anthropologists had pressured him to defame a book that, upon closer inspection, Coon deduced none of them had even read, bar one. It was pure culture war. And the two sides were the classical scientific racists going up against the theories of Boas.
Though it's not important to my main point, since it's not claimed that every single 'member' of the 'new' elite is jewish, nor that every single 'member' of the 'old' is gentile, the biggest opponent of Coon at the time was a student of Boas, Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg.
Doesn't really sound like someone advancing "Jewish interests".
Who are you quoting? Though this is mostly unrelated to what I've been talking about, I'd fall back on Kevin MacDonald and his theory for the specific nature of Boas and his motivations. But to be clear, I made no mention of "Jewish interests" in my original writeup. Which pertained to the new elite vs the old elite, and the difference in incentives between them that could explain the nature of differing emergent elite consensus.
If you have points to make on what "Jewish interests" are and who is advancing them vs who is not then I think you need to flesh that out in more detail beforehand.
Yeah you're right. the ACLU has always been aggressively jewish. I felt the difference was that back then it had to play by old structure rules to get what it wanted with the Civil Rights stuff. Compared to now when it doesn't need to bother with such games. But I think that historical narrative is born more out of mythology than reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see anything sad about this story.
I don't like the idea of the elite consensus being an emergent property of being elite without it being taken into account what shapes these emergent properties.
As an example, I think it makes sense from an elite perspective to be, to make a long story short, 'pro-Heritage Foundation'. If you own a lot of the economy it makes sense you want 'line' to go up. Simple.
But there are also cases where this doesn't make as much sense. For example, there is nothing self evident about wanting to tear down the old structures or make drastic changes to the order of society. Why would an elite, that is already on top, want to do such a thing? It makes no sense. Unless, of course, the 'elite' sees themselves as an outsider to those structures. Which was the case for the new elite of jews and Catholics that started making up significant portions of the elite in America from 1930's onwards.
The balance of the elite shifted from what it was due to this influx of outsider elites who had different incentives from the old elite of, what was mostly, Liberal Protestants. This led to the many debates and intellectual clashes that made up the culture war of old. Where the 'old guard' stood behind the old structures whilst the new elite was tearing them down and building new ones out of the rubble. The one I'm familiar with, on race, is highly illustrative of this. From Boas and his fraudulent anthropology, that is the bedrock of modern American anthropology. Which helped facilitate the landscape that pushed men like Carleton Coon away. To Gould and his alternative timeline of evolutionary biology and what would later be recognized as completely fraudulent biology. Contrasted with Wilson and his fights against Gould and Lewontin and I think you have, at least in a specific area, a good illustrative example of what was going on at every single level of academia where anyone was putting up a fight against the new elite. And whilst the ratio of old vs new, WASP vs jew, was still balanced enough that you could have an explicit culture war at the elite level, the ratio kept skewing further and further 'new'. Giving us what we have today.
Another illustrative example would be the drastic change at the ACLU. Which I assume most are familiar with.
This wasn't an emergent change that happened naturally because elites are how they are because they are elites. There was a stark change in the demographics of Americas elite. New faces. New races. And the drastic change is not just correlated with this new ethnic makeup and overrepresentation of jews but also corroborated by specific historical examples where these jews ousted the old to make way for a new ideology that better suited their being.
It's hard to write in support of the WASP elite since it, along with the white American middle class, is finally getting what they've had coming for a long time now. And though it may be the fault of the WASP to have ever let the new elite in, ultimately the real driving force behind the change was the new elite.
I think there's a great segment from the linked interview with E.O. Wilson that illustrates the failure of the old mindset:
We had a meeting to take the final vote on Lewontin at Harvard, and a group of the older professors said they were worried about reports of his behavior at Chicago—that he might be disruptive or might have gotten away from genetics, and so would not be the right sort of person to be at Harvard. I made the speech I will regret for the rest of my life: I said we should never accept or reject someone because of their political views. I felt so good about myself making that political speech!
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
How is that an exception to what I said? My point was that such a debate is contrived, obfuscatory and self serving. The more control a person has over their environment, the more powerful they can make their feedback loop. The mechanism for how they do that is irrelevant to that point. Limiting the scope of the debate to specific groups or mechanisms only serves to obfuscate the veracity of the problem.
The reason I said that liberal science men and rational free thinkers are not in a position to do anything about that is not because of their real world political power or influence. It's because they are at their core liberals who at every turn have fought for people to have more control over their environments. And that's the elephant in the room. Because the problem isn't specific mechanisms. It's people. When you give people control over their environments they will mold it to form feedback loops.
