hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Maybe it's just because I'm not in on the game enough, or that I'm getting bored, or that I'm a little too honest about being stupid, but I'm starting to get the same kind of vibes from these interviews as I get from listening to one too many interviews with 'science popularizers' and physicists talking about black holes and solar systems or whatever. At some point the endless stream of analogies, abstractions and hypothetical arguments just starts sounding like a 2 hour poem about math that I don't understand.
You can assure me it makes sense. You can explain to me how this new and exciting theory of the universe, that hinges entirely on mathematical assumptions, is like dumping a gallon of milk into a box of cereal before pouring it into the bowl, and I can maybe relate to that analogy because I know milk and cereal. But, again, at the end of the day I will never be able to relate that analogy to what is actually being talked about because all that's really there is theoretical math I don't understand.
These conversations seem to follow a similar but slightly different path of, there's no actual math, just assumptions being made about the future. The AI man says we are doomed if we continue. Here's a powerful analogy. Here's technobabble about code... Like, dude, you got me, OK? This appeals to my vanity for coffee table philosophical arguments and you are a credentialed person who sounds confident in your convictions. I guess we are doomed. Now, who is the next guest on Joe Rogan? Oh, science man is going to tell me about a super massive black hole that can eat the sun. Bro, did you know that a volcanic eruption in Yellowstone park could decimate the entire planet? This doctor was talking about anti-biotics and...
I don't want to come across as too belligerent, but all this stuff just seems to occupy the same slot of 'it feels important/novel to care'. I'm not going to pretend to understand or care any more than I would care about Yellowstone. I'll accept all the passionate believers telling me that they told me so when the inevitable mega-earthquakes happen.
But until then I'll just continue enjoying the memes that predate our inevitable apocalypse with the same urgency that the people worrying over AI show when enjoying yet another 4 hour interview, followed by days of more rigorous debate, over the ever encroaching extinction level threat that is AI.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
An analogous example would be if I called it only a jewish imposed cultural revolution. But I didn't. I spread credit where it was due. Unlike what you did in your examples on jewish achievements. This error is also present in the final paragraph of your reply.
Exactly, and the same thing is true about all bad things "The Jews" are usually blamed for.
What? So there are no great or influential jews, good or bad, just because the ones you named in support of your hyperbolic superhero-esque view on jews didn't invent or discover stuff in a vacuum on their lonesome? That seems rather silly to me.
Just like you claim the inventor of something bad was a 'gentile' I contend that I should be able to do the same if the person in question was a jew. I don't stand on the ground that no man can claim that an American, Frenchman, Scot or whatever else did something bad.
Yet whenever I make a claim that insinuates that jews did something bad, even when it is wrapped up in a claim that Americans also did the same bad thing, I get people weaving these transparent logic pretzels just so they can try to squeeze in an argument against an inconvenient fact that places their ingroup in an unfavorable light.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I think a part of the issue is that the blinders people put on themselves are precluding them from seeing the reality of the past. And instead always default to ingroup bias. Why is the 'now' better than the 'then'? Well, I perceive that my ingroup is stronger now than then. OK... Is that good, relevant or even true? Is the 'amount' of feminism in the world correlated with the things you like in practice? Or are we just chasing our pathologies and perceptions of what should make us happy whilst actually finding ourselves in situations that don't. Or worse, being so blinded by our perceptions and beliefs that we preclude ourselves from recognizing that they are a part of the problem.
For example, by exalting a mythology of how bad life was for women in the past because they had less feminism and freedom, or how bad life was in the past for blacks because of drinking fountain exclusivity, one is not creating a virtual reality that allows people to experience the reality of the past. One is just creating a victimary narrative that says ones ingroup was being victimized back then. A cogent example of this being the fact that blacks and women today are not modulating their emotional experiences of struggle against the patriarchy or white supremacy based on objectivity. They very much feel put upon. The 'system' is still very much against them. And to any end that it is too obviously not, we just invent new theories and mechanisms to explain and rationalize our victimary disposition. Quite literally, in real time, we invent a new reality. What a 'huge surprise' that it shares total emotional congruity with the alleged old reality...
