hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You are reading into 'existing' too literally. The 'look' still exists, but emo as an identity exists today the same way being trans existed in 2001. In other words it's people putting on a costume in isolation. Outside of that every culture I listed still exists and I never said they didn't.
It is also not clear to me that "being trans" is more like "being goth" or "being emo" as compared to "being gay."
What's the difference? As groups there's no distinction. Gays have always existed but not as a group like we see today.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think we have seen the consequence of that. The free marketplace of ideas ends up just like the free market. With government interventions, monopolies and all the other fun stuff.
Any culture that exists gets identified. Once it has been identified it can be mocked. Once it gets mocked those who stand on the outside of that process will steer away from it and look for new cultures that have not been identified yet and are therefor free of mockery. Until we repeat the cycle.
Emo, scene, hipster, goth, metal head, jock, nerd, car guy, metrosexual or whatever other 'culture' that exists within a population.
Now imagine if we had enshrined some of the cultures with an inordinate amount of media and political power. Being emo is actually a medically recognized thing. There are special news stories every week about the emo suicide rate and how emo kids are bullied in school and how that is a giant social problem and how society as a whole has to come together and fix these issues that afflict this very special group. There are support groups and specific institutions and outlets dedicated to the group specifically.
How about instead of media mocking the whole emo thing as being a phase for insecure teenage girls who lack personality and are looking for attention and an excuse to use excessive amounts of make up whilst pretending their PMS is chronic suicidal ideation, we rather make laws that outlaw such verbiage.
Regardless of anything else, I'm sure being emo would still exist today if it had been sanctified in victimary discourse instead of having been mocked. Let alone if it was a pathway to some form of power or social capital.
Now, I think there are reasons outside of all of this that contribute much more to the survivability of LGBTQ stuff compared to things like being emo. But I do think it's an important element. If the words to describe what you see are removed from your brain, all attempts to discuss it will be in vain.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If your preference for safety leads you to implicitly avoid living with black people, then this is fine.
If your preference for safety leads you to explicitly avoid living with black people, then this is... fine? Or no?
On top of all of that, race as a proxy functions on a much broader level than just crime. Which is why I mentioned schooling. When you have picked a safe area with a 'good' school you won't be living near black people. Those are just two things that you can virtually guarantee via the race proxy. It might not be as precise as looking directly at the safety of the area and the 'goodness' of the school, but there is undeniably a lot of information there. Not just information about the immediate circumstance, but also as a predictor. Is the area and school close to blacks? Are there signs of these areas getting 'darker' or 'lighter'? I'm not saying this information is 'better'. I'm simply recognizing that it is undeniably information relevant to the things cared about. Not to mention race based ingroup bias where many blacks otherize whites.
I guess I am not understanding where the need to even express this distinction comes from. People use and live by countless imperfect proxies their whole lives. In ways that directly and indirectly impact people close by them or far away from them. No one cares. But for some reason we won't allow ourselves to use this very obvious and highly informative proxy because, what? We can imagine a hypothetical situation that negates it? Or because we can recognize that information about groups doesn't reflect on all individuals of that group?
I could understand a person who ingroups blacks being mad at someone who is outgrouping blacks. But your post strikes me as being written by someone who is doing neither. Not a racist, not an anti-racist. 'People are just people and when they do good its good and when they do bad its bad.' Maybe I'm wrong on that impression, but regardless, I don't see why such a person would hold any reservations about taking away information from race as a proxy. It's just people. Some of them are a different color and commit a lot more crime. What's the big deal?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The relationship between whites and blacks in the US would be the absolute worst example to make that argument though.
I would like to be able to say that such arguments are only salient for the likes of David French. But I honestly think you're right on the money.
Adams was giving a practical advice to white people: 'get the hell away from black people'.
I don't see the angle you are gunning for here. Unless you are arguing against racism in thought but not practice.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Area A has higher risk than area B. Which one would you like your family to live in?
Now help me understand why the fact that 'many black people are not violent and hateful' should influence your decision. Do the same for the school you will send your kid to.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Seeing news about James Bond being next on the chopping block. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/25/james-bond-books-edited-remove-racist-references/
Having mixed feelings about this. On one hand I wasn't fond of Ian Flemming's James Bond, though I only read one of his books as a teen. On the other hand the re-writing of history makes me irrationally angry. 'Sensitivity readers' are not something I like, I guess.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think it's an interesting step though. Regardless of what the headlines say, Adams was doing 'racism' from a rather 'queer' angle. Whilst people can shout about racism from the sidelines I don't think there are any salient right of center arguments against the position Adams put himself in.
