@hanikrummihundursvin's banner p

hanikrummihundursvin


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					
joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 673


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
hanikrummihundursvin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 673


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Reactionary means what I as a pretend mod believe it to mean. Just like the mods here believe that the 88 in 1488 stands for Heil Hitler and not the 88 Precepts. There is nothing viscerally objectionable to either. You can argue, like I tried, that there exists ample wiggle room in both 14 and 88 for it not to mean what you assert it must. But those arguments were not had and simply ignored in favor of mod subjectivity. Which, in your case, would be something along the lines of 'misogynist incel wants to chain women to the home'. It's not fun when your positions are reduced from their actual state to something along the lines of




"the Holocaust didn't really happen the way people think, but the Jews deserved it anyways."




But that's what we have from more people than just the mods, I guess.


What you are doing here is exactly what I was trying to do when I asked the mods to clarify their ruling. The mods did not clarify the ruling on the terms of my arguments. They just told me to stick a sock in it. If you want a genuine response from me, as a pretend mod, to all the stuff you wrote its: lmao, banned.


To give a copy paste response to what I got, just with changed labels:




Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your Reactionary freak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Reactionaries," you're right.




.




I don't think the Mods said exactly that they are "asserting their aesthetic preference.




I didn't say that they said that. I said that this is what they are doing. What they said is what is quoted above. I'd appreciate you extend some charity in interpretation here. If you can't understand what I mean by 'aesthetic' you can just ask. The reason I used that term is because the mods have no way of knowing what the person intends, nor what the effect the persons actions will have. What they do know, however, is that they want their website to look like something. And, as we can tell by their actions, that something doesn't look like 1488 regardless of any argument made or reason given. It's not about the content, it's about the look and feel. It's not based on reason; it's based on subjective preference.


You can argue that there can be value in the choice regardless of that, and I'd agree. But that's not relevant to the contention being made.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This seems like quite a thing to draw out of not wanting our standards for discourse to include blatant and known trolling names.




It's not.




Objective isn't the right word for what the moderation of this place is going for, which is consistently content neutral but tone policing.




That's not the case. From Amadan:




That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right.




Mods are not content neutral.




No, actually I think we have pretty good reasons to dislike that political figure.




And we have a pretty good reason to dislike Genghis Khan, that doesn't mean we place him as a central figure for our moral compass. Nor do we constantly fret about potential Mongol hordes when someone erects a gigantic statue of the guy in Mongolia. In fact, most users have pretty good reasons to dislike what they dislike. But that's not the point. The point is that some likes and dislikes are more equal than others because of mod subjectivity.




But that's not even what is at issue here, we have rules about being unnecessarily obnoxious that such a name trivially violates, if it helps to appeal to equal treatment something like KillAllChristians would also deserve to be moderated.




You don't actually have specific rules on this, as the mods have said. What you feel deserves to be moderated has no relevance to anything since you are not a mod and the mods apply their rules subjectively. And though I am sure the mods would step in for something obvious like that, it's not the point. The point was that when there is ambiguity, the rulings are not consistent.




I must have missed it 10 years ago when Hitler references were really big with the red tribe and blue tribe was barely censoring them.




You are missing the point. The reason why so many lament 'conservatism' and label it as being '10 years out of date liberals' is not primarily because of the content of their beliefs. It's because of where these beliefs come from. It's because of the 'conservatives' complete lack of contextual awareness and understanding. These 'conservatives' don't know where their views come from or why. They don't see themselves as the end result of the culture wars of the generations that came before. They instead see themselves as being stalwarts in an ongoing battle that they are genuinely fighting to win. Instead of recognizing that all of their firmly held beliefs are just the undertow of those who are actually in charge. And that their 'conservative' inheritance is just the white flag of their predecessors.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't disagree, I just don't like people maintaining the pretense of objectivity when it comes to rules and mods when that is simply not the case. And the case is instead that we are collectively adhering to some boomer social justice aesthetics that demonize a 100-year-old political figure ahead of everything else because we've seen a lot about that guy on TV.


It just seems so absurd in relation to how much people like chastising 'conservatism' for being 'progressive-liberalism just 10 years out of date' when the majority of people seem content to play by the exact same 'conservative' ruleset when they are in power.


The Motte, AKA Conservareddit. 10 years out of date.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Calling yourself a reactionary means a lot of things to a lot of different people and it would get you banned in a lot of places. Same with traditionalism.




I am neither, but it amuses me to describe myself this way.




So it's just a shit post that doesn't subjectively irk the mods as much.


The comment you replied to was making the point that the ruleset was not objective. That it was instead just the mod team asserting their aesthetic preference. The mods have now said exactly that. You are just wrong in your prior assertion about the rules.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's wrong. Read the thread.


You are not allowed to talk about how much you love gassing jews, you are not allowed to discuss things in a vulgar way if you are not making a point with it. But you are allowed to talk about and advocate for National Socialism and White nationalism.




There are many nazi places on the world wide web, there is no need for one more, while this site is supposed to be unique.