Part of the observation being made, which I feel a lot of the replies to your post are missing the point of, is that the reason why women weren't choosing to look fondly at the past isn't because it was objectively worse time in the context of what was being discussed. You can still have superior mechanisms and social technology in the past despite not having running water. Pointing to the fact you don't have running water is not a relevant argument against those things. Yet that is what many women are allegedly doing with regards to evaluating everything with regards to 'feminism'. Which, in reality is just serving as a proxy for the perceived interest of the ingroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must? Not to talk for either of the aforementioned 'alt right' guys mentioned, but that sentiment is generally uttered as a description, not a prescription. And what generally follows is some opining on what should be done given we recognize it as true. So I'm not sure what your contention with that truth would be considering we just witnessed a black hobo who had enjoyed being 'strong' in the NYC subway arena get challenged and taken out by someone who is now facing the consequences for not recognizing the true strength of the black hobo, which lies in the social realm some very 'fine' jews and Americans have constructed for everyone to enjoy.
For instance, considering where the prescriptive part of the 'might makes right' philosophy comes into play, when it's me and my neurotypical non-assaulting homies on the subway vs the 'schizophrenic crime commitment squad' then I don't think we are drawing any lines in the sand that are too morally complex. With full recognition that I am not a black hobo, so I'm obviously taking my own side here, what exactly is the alternative? Wait for another Asian grandma to be pushed on the tracks? Live under the tyranny of the self proclaimed king of the subway car, who psychologically torments you for his own enjoyment? You can do that, and it is in fact being enforced as we speak. But since no one sane likes that, who should be strong?
In fact it surprises me to hear you point this out since it's a very popular argument for the types of people who dislike the 'alt right' types to go to when the 'alt right' types make their group preferences known. Which generally goes something like: ''ethnic group' commits a lot of crime, we should do something about that' Followed by the retort of: 'Why are you hating 'ethnic group'? If you don't like them because they commit too much crime, shouldn't you just hate criminals instead?'
But apparently, if you do hate the criminal, you are just a pathetic dweeb with a power fantasy? So therefor RIP Asian granny, the black hobo will now sing you the song of his people as he pushes you onto the train tracks? I don't get it.
It seems to me you are just calling Hoffmeister25 low status so therefor he shouldn't dare voice his feelings on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The problem here is that mass incarceration of the 'humane' variety isn't a realistic option. I mean, you can try to have a cordoned off village or facility filled with deranged schizophrenics but it won't last very long. These guys need constant supervision. If you don't want them burning things down or tormenting one another, usually the weakest and most vulnerable, then you are looking at very high costs.
Coming from a part of the Nordic world that is considered to treat their mentally ill in the most humane possible way, the system in place is constantly teetering on the edge of falling apart. It can not afford any higher ratios of mentally ill entering society. Even now there are a host of mentally ill people locked in jail for little other reason than a lack of other facilities to house them. The others are kept at facilities that house the criminally insane. The semi-functional ones are homeless. Benefitting immensely from the small scope of the homeless problem, they can be periodically checked on. If that wasn't the case the problem would get a lot worse.
Considering a Nordic country can barely handle the problem with it's relatively comfortable population, I don't see America finding any solutions.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I don't disagree with the advice in general, but specifically here, being physically fit can also lead you to a false sense of security.
There's a reason every single 'street fight' guru tells you to run away every single time if you can. Even if you are in shape, even if you know how to fight, you are potentially one moment away from a knife in an artery, just to name a single life ending risk out of a thousand.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
To both you and @aqouta , I feel like you are missing the point. You are still helpless sitting in the subway car whilst some maniac, hopefully I guess, molests someone else. 'Feeling like you could take them' is, again, just a false sense of security. Hoping that they will see you alone because you believe you look swole is, again, just a false sense of security. The actual problem, the schizo in the subway car, is still there. Feeling confident about your chances of not being the unlucky one to catch his attention, knife or a bullet is completely irrelevant to the actual problem.