If one is a liberal, free thinking, open minded, live and let live kinda guy one is probably not going to have a big overarching vision about what kind of lives other people should live. No higher power to live up to, no universal or group specific ideal to strive for. In essence: no strictly enforced social norms that can infringe upon thy freedom. Such a person is probably more inclined to just say: 'as long as it's not hurting anyone and everyone consents'. The problem with that is that people are almost guaranteed to destroy themselves when they happen upon a stimuli they enjoy too much. We have been witnessing that for decades now. All under the noses of the liberal free thinkers who did nothing about it since the world around them happened to suit their predilections and preferences for an 'open and free society'. As well meaning as they may think themselves to be, they are simply put not equipped to deal with the problem in its totality. Their failure now surrounds us all.
Another issue I take with people like Haidt and the like broaching the topic the way they do is that it is inherently self serving. I mean, what a coincidence that the guy who doesn't like 'woke' politics is talking about how 'woke' women are mentally ill. Sorry, but I put about as much stock in the sincerity of the endeavor as when progressive science men create studies about how stupid racists are. To say nothing about the truth value of those claims, nor the actual sincerity of those involved. There are just too many arrows pointing in one direction, for a lack of a better explanation.
And to that end, if the people that are going on this navel probing expedition into the problems of progressive women are actually serious about solutions to the problems afflicting them, for instance by removing smartphones, then I'd expect them to be able to muster up many times the enthusiasm and effort for the host of issues of the same variety that are afflicting the majority of the western world today. But because of who they are, I hold no hope that they will. So I find their presence here as irrelevant and futile and the topic of their discussion as particularly self serving and gross. Not only because of the inherently otherizing nature of the endeavor but because it obfuscates the actual problem, which their liberal ideals helped maintain.
I don't like 'external causes' theories. When you are in charge of your environment you create feedback loops for stimuli. The fact people seek out whatever stimuli in the first place is always the primary cause. Other than that, I find the scope of the question depressing.
Well, here folks are talking about forcibly modifying peoples environments to cut them away from stimuli they think is harmful for the very low stakes of lib/left/progressives being more mentally unstable than some obese conservative. This irks me quite a bit since, unless folks are intentionally proposing half measures, you can't stop at phones. It's computers, TV's and every other screen that can show you the equivalent of a Kardashian. It's magazines, pictures, makeup, mirrors, the next door neighbor. It's food, it's work, it's your home. There is no environmental fix for an innate cause, and there is no 'one neat trick' solution. And if your stakes are so low to begin with, how could you not justify such drastic measures of environmental modification for much more destructive things?
I get that modifying the eldritch horror that is modernity into something more hospitable to human life is a noble effort, but I don't see any of the liberal science men and free thinking rational bloggers as being in position to do any of that. They've constructed just as thick a barrier against any practical solution as the most hysterical bipolar liberal. They have their own feedback loops that they want to protect. Seeing them point at 'crazy liberals' and phones is just so whatever I literally can't even.
It's as if the question itself from ground up is constructed in such a way as to help whoever asks protect their own environment from scrutiny. I mean, hell, everyone here hates 'Group', right? Why not find an area where they are lacking and talk about how we can modify the environment of our outgroup to better suit our ingroup? Brilliant. What an interesting question! Very open minded.
Modernity is poison that finds and feeds on your worst innate predilections until you are no longer a functional human being. For most people that exists as sitting in front of a screen watching the life you wish you could have being lived by a millionaire whilst you grow ever weaker, dumber and more obese. For others its perpetual bipolar rollercoaster where the scenery is your life passing you by. I don't see why one would excuse musings of environmental control for one over another.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I give up. You initially: "are very aware that they are not gentiles" and that that demonstrates that they don't see themselves as white.
I didn't say 'because of this logical argument this is true'. I stated it as something that's obviously true. I put it in bold and everything. I then gave examples of jews very obviously and consistently considering themselves as jews. I did this, and called what you were doing a wordgame, because who qualifies as 'white' doesn't matter to the proposition of whether or not jews insist on being separated as their own group. It can be true that jews pass as white and that they say they are white when they feel they benefit from it, but never actually consider themselves as being white. That they, in fact, otherize 'whites' and see them as an outgroup to their jewish ingroup.
So, finally, the truth comes out: If a White person is not "pro-White," whatever that means, they are not really White.
