hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not dismissing them for nothing. I'm asking you to make a value judgement. What matters more, fiction or reality? Aragorn must be black because we are in the throes of transforming a living breathing hateful society that exists all around us into something loving and caring that is open for everyone, not just white people. It's a real battle between good and evil. Not a fictional representation of it where somehow all the good guys happen to have white skin and the bad guys don't, discounting the 'traitors'.
If every single character in LoTR was made black, so the ethnic makeup makes sense, you would not take issue with it? Pardon my prejudice but I feel like you would be more than able to reason why that's not an acceptable circumstance either.
I am sure you can entertain the novelty of white fantasy with fictional races that represent white peculiarity. Be that green skinned orcs or blue skinned elves. I am not sure you can enjoy a fantasy that is no longer white. With real races that represent the reality of a hateful world that white people have lorded over for centuries.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see what is creatively bankrupt about race swapping a character. And I don't see how or why doing so would indicate that they are out of ideas.
Aragorn, especially after the movies, is an icon and he is white. People who ingroup blacks as morally superior see positions of power and feel an emotional need to elevate blacks to those positions. People who outgroup whites as morally inferior feel an emotional need to lower whites from those positions.
Amazon, WotC and all the 'woke' engaging companies are not creatively bankrupt. They are not 'out of ideas'. They are simply exploring a vision, chasing a dream, following ideology, walking certain priors to their logical conclusion. It's not about writing an original story that no one cares about. It's about representing truth and justice. Black people are better than white people. They are morally superior. They have been standing up against the racist injustices of America and the Western world for centuries. They have been oppressed throughout that time yet have persevered through all of it. There is no good reason for the iconography of the modern era being white. There is no reason why it shouldn't be black.
If you don't care about race there is no reason to care about Aragorn being black any more than that there is reason for you to care that the hero is destined to become king. If you do care about race, whether you consciously recognize it or not, there are two extremely predictable emotional responses to this sort of thing. You either like it or you don't. You feel an emotional resonance with the fact that something of value was changed to elevate one over the other. You feel an emotional resonance with someone expressing group allegiance to one over the other.
All in all, this isn't a problem of creativity. It's a problem of people wanting to hold on to the whiteness of the world without any institutional power to back it up. Sorry, you can't.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That doesn't help me understand how they do it, nor does it help me, as a 'non-religious' person, understand why I should elevate their brand of Christianity over the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not what I'm 'basically just' asking. I am actually asking the people who stand by the rhetoric made in the OP how they justify their stance in contrast with progressive Christianity. I am being asked as a person who is not involved with religion to respect the stance of traditionalist Christians as expressed here. To see them as the true expression of Christianity, not the progressive ones. So I see no reason to accept my question being minimalized and then handwaved away because I am not religious enough.
Not only that, If it turns out that the true teachings of Jesus Christ happen to comfortably conform to ingrouping football teams, consuming corn syrup and watching Tucker Carlson then I don't see the proposition as being serious. There are profoundly negative aspects of modern American culture that ruin a lot more kids than transgenders and gays. Yet this is where Jesus wants you to circle the wagons? The whole story, from a rationalist perspective, is absurd. I see no reason to accept it at face value.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Father Coughlin. An anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-war Catholic preacher who utilized the radio to reach an unprecedented amount of listeners. He was eventually shut down by the government for his rhetoric in the lead up to WW2 and especially after the Pearl Harbor attack.
I don't see how that's in disagreement with anything I said. The symbolism survives, but in what way is that meaningful? What was the "genuine belief" carried forward? Taking a look at modern Christianity even the biggest denominations don't agree on some of the most fundamental aspects of alleged Christian belief. And as has been mentioned in the thread, many self described Christians can't even recognize their own denominations expressed doctrine and are just as likely to dip into heresy about the nature of this allegedly historically passed down belief.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I see this type of rhetoric a lot in my internet bubble. What I don't understand is how any 'true Brother in Christ' Christian can look at themselves and go 'yep, we're the true ones, unlike those fake progressive ones'.
Christians in the past would do things to protect their religion. Like, kill people. Heresy was an actual thing, not just a word. Comparing that with contemporary 'true Brothers in Christ' characters you are no more a true Christian than the progressive ones. At best you are a progressive inbetweener.
There is nothing special or amazing about the 'survival' of Christendom in that regard. It's been 'fake' for over a thousand years. What kind of a Chrsitianity lets Constantinople fall? Was that real Christianity? Compare that with the 'real' Christianity on display in France today where churches either go up in flames or get used as public urinals so much that they become a construction hazard from the damage. There are no drums of war, no public demands for retribution. 'True Brothers in Christ' Christians just gather up and cry together before going back home to functionally support the system that enables it all.