As a white person, is your safety and wellbeing secondary to your obligation to help black people that hate you?
We've gone from 'blacks' to 'leftists'. But that's rather besides the point, which would be to answer the question Adams supposedly thinks is being asked: Do black people in America like white people? I'd guess that a 50/50 split on the question is not beyond the realms of reason.
If we remove this question from the 'black' context and put it in a 'leftist' context then I think the red herring of 'white supremacist dog whistles' becomes even more clear. Western leftism has an entire doctrine specifically dedicated to verbalizing the hateful otherization of white people and everything that relates to them. I would hazard closer to a 80/20 split with the majority harboring wild anti-white sentiments.
Is my intuition completely off here?
SCOTT ADAMS has had ENOUGH. Renounces black heritage. Calls for SEGREGATION from HATEFUL BLACKS.
www.youtube.com/live/K6TnAn7qV1s?feature=share&t=894
In his recent #2027 episode of 'Real Coffee with Scott Adams', Adams gives a piece of advice for white people living near black people: Move away from them. The advice is prompted by a recent opinion poll. Adams said the poll changed his view on the subject of living with blacks in general and being one in particular. Stating that he no longer identifies as black. The Rasmusen opinion poll in question found that 46% of black people say that it's not OK to be white.
Adams further clarifies that he will no longer be making black people's problems 'his own'. And advices other white people to do the same. Stating that the solution to the problems facing black Americans is simple: Focus on education. And that if they can't do that then it's no longer his problem.
On top of the opinion poll, as a stated reason for his change of heart, he opines that living in a more black area is more dangerous. To this end he cites Don Lemon's observations on the matter. Who had previously stated that living in black areas came with 'problems' he did not encounter in white areas. Adams also stated that, although anecdotal, he had grown weary of the never ending stream of black on white violence. Specifically videos of the acts, of which, Adams stated, there was no shortage. Remarking that he was sick of it.
This rather drastic heel turn from Adams has prompted critics to wonder if the real cause for the famed cartoonists sudden change of heart is to win himself into the good graces of his more vocal and extreme base of supporters. Whose relationship with Adams had turned sour after his alleged support for the COVID vaccine. Though Adams later recanted his support of the vaccine and disputed some of the claims made about his alleged support, he stated that those who never supported the vaccine only did so because of luck. Sparking controversy and the moniker 'CLOTT' Adams.
Others mourn the loss of yet another black American life at the hands of right wing extremism.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think you're right on the money. Group pathologies are all very similarly expressed but that doesn't mean the reality on the ground is necessarily similar. But that's also a convenient excuse for whenever ones own group is in contention.
You could easily make the sort of argumentation against gays that get made against trans people. Be it cost to society, pedophilia or broader 'they are gross' derived arguments. But I think the key differentiating factor is that anti-gay stuff never had a consistent group to form around that wasn't already otherized by the mainstream. It was always vague argumentation based on theoretical 'conservative' principles, like the 'sanctity of marriage' stuff. Which are very much unlike the current circling of the wagons arguments we see against trans people that revolve around 'protecting' the girls and women.
There's also a pretty obvious difference between appealing to a vague premonition you have about the future, which is based on caring about the conservative ingroup, and simply pointing to a crying little girl. Most people don't really care about the future of conservatism. Even most conservatives don't when their vague ingroup, that they are only allowed to express through theories and principles, gets pitted against the wants of women. I think it demonstrates just how utterly pathetic conservatism as a group is. I believe it genuinely could not stand against trans people on its own. Which is why they are now hitching a ride with women that have an actual ingroup.
I don't think the 'conservative' arguments were necessarily wrong. It seems rather ridiculous that society should just contort itself to accommodate the bad cultural habitat of the modern gay man that seems to focus a lot on risky sex, alcohol and drugs. And then, under the false pretense that gays are 'just like us', bend your institutions and rituals to accommodate them. But you can't make those arguments properly if you don't otherize gays and fortify your own 'conservative' ingroup. And since the mainstream banned the otherization of gays and branded any instance of it 'homophobic' whilst simultaneously ridiculing the 'conservative' ingroup, the battle was lost before it began. You need something more than just ideas and principles.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the selective rejection of otherizing language. Where we want to have our cake and eat it to.