I assumed that the "opposite" of hating whites was to be pro-white. I guess that's asking too much. I'd settle for non-hating and non-otherizing. Though that's not "opposite" by any means. I still draw quite a blank.
Other than that you said the statement I made about jews and their hatred and maliciousness towards 'whites' could not be justified unless I had data on how many jews say the opposite. I gave the answer that aside from a handful of individuals, there are none that I know of. You say that, actually, there are some Orthodox Jews who qualify as pro-white. Sure. I don't feel like my statement has been invalidated. But, as per request of mods, and in recognition that my post was not specific enough, I'll amend the original qualifier and say that when I talk about jews hating white people I am referring only to around 80% of jews rather than 90%.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Catholic and jew are not the same since jew is an ethnic group and a religious group. But regardless of that I don't see the relevance. Jews can write they are white on the census and still be separating themselves into a group distinct from other whites in every other aspect where being white doesn't provide any benefit. I certainly don't see many Catholics go 'I'm not white I'm Catholic'.
Not unless you also have data re how many say the opposite. And then there is the claim that Jewish people intentionally pretend to be white for nefarious purposes,which of course is the silliest part.
Outside of a handful of people there are no publicly visible or notable pro-white jewish elements that I know of. The closest you get is IDW types deconstruction white identity and prescribing individualism as part of judeo-conservative media. This is contrasted with thousands of examples of white hating jews and countless organizations made for the express purpose of advancing jewish interests.
As for the 'silliest part' I may be in error of prescribing jews agency when they spew their hateful rhetoric against white people. Maybe it's just a subconscious function? Considering how silly I am you can tell me why jews act like this. Why does a jew say 'my fellow white people, we are the worst and the cause of everything bad' and then a few tweets later go 'I'm not white I'm Jewish'
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Dude, gentile doesn’t mean "white." It means "non-Jewish."
I know. The point being made was that jews calling themselves 'white' is meaningless when they don't see themselves and being a part of the vast majority of folks that make up the group 'white'. It's rather plainly stated in the second half of the paragraph you cut off: "Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews." There's no 'white solidarity' there. Hence why pointing out that jews call themselves white on a census is a meaningless wordgame. Jews very obviously see themselves as different from 'whites'.
This is hilarious for a forum in which every other post is about HBD.
Why?
Now you are just being silly.
I made a strong statement, but considering I just scrolled past the 100th jew claiming to be white whilst talking about how unbearable, insufferable and stupid white people are, in between blood libel about how white people are the source of all evil, just before a tweet shows these very same jews talking about how much they love being jewish, I think it's a completely accurate and justifiable statement to make.
These wordgames are completely meaningless. Politically active Jews, and I would argue 90% are, are very aware that they are not gentiles. Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews.
At risk of bringing to much heat into the conversation: Everyone with a brain knows this.
I mean, are there 'white' student groups filled with jews because they see themselves as white? Or are there simply jewish student groups and organizations that exist as jewish for the jews? Unlike that one white student union that got immediately called out as a hategroup, jews have a huge number of organizations and groups that specifically and explicitly work to the interest of jews.
None of those are in any way shape or form confused about what they are. This also bleeds over into why so many Ivy league colleges are filled to the brim with jews. Jews in the past certainly recognized that the 'WASP' controlled colleges had quotas for how many jews were allowed in. They did not recognize any ethnic comradery with the white gentiles that got into Ivy's. Are we to pretend that they now see themselves as kith and kin just as some Ivy's are more jewish than white?
On top of all of that jews purposefully pretend to be white to maliciously express their ethnocentrism and hatred for white people. And when someone leverages this alleged whiteness against them they are very quick to defend themselves saying: 'I'm not white, I'm jewish.' There are thousands of examples.
It's not that jews are an iffy maybe on white or not. They explcitly know they are not white. They explicitly recognize themselves as jewish. And they explicitly utilize the fact that they can pass as white to their own ethnocentric advantage at the cost of the white people that house them. This practice has a history that goes back for more than a century, as documented by Kevin MacDonald.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
https://voxday.net/2013/06/25/mailvox-on-scalzi-author/
Something along these lines I'm assuming?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think it has to be an either or. I think AI can solve a lot of problems that currently exist in human spaces with the result being that humans are more drawn in to those spaces.