Progressives are not wearing Christianity as a costume any more than the traditionalists are. Both have their own wants and needs and they contort the image of Christ to suit themselves. Modernity is comfortable. Going to jail for life is hard. So 'true Brothers in Christ' won't actually do anything truly Christian in the face of satanic tyranny. We know this because the last time a Christian man of action tried to rally the troops our 'true Brothers in Christ' of the 1930's stopped bothering with him when the powers that be made it inconvenient to catch him on the radio.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Is it still a shitty thing to do or no?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And why shouldn’t the woman he asked discuss the incident with her friends? She might have been a poor friend for doing so, but there is no grand female obligation to avoid embarrassing awkward men.
You answer your own question. She shouldn't do it because it makes her a shitty friend. What do alleged 'female obligations' have to do with it? Is it OK for women to be shit friends to men if they don't violate the 'female obligations'?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think 'the Squeeze' is a great term for that. Women are gaining power in all aspects and are now putting the 'squeeze' on men. But I also see some problems with that.
The environment I grew up in always held up a very critical lens towards society. Being an active and earnest participant in the rat race of social status and wealth was looked down upon. 'What matters is what's on the inside, not the outside' and other similar tropes. You shouldn't chase personal aspirations that are guided by shallow and vain markers of status and wealth. Instead, aim towards the greater good of how to make the world a better place. That, ultimately, was the true 'high status'.
I feel that the core of that sentiment is inherently humanistic and altruistic. Maybe it's because I grew up with it but I automatically assumed that a lot of the aspirations of any well meaning do-gooder person, especially here, came from a similar place.
So coming from that kind of thinking I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can in any way shape or form look at 'the squeeze' and go 'this is fine'.
From a sort of ingroup/outgroup pathology perspective I understand why there exists a lot of 'you deserve it' rhetoric, like you espouse here. But then what? Because it was bad for women we can now do it to men because... what, we hate them? Two wrongs will make a right? I had sort of assumed, particularly because of my environments rhetoric, that pushing people, men and women, to focus on looks was... bad? I certainly got the feeling that it was the case after being inundated with news stories about the dangers of women being too thin because that's what fashion show runway models looked like. Though those stories are now a distant memory.
Aside from that I find your assumptions about equality harmful to your argument as a whole. Men won't turn to makeup to charm women. We already know what men turn to. Steroids, MMA and drugs. I've already seen drastic societal changes where I live because of this very distinct change in social dynamics. A drastic escalation of violence at all ages, drug use at all ages and status symbols like cars and clothes.
I mean, from an EA perspective, is it useful for everyone to have to spend more time on status, wealth and looks in an eternal 'arms race'? Maybe it's my anti-equality priors shining through, but I don't think 'equality' is doing anyone any good here.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Do you ever get upset when progressives refuse to tolerate somebody because they expressed right-of-center views that aren't central to what that person is primarily known for?
Not anymore, no. When I actually believed in the concepts that have now been expressly refuted by lib/left/progressives I assumed that there was a broad recognition and understanding of the value of free speech and all the rest. I, through experience with exactly the kind of people Karl enables, learned that I was wrong.
Do you ever feel like, you know, it's kind of unfair for somebody who's really good at something like acting or writing or programming or making cool YouTube videos to suddenly have no platform to do those things because they said something completely unrelated to any of those things that progressives happened to disagree with?
Not anymore, no. Everyone is already playing by the rules of the lib/left/progressives. You can't say X on 99% of platforms. Most of the internet I liked, the youtube channels, twitter accounts, podcasts, subreddits like this used to be and everything else, has been relegated to obscurity or simply scrubbed from existence. Users lost, essays, exchanges, information and friends, all gone. All of this happened years ago and continues to happen. Because of the kind of people Karl is rubbing shoulders with.
If so, then why would you think it's okay to do that when the shoe is on the other foot?
Because controlling 99% of the internet vs. controlling 1% isn't comparable. Regardless of everything else, no one lives by the libertarian ruleset Karl pretends to support. Everyone has to, in 99% of cases, contort themselves to the ruleset of lib/left/progressivism. In 1% of cases some people, who are not on board with the lib/left/progressive ruleset, can tell the 99% to fuck off and act and speak more freely. That's where Karl comes in and decides to take a principled stand on free speech and call everyone out for their hypocrisy? Give me a break. How about he make that stand anywhere else and see how long he is tolerated. Maybe he'd recognize just how good he has had it with the people he so indignantly accuses of hate.