'Transphobe' was always an otherizing dehumanizing term. And as soon as it's applied to oneself it becomes obvious. What is less obvious is that the deconstruction of 'transphobe' applies to all the other terms as well. Racism, homophobia, misogyny or any other group defining otherizing language. The point of these words is not to accurately describe, the point is to otherize and dehumanize anyone who is not sufficiently demonstrating themselves to be a member of the ingroup.
I can't join a pity party for people like Rowling who have excessively enjoyed the luxury of being able to dehumanize their opponents instead of actually making an effort in understanding and discussing things with them. This is her world. She does not bother with reading blogs detailing the finer points of the position of some racist or misogynist in their own words. She allows herself the convenience of dehumanizing them as members of the outgroup. She doesn't weigh herself down with the effort of understanding them as human beings. No, she just otherizes them. That's the game being played and she sees no issue with it so long as she is the playmaker.
Well, now Rowling dun goofed and found herself enemies that are doing the same thing to her. They are not bothering with her blog, or mealy mouthed excuses. They are just recognizing her as the enemy. And they are not wrong. Rowling is against trans women having the same rights as women. Why should a trans person accept that? Why should the boundaries of acceptability for trans emancipation be tied to the sensibilities of some author?
This is a battle in the culture war. Rowling picked a side. She is a transphobe.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I am not saying they are less likely to be considered valuable. I am stating that they are and were always not valuable. Not as a matter of perception but as a matter of fact. That's why I likened it to snake oil. The snake oil might have been believed to be good when the prospective buyer didn't know it was snake oil but thought instead that it was a rare elixir that cured all illness. But that belief never made the snake oil a good investment. It was always snake oil and the buyer was always a fool for believing it was an elixir that could cure all illness.
Another way to say this, just because a company believed that something was valuable doesn't mean that it was. Or that the company was reasonable for having believed it was valuable in the first place. It was always a money pit designed by grifters.
Fashion statements are not necessarily wasteful, especially if you are a very public facing company who markets their goods to the general public.
But they can be. Like the wardrobe of a bored housewife of a rich husband. Sure, it might be very good for the image of the husband and wife for the wife to be well dressed at social gatherings. That fact does not preclude us from recognizing that you don't need a gigantic wardrobe filled with dresses that will never be worn to present yourself properly 4 times a year at company conventions. On top of that, buying into a bad fashion trend might hurt your company as well. Like the case with the anti-men Gillette razor commercials.
Again, just because a company believed something or did something doesn't mean it was good or smart or reasonable or anything else. Decisions are made by people. You can't shield those decisions behind the fact they were made by a company. You have to look at them as they were taken. Which is why, sometimes, companies go bankrupt and CEO's get fired. Regardless of how good they believed their decisions were at the time.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Rowling is hated because she is a transphobe. She could have bent the knee but she didn't. She chose a different team. No one was hating Rowling before the trans stuff. Before that, at best she was being mocked a bit for being a hamfisted fuddy duddy about retconning all of the characters in her books as being either gay or black. At worst she got involved in UK politics criticizing Corbyn and co for not being anti-Brexit enough.
This changed when she was obviously tangled with TERF stuff. First by liking a tweet that referred to trans women in a derogatory manner, which a PR person of hers lied about and said it was 'liked' through an accidental slip of the finger. And then later when she got involved with the Maya Forstater thing. Maya being a person who made very explicit transphobic comments including the statement that men can not change into women. Rowling stood up for this person explicitly.
Imagine a different scenario, where Rowling accidentally likes a tweet about race and IQ research that says blacks score lower than whites. Oops. What an accident. Why would she even be reading that? Anyways, a year later she, out of the blue, stands up for Noah Carl and talks about how ridiculous it was that he was fired. That doesn't mean she is a racist. Right? She just likes academic freedom stuff. Later she writes a lengthy blog post about the reality of evolution in humans. She doesn't say anything explicitly, she just says that we are all different and that this is great. But that the differences are real and immutable. OK. She then starts tweeting about the excesses of the black rights movement and how the movement is promoting conditions that make white people unsafe. She then writes a novel about a black serial killer... lol
Now, at which point do you think the real Rowling would call the 'different scenario Rowling' a racist? I'm pretty sure it would happen as soon as the support for Noah Carl came out. And she would never look back or bother reading a blog post about some racist 'explaining their views'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If your perception of what is reasonable changes depending on how much money you have, and you are more likely to find more things to be reasonable when you have more money, and assuming the perception of what is reasonable is more tolerant towards risk when you have more money, how are you not then more susceptible to waste money when you have more money? Sure, no one couches their investments as 'waste'. But it's hard to call it anything else after the fact has been revealed that you 'invested' in a bunch of snake oil.