Take an ELO matchmaking algorithm as an example. In a 'pure' setting there is a pool of players looking for a match and the algorithm matches the players to their closest ELO available. But what happens if you are having a bad day? Or the players around your ELO happen to just be better than you? If the algorithm is 'pure' it wont care, because technically the ELO will balance itself out, so it wont account for the fact that you just lost 3 matches in a row and are probably tilted to the point where you will stop playing if you lose again. But if the algorithm isn't 'pure' and is instead designed with the goal of keeping players playing as long as possible, it can pick up on the fact you are losing to much and send you to play a lower ELO player so you don't burn out. The problem there being that a lower ELO player has to take a loss.
Now the algorithm has a lot of 'power'. It essentially dictates for 80% of players whether they win or lose. The only way to make the field 'fair' is to segment the playing population until the vast majority of players trend towards a 50% winrate. Having a good day? Face higher ELO players, lose, go back to your own ELO. Got tilted? Playing bad? We happen to have a player that's significantly lower ELO, who still has one loss to go before we have to give him a 'win' game, cheer up.
The problem with a 50% winrate is that it isn't satisfying. The problem with ELO is that you can see it go up and down and it might demoralize you. The problem with hidden ELO is that you start feeling the algorithm working behind the scenes. A 50% winrate feels like a slog. It burns people out and they stop playing.
So what happens if we inject the player population with bots? Bots that just lose. Or if need be, bots that win. We can use the bots to break up the predictability of the algorithm. Just throw in random bot games. Give players an extra win because winning feels good. Don't worry about feeling lonely, the vast majority of players are human. We can even make the bots emulate a bad player. Have it make obvious rookie mistakes so that instead of suspecting it of being a bot, you just feel sorry for it. No one is worse off here. Matchmaker has happier players playing for longer.
As an example for the motte, I am sure the AI can figure out what kind of a post will garner the most replies. Why would it be bad for the motte to have an AI that constantly fuels discussions that keep people glued to their screen? If we are completely honest, what else is this place good for?
AI isn't bad for humans from a hedonistic perspective. If we have some higher goals for humanity than wasting time playing chess and arguing online then, sure, AI is probably bad. But for the internet? So long as you know that there are real people watching, like twitter recently started showing, the interaction is real. It doesn't even have to be typed by human hands. A new age of Robot Wars. Watch an AI expertly rattle off all the arguments of 'your side' against the 'opposition'. And if we are being honest, how different is that from the type of representative politics we already settle for? Be it in parliament or in media or online.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This has been the establishment right dream for a long time, not just in the US but in the UK and EU as well. The end result is an ever more 'left' leaning right wing. A secondary result is a more classical 'class' based political landscape.
The problem with that for the establishment right is that through the process of becoming more 'left' they alienate a part of their base. Which opens the door for, as we have seen: Nigel Farage and Brexit, Trump, and to a lesser extent the 'rise of populism' in Europe. Notably Le Pen, Swedish Democrats, AfD and so on. Some of these became a lot more notable than others. But regardless of anything else, giving these things space to operate poses a threat. In the case of Brexit and Trump, the entire right wing establishment had to reorganize itself. They still 'rule'. But it's a pitiable sight to see all of the Republican establishment career politicians mouth off about how much they love Trump when they very sincerely don't.
A more general question is what the point of the establishment right is in the first place. If it just exists for its own sake to maintain power, sure, make alliances, build bridges, co-opt the popular rhetoric of your opposition and steal their supporters. But what does that functionally entail? Becoming left wing? Does the right honestly have any power as a 'right wing' element in that form?
You can attribute the degeneration of right wing political ideals to a host of things. But at its core it is the same as when the left wing sees a degeneration in its political ideals. When reality meets ideals, reality wins and the political parties have to bend and contort their ideals so they can save face and continue to exist. The reality that faces the Republican party of the future is a white minority voter base. No more dog whistles about 'the boarder'. All you have left is class. And there's the final nail in the 'Republican' coffin.
America isn't going to be a majority 'middle/upper class' society anymore. It's instead moving towards ever greater stratification. With an ever growing underclass and an ever richer and diverse upper class. The 'jobs, not welfare' mantra is a middle/upper class ideal. The 'I'll give you money if you vote for me' mantra works much better on the underclass. This isn't a prophesy or anything. As I understand it, looking across the Atlantic, It's just California.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Not a complete theory on class by any means but I think there is a distinction to be made between the 'working' class and the 'sitting' class, for lack of better terms.
Listening to talk radio and hearing some of the 'sitting class' people blabber about how 'fifty is the new thirty' made me think that there is a sort of quality of life difference between those who do any form of manual labour and those who primarily just sit inside doing wrist work. I've worked with guys whose bodies are done and they were just in their mid thirties.
