hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I was under the impression that 'the left' was coming off an election win high. Can they not just continue to do what they are doing and win over and over again as right wing policies like 'legal immigration' hand them victories like in NY?
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Unless you have a large enough mountain range and/or jungle. In which case you win. On the flipside, it's hard to say if there have been many successful wars waged without patriotism.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Demonstrating bias in this context is very hard. For the most part the emotional resonance one picks up from weeks or months of accepting information from a biased source is hardly if ever a culmination of a singular aspect of that information. It's also the lack of information regarding some things, differential treatment of otherwise similar events, or the opposite. It generally tumbles along until your gut tells you that something is wrong. But by that point you're months deep into the information stream. Where it's practically impossible to do a comparison since you could not know that the source was biased or in what way.
To that extent this revelation is just a handy receipt of what everyone with a brain already knew, but could not confidently assert. To my mind a much more obvious example was the 3 day hesitation period after the Pakistani rape scandal was published about in British newspapers.
That hesitation period was very reminiscent of Swedish news publishing at the time, that centered around minimizing negative backlash against migrant crime. Which in and of itself was based on a theory that if migrants could be accepted and integrated into Swedish society, the true social cause of the crimes would be dealt with. In contrast, news publishing that stoked negativity towards migrants would only hinder integration and acceptance. I always liked that theory and its practical application as it demonstrated just how insane the progressive/neo-liberal economic project is in practice, and how inhumane and sadistic the necessary policies to sustain it are.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
You are making the maximally antagonistic accusations against people to maintain an argument. That just doesn't track with me when I try to relate this to actual people. I'm not under the impression that every man or woman is perfect. No system fits all. But when we are doing a compare and contrast with the goal of finding a solution to an existential problem you have to give some form of answer that doesn't just amount to 'boo outgroup'.
If you think modern Korea is trad or that Poland isn't socially liberal, or that the TFR of Poland is in any relevant way worse than Sweden or France after accounting for immigration, you need to recalibrate.
Yes. "Traditional gender roles suck and are outdated. Stop enforcing them."
How will the rejection of traditional gender roles impact warfare in a way that reduces the need for cannon fodder? Won't the nations that maintain a strong army just get ever stronger if other nations strip away their military capabilities? Isn't that partially why Russia could invade Ukraine? I don't see how this can maintain itself.
At the very least, if you claim to value women, treat them adults with an equal say rather than some cross between property and a child you can fuck.
Is that not how all these modern problems are happening? Is that now why we are looking towards a future where there are less native men and women in general? My proposition would be that if these are the results we are getting from the answers men and women are giving to their modern predicament, we must be asking the wrong questions.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Men had prior to the sexual revolution tried to maintain systems of chastity and monogamy for the past few thousand years or so. Being marginally successful at the same time they marginalized women enough to keep the system going. Then, correlating with a rise in women's empowerment and finally culminating at a time of unprecedented power of women, during the 1960's, it all officially went tits up. And you say that this happened because men just wanted casual sex. But I'd ask: When did they not want casual sex?
The traditional system worked by restricting access to sex in any way it could. These systems were explicitly weakened and torn down by women. That's what women empowerment is practically defined as. One could agree it's not just the women. There were venomous actors involved in the process as well. But I don't see how women escape culpability here, given the only systems shown to work rely on constricting women and access to them in some way, and the history of the modern women is proudly defined as the revolt and destruction of these systems.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
To make another observation on top of that, you only ever see the kind of observation you are making in a vacuum that doesn't also factor in that men have a lot of duties in a more traditional system. The accusation that the "gender-role conservatives" would be quick to reject traditional masculine obligations seems quaint given that we have historical and modern examples of men being put to that test. Sure, some run, but most accept their place in the meatgrinder of whatever war being foisted on them.
Do the detractors of "gender-role conservatives" offer any argument in relation to this fact? Should the women of Ukraine be obligated to have children in the name of their society after a sizeable enough percentage of men have proven their mettle as cannon fodder? Or are the womenfolk free from any costly duty to society regardless of anything?
