hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.
But that's what a trans person is and that's what trans rights are in practice. Anyone who is squeamish about these things is by definition transphobic. As well as being, pardon my French, hysterical and ridiculous. As if your male coworkers suddenly turn into a physical danger as soon as you have to share a porcelain bowl...
There's an entire progressive dialect invented to get past these hurdles. Followed by a ruleset that should allow any well-meaning actor, who is concerned with the rights of trans people, to get along with their day without allowing their transphobia to negatively affect trans people as they try to exist.
Unisex toilets exist all over the world. This is transphobia masquerading as misandry. It should not be allowed to stand in any case if we are holding ourselves to any egalitarian modern standard.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
Isn't one of America's political platforms to go to war with Iran? Seems like a good reason for Iran to get a nuke...
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
I find the idea of externally 'atoning' for your sins and/or expelling them in some way disturbing. If you do wrong and feel bad you deserve it. These emotions are yours now and you must carry them on with you. Trying to get away from this burden or attempting to ameliorate the pain through some self afflicting physical process is an act of rebellion against your own conscience. You are running away from pain your 'being' is telling you to feel. Paying a price for wrongdoing, for example a legal price, should not be seen as an excuse to free yourself from your deserved emotional turmoil.
Reading about pious pilgrims flagellating for faith, I'm reminded of people who speedrun video games. I feel sad when I see videos of them getting a new best time, springing out of their crusty chairs in a dimly lit room, screaming in elation: A new world record! Who knows how much effort, how many hours these folks spend on this completely insular and self driven compulsion to get the best time that is of no consequence to anything at all. But this perversion of effort and strife gets paraded around as an important accomplishment by similarly minded people.
Much like a sad teenager playing Super Mario for the millionth time, a pious pilgrim will do a real life barefoot desert speedrun. This is not an external exercise. It's completely internal. Completely useless and devoid of value beyond the perverted compulsion of the speedrunning pilgrim.
Reflection is important. Twisting and contorting your body to push yourself towards a better understanding of what life is for you can be noble and good. Struggle and strife for its own sake can also be good. But it has to be done for the sake of something actually 'real'. I think it's universally recognized that the only actually 'real' thing is having children and raising them. Anything else that is not working towards this goal is ultimately fake.
As an aside: To that extent you can pinpoint an ultimate 'gotcha' on the new religious right. As far as Christianity being a proxy for people successfully having children, it is obviously good. Beyond that, it's very little beyond philosophical speedrunning.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
With supporters like these, who needs enemies. The point is that you don't cave in, instead you show you actually stand behind the thing in its moment of weakness. Precisely because it's being attacked by your enemy.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I feel like Donald Trump being good at golf is like Hitler being an animal lover. "See! He wasn't all bad..."
As for that, I don't think it matters a whole lot. The general blue-ish public is likely not going to stumble upon political content about Trump that's not negative. Media polarization and algorithmic bubbles do a powerful job. If you like Trump you can like him more. If you dislike Trump you can dislike him more.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
If the GOP was smart they would do the opposite. Full scorched earth Womp Womp's.
I can't believe that GOP and friends don't have guys crafty enough to weave a narrative of law and order, back the blue and whatever else out of this.
Don't make the shooting an issue, make the media and Democrats the issue. They are attacking a sacred institution, these hallowed halls of law and order and blah blah blah. Show teeth. Don't be weak and limp wristed. Blame the Democrats and media for the shooting. Whatever you do, don't let the foot off the gas. Organize pro police protests, do whatever. Everyone is sick and tired of this play. No one respects it. People just go through the motions because it's the only game in town and they're forced to participate.
These ideas are destructive to communism, which is a collectivist ideology. Christians are saying that you should love each other, and that people are all, each, valuable individuals—communism says you should love each other insofar as it serves the emergent gestalt that sits on top of it.
I think a communist would say that the opposite is true. To that extent the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is just wordplay.
Every communist values the individual. That's why they want communism. More freedom. More liberty. More happiness. They see the individuals freedom impeded by capitalism and, outside of catholic communists, religion. If love for our fellow men were elevated above love for money or our preferred rendition of Abrahamic religion, then we could much sooner get together and work towards a global change for the betterment of humanity.
Instead we get Christians with proclamations of moral supremacy, because they believe in abstract logical concepts. Or capitalists with proclamations of factual supremacy, since they can allege to best predict the outcomes of society. Neglecting to mention that these outcomes are derived from material conditions born from the very system they support.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I think these people have been in the spotlight for so long, mouthing other peoples opinions or regurgitating talking points, that when they are finally allowed to be themselves they don't know where and when to stop. They already stepped over the line to follow their convictions. That line was much clearer and held more immediate consequences than belief in flat earth Satan bigfoot or whatever.
If everyone gave an earnest list of views they hold or are curious about or share any sort of odd thing that gave them an emotion that they felt was worth exploring the umpteenth time they have to fill 30 minutes of dead air I think there is not a single interesting person left that doesn't hold to some odd belief. Hell, most people are so uninteresting that they would never get to a point of being a political talking head in the first place.
On the flipside, the lunacy people believe on 'the left' is no different. As an example: most people believe in a theory of human evolution that's much dumber, consequential and more immediately and obviously wrong than flat earth.
