hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
The Funko Pop economy is booming.
The point is not that they were 'slow' to develop. Rooney, for instance, was very mature physically as a teen. The point is that they demonstrate a development curve that doesn't peak at 18 but rather ~25. Unlike many of the African prospects that go through academies as stars and then seemingly plateau or completely fall off after 18.
So if we take that concept and apply it to a more average European academy player, how are they supposed to demonstrate their 'potential' if they are competing against players who've already peaked? If both are similarly skilled at 18 but one is done developing and the other has years of improvement left then we're reaching closer to the issue.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Why would that make them bad examples?
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Yeah, Rooney is not the clearest example as he probably matured faster than most in his age group, and he was physically capable enough at 16 to play with adults. But as you say, he kept on developing mentally. He wasn't just his physicality and I'd argue that many of his best performances didn't even revolve around his goal scoring ability which is what defined his earlier years.
And whilst it is of course true that youth stars of all stripes don't always live up to the hype, there's a difference between talent like, for example, Januzaj and the examples I gave. Whilst Januzaj had a lot of hype, he ended up being a middling player at the top level. That's a far cry from never even making it to the top level after being sandwiched in accolades between Toni Kroos and Bojan at 17 like Macauley Chrisantus. Not that a professional career in 2nd division football is a failure by any means. But it's certainly not living up to the imagined potential.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I don't think many people notice that American soldiers are blacker than the general population, where the armed forces are 17% black and the general population 13%. In fact I'd wager most would not think such a thing at all considering blacks are underrepresented as frontline troops, sitting at around 10%.
A quick nitpick:
Every European country values youth football. Nations like Norway and Croatia are not exemplifying a distinction by having a good run this WC. Smaller nations periodically field strong teams, usually due to a coincidence of a talented generation synergizing at the right time to fit the right tactic. What historically separates the "big" football nations is their sheer depth.
A larger talent pool allows managers to select players who fit a specific structure, rather than being forced to field every decent player they have out of necessity and then organize around it. They are also more tactically flexible, whilst the current Norway squad, for instance, would find itself lost without Haaland at the top, there would be no lack for creative midfielders for Spain. Ultimately, no country in Europe treats football as meaningless. Every major club and most minor ones run professional and serious youth academies.
A more general thought on youth academies and the representation of foreigners:
What the mainstream often ignores about youth development is the role of HBD.
Many Sub-Saharan African players mature physically at an earlier age, making them dominant in youth cohorts. Whilst undeniably talented, their early physical advantages can skew academy recruitment. As clubs increasingly fill limited academy slots with these early-maturing players, local European prospects find themselves competing for fewer opportunities.
This can manifest in predictable ways. Where, to take an American example, dynasty establishing talent like Tom Brady can only shine through via high resistance to adversity. Or where team defining players like Travis Kelce are far from first picks. This early peak contrast becomes clearer in adulthood. Players who relied on early physical dominance at the youth level and are described as having a lot of 'potential' often plateau after 20. Meaning there was no 'potential'. They were at their peak at 17 to 20.
The most extreme examples being Freddy Adu, Macauley Chrisantus and Dominic Adiyiah. All extremely accomplished on the youth level with golden boots and the whole charade, but falling off a cliff when the physical advantage wasn't there for them to rely on. Compared with European players with 'potential' like CR7, Messi or Rooney that had 'potential' as teens and then hit their stride in their mid 20's. There is an obvious skew there despite the many variables and complexities of football.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
The Death of Nationality is the Death of Meaning
This identity crisis is endemic at all levels of the game. It starts at the lowest level, where local coaches are wont to scout outside their townships and communities to plug squad gaps. Which can eventually leave supporters wondering who exactly they are cheering for when none of the players on the pitch are local. This trend scales all the way to the top, where elite clubs deploy international scouting dragnets to vacuum up global talent.