This place would be far more unique if it did allow those kinds of names, given the fact that the number of places and the number of places that matter that ban such names dwarfs those who don't.


But that's neither here nor there.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You said you had no explicit rules and then you said you did. You are just floundering around the definition of explicit as if mod rulings aren't rules.




I said nothing about crypto.




That's correct, I said something about crypto since the person getting modded was commenting on crypto and not Hitler or white nationalism.




If someone puts 1488 in their username we're not going to ask them "Do you mean that in a crypto way or a Nazi way?" and then allow it if it's the former and ban it if it's the latter. Let's be serious now.




The example you gave about 'SuckItWhitey' came with the caveat that "if" the person was being racist against whites then they would "probably" get modded. If the caveat was not important or at all relevant, why add it?




We apply the same general rule we apply to posts (if you couldn't say it in a post, you probably can't say it in a username).




Which is why I explicitly asked about 1488 and its connotations and noted that there was wiggle room there.




We are not going to try to enumerate every offensive or inflammatory username someone might come up with. Codifying it like that just invites people to try to game the rules and then squawk indignantly that we didn't explicitly say that you can't phonetically transliterate "I Hate Jews" in Cyrillic or whatever.




No one asked you to.




Now, let's be honest, my dude. You're upset because you want to let your Nazifreak flag fly and you're being reminded that this is not an "anything goes" zone just because we give a very wide latitude to freedom of expression. That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right. We actually had a mod discussion about what we'd do if someone posted outright "I'm a Nazi and Hitler did nothing wrong," and honestly I'm not sure we came to a unanimous consensus. We allow people to advocate white nationalism and Holocaust denial, as you are well aware. But if your disgruntlement here is that we're not inclined to let Nazis make themselves comfortable here, even if we don't instaban them, continue to be disgruntled.




I'm not disgruntled, I'm content with you admitting the point I was making.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not. Or at least I'm not holding them to a different standard I would hold for anyone that supports, for example, Western hegemony in whatever ideological form it expresses itself. The ideological pretense of peace, freedom and democracy didn't save any of the victims of US foreign policy. No matter how much it was repeated in Western propaganda.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The part where you, just moments ago, said you did not have specific rules on this. It's hard to say that I am stuck on any part when you contradict yourself comment to comment.


You gave examples which were not analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation.


In reply to this you said there were no specific rules on this type of stuff. Now you are saying there are specific rules and that those rules are 1488 = banned when talking about crypto. Whilst, pending clarification, 'SuckItWhitey' is "probably" not allowed "if" they being racist against white people. Who knows if they just talk about crypto and AI all day.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Because Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of white people in all history, anyone who cares about "continued existence of white people" should condemn him ten times stronger than mainstream normie history does.




Those alleged fact is irrelevant to the context of the argument. It's not the job of the mods to enforce that everyone subscribe to the 'correct' theory of white supremacy.




Because one nazi attracts another, and mods do not want this site to become nazi sewer, more than enough of such places on the internets.




If the nazis follow the rules as they are enforced on everyone else, why would this place become a sewer?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Having a username state a partisan and inflammatory statement is the opposite of proactively providing evidence for it. It's just a username, it's not a complete argument that people can respond to and tear apart. It's a way to shit post.




...




Esoteric Traditionalist Mystic Reactionary




I shouldn't need to say anything else but in the spirit of clarity: A point I made some effort in making was that the ruleset was not applied equally. And that the mods are just enforcing their own bias when attributing 'inflammation' and 'partisanship'. This bias is not in line with any objective reason or knowledge. It's just the social justice of the 1990's, as advertised on TV. I don't see why, when not beholden to reddit, the mods enforce that everyone be beholden to their partisan view of the world.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If that's the case, why don't they say that? Just be open about the angle of the slippery slope we are going to be sliding on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The entire point of this incident was that the person wasn't speaking in code. They literally put 1488 in their name.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then this would be the first time you do so for a name that is not inflammatory or provocative.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You have the causation reversed. If someone sufficiently marks themselves as low status or a member of an outgroup you turn your brain off.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree that if this was to be enforced, this is the most light handed and respectful way of doing so. But that's not the topic of my contention. Which pertains to the impetus of the request, especially in light of the moderator comment accompanying it:




"But the "1488" thing as nazi thing is not ok."




Why would it not be OK for a person to tag themselves as being a believer in a continued existence of white people and future for their children who also likes Adolf Hitler and David Lane?


The mod position here is, in my view, just nonsensical. You can be a nazi and argue for the destruction of European jewry, just don't wear the armband when talking about cryptocurrency? Not because nazis are banned... Just because... We don't like people labeling themselves... Even though that's what people have been doing for years...


My point here, if no other, would be that this is an inequal application of the ruleset. You can carry banners, like people have done, you can have your pet issues and mini crusades, like people do, but if your banner is a Swaztika, and if your pet issue is the jews, the mods take extra notice. Compared to topics like, for example, AI, which suffer from all the same issues, there is no similar action.