Not saying this applies to either of you, but it feels like there is this sentiment dominating this thread of conversation that hinges on the idea that physically fit or fight capable people don't have power fantasies, or don't feel the constraints of society around them when faced with potentially physical altercations. They do. But the more smart or experienced of them usually recognize that choking out the schizo on the subway is a very risky thing. Not just in the moment but every moment after that. You kick the schizos ass and then what? Wait for him to find you on your regular commute? Ah, the schizo lunatic is holding a grudge against me, what a great spot to be in.
I can't stress enough, again, the feeling of security you get from having a high opinion of yourself is always liable to be false. You might be helping yourself improve your chances if you ever are unlucky enough get into a bad spot, but you are not getting away from all the other things that weigh everyone down anyways. Not to sound to bellicose but it's literally a cope.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
This is a willful misreading.
Your power fantasies are just that, the revenge fantasies of every bullied nerd ever, the copes of someone telling himself he's smarter and better and "biologically superior" to the jocks picking on him.
I can't read this statement to mean anything else. Maybe I'm retarded. Or maybe I'm just not a bullied nerd so I can identify with a lot of fantasizing, coping and seething due to perceived injustice without framing those fantasies through stereotypical jew Hollywood movie tropes about insecurities and the 'revenge of the nerds against the jocks'.
I agree with pretty much everyone that a schizophrenic homeless career criminal getting his ticket punched after harassing one too many people is no tragedy.
I didn't say you found it a tragedy or in any other way sympathetic. My point was that you are not answering the question pertaining to 'might makes right'. Either the schizos rule the subway or someone else. The police won't do anything about it, so what's the less wrong angle here? Sit in silence as yet another Asian granny goes on the rails? Your observation on being careful of the pointy sticks has long become irrelevant. There are pointy sticks. Now what do we do about them? Not in the abstract, not in theory. We know where schizo supremacy leads. Are we so certain that if otherwise law abiding citizens stand up for themselves against this tyranny without getting crushed by the system that we will have worse outcomes? I sincerely doubt it.
Where I live there is practically no military spending. The budget issue is centered around balancing debt with all the other things people rely on, like general healthcare. We could, instead of building a new hospital, just expand the facilities for the mentally ill. But there is an obvious cost there. Personally, I would much rather take the hospital and more doctors since there is a dire need for both.
I am sure the US is in a much worse spot than where I'm from. And could benefit from trimming a lot of the fat off the Pentagon pig, but my point was that even a Nordic model state could not fit the population proportions that the US had to deal with. Simply put, there are, proportionally, too many socially unfit. I am sure there is a solution or a fix that can better the situation by a lot. But unless people are willing to sacrifice some of their own safety and quality of life, I don't see a 'humane' solution like is often imagined existing somewhere in Europe.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Performance enhancing drugs or any other sort of 'doping' is a huge loophole for everyone competing in anything. Having natural born advantages is a loophole for everyone at the elite level. Swimmers aren't short, gymnasts aren't tall and nigh every single athlete worth anything has received some form of extra 'supplementation' to their 'diet'. None of that in any way opens the door for trans people to participate in anything since none of that changes the fact that trans people don't fit into the main categories.
If you are not a traditional woman or a traditional man you don't fit and are excluded. No one should need to leverage their ruleset against the demands of those who don't fit. There need not be a special category or a special class. Trans people are simply not allowed to compete according to their 'gender identification' because it falls outside the scope of the categories. If you want to compete, you need to follow the rules like everyone else.
