hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point being made was that Andrew Tate is mainstream popular. Everyone in my workplace knows who Andrew Tate is. None of them have heard of the other things you listed. The fact he isn't saying anything 'new' to you isn't the point.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
My brother, what you can get is your market value.
The comment you are replying to, in market terms, is predicting a 'crash', for a lack of a better term. The baseline ingredient for a crash is a mismatch of information. Deferring to market standards in a market that is suffering from a mismatch of information isn't much of an argument in relation to what the value of things should be.
The rest of your comment is just a framegame where instead of looking at the issues from a sympathetic view, which from reading your comment seems to hurt your personal sensibilities for sounding too much like incel trutherism, you instead just describe the problem in terms of others being losers.
The problem with this is that the frame doesn't change the questions being asked. To phrase the question in terms that don't offend a person of such a grand social stature as yourself: Why are there more losers now?
if you think the responses here are anti-male, try posting the same story but for women being unable to find a good man, and watch the claws come out. The responses aren't anti-male, they're anti-whiner.
Reducing all arguments to group conflict isn't relevant. Sure, there is group based pathology in play like always, but that fact doesn't change the fact that there is also an objective reality in play. Just like many early 2000's feminists were objectively wrong in their assertions about men and women being 'equal' in terms of mental and physical competition in various sporting activities, it can also be true that women who can't find a 'good man' are pathologically complaining about a problem that has less to do with reality than men who can't find a 'good woman'. Just because both 'whines' are pathologies doesn't mean they are of equal relation to reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Considering the stranglehold anti-white and pro-immigration extremists have on media, the possibility is irrelevant. In the UK not even a large-scale gang rape scandal involving possibly tens of thousands of children spanning decades could wake the people there up. By the unlikely time the attitudes of Europeans in the UK change, their political opinions will be irrelevant.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Supposing you ever stop immigration. Which is, I'd say, not very likely.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The realities of 'being a good person' instead of being a selfish person aren't a mystery and your stated beliefs are not relevant to me next to the lived reality of people who have actually gone out of their way to be a good person, putting in all the hard work and effort, only to find themselves completely burned out in a year or two as the seriousness of the situation becomes clear to them. Examples of people 'being good', where I have first-hand accounts of people completely giving up on the situation are: Missionary work/general aid work in Africa, helping the homeless, helping stray animals.
In all of the examples there was a common line that, eventually, the people doing the aid hit a wall. If you have some way of helping people get over the wall, in whatever capacity it is that you imagine these folks becoming 'better persons' I am all ears. Because as far as I can tell, nothing about EA involves a replacement for actual people doing actual physical work on the ground.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I didn't say it wasn't relative. What I am saying is that the emotions you feel are real and you are not going to fake it till you make it. Like is demonstrated with people making 6 figure salaries choosing to live lifestyles that make them unable to 'expand their circle of love' more effectively.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Oreos and french fries.
The illusion of veganism as 'healthy' persists because a lot of vegans are 'health nuts' compared to the normal person. If the normal person was vegan they could easily supplement their diets with certified vegan High Fructose Corn Syrup and Palm Seed Oil.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
What cynical view of humanity? Altruism in effect is just called love. You get it from those who love you and you give it to those you love. Beyond that people are not giving anything they can't afford to give. The same way a gambler isn't really gambling if he is only betting money he can afford to lose.
I think people are shrouding their own nature in these words. 'Altruism' 'kindness'. I don't see it as cynicism to recognize that I am not giving away any of the money I can't afford to give away and that I am no different from anyone who finds themselves under the umbrella of 'Effective Altruism'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
red tribe and universal appeal are not mutually exclusive.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Congratulations to Effective Altruism. For those of you not understanding why this whole thing isn't good for Effective Altruism: You are now officially a group! Just like Atheism became a group through the infamous fedora/quote maker incident, you too are now an easily identifiable and targetable entity. No one will ever need to engage with what you say.