So, my question following that would be: Why? Why the disparate application of rules? The mods will say something along the lines of 'too much heat' or something else. And my question would be, for who? Who can't handle WotanWolf1488 talking about the housing crisis in Belgium? Who are these users perusing this webspace that need to be protected from '1488'?


In all honesty I don't think they exist. It's just mod bias. They have an aesthetic preference for American 1990's era decorum. There's no justification for it other than that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Which would not be analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation. It's not like the person is named AuschwitzKikeGrinder. In which case I would magnanimously approve a request for a name change.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is being a nazi banned? Are you not allowed to advocate for the 14 words and Hitlerist National Socialism? If the answer is no to both cases, is it banned to identify your ideological bent in your username?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As far as I can tell you don't translate it. You just gather 'useful idiots' by appealing to them with a message that they can insert themselves into.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think the explanation is pretty simple. If Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ about 1 standard deviation above the normal, that means they are 20 times more likely to produce a person with a +3 standard deviation IQ. So in the +3 group, the percentage of people that are Jewish is going to be very noticeable.




These are two arguments that are often repeated but don't stand up to scrutiny. The IQ of Jews in the US is not a standard deviation above American whites of European descent. Lynn calculated the verbal IQ score of American jews to be 107.5. Considering 'verbal' subtests are the ones jews tend to score the highest on, a safer estimate for jewish IQ in the US would be 104-109.


Moreover, you are assuming that the people occupying any alleged positions of overrepresentation are extremely intelligent when there is no reason to assume that they are so. It would be a first for me to learn that the correlation between IQ and status within, for example, media and academia would be 1:1. Not to say that many of these people aren't intelligent, but not to the factor of 3+ standard deviations.


On top of that, as you mention, the context of explanation isn't what would fly in the HBD sphere. The public at large has already been taught that these sorts of explanations don't hold any water and are in fact just manifestations of supremacist tendencies and fragility. If these sorts of explanations weren't valid for white people, why would they be valid for jews?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's a context dependent ingroup justification for why we, the ingroup, happen to deserve our privilege. These arguments don't fly in any context where women are getting the short end of the stick.


The only sentiment that is sincere from feminism is that women are the ingroup and men are the outgroup.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I thought that as a kid listening to rap, but when I listen to it now I find the vocabulary to be exceptionally poor. With most of the stories and/or the message of the songs superficial and presented in the most ineloquent and straightforward way possible. Compared to extremely simple poetry like The Life of A Cupcake most rap doesn't even compare.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XHK-WjxMShI


This is a 'quick' overview of most of the big interesting points of the book.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You will have to forgive me but I'm not able to read what you are writing without it coming across to me as rather confusing and incoherent. If you could clarify for me that would be great.




It's the phenotypic null hypothesis, not the environmental null hypothesis.




I don't understand the contention. The point I was making is that the PNH expresses itself in the same way as environmentalist priors. If you believe there is infinite room for enviromentalist theory crafting without holding environmental explanatons to the same standard when it comes to genetic theory crafting then it doesn't matter what you call it. It's always the case that the other side 'could' be wrong and that their assumptions and priors are inaccurate and that there is a hidden factor they could be overlooking that could make them all wrong. What I am trying to tease out here is why you believe that this sort of rigor is some sort of guillotine for HBD'ers but not all the other fields that find no issue ignoring competing hypothesis when attributing their findings as pieces of evidence for their preferred theory.




There are various things that can be done to reduce the problems. For instance in the case of homophobia and mental illness, you can look at environmentla correlations rather than looking at genetic correlations (though that requires good measurement).




I am lost as to what you are trying to say in relation to what I wrote. You don't seem to be answering the question of why any assumption of a genetic cause needs to exclude every single possible environmental cause before it can assert itself as a contender or a piece of evidence that fits into a larger theory of how things work. Why is this a problem for HBD'ers?


From the other comment of yours:




What does the biological null hypothesis say?




That the originary primary and ultimate driver for all behavior and expressions of a biological organism in an environment is their genetic material.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If I "appreciate" the 'biological null hypothesis', everything you write is wrong. What necessitates one over the other?


I ask since it looks like we are taking the presumptive priors of environmentalism, slapping it with a 'null hypothesis' label and saying that it now beats out the presumptive priors of hereditarianism. I don't see how this changes anything. Other than framing the discussion in a way where your enemy is ignorant and hasn't considered something when in reality I am pretty sure most HBD'ers are pretty well acquainted with the environmentalist worldview.


To me, as an illiterate HBD'er, it just seems like skirting the actual issues. If you don't have an alternative theory of reality to human biology to supplant the HBD one then what is the point of this? Assert we can't know anything about anything and then what? This topic isn't worth discussing outside the context of two competing explanatory worldviews.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				The Social Recession: By the Numbers
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It can be, but I don't see how that's a relevant... whatever it is. There are an endless amount of things that could be. I don't understand the point you are making. It seems like you are presupposing a framework of economic rationality and I don't understand why or what you think necessitates it. It's not about deducing what others think and seeing if it can or can not fit within some predefined rubric of 'rationality'.


It's like you are extrapolating into a wider context to get away from a question that isn't about anything other than yourself.