On top of everything else, where do people get the idea that compromising or meeting the demands of a vocal politically motivated minority is in any way necessary or required? Like, why on earth should anyone even entertain some unsound logic pretzel that exists only as a thin veneer for the deconstruction of a century long tradition which is only being pursued so that trans people can 'express their gender identity'. It's total hogwash from start to finish.
Even in a good faith debate about the grains of gray that exist when categorizing men and women, trans people in no way, shape or form fit as a 'gray'. From their time in the womb to everything else. From the tips of their fingers, shape and size of their brain, to the soles of their feet. Men and women are not the same. Categories are never perfect, but that doesn't mean they are therefor subject to our own want and whim.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Trans people are the opposite of grey. They fit into a category with no issue. It's just not the category they want to participate in. This is opposite to an intersex person who can not find a fit in either category without issue.
To your point on opposite sex hormones, I think you are overstating the case a fair bit. But even if it was all as true, or even more true than you state, it would not change anything. Every single trans person that had a 'normal' body made a choice to disqualify themselves from traditional sporting events by altering it. No surgery or hormone can change the fact that a trans person is cutting into the development cycle of a traditional sex and altering it. It's possible to maybe get away with that sort of thing within a category, but to move categories? That's just moving out of bounds.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
When you take your own 'culture' for granted it might seem like others are 'distorting' the meaning of words. When in reality you were always a fish swimming in water.
The dialectic of 'white' left-right politics is over. The battle lines drawn around slight ingroup neurodivergence or the slightly different financial incentives of two neighboring municipalities that expresses itself as mild disagreement over questions like taxation and where to place the bridge are outdated. We are in the throes of a total redefinition of 'western' politics.
It's no longer a few teams fighting in the same sports league. We are now fighting between leagues over who gets funding. It's no use complaining that the basketball players are using their hands, those guys simply don't see European 'football' rules as applying to them. In fact, they see them as restrictive. And why shouldn't they? Why on earth should a basketball player accept a ruleset that takes away all their advantages? You can argue that your 'feet only' sport is the best or whatever, but that's obviously self serving even if you very dearly believe it to be true or even if it is by some objective metric true.
A real lie example of this where I live is trans people. If you belong to this group, in my very 'western' country, you can argue for special privileges for your group. These don't apply to anyone else. You are not seen as a political party or anything of the sort, that would otherwise exist in the 'normal' western political dialectic, no. Instead you are seen through the lens of 'victimary discourse'. And because you have a lot of marketing behind your victimary narrative, people cave in to your demands of receiving preferential treatment at the doctors.
The same is true for immigrants or any non-white. They exist as themselves. They advocate for themselves. They form group coalitions, they weave an animating myth of victimhood and grievance against white people and then they try their darndest to funnel everyone behind their cause. This dialectic isn't born out of circumstance or the natural curve of history. This is a pathological mode of group bias.
There is no onus on one group to adopt the language tradition of another. If it doesn't suit your group, don't use the language. Find something else. The outgroup is always evil, no need to call them good.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Reads like some amalgamation of AI and MK-Ultra coming together to write the most incendiary CW paragraph possible.
'A Karen with a potential abortion attempted to appropriate indigenous peoples culture right in front of a PoC! When the seasoning police caught wind the Karen lashed out in a racist tirade! Don't worry, justice has been served: she has been identified and suspended, and she will never be okay again.'
On a more relevant note, the NYPost reports she rented the bike. (As has been pointed out.) Otherwise it might be 'man bites dog' story of the year.
Elie Wiesel on intentionally lying and inflating Holocaust deaths:
"Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential."
On a related note, Germany Must Perish!
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The position described by The_Nybbler accounts for your type of "actual nuance".
To put my spin on it, I think it's important to recognize ones own biases and contextualize ones own thinking process. That doesn't mean our views and opinions stop being relevant or valuable, as much as they ever were. In fact, recognizing what we think and how we likely came to think it changes very little.