FWIW, I have enjoyed owning, shooting and maintaining guns for years, but I find it increasingly hard to enjoy the hobby as somebody who's culturally blue tribe because of exactly the attitude you just expressed, and the fear that in order to be a "gun guy" you also have to hate non-whites and LGBTQ people or you won't fit in.
And just what kind of attitude is that? The kind that every single blue triber mandates for everyone else, everywhere else? Take a good hard look at yourself and read what you are saying. Imagine how it feels like for someone red to have to live with what you are pretending is pushing you away from guns, but in night every aspect of their lives. They can't use the internet without blue signaling people prodding their fingers around, looking for an excuse to take everything they can away from them. They can't turn on the TV without being bombarded with blue propaganda.
And when they manage, by chance and luck, to carve out a space where they can exist, a wolf in sheep's clothing starts knocking on their door. Asking to be let in. After they let it in the wolf demands that the space conform to the practices of the 99%. And when they tell it 'no', the wool comes off and it goes for the jugular: 'Why do you HATE me so? The minorities, the gays, the oppressed? Why are you so evil? Why do you HATE?'.
The only thing you need to be a gun guy is a gun and an interest. You are not just a gun guy, you are intolerant. The existence of people who you perceive to be not like you is so insufferable that you are willing to drop your own interest for the sake of it. Contrast that with anyone not drinking the lib/left/progressive koolaid and how they have to contort and stifle themselves just to be allowed to have a job, and maybe have some empathy before baring your fangs.
From Karl's reddit post:
http://Ar15.com is a site owned by people at least complicit, if not aligned with, hate speech.
AR15.com is owned by... Brownell's.
Maybe it wasn't the best idea Karl ever had to enter that forum swinging hist fists around.
I liked Karl a lot when the first InRange videos were gaining steam. The spirit of intended use, practical application and halfway 'scientific' testing of things other than 'when does it blow up' was something that seemed missing in a lot of channels. And thinking back, it definitely had a sort of 'blue' approach to guns as opposed to 'red'. For better or worse, at least it was different. Karl was also kind of a 'sperg'. But it seemed appropriate for the subject matter and company.
Fast forward through satanism, open findom relationships, antifa friends, trans rights and racist jokes, if you care about 'ethical consumerism' like is clearly done by Karl and friends, why should any right of center person support or tolerate someone like Karl?
Hopefully Ian will be doing a video on 'his own' rifle, recounting how he and his partner, after a lot of time, effort and research, advertised a product they weren't selling, before realizing there was money to be made by selling it. Hastily trying to figure out how to procure the parts they had already told everyone about, that had become very scarce as a result, so they could sell them themselves. Going through a lot of work and hassle trying to get the ball rolling before helplessly watching the project crash and burn since his partner was too autistic to handle social media and keep his extreme politics in his pocket.
A humbling moment of becoming a part of history, if nothing else.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If this is the same author:
https://antelopehillpublishing.com/product/the-foreigner-group-by-carolus-lofroos/
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The whole saga has some major plot points that are missing here. I think it would have been better to hold off on posting until it's all together.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think there are enough 'IQ nationalists', especially in the 'fringe rationalist world' to warrant some expressed reservations regarding the alleged supremacy of IQ.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Some of the arguments are sourced, some are not. I think, as poorly argued as the position is, there are undeniable expressed differences between divergent population groups. I don't know on what basis anyone can deny this considering the widely divergent cultural norms and expressions. Let alone physical and psychological differences. I also, like you, don't know exactly what the person is arguing towards. It reads similar to anti-China CIA threads on /pol/, without the industrial accident webm's.
If, as you seem to think, Asians are unfeeling automata who may neither comprehend art nor build genuine rapport...I'm not seeing the problem. Explain to me why the existence of such people is a bad thing.
I think there is an undeniably obvious problem to develop between two people, one an unfeeling automata and another who deeply feels and sympathizes with everything around him. Now neither the Chinese nor European live up to those descriptors, but I think the principle holds firm regardless. That there is a clash of 'values' there.
I think a lot of the world has been playing by western rules for a while now. And I see no reason to assume that any country anywhere in the world would continue to do so if the west fades as a power. I don't see it as a ridiculous deduction to say that this potential loss of power, coupled with different values of a rising power, represent a threat to the people who value all the things the 'west' has stood for internationally.