One can easily agree that there are a great many ailments afflicting all sorts of people making arguments over the internet. What I don't see is how in a broader context, one can look at the modern setup of alleged male and female freedom and the demonstrably disastrous consequences and say that this is fine. It's obviously not fine. So what should the "gender-role conservatives" be saying?
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside. Lines like this from the interviewer:
You’re talking about Biden like loyalty was owed to him. Isn’t loyalty owed to the country?
Wow, what a shitball of a question.
This comes after KJP maintains that the Democrats had no idea if they had a better candidate than Biden. Which has to be considered at least somewhat true. So points to her for that.
Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even. She's a fish out of water and the interviewer is hammering on that fact again and again. To a point where it obvious, which KJP picks up on at the end of the interview:
KJP: When I talk about the broken White House in the subtitle, I’m talking about the Trump White House. So what are the Democratic leadership actually doing to beat back and fight back? What are they doing?
IW: I’m not here to answer for the Democratic leadership. I would—
KJP: You’ve been answering for the Democratic leadership. [Laughs.] You were giving me their answers.
I think these final lines sum up the interview quite well. A politically daft operator and a democrat establishment shill embarrassing one another. Sure, KJP was floundering throughout the interview, and I'm sure the book seemed incoherent to those who feel which way the winds blowing politically, but getting caught off guard by a political hitman in a hostile interview can happen to anyone.
To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.
hanikrummihundursvin
20d ago
At that point it's all incentives and the term becomes meaningless in describing peoples motives. Since by the same token you can say that an honor system incentivizes revenge killings or that a modern Scandinavian system incentivizes crime by being too lax with punishments whilst also doing the opposite. It collapses reality into a system based thinking that makes no sense and has no predictive power since it takes no account of what people are thinking or doing on their own terms.
hanikrummihundursvin
21d ago
The standard of old law in Iceland had little to do with incentive structures. It was an honor based system. People will feud. Legal recourse was there to end feuds in a way that maintained both parties honor. If you killed someone without a representable cause the law had no leverage to assert over the representatives of the victim, they could kill the would be murderer if they had the means. You would be much more likely to see legal pressure put on both parties after the revenge had occurred so that the feud could end. And that's not counting for family relations and politics that would play a big part in the process.
hanikrummihundursvin
24d ago
Things have been moving fast for the past two decades, that doesn't mean everything has happened.
In either case it's besides the point. The emotional weakspot of breastfeeding is obvious in this context. Not wanting to make those who can't breastfeed feel bad is exactly the type of thing that skews the lib/left/progressive academia to churn out bad research.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
And having been around a person who could not breastfeed, the only reassurance that can possibly be offered is 'it doesn't really matter' and 'babies that are breastfed also get 'gastrointestinal upset' all the time, it's not your fault'.
I don't disagree that we are in the "breast is best" era, but the subject is nevertheless ripe for political correctness to overtake it.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
It's a subject ripe for a more classic 'political correctness' to overtake it since there are mothers out there who can not breastfeed and the notion that these loving parents are depriving their children of optimal nutrition and upbringing is charged to say the least.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
Your position can only be taken as substantive if one believes that there is some degree of separation between X and Y. No one can demonstrate this because no such separation exists. It's just young people. The only real difference is how the Overton Window is positioned.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Accounting for cost, rail is out of the question. Which is why the city has been organizing the future around buses.
The problem is less getting to a store, and more getting to and from work. Because there is not enough parking space you have increased foot-traffic during rush hour around the area, as people who park in the vicinity need to get to their cars. That's compounding an already worsening state of traffic year over year.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
It certainly feels that way. The 'build more housing' crowd is in full swing where I live in Scandinavia. Usually coupled close with the 'walkable cities' phenomenon.
It's an odd feeling to be stuck in traffic for hours on end in a city of about 300k, on road going through what used to be an industrial area but is now filled with multiple 5+ story high apartment complexes in various states of construction. Where are all these extra cars going to go? It was bad enough already, one wonders.