But on the flipside, recognizing that our minds are, most of the time, just playing third rate magician parlor tricks does wonders to help oneself realize that we are in fact not bending the laws of physics and we can in fact not read minds. We knew the card drawn was going to be the ace of spades because every card in the deck was the ace of spades because we, at some point, through whatever process, chose that deck to perform with.
To put that in context, here's your deck:
I think here is the key: some witnesses report that Neely was throwing trash at people. If that was actually the case, then I think that it was reasonable for Penny or anyone else to attempt to restrain Neely. If Neely was just ranting and threw nothing, then I am not so sure. This is all aside from the other question of whether Penny's particular method of restraint was reasonable.
The parameters of your 'nuance' are not accidental. They are not tethered to some objective metric linked to the fabric of reality. They are chosen by you. Now why did you choose them? Do you think it is likely Neely was throwing trash at people? I don't.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Mayor Adams Announces Plan to Combat Retail Theft in New York City
NEW YORK – New York City Mayor Eric Adams today announced the release a comprehensive plan to combat retail theft across New York City’s five boroughs. With the exception of 2020, the total number of citywide shoplifting complaints has increased year over year since 2018, with the largest increase — 44 percent — taking place from 2021 to 2022. The increase in retail theft has had a particularly significant impact on retailers that are still recovering from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Retail Theft Report — created through a collaborative effort between retailers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders that came together through a summit hosted by Mayor Adams at Gracie Mansion — includes both upstream, program-oriented solutions and enhanced enforcement efforts, as well as information on existing efforts across New York City agencies to combat retail theft.
From the Mayor himself:
“Last year alone, 327 repeat offenders were responsible for 30 percent of the more than 22,000 retail thefts across our city. This hurt our businesses, our workers, our customers, and our city. This plan will help us invest in diversion programs and in underlying factors leading to retail theft, works upstream to stop some of the factors leading to a crime before one takes place, trains retail workers in de-escalation tactics and security best practices, and takes numerous actions to increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts."
The plan is detailed as follows:
-
Establish two new diversion programs — “Second Chance” and Re-Engaging Store Theft Offenders and Retail Establishments (RESTORE) — to allow non-violent offenders to avoid prosecution or incarceration by meaningfully engaging with services to help address underlying factors that lead to shoplifting.
-
Install resource kiosks in stores to connect individuals in need to critical government resources and social services.
-
Launch an employee support program to train retail workers in de-escalation tactics, anti-theft tools, and security best practices to help keep them safe in the event of an emergency and to support employees who have been impacted by thefts.
To increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts, the administration will:
-
Create a Precision Repeat Offender Program (PROP) in which retailers can submit dedicated security incident reports to the NYPD to better identify and track repeat offenders and facilitate stronger prosecutions by the five District Attorneys’ Offices.
-
Establish a neighborhood retail watch for businesses in close proximity to one another to share real-time intelligence with each other and with law enforcement in the event of a theft. This program builds upon the NYPD’s Operation Safe Shopper initiative created under Mayor Adams’ leadership as Brooklyn borough president to expand video surveillance camera usage among participants.
-
Advocate at the state and federal level for additional online sale authentication procedures to prevent the resale of stolen goods to build upon the federal Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (INFORM) for Consumers Act, which goes into effect in June 2023.
-
Establish a New York City Organized Retail Theft Task Force, comprised of retailers, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders to collaborate and respond to retail theft trends.
From my end: What prompts this entire rigamarole in the first place? Why can't you just go to jail for repeat shoplifting?
On the other hand I have no relatable experience from my own environment with this sort of thing. Shoplifting was just something teenagers did to get a free Snickers, or the much more rare person stealing clothing. This kind of behavior seems so alien and weird. Can you really maintain 'normal' shopping culture with this sort of thing happening? Or will this be 'solved' by more technology and automation where the most you will see of what you buy is an image on a screen until you pay the machine. Moving us one step closer to real life idiocracy.
