hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
I didn't say that being against the excesses of the modern black activist movement required you to create a homeless shelter for white people only.
The point being made is that you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored. Even by Rowlings own standard such a thing would be considered wrong. She would, like most people, consider a white only space to be racist. Yet in her defense of herself she plays that exact same scenario out by making trans people the outgroup and women the ingroup. All the while saying, just like all the racists before her, that she doesn't hate anyone, she just wants to protect her ingroup.
If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.
I don't think you have any idea what a world without black people would look like. Considering the massive costs associated with propping up every black population on the planet with the labor of white people. I don't accept your statement.
That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.
Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports. Western society has been gearing themselves towards this exact goal on behalf of women for decades. Your preference for arguments, logic and reasoning is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant. The point here is that Rowling supports this stuff on her behalf. She sees no issues with the logic of men handing women their 'money' and that any man who doesn't accept that is a misogynist. But now that she has 'money' as a woman, she refuses to acknowledge the paradigm she would have been arguing in favor for a few decades ago and balks at the notion of being called a transphobe.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Within the context of victimary discourse, which Rowling accepts on her end as a woman, there's nothing inaccurate about it. Feminism says men are obligated to do their part in helping women. You might think that this reasoning is 'inaccurate' and have your own preferred outlook on it but that's just a very obviously not congruent with what is happening in reality. Western society is geared towards this. Laws have been written, action taken and Rowling likes this when it benefits her.
But now that the power is in her hands she is a lot more conservative with who gets to benefit from it. Suddenly women should not be obligated to help trans women.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Same is true for racists or anyone else who believes the outgroup is harming the ingroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not clear at all. The caricature of the racist who blindly hates everyone that's not like themselves is just fiction. Most e-celeb racists I know of make a very clear point of displaying themselves as not being that since it's recognized as a dehumanizing trope perpetuated by their enemies. They'd say they like black people just as much as the liberals who keep moving into areas with 'better schools' which coincidentally leaves them living in ever less black neighborhoods. Even the founder of Volksfront, in an interview, said that they don't hate anyone. That it's all about justice and being able to live in peace.
Hell, you might even say that they like white people like Rowling likes women. And that they dislike black people like Rowling dislikes trans people. It's not that they actually dislike anyone. Rowling just recognizes that men are dangerous to women and that trans women are men. I mean, that wouldn't fly past Rowling when David Duke says it about blacks, but here Rowling is going for that gambit anyway. It's just silly.
On a side note, if you offered racists like GLR or WLP a compromise of being allowed the legal and social privileges to treat black people like women treat men, they'd jump on it.
I don't think "homeless shelter for white people" works at all as an equivalent.
I think it obviously works as a demonstration of bias. You can't deny shelter based on group favoritism without having to answer for the obvious nature of the favoritism. Sure, in modern society you don't have to so long as you favor and discriminate the correct groups. But here in the abstract I think we can recognize the similarity. If you favor white over black or straight over gay or whatever, are you not then, by the vocabulary Rowling would use without hesitation, some sort of -ist or -phobe? I think that by Rowlings position in totality she is by definition a transphobe. A bigot. A hater. And I think it's fair to call her those things considering how she treats her outgroups. It's literally the same script just turned against her.
Even the most comical caricatures of evil racism can rationalize some sort of justifying mechanism or system for why they discriminate against the outgroup. I think people very obviously recognize that sort of thing for the poor cover that it is. Rowling is not an old school liberal just like modern day racists are not 19th century progressives. She is a transphobe like David Duke is a racist.
I don't like this defense of Rowling. By the same token the actual position of George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke or William Luther Pierce isn't what their enemies say they are. But everyone on some level understands that these guys are ultimately not on the same team as BLM, the ADL and whoever supports those things.
To play with the context a little bit, and introduce some snark: If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist? I mean, I have a lot of black friends, and I do want them to have civil rights, just not the same civil rights I as a white person have. I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.
I think there is a very obvious ingroup and outgroup distinction that people can very obviously see past. It doesn't matter what the fine print says. Ultimately Rowling is not on the 'correct' team. And in the name of the ideological/intellectual wave that carried feminism: Just like a black person need not define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of white people with power, trans people should not need to define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of women with power. Just like, in the past, women said that they need not define what is 'acceptable' by the wants of men with power.
Rowling, and women, have power. If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them. The prison example is especially obvious with regards to this.