Leagues try to patch this wound by mandating "homegrown" player quotas, while clubs aggressively market their academies as 'local'. But these measures are at best bandaids when the 'local' academy prospects are ethnically foreign anyways.
This lack of organic connection has fundamentally altered the mentality of the modern player. Today's game lacks the raw, tribal intensity of previous eras. Most notably exemplified by the 'Golden Generation' with players like Roy Keane*, Steven Gerrard, John Terry, Gary Neville, Paul Scholes and Frank Lampard to a lesser extent played with a borderline obsessive ferocity. The tribalism was so severe that it actively sabotaged the English national team where the players didn't even socialize or eat together, discounting Keane who is Irish.
You might say that's a weakness, and it obviously was. But it was also beautiful. A human story that contextualized an era.
All of this is to say that when football relies entirely on global mercenaries, when the goal is for the symbol of the team to win, you lose the ability to build genuine dynasties or narratives. Without a shared local or national identity, victory becomes sterile, and the emotional connection between the fans and the pitch is severed. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy things. But it's a level below the 'original'. The true story is with the homogenous teams that represent the essence and effort of distinct people and everyone watching feels it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I feel like music and movies share the same feature in that as soon as you give anyone involved an ounce of reverence or respect a part of your soul dies.
The list should all be Taylor Swift. She writes the best songs in her niche of 'all white women' and it's not even close. Except #3 which should be Fred Durst, for managing to take the essence of angsty rock rap and properly commercialize it without pretending to be a gay communist. #1 and 2 should be shared between Henry Wayne Casey and Eminem for showing the world that white people do black people better.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
One could presume that Iran knows that as well. So the assumption they would sacrifice themselves to nuke Israel is, again, a very unfounded prior.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
It's a big deal for a US foreign policy that's predicated on certain ideological priors that maintain that Iran is an existential threat. I don't find those priors very convincing.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
So the revised best case scenario is that with very minimal 'cost of war' for Iran, the regime crumbles. I don't find that scenario very likely and I don't believe the hawks proposing boots on the ground believe so either. But one can always hope.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
So the best case scenario for the US hawks is a mass casualty and refugee event caused by crippling strikes on infrastructure.
The war goals achieved by this event are the dissolution of the current Iran regime which will potentially prevent Iran from making Nukes. Beyond that there are no guarantees without actual boots on the ground nor are there any relevant beneficial effects for anyone that is not deeply invested in the interest of the state of Israel and its hegemony in the middle East. All anyone gets is cost.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
PhilosophyTube is the best example of a modern Patrick Bateman and it's not even close. It would be the perfect act in a modern rendition of American Psycho to weave in the alleged reason for his transition.
In the context of a western society I don't think genital mutilation has any place. On top of that the proliferation of drugs and the effort from trans advocates to have minors take them makes me question the safety of allowing them easy access to them. But it goes further than that.
Trans advocacy is in a corner right now. They've tethered themselves to the idea that the best way for a trans person to escape their male body is to go on hormone treatment very young. It makes sense biologically from a 'looksmaxxing' perspective, to borrow a term, but this flies in the face of any civilized conception of children and their ability to make decisions for themselves. If they had been more responsible and sane then I'd feel differently about their easy access to hormones. But as things stand? On one side trans people are a coalition of consenting adults with agency who decided to direct energy towards legalizing permanent body modification regimen for children, on the other a medically destitute group of mentally suffering victims on the verge of suicide. In neither case do I feel comfortable giving them easy access to permanent body modification or drugs.
To complicate things further, a lot of trans people will never pass. Giving such people 'trans affirming care' is a waste of time and effort. I could only support hormone treatment for a specific subset of trans individuals who have a chance at passing. And even then I find the entire endeavor morally questionable considering the implications of what happens to a human body after the age of ~35.
In real terms, with the most charitable interpretation possible for the trans side where we are talking about sexually a-typical but otherwise rational and well adjusted people who are not binding themselves to any hostile political message and are just looking to aesthetically please themselves in a safe and controlled way, we are essentially talking about looksmaxxing a select few men into looking like young women so they can sell themselves on social media or engage in sex work for a decade or so before we meet a line of hard reality modern medicine has not yet figured out how to address. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort to me.