But more directly to Tucker, it feels like he's throwing away a sort of sacred status he built for himself. He could always present himself as kind of untouchable. From a persona perspective it's like he decided to give himself a weakspot. Feels like an odd thing to do for a man like him but, barring it being a conspiracy by TPTB to weaken a persona that's becoming too powerful, it's just a whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I think this is a typical case of boomer right wingers not recognizing how far behind the curve they are. They don't get to decide what is socially acceptable in the bio-leninist coalition. Those things are already long decided on before they are performed publicly.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not a fan of the moderation here in general. But it is here, and I'd prefer if it was applied to others as it's applied to me. To that end I'd already be out the door if I wrote like you did here about certain things I believed to be factually accurate.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I mean, it doesn't really. Rich people playing golf is a meme. He has all that time to get good at golf because he's not doing real work. He just passed a wealth threshold where his money works for him now.
It's not hard for a lefty to spin this as just another manifestation of Trump being a bad guy.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Most people would prefer the police shooting someone than being scalded, yes. I don't know how or if that fits your 'constitutional' priors.
Policing is whatever it has become. Its sanctity lies in its foundations and principles, not individual events.
Policing in the US has degenerated a lot to face third world challenges. Sometimes old ladies get shot. The police are still sacred, though, for all the old ladies that don't get shot. Or so goes the tale of why we need police in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons.
No one said this should be done. No one said this should be 'condoned', no one said anything about what you advocate.
By the same token I can accuse you of a similar thing. Hyperbolizing an event like this in an effort to throw a bunch of gasoline on an ACAB fire and then say you back the boys in blue. Which seems counter intuitive to me, but you do you.
You can stand by officers in cases like these by letting due process run its course, or by recognizing these cases as statistical outliers, or by recognizing that policing a third world population with a first world police force simply doesn't work. Not by swirling around in a media fueled frenzy. If your takeaway from any of the previous media fueled ACAB frenzies was that policing got improved or things got better in some way I'm not sure what planet you are coming from.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
What everyone believes of themselves is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. But taking what you say into account, with reporting that has just been displayed here, I'm confident in my statement, comparatively.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
This comment got reported a lot. Why?
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
As far as punditry goes, he was right on the money and deserves credit where due. Whatever that is.
Fuentes being in the ballpark of accurate wouldn't be a big deal, given how much pundits talk, except calling attention to this instance drives a lot of people towards needless argumentation and grievance. I'd be interested to hear what people want to be said instead, and by whom, in contrast to what Fuentes is saying. Given he can drive up so much ire even when apparently accurate.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
You can easily get modded for the gamer word here.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Buddy, I don't think you do. I specifically remember some of your reports which were based on nothing more than you not liking what was said.
I doubt it. I don't report a lot. And in a holistic review I'd wager over ~99% are good reports.
If you mean you think peoplecoughJews are "shamelessly" reporting people for anti-Semitism
No, I meant what I actually wrote, not your bad faith paraphrasing.
and I'd say Jew-haters and incels are actually much more prone to mash the report and downvote buttons.
I doubt what you are saying is accurate, given how antagonistic and petty you get over the subject matter. But on the flipside, people who criticize jews are, as far as I can tell, vocal and make arguments when allowed. Unlike what is displayed here. Regardless of how many are allegedly behind the scenes hitting the report button.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
I understand the point but in relation to Jeff Bezos you are not explaining how having a wife is easier than having paid assistants do all of the things that need to be done.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
My recently divorced coworker begs to differ.
It's hard for me to address your claims when you keep the intentionally vague.
As an example, you say that my descriptions of Caplan don't ring true. You don't say which ones, but one of them was obviously true: That the environment Caplan inhabits purposefully prohibits certain things from being discussed.
My problem here is that earlier in this comment chain you rested one of your claims on the fact that Caplan has done a lot of work within this gestapo environment to be a point in his favor. This irks me a bit, since instead of arguing against an actual argument I made relating to the fact that a person purposefully inhabiting such a stifling environment and that the work produced within is not 'serious', you ignore it.
Related to that, you assert I am not familiar with Caplan and his work. Insinuating that my lack of familiarity is a point against me. But by the same token, you assert that Caplan could probably not address these points publicly, given the environment mentioned above. So how could my alleged unfamiliarity with Caplan be of any relevance?
My description of Caplan was that he has not engaged with population group differences within the US and the lackluster result of immigration into the EU when it comes to his assertions. I, as a consequence, said he is not a serious person. I am, given all of this, at a loss as to how my descriptions are not true.
To top it all off: You, despite having allegedly far greater knowledge of his work, don't point to where he addresses these contentions. Instead you just spend one too many a comment floating the possibility that he has. Well, you now say he has written about them, but you're just not telling. OK man.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
'Real women' being hurt by the trans movement is not an unsung tragedy. It's the fife and drums of transphobia everywhere. Especially when it's coming from women.
Sports in general and the Olympics in particular have always had a large gray area when it comes to innate physical differences between competitors. Doesn't matter if its male/female or, thick or thin, tall or short. Instead of going into these differences in more detail the Olympics decide to live in muddy waters, which allows for incidents such as these.
In a broader context I find it hard to sympathize with anyone even remotely attaching themselves to this nonsense. People want things to 'stay the same' and not change whilst society around them is in the process of ditching whatever quaint conservatism they still hold on to. Whatever purity or sanctity is imagined to live within the Olympics is long gone or in the process of being removed. I mean, who knew the Swedes had such a knack for the long jump?
To an extent I agree with you. If seeing women getting hurt activates some almonds and folks want the display to stop, that's fine. But to pretend this is about sports or the sanctity of categories or whatever is just inane at this point.
More options
Context Copy link