It would be more comforting if people actually applied a theory of mind to others instead of uncritically imagining that the outgroup is just a gang of monsters that exist on an emotional spectrum completely different from you and I. Worse yet is making the realization that your enemy is not like in the cartoons, and drawing the conclusion that this makes them even more evil. So evil, in fact, that it's hard to comprehend. The cartoons simply don't do it justice. It's very reminiscent of the 2007-12 internet atheism days where guys like Steve Harris and others would create scientific tests and moral theories about the inherent differences between the 'religious' and those who were not.
It's genuinely disheartening to see just how moronic peoples baseline sense of being is and how ineptly it is applied to other people. If evil is so banal and atrocity can be made so mundane, where does that potentially place your banal and mundane existence? The 'vegans' have the answer, we are all monsters because of factory farming. And so to does any group that cares a lot about X.
A more functional and useful view of this moral framework is that any group that has the power to dictate the moral framing of any issue can make these arguments. jew lives don't actually matter more than the Ukrainian lives jews exterminated during the Holodomor. All the Russians that died during the siege of Leningrad, all the Germans that suffered and died post-war. Comparatively they get no movies, no museums, no monuments.
The only factual realization that can be drawn from the everpresent bombardment of jewish victimary narratives is that jews care a lot about themselves in a way few others do. Simply put, other nations don't do this weirdo shit of constantly reminding everyone of how big a victim they were. It's weird. And in the few cases where it is being done it's for obvious reasons. Like Poland perpetually trying to bleed more money from Germany due to WW2. Or Russia grandstanding and accusing everyone else being fascist nazis. It's transparent and fake and people don't hesitate to point to the obvious motive behind it.
This jewish cause, and by extension the character of the jewish people insofar as it is perpetuated by them suffers greatly for this incessant propaganda. Not just for its weirdness, but also the history of lying about it to an extent that defies most peoples knowledge of history, despite how much the Hollywood made Holocaust makes us emotionally invested in the suffering of an insignificant number of semitic nomads.
The Alternative Hypothesis made a video on this topic. With a text version available. I've heard that the arguments presented come from Walter N. Sanning.
The general gist is probably best summarized on page 35 onwards of the text version. Long story short, the amount of jews Germany had access to in the Poland/USSR regions is lower than the amount of jews that are missing from the census. Attributing the deaths of 4.4 million jews to Germans who only occupied Polish/USSR regions with a total of 1.9 million jews is problematic.
As for 2, It depends on what you mean by "it". There were camps. They had guards. What exactly is not being denied and what does it prove? The Holocaust narrative that had already been 'litigated' during the Nuremberg Trials? Or the Holocaust narrative that didn't see the light of day until in the late 1960's? Or the Hollywood Holocaust that gets depicted in pop media? If the crime was putting jews into camps then they are guilty of doing that. That's not what Holocaust revisionism is taking issue with for the most part. So I don't see how its proof of any of the contested claims like the total number of deaths, specific number of deaths at specific camps, Zyklon B running through showerheads and whatever else any 'eyewitness' imagined.
The treatment of officials and public figures post-war is best illustrated by looking at someone undeniably influential like Carl Schmitt. Who was barred from teaching by the Allies since he refused to be 'denazified'. In broader terms I think your interpretation of what life was like for those who refused to bow their head to the new world order exists completely outside the bounds of reality.
If you wanted a life, which was hard to come by for a lot of Germans, going out in public and doing Nazi apologetics when you can barely feed your family is probably the last thing you do and very low on the list of immediate things to worry about. No matter how true your position could be. It's not like the German could go out there and post on twitter or make public statements about the kangaroo court that was the Nuremberg Trials on the radio. Or write about it in a newspaper, at least not without getting the same treatment as Schmitt got at the minimum.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I'm going to try and separate the rhetorical flair and the numbers, just for my own sake.