To contrast that with something that I would find worthwhile: Giving young men testosterone that would lead to them not be depressed and alone and instead push them towards being productive members of society that make families. What is the case that makes transing people worthwhile? Because I genuinely don't believe that the ratio of potentially passable non transed people who would otherwise commit suicide is in any relevant way aided by the procedures we have today if we look at things long term. Outside of a few social media stars and sex workers who can leverage their unique status to make enough money. Nor do I believe that transing unpassable people is going to alleviate their woes. Since they will have to face the day and go to work knowing full well that they look off.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
I am all in favor of QoL or beautifying surgeries for mothers relating to their pregnancy.
I think doctors should look at broadening the scope for administering steroids to men insofar as it can be of benefit to them. That being said I believe the amount of men that would benefit from using steroids is small. Most of them just need to exercise.
I don't understand the implication of a medical right in this context. For instance, you don't need a medical right to buy a plane ticket and pay out of pocket for whatever cosmetic surgery you want.
If you are digging at a point with these questions I've missed it and you must spell it out for me.
To borrow some lefty terminology, a lot of people carry around a lot of emotional trauma. The idea that you should leverage that via threats of suicide to get other people to rearrange their lives around you or otherwise directly pay for cosmetic surgeries for you to get you over your trauma isn't the positive argument trans advocates think it is.
Following that is the simple fact that you don't need to exist as a sexual entity. Plenty of obese people turn asexual because they understand on some level that their obese body will never be what they want. Even if they lost weight, it would be a disaster of loose skin and morphed body parts requiring surgeries they can't afford. They don't want to have sex with their body anymore so they just don't. It's sad, it's traumatic, they still wake up and face the day.
The line between being a sad but relatable human being and being a narcissistic sociopath gets crossed by most trannies when they huddle together and start demanding privileges for their group and not others. They don't campaign on changing the classification of a lot of cosmetic surgeries from cosmetic to necessary. No, they just want those things for the trans. No consideration for anyone else but them.
On top of that, white men have held the high score on the suicide charts for a long time now. Did any tranny advocate ever allow that fact to sway them one way or another when it comes to the anti-white political projects they seemingly all participate in? No. Not once ever. So why should any white man be swayed by the argument when we change suicide victims? Trans people invoking suicides are not invoking an objective standard but their own ingroup preference for themselves.
Trans-advocacy exists as a group entity hostile to practically everything that allows trans people to exist in the first place. It's woven itself together with nigh every nihilistic anti-white political ideology that exists. If they had any semblance of kindness for the other they would not advertise their transness as anything other than a disease to be avoided. But as has been the case with the many chat groups that form around their identity, they are more interested in spreading their ailment than preventing it. Like a 'health at every size' advocate that presents obesity as healthy right up until the day they die from their obesity.
Maybe some people are obese because they genuinely have medical issues that cause them to gain an absurd amount of weight. And maybe some trans people are a #10. But the idea that this is what the trans identity advocates are representing, just like the idea that HAES is presenting healthy big boned folks, is an obvious falsehood.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
How many marines do you know? Because it's actually not that unheard of in those circles.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
I don't know how many red coded men there are in Maine, but I've observed the backlash against #MeToo from those circles morph into support for anyone who gets accused of sexual harassment. Platner might have had a chance with that sort of crowd if he fronts a bit more tough and masculine, which should not have been outside of his wheelhouse. And considering his opposite number Susan Collins is a woman, he might have been able to steal some votes. But now that he's out... eh.
All in all I'd code this as the Democrats in Maine coming out on bottom. Any hardline Platner fan will walk away from this scorned. But considering that Susan Collins is a staunch supporter of Israel, it might not even count as a loss in the eyes of Liberal Zionists on the establishment left.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Say, how do you like the Belgians now?