If anyone cares to ask what the difference is between Effective Altruism and just Altruism: Altruism is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give the money to powerless people who don't have money. Like Robin Hood. And then you go the way of Robin Hood, either getting killed or jailed for life.
Effective Altruism, on the other hand, is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give very powerful people with even more money all of the money. That way, unlike Robin Hood, when the jig is up nothing will happen to you, and you can go back to your polycule.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You might as well say moral panics about pornography are nothing new and point me to some concerned mothers group from 1000 BC worrying about a suggestively shaped rock as if that has anything to do with modern trends of porn consumption and their effects.
I relation to the internet, yes, it is a new frontier. I don't know what you would allow to qualify as being a new frontier but to me the explosion of these markets is very new. Back when I was younger there were two places to gamble, sports betting, which was heavily regulated, and a single state regulated slot machine hall. Needless to say, it was only the most dedicated who managed to rack up large losses. Fast forward to today, I know 4 people personally who have each lost, in total, more than half a years' worth of wages or more through betting tokens for some video game.
Maybe you live in Las Vegas and this is nothing new under the sun for you, but this didn't exist where I live until in recent years.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I guess we had different experiences growing up. My mom and dad were very adamant that all of this arcade nonsense was just to steal your money and would never give me any if I asked to go play the machines.
Other than that, I don't follow your point.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Maybe I'm late to the party on this but I found the pan-African Nationalist colors to be the most striking feature of the flag. If they wanted that kind of symbolism why not go for something Indian, given how many of the slave laborers are from there.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Generally, with regards to Football, the term 'penalty' is reserved for a foul made inside the 'penalty area' which would result in a 'penalty kick' being given. If you say a player was 'given a penalty' you are saying that the player was rewarded a penalty kick for being fouled inside the opposition's penalty area.
In general, the term used when not referring to a penalty kick is 'penalized'. I.e., the player was penalized with a yellow for a foul.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Gambling for children is the new frontier.
With much of the gambling market having sat at relative stagnation compared to the explosion of other recreational markets through various internet activity, we are finally seeing a proper proliferation of gambling. From kids buying lootboxes through ingame apps, which sits at a similar place as kids buying Pokemon cards. Which, differing from Pokemon cards, devolves into straight up gambling through third party websites. Where there is no definitional difference between third party websites that facilitate the gambling of various video game tokens and actual online slot casinos that accept direct money deposits. You have an entire arc where you can go from child to adult and develop a compulsive gambling addiction.
This is then compounded through video game streaming culture where people are gambling away 'fake' money to promote gambling facilities. Where, through affiliations with streaming sites and gambling sites, they receive money from every aspect of their activity. Be that persons who watch and give money to the stream, or kickbacks from the gambling website for each person that signs up through their affiliate link. The fakeness of the endeavor then reaches glorious heights when sometimes the streamer owns a part in the gambling website they are gambling on and receive better odds at winning. Giving them a perfect opportunity to advertise just have much fun 'can' be had. Outside of that there is also always the incentive for the streamers and gambling facility owners to do dealings under the table.
This isn't some dark corner of the internet, or some little known website run out of Malta where you can play online versions of slot machines at a slightly higher RTP. These are the biggest mainstream titles in one of the biggest entertainment industries in the world. These are made to be addictive to children. Specifically engineered by our fine class of programmers and designers to get them to spend money. To get them hooked on gambling.
I mean, could you imagine, when you were a kid, your parents buying you a toy that came equipped with a functional slot machine? Where you could take a 20 dollar bill, put it into the machine, and potentially receive a new toy? What if, instead of being saddled with the reality of having to make a new toy, the company that owns the toy can just print out a card that you want? But that still costs some money. What if the company can just conjure up a pixel that it displays on a screen? Completely divorced from the burdens of traditional money based gambling, these fantastic designers, psychologists and programmers can create a gambling environment where the only worry is how to most effectively direct children and teenagers into a cycle of gambling addiction.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The binary isn't false. Either blacks are suffering more than whites, or they are not. It's not up to you as a white person to dictate the safest possible way for equality to come about anymore. Whites have had decades to put their preferred methods into action and none of them have worked. The gaps between blacks and whites are the same.
