hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The most notable overrepresented group is jews. Jews being around 2% of the US population, they are at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). In total, according to Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts from 1991, jews were responsible for 23.9% of all white collar crime.
So, when you say 'lots' with regards to Russians and Eastern Europeans, how large a percentage are you talking about?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't feel your post has much relevance to the tweet given it specifies homicides. Considering that specification it seems completely correct.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I always thought Sailer had managed to find some sort of protected status similar to what I assumed Richard Spencer or Ann Coulter had. Which I assumed was because of Taki mag being known to someone at Twitter. At least that was, to my knowledge, the only distinguishing feature between many of those folks who did not get banned and someone like Jarred Taylor, who did get banned. Pure speculation though.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
He also has a Northern Ireland accent
Rings of Pyre
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Most normies don't have an opinion on a thing like crypto beyond 'it's a thing that exists, wow someone got rich when they bought it when cheap'. FTX and SBF are things that get mentioned on a news site, a single headline for a single day, and then it's gone like all the rest.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't see how it's less blurry. With every new fossil that comes to light you have a repeat of what constitutes a homo sapiens debate. Regardless of that I don't see how that relates to rigor. It's not for a lack of rigor that this happens, it's because of a lack of information.
Those objections would only be relevant in a world much more mixed than this one. This argument isn't even relevant to race in particular. It's just a catch all universal 'boo' against any measurement done against anything that is not 100% cut and dry. You could just as well employ this sort of tactical nihilism against the concept of marriage.
Hispanic isn't useless as a category when compared with other categories. Even a simple distinction within the category into Mestizo's and Castizo's can resolve the entire issue. If, say, 80% of 'Hispanics' in the US are Mestizo or 'latino', then you can just assume that and take it into account when seeing a stat like this.
I don't understand why you think non-east Asian is a useless category. I can understand for both Hispanic and Asian, why one would want more clarification and finesse in general. But in the context of contrasting 'Asian' with the larger racial groups in the western world, such as white, the term functions just fine. I was not under the impression anyone was mistaking 'Asians' for whites, unlike the case with Castizo's.
For what it's worth I'd be willing to wager that most normies are far more sane when it comes to race and recognizing race in their own lives. That is, being able to tell that their marriage was interracial. The sort of autism that seeks to play word games of chess around definitions and categories is something generally reserved for the mental world of words and forms, rather than being based in an observation about the world. Though I am sure, such as with any self report data, that it has issues. But, again, that applies to all of it, for nigh any category of anything.
White isn't doing so great either after they let Sicilians and the Irish in.
No one ever considered the Irish anything but white. This doesn't belong in the conversation and you diminish your own presence in it by engaging in this sort of nonsense.
I don't believe this is a very serious question. Those are a lot of examples. Some are edge cases, others are not. None of them in any way change the fact that a Northern European and aboriginal Australians are very clearly different races. No one has any problem or issue recognizing an interracial marriage for the vast majority of cases. That might change if people mix more, but then you could, like you are doing here, make a more detailed analysis of racial admixture or make some other compromise based on the fact that the subjects in question are explicitly mixed race. In any case, as it stands this is not a credible issue. And for a lot of mixed people, considering, for instance, mulattos versus hapas, there are still very clear phenotypic differences.
Worst case scenario you get to ape the colloquial racial categorizations of a place like Brazil.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I can make up a nonsensical version of speciation too. That doesn't mean its relevant to anything. The reason I asked the question is that speciation as a categorization method is no more noisy or inconsistent than racial categorization in humans since racial categorization is just speciation by another name. In fact, speciation in humans is less noisy and more consistent since we have studied the humans a lot more than most other animals.
The only thing here that is unrigorous is your understanding of the concept of race.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's also an interracial marriage if the two partners are very different ethnically. Say an ethnic Nigerian and an ethnic Norwegian. No one would consider the marriage anything other than interracial even if the two people checked the same box on a form.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No one blinking at it doesn't change the fact that it's interracial. The 'arc of the universe' also has a strong bent towards more people coming from India, Africa and China. Regardless of how many people from there intermarry in the west, those groups are not becoming less meaningful as a dividing line considering they are the largest and fastest growing populations on earth.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What makes homo sapiens sapiens more rigorous than racial categorization?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Nope. At worst he gets the Trump treatment of a fashionably late pardon. Best case, an early release. Unless this guy somehow managed to screw over the wrong jews I don't think he will face anything real.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If Poland were not patriarchal, but was under threat from a patriarchal force, would a non-patriarchal Poland not defend itself?
This is not really a question. Feminist LARP is just that. But I don't understand, in the spirit of proper world building LARP's like Anarcho-Capitalism and such, what the feminist answer to the 'defense issue' is.