Well, the city council, on the bleeding edge of progress, decides to deal with traffic by making one lane of an already very busy road a 'bus' lane. So now they feel emboldened to lot these new apartments with 0.4 parking spaces each. Meaning there are cars parked everywhere around the area, as they obviously can not all fit around the apartments. This increases foot traffic around and across the busy road. So every time someone presses the button on a crosswalk, the lights go red, congestion increases even more.
Dense housing - one lane + extra foot traffic = ???
Well, lets hear it, what were they thinking? A member of the city council, speaking in defense of new public transport centric city plan, said that a part of the problem was to do with values. There was a need for a radical confrontation with how people look at and organize their lives. It can not all be centered around cars. Well, are they completely wrong? Maybe not.
Similar to how one can argue that how we view addiction and drugs is wrong. That it's a disease, not a crime and so forth, one can say our relationship with cars and transport is wrong. It's a broader more novel philosophical argument that might not be incorrect, and certainly sounds fair minded and appealing. But to assume therefor that all the relevant factors have been accounted for has shown itself to be lunacy that costs lives.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Paying out the nose for it would in theory be fine. Since you're paying to your own citizens. Funding infrastructure and human capital and more.
But in reality, implementing anything of the sort would is hazardous at best. As the global marketplace would slowly siphon these gains out of the economy. Resulting in a very similar process to the direct selling of natural resources, just by a thousand cuts.
When you look at the tenets of Liberalism you can see Trump is a liberal. A soft one, but one none the less. George Bush was also a liberal to a large extent.
Yes, not only are They doing the Great Replacement, but also they have picked immigrants which will reliably vote for the Democrats for the next 1000 years. Everyone knows that Latinos have the commie gene, after all.
Yeah, maybe in a 1000 years democrats will have figured out how to reach the youth? I mean, apologies for the snark but I'd argue that it's our more immediate circumstance that make this topic relevant. Also, as an edited side note, the genetic impact on political ideals relating to collectivism and individualism is very real.
In the real world, things are different.
How? The brown youth consistently vote democrat regardless. That cold hard election data year in year out, ongoing for what, decades?. On top of that, Middle Easterners who vote for a 'right wing' authoritarian in their own country vote left in the country they migrated to.
So yeah, maybe in a 1000 years, when the last white man in the world is dead and buried and can no longer act as the evil boogeyman, the brown folks, being unburdened by his white supremacy, can finally act in accordance with their true faith?
Also, in a two-party system, both parties will adapt until they are seen as a viable alternative by the median voter. For example, neither party is campaigning on repealing the 19th because that would be immensely unpopular.
Right, but considering our usage of ideological terminology like 'right wing' what does that mean? The republicans will need to appeal to the ever more brown voting base that wants things the democrats are promising them. So what will become of the Republican party? How can it pretend to be 'right wing' at that point?
I feel like this only underscores how ethnic replacement has been a winning democrat strategy.
I'm not seeing it. If the democrats could field another Obama the Republicans would get annihilated. If it wasn't for huge blunders like Harris and Hillary, and Trump being a lightning in a bottle candidate.
When push comes to shove, most young people in the western world are loaded up with liberal/leftist/progressive priors. You just need to properly activate them. To that extent Trump doesn't even represent a real world right wing movement. It's just soft liberalism with a lot of bloviating.
To top it all off, the only youth demographic that isn't completely in the tank for democrats is shrinking. Ethnic replacement was a winning strategy and the only thing Democrats need to do is wait.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I could live with YouTube comments if they didn't randomly get deleted by the algorithm.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
It would be a much more worthwhile post to delve into why these YouTube 'philosophers' of yesteryear stopped doing what they were doing.
One thing to note would be that almost half of these creators stopped doing what they were doing because of altercations with voices that were further to the right.
Such as Kraut organizing a secret discord server to finally lift the veil on scientific racism once and for all, and in the process torching every single 'liberal' ethos one can think of. Down to meticulously deleting every single negative comment on the videos he made on the topic. Videos that were full of errors, both factual and conceptual, that left one wondering how on earth this man ever captured anyone's ear.