I don't think you necessarily need to demonize the Chinese to make this argument, but there does seem to be a numbness to the western population when a threat is proposed that is anything other than the media flavor of the month. A sort of automatic assumption that, no matter what, the status quo established by White expansion and global dominance throughout the recent ages is a universal that was always the case and that it will hold no matter who is 'in charge'. I think that assumption is obviously faulty. But, again, I don't think you make those arguments literally, like is being tried here. I think you just show a Chinese person boiling a dog alive and let the 'visceral logic' do the speaking for you.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Both. And at risk of being to curt here, none of what you say necessitates a man wanting a woman with a degree.
But I wouldn't say that this is because men want women with degrees. I'd say it's because men with degrees by 'chance' were around women with degrees, specifically in universities or workplaces. It wasn't a requirement on the men's part that the women have degrees. So I don't think the way you phrase things is accurate. Educated men are not locking out uneducated women from their dating pool. The university and workplace is. It might be true that the social stratification we are seeing is leading to extreme rates of assorted mating, but the driving force behind that is not the mating preferences of men.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Do men really care if a girl has a college degree or not? I've never heard the need for education expressed by any man. Be it one I know or any real life media.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The person referred to in the latter half of the episode as being a very active transmitter of AIDS was probably Gaetan Dugas.
The Wikipedia article on Dugas manages very artfully to gloss over the 'disgusting' aspect of his story by 'debunking' a theory that Dugas was the person who introduced AIDS to America/various cities. And under that debunking sweep the very insidious nature of a person that allegedly intentionally spread a deadly contagious disease, even if he wasn't the first one.
"I've got gay cancer, I'm going to die and so are you" He is reported to have said after sex. Not my idea of pillow talk.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Valid for what?
Everything that it can predict. I don't think it's pointless to have a correlate that outperforms economic factors, considering the weight people place on those. If there's a metric that is better or worse, you as a person who doesn't care about race has no reason to care about using the race metric or not. Telling stories about how your black neighbors were better than the white ones in some area you lived in is not you not caring. Which is why I asked what the big deal was. Some people are a different color and commit more crime. Using that one can predict various things. Given that it can predict this, I'm inclined to believe that it has some value. I can not possibly understand why you take issue with this. Like I've said countless times, it's not either or.
For instance, black people have ingroup bias greater than that of whites. Black children are more likely to bully than white children. These two things might show up on some direct metric like crime or school evaluation, but they also might not. Since no metric is perfect. Considering we don't care about race, do we care that one group of a different color has a baseline higher rate of bullying than another when we are choosing a school? Knowing that bullying can be very insidious and go under the radar of any stat collecting authority for a long time. Maybe that's parental paranoia, and the factors that account for bullying are reliant on not just the bully but the victim and whatever else. But regardless of that, if we don't care about race, why on earth would we place our lot with a group that has a baseline higher than another? All else being equal.
So why are you investing so much in pointing it out?
I asked a question that relied on you acknowledging the fact that you were implicitly avoiding blacks. You, for some reason, said you weren't implicitly avoiding blacks. Now that we have that finally sorted maybe you could just answer that question.
I surely have no problem recognizing the fact that Don Lemon said it.
That's not the fact I was asking you to recognize. I was asking you to recognize that there might be truth to the proposition that different racial groups have different problems that don't show up in crime reports. And that this might influence ones decision about where to move. You said you have better metrics, but don't elaborate on what those are. I think expressed racial kinship is a relevant factor. If it's one black neighbor, I see no reason to assume anything. If it's a group of black neighbors or a black neighborhood, they seem to have decided to live with 'their own'. I don't find that irrelevant regardless of how well behave they are.
That's not enough. Metric A being imperfect doesn't mean you go grab for any random metric B. You have first to show metric B is actually less imperfect than metric A. But this is clearly not the case here.
Like I said before, it's not an either or. I'm not looking to placate your baseless need to only use one metric when making a prediction about something. I honestly find it ridiculous and I don't believe you would be so adamant about only using a single metric in a different context. Considering I've given use cases for race in areas that crime rate does not cover I don't see the objection as being relevant to anything I'm saying.
Thus, this correlation is not useful for me for the purposes of choosing a low-crime neighborhood.
Right, the link to spurious correlations threw me for a loop. The point I was making wasn't that it would be more useful than direct metrics, like I've said many times now. That doesn't mean it isn't a useful predictor for related things, like if the neighborhood is growing darker or lighter or whatever else. In that case, moving to an area that is growing darker would likely be bad in the long run. But you could not tell by looking at crime stats for the past year.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That very well may be - but I don't need a predictor if I can get the actual thing measured!