I don't think you represented a mild version of what was said. But rather a PR coded version that fronts the notion that companies don't waste money. I don' think the notion of a return on investment was ever on the cards for companies that hired professional racists to do in-house struggle sessions on white supremacy. I think that you could, at best, define it as a wasteful fashion statement.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
For example, better moderation would look like
I disagree. The less the moderator inserts himself into the moderation the better. I am not writing comments to appease the moderator. I am here to appease my own vanity. To that end I am writing comments to a standard that reflects what I want other comments to look like. I am here because the stated goals of the motte align with mine. The more the moderator inserts himself into the motte, the less space there is for my aspirational fantasy of what the motte is.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Your disposition towards the topic seems very similar to what I described in my earlier post.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's true in a sense. Though I always found culture explanations to just be environmentalism with its roots cut off. Existing more in the realm of 'how do we solve this immediate problem' rather than being a theory on why the problem exists in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think you are missing the flow of argumentation that drives lefties into anti-white corners.
Why do blacks rape a lot? Because of poverty. Why are blacks poor? Because whitey made them that way.
It's not that anyone goes out there and says 'whitey gets raped and that's good'. Or at least not any notable person since George Jackson, though there are probably a lot who share his black activist sentiments chirping on twitter right now. It's more that this is an ugly truth derived as a consequence of lefty priors.
It's very similar to 2nd Amendment arguments that flare up when the topic of mass shootings pops up. I don't think any gun control advocate would rest their case against a 2nd Amendment advocate who says that 'all mass shootings should be investigated and the culprit found'. That's not really a relevant answer. The relevant answer would be to a question of why people should settle for this as a status quo. How many mass shootings do we need before we do something about guns? How many white victims of black crime to do we need before we do something about blacks?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I am not sure that this is exactly news.
I think it's an interesting item to have people look at and then see what their response is. The one thing that usually stands out to me is that a lot of the responses don't couch this as an issue to be solved, unlike many other items of a similar nature with differing races. Gun control, for instance, only exists as a solution when you look at shootings as a problem to be solved. But that's not the response these items ever get. It's always in the vein of 'why is this here' or 'the author is racist'. The item itself is seen as a problem to be solved. Not the actual reality that it represents.
2.
I don't understand the point being made. Some of the discrepancy is because of X. OK. How much? And what about the rest of it? Obviously blacks rape a lot. So here we can either do HBD or roundabout justifications for why the white folk are just reaping what they sowed. Or is there a third position?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Post WW2 jews are in the most prominent positions in media and academia in the country that dictates the 'Overton Window' of the western world.
The 14 words for the state of Israel are not a problem. And so long as the worker revolution is communist and so long as the communism is jewish there are no issues with it. There might be some grassroots opposition to both Israel as a white supremacist ethnonationalist colonialist state and communism as a satanic force of godless mass murderers who don't understand Austrian economics. But that resistance gets mowed if it ever grows to far in an antisemitic direction. Even if it's just Glenn Beck accidentally rattling off all the jewish founders of the Frankfurt School live on air, or an innocent hippy on a Facebook group wondering why Israel isn't taking in more refugees. There are control elements in place to shut those things down. Both Glenn Beck and the hippy will get a talking to about what acceptable opposition to these things looks like and they will either fall in line with the astroturf or get ripped by the root.
That's, for me at least, a theory that neatly explains why things are how they are today with regards to these things.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I made appeals to the opposite of what you call 'the advocates of innate cognitive differences'. More specifically when I said that not all teaching methodologies or environments need be equal. On top of that I mentioned that there are other issues with schooling that are outside of the scope of specific teaching methodologies.
It's not that the difference between us is that I don't recognize the pathologies that naturally come about when people have grouped up, regardless of the topic. It's that I don't assume I'm better than you. So I don't base my arguments around that.
I don't know if it's the same. It might be the 'next generation of the neurotype' for a lack of a better term, but when I think of emo I think of things like this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GaNFqd5eTX0 or this https://youtube.com/watch?v=s1o8WpTXfCY
Where the group identity itself is known as being something more than just a fashion trend, where there is an obvious ingroup and outgroup dynamic going on. Where you distinguish yourself as being something through your expression, i.e. makeup and clothing, and are recognized as being different by other groups.
But maybe it is the same where you live, I would not know.
More options
Context Copy link