I don't think there is an ideological/intellectual tradition worse equipped to deal with trans arguments than feminism. The only way that has been demonstrated is to out yourself as a caricature of a conservative that is pulling the ladder up behind him before the poor people show up. That then mocks them as he is up there and they are down there by telling them to hoist themselves up by their bootstraps.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm assuming life in some parts of rural Kazakhstan is similar to some parts of rural Russia where many people are behind on modern high quality living standards. It's not about Russia vs Kazakhstan. It's about rural vs city. I'm not making some far out prediction that people in rural areas could be enticed to move to a more densely populated area. It's a tale as old as cities themselves.
And again, you are super fixated on Kazakhstan, which I mentioned only because it's in the list of countries with the highest immigration to Russia already. The idea that Kazakhstanis don't want to immigrate to Russia is already counterfactual so what is your argument?
and that's without a hypothetical plan to resettle a warzone.
At this point I'm just going to have to ask you to read what is written. To help you along the way here is a part of what I wrote: "No one said they would be moving into warzones."
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see the misconception. The point being made is that in a war of commodities having control over resources is important. Controlling more of X is better than controlling less of X. It's not about the sky falling on the heads of those who get economic sanctions applied to them. Of course markets adapt to their conditions as best they can. But the more or less leverage you have, the more or less impactful the sanction.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Ukraine is unlikely to be a first world country for quite a while after its conquest by Russia, or for that matter after repelling the Russian invasion.
Market speculators seem quite optimistic about the potential gains that can be made in Ukraine after the fighting dies down. Or so they say on the news. I don't see a reason to doubt that claim considering the wealth of resources in the region.
I'll buy that a lot of the stans are poor, but it's not like people moved to Ukraine for the economic prospects in the 2010's
The immigration conditions in the 2010's would not be the same as in the hypothetical where Russia is actively trying to repopulate the region. Considering the wild differences between those who live in cities and those who live in more isolated rural areas, I'd think the chance to move to a more centralized city with guaranteed employment would be quite enticing to many.
let alone if it's a bombed out wreck ruled by a heavily sanctioned isolationist kleptocracy.
This is counterfactual. Russia accepts immigrants from all of the countries I listed. I specifically listed them because they are some of the countries that have had the highest levels of immigration outside of Ukrainians into Russia. To reiterate, considering the prior condition that this would be an option Russia wanted to take advantage of I don't see the relevance of your objections.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't agree with this claim and find it highly dubious.
If you didn't cut the claim up into pieces then it would be easier to digest.
This is also a very dubious claim. Canada is a settler state. Open immigration predates the modern era. What's new is unconstrained mass immigration from non-whites.
Yes, it's new. Which was my point. How is the claim dubious? The immigration numbers into Canada today are completely unprecedented. Settling unsettled land is not the same as migrating into a city like Toronto.
It's the same situation as Australia; it has always been a land that took migrants.
Every land, by definition, has always been a land that has taken migrants. Or by definition could be called a 'settler' state. This is exactly the kind of corner cutting history I mentioned in an earlier comment. The point being made is the obvious difference between what is happening today and what was taking place earlier in time. Since you have already acknowledged the obvious differences I am at a complete loss as to what you are trying to say.
And I think those options are vastly more constrained than you imply.
They're not. You could bring up every single one of these arguments in relation to muslim immigration into Europe. Still doesn't change the fact that it can take place. It doesn't matter how incompatible the Koran is to French liberal egalitarian values. You just need to move people around. Moreover, you don't need to replace every single person in the country. You just need to have enough working age people to fill in the bigger industries. Your argument is simply not serious or thought out. We are talking 10 million tops. At a migration rate of 500k a year we are talking 20 years. Which is exactly why I said that it could be done in a few decades time.
I thought the whole point was the unification of ethnic Russians!
Nowhere did I mention 'the unification of ethnic Russians'. This is bordering on not being worth my time.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No one said they would be moving into warzones. No one said Kazakhstan was a Borat sketch. No one said they were stupid.
On top of all of that, it's just a single source of potential immigrants out of many.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Doesn't have to be a great environment by first world standards to be better than third world standards. Besides that, the sky isn't falling in Russia despite all the sanctions. I don't see the relevance of your objection.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Better paying jobs, higher quality of life. Indoor toilets. And all the other stuff that makes the third world move to or as close as they can to the first.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The world has plenty of arable land and is also a very small place when Russia and China are throwing their weight around. The argument here isn't that the sky will fall. The argument is that the leverage the west has over the rest gets weaker. Potentially getting turned on its head.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I mean, yeah, if. By the same token there was no reason to think Russia would actually invade Ukraine. Despite having 'issues' with them for the better part of two decades. Some things don't happen until they do. Same was true for mass migration into Canda.
I don't think anyone can logic their way into the correct position here. The main point I'm making is that Russia has options. Arguing whether they will or wont is, to me, irrelevant to that point.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Along with Tajikistan and Kazakhstan and anywhere else.