Sorry, but you don't get to sacrifice more black bodies for your white comfort anymore. The suffering and oppressed have no reason or moral obligation to value the continuation of the system that hurts and oppresses them and their children. If we can't achieve racial harmony within the white structures of power, then they will have to be abolished just like black and brown bodies had to abolish the white structure of slavery.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don’t care one way or the other what you do or don’t care about.
I care about racism and the harm that it causes. Don't you? Are you a racist?
But you’ll need to define “the most privileged people on Earth” more broadly than the the capital-owning class to make your point, which proves mine.
Being a white office worker makes you top 1% in the world when it comes to nigh every metric possible. If you think you are making a point by recognizing this fact then you will have to elucidate me.
Also, what evidence do you have that even a simple majority of people subjected to bizarre EDI sessions are “self-described anti-racists”?
You have to follow the context of the conversation if this is going to work, you can't just go comment by comment.
Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more?
Either the people are anti-racist and not doing a good enough job and should be scolded, or they are racist since they don't want to do anything real to help fight against racism.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Nothing you say changes the fact that self-described anti-racists are sitting on their asses in positions of power doing nothing to help black people who have been suffering for centuries. Sorry but no one should care about the crocodile tears of white overprivileged liars and hypocrites when they are finally confronted with the reality of their being.
All you are doing is shifting the conversation away from the plight of blacks and instead focusing on the fact a privileged white person doesn't like being called what they are. If you don't believe black suffering matters stop pretending and get out of the way of progress. The free market, that white people love when it benefits them and helps them exploit others, is now finally, in the tiniest way possible, affecting the most privileged people on earth slightly negatively by comparison. Forgive me for not caring when this 'inconvenience' is contrasted with literal slavery.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The demands that you have to follow in order to be an "anti-racist" and keep your job have little to do with actually being anti-racist.
According to privileged white people who have overseen decades of oppression over blacks. Robin DiAngelo is there to remind you that your white privilege does not hold more value than black suffering just because you are currently benefiting from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Forced at what stage?
If they are forced into identifying as anti-racist then they are just racist cowards. Why shouldn't we apply more force to racist cowards?
In any case it seems you are valuing the comfort of white inaction above the suffering, oppression and death of black victims.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree with your point but I think 'conservatives' and the like are correct in playing this association game for a different reason. In short it would be bio-leninism + high heritability of certain political ideas.
The fact that a person is a devout marxist isn't a coincidence most of the time. Depending on what type of marxist they are and why boils down to biology. They have brain chemistry that makes them like X more than Y. And 'conservatives', for a lack of a better term, like Y over X. So it's not about the academic intellectual tradition being a poisoned well, it's that the people who can stand to drink from it are different from you in ways so drastic that you can't trust anything they have to say. Everything that extends from their thought process, by dint of their divergence from you, is therefor most likely toxic to you and the things you care about.
The fact they were 'marxist' or something else is just a signal or a uniform of sorts that helps you mark them as being neurologically different from you.
You could also try to fit Jonathan Haidt's work, specifically 'The Righteous Mind', into this.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Robin DiAngelo didn't come up with anything per se. She just published and popularized a very salient critique against white liberal/progressive/leftist inaction in the face of the enormous gaps between blacks and whites in the US. A critique that had been floating about in academia for a while. (It should come as no surprise that she cites Noel Ignatiev & friends a lot.)
Most people don't understand what the term "white fragility" means and what it's useful for. White Fragility is not just about skin color. It's about your stated beliefs + your skin color. To give an example, if you are unapologetically racist and white you are not fragile. But if you are white and believe yourself not to be racist? Well... Why aren't you helping the blacks more? From that point onward every word that exits your mouth is white fragility in action. Why do you think blacks are poorer? Have worse educational outcomes? Have worse jobs? Everything you say here that isn't explicitly racist is either white fragility or an invitation for DiAngelo to ask you why you aren't doing more to help. And every answer you give to that question that isn't 'Yes Mam' followed by extensive plans for action is white fragility in action.