For starters, saying that it's "Sanning's numbers" when he quotes a source for said numbers obfuscates things quite a bit. Especially when it is present throughout the entire text. As an example, “Opinion of the Institute for Contemporary History” is not Sanning. They say 100k per year emigrating from Poland between a certain time period. Sanning repeats the claim made. You reference other sources, which give a lower estimate. This is not a competition between your sources and Sanning, which is how you frame things. This is a discrepancy between different sources.
Another example of this sort of thing being that the Polish government can matter of factly undercount the numbers of jewish births by up to 60-some percent and that's completely normal. But to consider they undercount the numbers of jewish emigrants by 80% is somehow very obviously in the realm of absurdity. If it is incompetent enough to do one why not another? For every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story reason for the opposite.
I'm sure Faulk and friends do this as well. But there's an obvious point to be made that everyone is transparently working towards separate finish lines through motivated reasoning.
To make a long story short, if the sources cited by Sanning are closer to reality than the sources cited by you, there is a matter of degree to which the question of 'where did the jews go' is answered. To that end I think the revisionist side has an obvious case that is based on sources and assumptions that are no greater or lesser than the ones used by exterminationists.
I fail to see how laymen can come to an obvious conclusion that the revisionist citations are not 'persuasive' in revising the holocaust narrative considering that, even if wrong to a degree, they would still exist as revisions to the total count and by extension cast aspersions on other claims made that rely on a minimum amount of jews present in the area Germany had access to.
I pointed out where you employed rhetoric and how. Maybe I should have pointed out how repeatedly accusing people of lying isn't productive to anything either so you could have dropped that as well. Otherwise I feel you are on a fast track towards the endpoint of all Holocaust arguments, especially for those who put a lot of time into the game, where both parties default to accusing one another of insanity.
I don't think all sources are created equal. Especially with regards to history. Which is why I said that there is not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. For starters I don't think the practice of looking at estimates like this is all that valid to begin with considering the error margins and the chaotic nature of events. All that is sufficient, from my point of view, is that the error margin for the discrepancy of 'missing' jews can exist as an alternative hypothesis to the question of 'where they went'. Which would also hinge on taking whatever estimates of the total number of jews to begin with as being valid. Keeping in mind that the question is open ended. To whatever extent jews went missing, there exists no baseline that necessitates they went into a camp and not somewhere else.
Any revisions downward seem to pose a rather obvious problem. Which prompts, in my view, a completely unwarranted confidence in any estimates that maintain a sufficient number of jews to fuel the holocaust narrative from the exterminationist side.
It is much easier to be born in a Jewish shtetl unnoticed than to get on a ship to Palestine or the US unnoticed.
Like I said, for every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story for another. What was being pointed out is the aforementioned unwarranted confidence in any estimates that fuel the holocaust narrative. 80% is 'absurd' not because you have any knowledge of actual events, but because it breaks too far from the baseline you need to maintain.
My standard for history is that historical evidence can be extremely bad. Battles and assaults during the war could go overlooked or misreported for decades despite them involving entire frontlines and death tolls in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. The largest tank battle of the war only existed as an anomaly for most of recorded history. To stand up with any degree of confidence and say that they know for sure, down to the 100k is the hallmark of someone who should reconsider their disposition towards what they are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Just saying "it was chaotic" is hand-waving.
Thankfully that's not what I 'just' said. As my point pertained to the general inaccuracies of demographic data collection in general confounded by the tumultuous times, where people were moving in great numbers. And not just via boats to Palestine and the US, as your reply suggests. This was said by me to further the broader point that claims of confident certainty, to a degree that the holocaust narrative seems to require to fill its minimum baseline of jews, are unwarranted. Admitting to a certain level of uncertainty with regards to the data in general seems much more prudent. But, again, prudence is not something exterminationists can afford.
Can I just chalk this misrepresentation of yours up to you being a liar? I say this half jokingly.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I've already made my point, you misrepresenting it again isn't very interesting to me.