I don't know if there is some clean break or boundary there but if you are 'sacrificing' your body, be it your back through lifting things or lungs through breathing in dust, or skin and comfort by working outside in all conditions, and you are not making significantly more than some guy answering the phone and transferring numbers into a spreadsheet... I think most people intuitively understand that one person is better off than the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I am making the argument in earnest. I don't need you to simplify the argument, there is no 'gist'. It exists in its totality. It can be read as presented. I don't make any claims about what progressives believe. I don't pretend to be one. I don't care what you think my underlying point is. I found the discussion engaging and worthwhile as it was and would have liked to continue it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It is a genuine position regardless of everything else.
And no, just stating the argument in the abstract is not the same as actually having the argument in earnest. When you cut the argument from context you remove all necessity and connection to reality. It just becomes a meaningless game of words where someone can, with no reservation, say that they will be having their cake and eating it to.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's more a steelman than a troll, I would argue. But for clarification, I'm rather confused watching people get dragged from one IP to another bemoaning 'just what the woke are doing' when these very same people buy into every single prior that the woke base their arguments on. Slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights. The virtuous nature of blacks implied by the mainstream historical narrative on those events. The proposition that race in America is a social problem with social causes and social solutions. (Not saying everyone I replied to fits that bill, but it's certainly very rare to find people who reject those things outside of 'extremist' circles.)
So how does one draw the line at race swapping Aragorn when one also wants to change society? It seems like an advanced form of having ones cake and eating it to. Or to be less charitable, a sort of NIMBY-ism. Where we look at the airbrushed history of black racial struggle, say it was good and just, and say it's consequences were more good than bad but then can't bring ourselves to let go of our fantasy books and popcorn flicks. Considering the sacrifices and conditions imposed on the white people of the past in the name of racial equality, the position seems absurd.
It's not that white people are innately bad. It's that they, currently, perpetuate a bad society. A bad civilization. The racial transformation of Aragorn is a step in dismantling that. Like I mention in another comment to you, the history of America demonstrates the moral inferiority of white people compared to blacks. That doesn't mean we can't change that. We can better white people. But that's a societal change that needs to be fought for like every other change leading up to this point. White people need to learn that they are not in charge by default. In order to do that they need to learn to see other people as leaders. What better way to do that than through the fictional worlds they hold so dear?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This is a great elucidation.
To tie it to the contention I brought up:
Should we sacrifice our preferred racial representation of Aragorn in the name of racial justice in America?
Considering that Aragorn is not real and considering the high stakes for real marginalized people in America, I'd argue you need a very good reason to maintain the preference for approach 2. And I'd argue that if you would elevate your racial preference in fantasy over the realities of the marginalized minorities in America, you are, at the very least, implicitly racist.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Recognizing the moral superiority of the slave and his fight for freedom versus the moral inferiority of the slaveowner who fights to own human beings as livestock is not repugnant to any neutral observer.
Recognizing the moral superiority of the civil rights activist that protests against a violent racist police state versus the inferiority of the racist segregationist that wants black people ostracized from society is not repugnant for any neutral observer.
The one who suffers rubber bullets, batons and fire hoses in the fight towards racial harmony is not the moral equal of the one who employes them in the fight for racial hatred.
This is not an opinion or an ordained prophesy. It's a fact. People who learn about the history of righteous racial struggle fought by black people against the evil racist empire of white America come away believing the obvious. That blacks acted, consistently, superior to whites. It's impossible to look at over a century of struggle and come away believing both sides were equally virtuous. I think you can very easily say and/or believe, as most people in the west do, that blacks in America are morally superior to whites. You can't swipe history under the rug when it makes you look bad.
It didn't look like something out of a silly videogame when Tarrant did it in practice. He, in fact, looked far more vulnerable when he had to reload his rifle compared to when he had to chuck away an empty shotgun to present a loaded rifle. And as I stated before, I don't see the focus on weight being relevant here. You are not traveling long distances. You are not shooting and scooting like John Wick. You are walking door to door shooting children. Worst case scenario is either that you are unable to fire at someone tackling you or that your gun stops working. Carrying an extra gun, ready to fire, solves both of those issues.
I don't see the assertion of a 'true' cost benefit analysis being relevant unless substantiated. There is a very obvious benefit to carrying a secondary rifle. There is a cost that comes with that. But considering the situation I don't see why that cost would be so prohibitive as to be called silly.
More options
Context Copy link