Or Sargon, who championed the freedom of speech of rape jokes all the way to national television in the name of an already established political party. At a time where most right of center minds were fixed firmly on the mass rape of young British girls at the hands of immigrants. Becoming publicly known as 'UKIP rape joke man'. A mass rape that Sargon claimed was always going to happen regardless of immigration. As if there was some invisible hand in the sky that doled out rape to meet a quota. I think it's fair to say Carl Benjamin has moved on to much greener pastures with traditionalism rather than holding on to his half baked 'Liberalist' philosophy.
To that extent it's hard to understand how most of these guys ever got anywhere outside of just being loud voices that spoke against feminism in an appealing accent (or not, Vee and Layman sound terrible). But considering how obviously out of depth they were when it came to anything that wasn't a howling feminist, I think we are better for them being gone. Hell, maybe they didn't even do anti-feminism all that well either. How would one know?
Regardless, Asmongold does the slop better, and there are plenty of right wing voices that do genuine political content better. I don't miss the awful political commentary at all, which was only designed to tactfully place somewhere safe from the 'extreme right' and the 'lunatic left'. Without ever saying or believing anything relevant or real.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm not fully aware of the nuance here. So the context of when and where matters? You can't just call and 'confess' over the phone?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
But then the dad allegedly tells a member of the clergy who then notifies the authorities, according to the article.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Two law enforcement sources tell CBS News, the BBC's US partner, Tyler Robinson's father relayed his son's confession to a clergy member - the family friend we heard about earlier.
That clergy member took the tip to the US Marshals Service, and then Robinson was detained.
Is this allowed from a religious standpoint? Beyond that, would the shooter have gotten away with it if not for yapping to his dad, or his dad yapping to a clergy member?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
His twitter engagement is pretty insane. Having many haters does not necessarily mean you're not popular.
The right wing is sailing through an interesting storm at the moment.
On one hand you have a very public clash between the donor class and the pundit class on the topic of Israel. Where the donor class seems to have lost control over a portion of the latter. How or why is not necessarily clear but it seems like the long awaited beacon of solace that can deliver the USA from ZOG is finally lit. It took a decade or so longer than the earliest prophets would have hoped, but the internet is finally facilitating a mainstream zionist critical stance through some of the biggest right wing pundits in cyberspace. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Nick Fuentes.
On the donor side, we still have Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on FOX standing strong in televised media. With Mark Levin allegedly making a case for himself on the radio waves. Along with Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire. But all of these voices are far less impressive when it comes to internet reach. Whilst Shapiro does have a strong base and a large Youtube channel, the internet presence of every mentioned donor class pundit, along with the entirety of Daily Wire, fits snugly within Candace's Owens reach alone when it comes to active internet views. Which would be inconsequential if not for the fact that the youth of the republican party is not listening to radio or watching TV. They are on the internet.
It's worth noting that there are large portions of the right wing media sphere that are completely divorced from this discourse. Choosing to simply sail past it. To that extent it might be a step to far to say the right coalition or media sphere is crumbling. But judging by how things are developing, the topic of Israel is fast becoming something to avoid. Why risk saying something wrong on such a polarized topic and risk the ire of the youth mob or the zionist mob? Just keep your head down and talk about the loony left or the government shutdown.
There are plenty of online right wingers with large followings who are doing just that. What will be interesting is to see how much cross contamination there is between those shows and the zionist critical ones. But to that extent, any expressed support for Israel is effectively a step towards a landmine that risks blowing the discourse up again. This puts neutral pundits in an awkward position. What good are they to the donor class if they can't voice support for their cause? But on the flipside, what good are they to the donor class if they fracture and lose their own audience?
I doubt we will see any resolution soon. Barring any major blunders from the zionist critical side, which is not that unlikely all things considered. But it's hard to imagine that this won't leave a lasting mark on right wing politics. There is an entire right wing generation on the way that simply doesn't fit within the traditional GOP mold. And it's the one demographic they would have dared to rely on. Whether that will have a transcendental effect, or if the future political landscape of the US will be too alien to have it make a difference...
American politics is so much fun. I have a hard time believing it's real.
More options
Context Copy link