On Trump:There was a very obvious tip-toeing going on with Trump and Christianity during the 2016 campaign. I wouldn't call the disposition of Christians to him a decline in their religiosity or a change of faith since that would place Christianity and religion in general on a pedestal it doesn't really occupy.
Being a 'good Christian' was always just as much about showing allegiance to the ingroup as it was about actually being a good Christian person. You can be accepted, as an outsider, to the ingroup as long as you demonstrate respect for and allegiance to it. Which is what Trump did. There's no hand of god involved with this. It's just ingroup/outgroup bias.
As for the boycott thing: it's an exciting change. From a broad perspective it seems like, to some extent, the American system has, though from a narrow populist standpoint at best, worked. As an example, white nationalism 2.0 was killed off in its infancy. Banned from all platforms. And to this day any resurgence or reinvention gets a very similar treatment. From an idyllic and naive standpoint, the 'system' was corrupt in that instance. But red tribe conservatism was to some extent left to live. Aside from the massive anti-Trump thing, and in part because of it, red tribe conservatives managed to fumble their way into organizing on Facebook. And from there, luck their way back on Twitter.
You don't need all that much meme power to appeal to a group of disgruntled folks who have been left politically marginalized for a long time. Remember the TEA Party? I mean, most of the chest pounding group affirming rhetoric had been relegated to a loser like Glenn Beck. Every other conservative avenue for proper group formation got strangled dead or acted as controlled opposition, at least in my lifetime. Caring more about 'respectability' than winning. But now there seems to be a soft resurgence of the red tribe conservative movement that is, to some extent, free of the mainstream media right.
Maybe I'm tying too much optimism to this. There have been multiple iterations of this old dog called 'conservatism' growling back at the leg that's kicking it. It's never amounted to much of anything. Assuming this will be different is naive. Especially since the whole 'gay' thing is a red herring for more unfixable issues like mass immigration, which has already 'doomed' the country. But having a common enemy is always a good baseline for organizing. Maybe the rainbow colored flag can act as a unifier for the red tribe as well. I certainly wouldn't mind the dog getting a good bite out of that sadistic leg before it finally gets put down.
A lot of the comparisons between Trump and DeSantis seem to rely on there being a consequential difference between them in power. I don't think that assumption is valid.
You can run a very explicit culture war campaign and 'actually do things' like DeSantis has done in Florida without doing anything of consequence in other areas. For instance, you can run a very traditional Zionist Heritage Foundation approved government that does nothing of value with regards to immigration and foreign policy and merely acts out on random anti-trans rhetoric. Can you imagine trans people not being allowed in womens sports and bathrooms? You can waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left. Otherwise the decline can proceed as normal.
Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him. Why do anything different? Pardon my cynicism but, is it for real now? Do we really believe? Are we fighting for real change this time?
No I'm talking about the point of contention in this thread specifically. I said that people pretend jews don't exist as a group when there is a negative implication in play. And that they play deconstructive games of nihilism instead. Which is never done when the association being made is positive, like you illustrated.
Which is the only form of discourse surrounding 'jews' that is even remotely acceptable. Your point is a step behind the conversation.
I mean, to make a long argument short and to skip over a bunch of nuane, population control needs to be a controlled demolition, not a natural disaster. It also needs to be universal. What is happening in Japan is a travesty on multiple fronts and does little to nothing to address the problem of overpopulation.
Some are, like a quick read on the history of Penicillin would tell you. Out of the 4 or 5 big players in that story there is only one jew. To put in perspective how silly your position is, it would be like me saying the post-war cultural revolution in Japan was entirely jewish. I'm not really sure if I should accept this as genuine. I mean, do I need to explain the importance of the legwork already put in place by gentiles that facilitated every single 'achievement' you link? All the co-authors and members of the various teams that worked on these problems?
But, again, this position of yours is at best supplementary to the point I was making. Jews would sooner take credit for things that make them look good even when they don't own all the credit, than they would own up to something negative they are solely or primarily responsible for.
More options
Context Copy link