Robin DiAngelo walks into institutions filled to the brim with white self-described anti-racists and tears them a new one for not actually being anti-racist. And she is right. A person who says they care about racism and all the gaps between blacks and whites but doesn't do anything about it is either a hypocrite or a liar. Why shouldn't a group full of self-described anti-racists be called out on their lack of action? Black people are literally dying whilst you fret over what is for lunch.
Robin DiAngelo isn't breaking any rules here. Why shouldn't people who say they care about matters of race and the oppression be forced into action? Why should the plight of one overprivileged fragile white person who loses their job and healthcare matter more than the plight of millions of black people? Why should their personal worries be allowed to act as a bulwark against real anti-racist action? Why should the free market system that ties jobs with healthcare be used as a rhetorical moral shield for white people when it has been used as a sword against black people for centuries?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Because Hitler was fighting for a truth that would in the long run reduce the amount of human suffering by a magnitude far greater than anything that has come after him.
Because even eliding over things like the Holocaust or the near-conquest of Europe, if you take the most overly-charitable view of Hitler, all you see is a guy who riled people up, picked fights his country couldn't and shouldn't have, and then proceeded to lose so badly that he didn't even have the courage to face his people about the loss, let alone the wrath of two superpowers coming to tear down his government.
That's not the most charitable view of Hitler. I am sure you can steelman Hitler better than that.
If anything, even National Socialists wouldn't (and didn't) want to identify with a loser
Why? Most National Socialists I know identify a great deal with flawed figures like Hitler and Goebbels.
Even Confederacy aesthetics and revanchism from American Southerners is pitiable by comparison--Nazis only have copium.
Is this just 'boo outgroup' or were you trying to make a point? Because if you are trying to make a point it's not very salient considering all the losers of wars. I mean, I find the struggle of jews during the war far more pitiable than anything else. According to them they just lined themselves up to a slaughter house that was staffed by other jews who participated directly in slaughtering their co-ethnics because they thought it would buy them life. That's a level far lower than Hitler and friends banding together to fight those they think are their enemies to their dying breath in the name of their co-ethnics. You can argue that the result was the same but in that case I'd say that the option Hitler took displayed far superior moral character.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
We have specific rules, just not an exhaustive list of ways to break them. No stealing is a specific rule even if it doesn't explicitly state all the possible methods of theft.
In the same way that 'Don't piss off the admin' is a specific rule but not really. The actual rule is 'no symbolism or possibly implied meaning relating to sexism, racism, homophobia, or transphobia, and especially not any sort of neo-nazism in usernames'. But saying that doesn't meet the aesthetic preference of the mods. Kind of like how many 'conservatives' would say that they don't have a problem with gays getting married 'since the state shouldn't be involved in such affairs anyway'. Instead of just saying 'Yes, I support gay rights'.
I think maybe you're harboring the false belief that this is intended to be a conservative forum. It is intended to be a be a forum that takes all and encourages difficult conversations.
The criticism of 'conservatism' I was referencing was referenced precisely because so many people who use this webspace levy it against 'conservatives', or are at least aware of it, when the topic comes up. I mentioned this because the same lamentable lack of self-awareness and context is just that no matter where it expresses itself.
I don't understand why you think I am harboring in a false belief about this webspace. The point was not that its users hold 'conservative' opinions. The point was that the mods are engaging in the pattern of behavior that, in a different context, many recognize to be lamentable.
The drug overdose death rates are 10 times higher or more now than they were at any time since 1993. At which time the rate increased from 2.8 per 100k to what it was in 2020, 28.3 per 100k.
Your theory does not sync up to reality.
More options
Context Copy link