I suppose migrants will flock to the regions that offer some economic salvation. I don't think I'm making predictions grander than any of the predictions already made by market speculators about the potential gains to be made through investing in war ravaged Ukraine after most of the fighting dies down.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't know if you are an ethno-nationalist but these priors of racial families don't need to apply if folks writing policy happen to not be ethno-nationalists. If Russia opens the gates to large scale Asian immigration, which doesn't have to come from just China but the various Asiatic regions surrounding Russia, they can easily be underway to repopulate the region. In a few decades time there will be no reason to even consider Ukrainians to ever have existed in the first place, as far as Russia is concerned. Ukraine, not that anyone would ever call it that, could just be a regional melting pot of various immigrants of diverse ethnic backgrounds that exists within Russia. And if we cut the same historical corners as is being done in Europe and the US, we can say that it was never anything more than that in the first place.
It's not about dollar revenue, it's about control over natural resources. Ukraine has some of the most arable land in the world as well as holding significant shares of the total amount of high quality iron ore reserves and various other metals. If Russia holds power of the lion share of these various resources in conjunction with China they can turn the western dominated 'economic sanctions game' on its head. Just like Russia did with gas.
*edit, I should have added that the geographic location of Ukraine is also very relevant, considering the ease of European access to said resources.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Ukraine as a country isn't particularly important and the population is likely to be hostile to Russia, meaning that to integrate it into Russia proper will be difficult if not impossible.
Ukraine is extremely important when it comes to base level goods like grain and iron. If Russia manages to capture just a decent chunk of Ukraine it could considerably strengthen any leverage it has over NATO and the EU. On top of that Russia as a government seems to be open to Asian immigration. It doesn't need to integrate Ukrainians, though it certainly can to an extent. Russia can just ethnically replace the population. Where the western elites have trapped themselves rhetorically as well.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Your post reminds me of the archetype of a 'centrist' movie/video game critic persona found on various blogs and Youtube channels that would go on tirades against Anita Sarkeesian and the like for 'pointing out sexism' and whatever else. To the point they would be denying reality itself just to rebuke every word ever written by a feminist.
Just like the reason for the main character in a video game being a guy is sexist and the reason the women in the game are dressed to sexually provoke men is sexist, the reason for this movie existing is racist. There is no lack of fascinating men in the world. The reason this fascinating man is getting a movie is because he was black.
To borrow an argument from Anita Sarkeesian: It's not that you can't make a game about men and scantily clad women without it being sexist. It's that the reason for these things existing today as they do and the cultural context surrounding them is sexist, and it's worthwhile to recognize that and point it out for what it is. The same is true here. It's not that you can't, in theory, make a movie about a black man beating the odds in white society. It's that you can't do it today and not recognize it for what it is and most importantly why it is.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I wasn't referring to that comment or that complaint in particular. I was referring to comments more along the lines of mcjunker, and the general sentiment it imbues. Hope that serves as some clarification.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree with what you say for the most part. Whilst I think there is more value in the sphinx than you do.
I don't know if I am misunderstanding you but to me these people did engage by effort posting about the alleged woes of the motte. And considering the nature of their claims I'd stand by my assertions and 'shaming' language about where these claims come from. Though I am not trying to shame them to participate, I'm shaming them for participating the way they did.
I think your criticism is valid but I take issue with the wording of it. Why you would level that criticism at me for shaming 'them' when, as far as I'm concerned, and taking everything you say at face value, both parties are worthy of it? It seems to me, pardon the framing, that you walked into a 'fun' debate to tell me that it is low brow. I don't disagree but I'd still say it's worth having considering the lackluster display of the 'opposition'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Not to be too much us vs them but reading some of the comments on that thread...
If you imagine a total opposite of Julius Branson, you get these sort of posters. Instead of making ten alts to continue the war effort, they buckle under the pressure of ten downvotes. But what they lack in tenacity they make up for with narcissism. So unlike Branson they engage in a cold war in their own minds, not having any tenacity or alts to rely on, until they can post some narcissistic masochistic historical revision about what 'happened' and why things are now worse since their 'status' was not respected. I've never read a more pathetic diatribe of self centered nonsense.
For the record I'd take a Julius Branson and five of his alts over any one of these whiners. Absolutely pathetic.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. You can find purpose in life pulling the handle on a slot machine. The point being made is that even if it might not be obvious to the one emotionally invested in buying spins, it's very obvious to the outside observer that they are doing something sad. That there is in fact a universally superior alternative to spending all your time devoted to your pet animals. Even if it might be hard for the animal lover to see. Just like it might be hard for the slot machine player to see. None of that changes the superiority of the alternatives.
If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.
More options
Context Copy link