I never said you needed it, like I have said multiple times now. I was saying that it was valid. Furthermore, that's not what that line of argument was about. It was about whether or not you were implicitly avoiding black people via your stated preferences for safety and the added measures of 'good schools'. By the same token you self described as avoiding poor people you are avoiding blacks, that was the point.
To reiterate again, no one said race as a proxy was needed. I, however, maintained that there was no reason for a person who did not care about race to dismiss the metric since it still contains information.
Possible, but why invent such proxy if there's no need in it?
It's not an either or. Having more is better than having less. For example, as Don Lemon said, even in the rich black neighborhoods he was living in there were problems there he did not see in white ones. You, as a person who says they don't care about race, should have no problem recognizing that fact. It might contradict your experience or it might not, but there is no basis here to act as if it has no value.
Well, yes, but there are more direct metrics for the quality of schools, why anybody would be interested in metrics that are secondary or tertiary?
Because no measure or metric is perfect. Why not have an interest in a wide array of metrics? Even though they are not all equally as good at some specific thing there might be cases where one happens to matter more. If say, schools start implementing a policy of suspending their black students less despite their behavior, then race seems like a very pertinent metric. I mean, I wouldn't want my kid growing up in such an unfair and racist environment.
Ok, there's a correlation. But so what?
There are a lot of spurious correlations that can be made so therefor what? If you think the correlation between %black and violent crime is not informative in this context then I don't know what on earth you were talking about when you insinuated that you were implicitly avoiding poor neighborhoods earlier. Given that the correlation between %black and violent crime is higher than economic factors in the vast majority of cases.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
But it doesn't. It makes me avoid living in poor neighborhoods with bad policing and so on.
You imply that it does. Race is a stronger predictor of crime than poverty in the majority of the literature that looks at this. By the standard you allow yourself to say you are avoiding living in poor neighborhoods you are by definition avoiding living in black neighborhoods. I would even hazard a guess that, proportionally, a poor neighborhood would be more likely to be safe and have a good school than a black one in the vast majority of cases.
I don't care.
I never said you did. The point of the 'implicit' example was precisely to say that it's not about it being a stated preference.
Again, if I look for good schools, I'd just look for good schools. Why would I again need a proxy if I can just find out which school is good?
I didn't say you needed it. I said that it was valid. I said it wasn't necessarily as precise as directly looking at the metric as measured, but that there was undeniably information there. Considering that no metric, not matter how direct, is a crystal ball I don't see why a person who professes to no care about race would ignore it if it had valid and relevant information. You are making inferences about reality based on metrics and proxies.
That's the point - it is not.
The correlations between black and every single relevant metric are higher than practically anything else. To couch it as luck or insanity to deduce something from race as a proxy goes far beyond any realm of rationality. On top of that, I'm not proposing an either or. I find your analogy completely inapplicable to what I've been saying.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think this was ultimately a respectable move from Adams. If you wanted to get canceled for street cred then it's harder to imagine a more irrelevant legacy media artifact than newspaper comic strips. But it's just as valid a cancelation as anything else.
Assuming it was deliberate, like many are doing, then it's interesting to note that this move is potentially alienating to a lot of the mainstream right. From the IDW, Triggernometry, Joe Rogan, Jordan Petersen, along with the thousand and one other names. Race stuff that is not extremely benign is a third rail for a lot of these folks. So if this was an intended springboard into right wing media world: where to, Adams?
In any case its a great saga so far. Primarily due to the way Adams is responding to the media. As far as I know, no apologies. The only thing he gives them is mockery. I don't think this is a hard template to follow for anyone with even half a spine. Someone at EA should get in touch with him, or at least take notes.
In context I see it more as a bunch of white people proclaiming race neutrality whilst living in and perpetuating a profoundly racist society that marginalizes people who aren't white. With that in mind I'd say that these proclamations of neutrality are at best a cheap PR trick for the people that maintain and reap the benefits of said racist society whilst not wanting to own any culpability for doing so.
I'm not talking about 'black supremacy' as some ideology that says black people ought to be X because black people think so. I am saying that as a matter of historical fact black people have acted in a morally superior way to white people. None of the advances in civil rights and liberties would have come about if it had not been for the black struggle against white supremacy. The bedrock of moral progress in America has always been its black soul.
More options
Context Copy link