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
It's generally seen as ill mannered and out of touch to go digging into the past for grievance with anything relating to politics. So I don't think Leopold has much to do with it. Football is its own history.
It's hard to say. I can only speak for myself in that they are a bitch to lose against. They usually have very strong teams on paper, but they also never go the distance to actually win. For smaller countries to have their miracle runs ended by Belgium instead of the 'big teams' is very anti-climactic. For bigger teams to lose against Belgium is similarly disappointing. It feels like you've been robbed of all the romance and drama of seeing two big teams duking it out. Instead you get... Belgium.
Americans and their ability to front as the best and strongest country in the world whilst also being the worlds biggest victim is unmatched.
Trump is not a popular figure. Neither is FIFA. Seeing them shake hands over the US team is like getting a letter of recommendation from Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein on your ability to manage a summer camp for girls.
No one likes the Belgians. Seeing them lose to the Americans would be great. But that would be quite enough for most people. And you should be courteous enough to pack your bags and leave when you're done.
I'm not going to pretend I know or understand every link in the chain. But there is an undeniable pull from that direction and it's coming at a genuine cost to the establishment dems. So what gives?
The left is in the middle of a small civil war right now because of Israel. If the zionists weren't doing some yanking, why doesn't the establishment on the left dump the Israelis? Why do democrats keep voting in favor arms deals with Israel or clap for Netanyahu when their base hates him? It doesn't make much sense when you look at the electoral state of things. With 30 year incumbents like Diane DeGette suddenly losing to folks like Melat Kiros who was campaigning on being pro-Palestine you need an explanation.
MS NOW is pandering to the Democrat base. CNN panders to the Democrat establishment. The veil of credibility was always a sham. People used to care a lot about the aesthetic of 'journalistic integrity' and being rational, responsible and credible. But that's less of a concern for people nowadays. It has often been said that the entire 'don't be a crazy person' thing died the same day Christopher Hitchens did. Not to speak too highly of his flawed character.
My conspiracy brain believes that it's a controlled setup. There is a conception of the left media ecosystem as an emergent reality. All the actors play their role to keep it alive by providing as broad a tent as possible to keep as many people captive inside as they can. You need to make everyone comfortable. You can't do that by broadcasting division within the tent or having too small a tent. So everyone gets their corner of affirmations. But why?
When push comes to shove, you have everyone politically active there. You can make broad appeals to a shared crisis or enemy. Which is what happened with Trump, as an example. There is no 'news' there per se. That's just not what these media outlets are supposed to do. They're there to keep you captive until you are needed. The conspiracy part of my belief is that these media outlets have their chain yanked by the same hand.
This is a necessary context to understand media. It also helps explain why Musk buying X was so important. It gave the base on the right a place to organize. A place to make calls to action. A tent. Without that there was just 4chan, Talk Radio and Fox News. And out of the three 4chan was the only platform that wasn't explicitly in the pocket of zionists and the Heritage Foundation, though I repeat myself. The larger and more unanswered question on the right is who is yanking the chain over there. Which would help us understand the shifting media landscape on the right in recent years and why it's suddenly not banned everywhere like it used to be.
It’s also worth remembering that smugly smirking pricks are actually great when they agree with you. So the goal here is not to pretend to be some logic lord that can not be captured by any smile or contained within any tent. Just to remember that when you are hunkered down under the canvas, the constant pitter-patter above can make it incredibly easy for people to believe that it’s raining, especially when everyone inside agrees that it must be. When, in reality, it’s just the overlords of the media ecosystem sprinkling our tent with water.
I guess it really has been a hard time. Now that I think about it It's been a while since I saw subscription box videos on YouTube. But looking at the data, the market has been growing...
Edit, looks like it's the general geeky and more frivolous 'loot box' side of the equation that has crashed. But people still sub for makeup and razors at a growing rate.
More options
Context Copy link