hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
9d 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
10d 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
13d 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
14d 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
14d 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
18d 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
21d 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
22d 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
23d 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
1mo 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
1mo ago
But then the dad allegedly tells a member of the clergy who then notifies the authorities, according to the article.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo 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
1mo ago
His twitter engagement is pretty insane. Having many haters does not necessarily mean you're not popular.
It's not so much the switch that rusted off, more that it is routinely glued stuck to make sure it can not be flipped. This is done by 'conservatives' and the like for various reasons. Be that their own comfortable lives they want to keep safe for themselves, or a complex set of responses to being completely out of control with regards to media and power. So they instinctively know that sticking their neck out in support of anything will lead to it getting chopped off. To that extent the drive people have to glue the switch stuck can be summed up as greed and cowardice.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
The bystander effect is a fake and gay meme.
The only valid presumption to be made by anyone who has watched the murder in question is that every single person there outside of the victim is a subhuman. Maybe they were born that way, maybe they were radicalized by media, or maybe it's a combination of both! But the display speaks for itself.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
White Americans, outside of some ~5-10%, have for decades made it their sole raison d'être to denounce white identity, identity politics and collective action in general if they in any way believe that its purpose is to advantage their own group.
To that extent there will never be a reversal of roles since that's what's been worked towards. So I have a very hard time understanding how people who aren't literal white ethnocentrists of some stripe can say this or what they hope to accomplish by saying it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I agree with all of these. But my principle issue with the M7, for example, is that all of those things you mention as possible improvements, are being done... wrong. The gun is heavy, smaller magazine capacity, heavier ammo, and questionable sighting capabilities if you are fighting anything other than third world technology.
To the extent that improvements can be made to already heavily optimized gunpowder small arms, they would have been much better represented by something like the RM277. Longer barrel, lighter ammo, less recoil. Sure, it's not an AR. But that would be my point regarding incentives. The fact that something is not a brass fed AR is practically an automatic disqualifier.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
It feels like the firearms industry is in a boring place of a lack of incentives to drive innovation. From that perspective SIG winning out the NGSW trials was very disappointing.
I appreciate the reply, though it is tiresome to have the position I just argued against explained to me as if I just didn't know, understand or wasn't addressing it before. Then seeing all the arguments I just argued against... Eh.. Let me give you some examples to judge for yourself.
To begin with, the possibility of a better outcome does not change the fact that environments are heritable and there is no omnipotent hand ready to steer children away from criminal parents to minimize their chances of criminality. This is why I said that people have to be able to live with other people. Asserting that there was technically a chance to environmentally pacify someone with Brunner syndrome does not change the fact that they have Brunner syndrome whilst others do not. And whilst Raja doesn't have Brunner syndrome, he does seem to have a higher propensity towards violence than average. To that extent you are not arguing anything about genetics or environment, just asserting that with omnipotence we could change some outcomes. Well, I don't disagree, but we don't have omnipotence. So with what does that leave us?
As a second example, when I say bad parenting doesn't fall from the sky, and you reply with the assertion that it is cultivated over generations, I am left perplexed. How does that answer where it comes from? And if it persists over generations, what exactly are the conditions that produce and maintain it? Like, you are asserting a theory of psychology and sociology that, if true, should be extremely well studied and have very clear and visibly interactable effects. Are the results of adoption studies really so definitive in that direction? As far as I remember, children of criminal parents adopted into non criminal families still have higher rates of criminality. So we are at making the best of a sub-average situation in the hopes that it won't metastasize into something worse again?
When I see these arguments all I can think of is: How? How will anyone do this or enforce what you are proposing? You are taking a hypothesized maximum potential of people and asserting that the genetic component is negligible because in a hypothesized scenario most everyone could be raised to be a good person if removed from their inherited environment and have all negative impulses stifled somehow. My point would be that we don't live in such a world. Instead we live in a world were the Rampage Jacksons of the world can raise their own children and freely express whatever impulses they have. And my argument relies on that world being our point of comparison. Because despite all the excuses made for violent blacks, there are so many people who have lived hard lives, had few opportunities, been used and abused, and never once been close to expressing the type of sub-humanism displayed by Raja.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Whenever the rubber meets the road I feel like I see posts like these.
Yes, 'genetics' is the entire story. There is no moderate racialist camp. Bad parenting doesn't fall out of the sky by chance. And the bad parents don't keep their bad genes to themselves.
Technically we could take someone with Brunner syndrome and, through manipulating their environment, make sure they never have the need to violently express themselves. But that's if we are omnipotent. We're not. No ones life flows flawlessly. There are always moments that call on violent reactions. What separates the wheat from the chaff is how a person responds to these stimuli.
People have to be capable of living in the real world with other people. If they fail that it's not a matter of 'could would should' on behalf of everyone else to coddle these people into not being violent retards. Raja is 25 years old. He should be way past the point of pining for his fathers approval and attention like a dog. And way way past needing to hospitalize another person to do it.
Just think about what kind of an insurmountable failure you would have to be to express yourself like Raja did. At no point did his brain go 'nah, I'll just not do this because attempted murder is bad' or 'I'll probably get arrested' or 'that man apologized to me so it's ok' or 'he probably has friends and family'. None of that.
What Raja did is not the reaction of a fully grown man, if we use the average white person as a comparison. This is the brain of a child in a grown mans body. Which is, as you've mentioned, very similar to his father.
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:
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:
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.
More options
Context Copy link