The lack of self-awareness needed to stake every single one of your positions on the presupposition of a utopia without ever acknowledging it in the context of real-world issues is an embarrassment.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point of the questions was to contextualize Griner's fame and why it would, in that context, make sense for them to get treated the way they did.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not sure if you just don't get meaning behind words because you are autistic or if this is intentional trolling but cutting up the question being asked isn't a valid way to answer it.
To give an example:
I think you're selling it
I am not selling anything. Why do you think I am selling something?
But that is neither here nor there considering what you say next:
I'm confident that a doctrine whose main point has been race and sex (especially race) has been in charge in America going all the way back its founding.
Then we don't have a disagreement.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why is she famous? Why is WNBA a 'thing'? It wasn't a 'thing' 20 years ago.
It seems kind of short sighted to just assume that the doctrine that has been in charge for a few decades now, that shaped the cultural climate as it is today, is not to do with race and sex when that's the main point it focused on. It would certainly seem odd to me if that weren't the case given the huge emphasis the powers that be place on those things.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't think Bills wife allows him to make actual jokes about hot button CW stuff. If he did make a joke, he would turn it around on white people in the end.
'If it was Tom Brady white people wouldn't say a thing. They would be celebrating.' Or something along those lines.
His MO was always kind of predictable, but it got worse after he got, allegedly, cucked in real life.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What's interesting about it?
I found her (Goldberg's) arguments to be the complete opposite of good straight from the get-go. The first point that stood out to me in her opening statement, that 'the media' is not 'ideologically captured' is just wrong. Like she doesn't understand what people are talking about. To reinforce her point she brings up the 'Red Wave' phenomenon the blue mainstream media were pushing in unison. A phenomenon that can be characterized entirely as 'I am afraid my enemy is going to win like they did last time'.
It seems to miss the point of what people have been saying about media bias. The point of the 'displeasure' of how the media was shilling for Hillary Clinton in 2016 wasn't that the media was saying that she was going to win. That was just a consequence of the actual problem. That problem being that 'the media' was obviously and completely in the tank for Hillary and an ill-defined political direction that we can code as 'blue'.
Because of this lack of understanding Goldberg's whole concept of 'over-correction' is just irrelevant at best. The media didn't 'correct' itself in any sense that relates to 'ideological capture'. It's still just as captured, just expressing itself differently. They recognized that they might have harmed 'the cause' and changed gears. They didn't change gears to correct their own beliefs. They changed gears so that they would stop harming the cause. From their perspective, in hindsight, it was obviously folly to say to your prospective voters that the election was in the bag. If you want to aid 'the cause' you must gin up your voters to vote. So you tell them that the enemy is mounting for an attack and that you must brace the gates, or you will lose everything you care about.
At risk of being too uncharitable to a person like this. Is she just that stupid? How can someone in her position look at this entire debacle, ongoing for years now, and still be so far off the mark? Is she a malicious actor?
She then moves into 'the big stories'. And says the mainstream media got most of them 'right'. She doesn't expand on what that means beyond that Trump and COVID where events that happened. Which, as a standard of 'rightness' doesn't seem to elevate mainstream media far above 'alternative' media but that's neither here nor there since she backpedals the argument a bit and says that you would be 'closer' to the 'truth' if you followed mainstream media and not 'alternative' sources. This is not really a truth apt claim since the 'truth' given out by blue media and non-blue media is simply not the same. This muddy language is then used to support her argument where she says that the hysteria ginned up about Trump was largely correct because January 6 happened. The problem here being obvious, one 'truth' says J6 was a coup attempt, the other 'truth' says it was a valid protest. If she is malicious, she is brilliant at what she does. If she isn't, she is an idiot savant at making stupid arguments.
I don't think you could underpin the concept of 'ideological capture' better that Goldberg does in her opening paragraphs of her opening statement. Not only does she demonstrate what it looks like, and that she is suffering from it. She also demonstrates that if blue journalists were fish, 'ideological capture' is the water they swim in. Lacking self-awareness to the point of absurdity.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I could only presume those would be your presuppositions. And considering the implications of such presuppositions, I doubt anyone consistently holds to them. The primary reason that I ask that is the historical context of the region of SA. Most notably the fact that most of the black population there were recent immigrants.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why wouldn't white rule over South Africa be justified? Can you clarify your presuppositions?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Looking just at any metrics from TikTok, YouTube or any mainstream news outlet Tate is giant in comparison. I live in Scandinavia and there was, for example, a recent segment in the radio about Tate and how 'dangerous' he is. I don't understand where you are coming from here. Tate is obviously much bigger.
If I was a secret service agent that might need to vaporize potential evidence, I'd buy a Ford Expedition to have a handy excuse for the media to play with.
Seeing all of these progressives turn into luddites in this instance, and free speech advocates after the Musk journalist bans in another, I think it's fair to say that there are no principles. There is no political theory of friend/enemy anymore. It's a law. And anyone who pretends to, in any instance, be above that law or exist outside its scope is just, through the act, a self described moron.
More options
Context Copy link