Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Aren't "autogynephile" and "gay dude" supposed to be mutually exclusive, autogynephiles being heterosexual men who like to imagine themselves as women because they like women?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
If this were true, there'd already be a 4chan schizo-collage pointing out the diapers on photos of Biden.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
If perfect transition and acceptance were possible it would defeat the point entirely. There would be no trans people, only men and women.
I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people who would still be opposed to the use of this gender-swapping magic wand because it is an affront to God or something to that effect.
The community claims to want to be erased, "trans women are women", but they don't actually want to be erased. It is the transition, the journey, that is the point. The actual destination is not just man or woman, but a trans man or woman. And to the progressive community there is great value in a "trans" identify which is separate from a gender identity. Because the presence of these people serves as evidence of the huge sacrifices people are willing to endure for the cause.
There is some selection bias here: you generally only hear from the trans people who want people to hear from them, and you only identify ("clock") as trans those trans people who don't pass well (plus the occasional false positive). Trans people who just want to be seen as their gender and not as trans-their-gender, and who pass reasonably well, certainly do exist, but they are by their nature invisible.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The simple answer here is to also support legalizing the sale of kidneys.
Those who recoil in disgust at this modernist-transhumanist depravity may be surprised to discover that the one country in the world where kidney sales are legal is the decidedly anti-modernist Islamic Republic of Iran. Their decision to legalize kidney sales was not motivated by some kind of debauched ideology; it was purely pragmatic. And it worked: today, there is no waiting list for kidneys in Iran.
I will admit, I was disgusted when I first saw this idea on the sidebar of /r/neoliberal, but I have since come around.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
The point was that counting people is not a politically-neutral act, neither is it for a census. The Alternative Hypothesis in his recent Revisionist work identified controversy surrounding the 1937 Soviet census:
"On 25 September 1937, there was a special Sovnarkom decision proclaiming the census invalid and setting a new one for January 1939. A Pravda editorial stated that the "enemies of the people gave the census counters invalid instructions that led to the gross under-counting of the population, but the brave NKVD under the leadership of Nikolai Yezhov destroyed the snake's nest in the statistical bodies".
The assumption is that thereafter Soviet population figures were inflated in the 1939 census, with the help of the "brave NKVD" destroying the "snake's nest in the statistical bodies." The assumption of political neutrality in the census is highly dubious. Keep in mind that historians accuse the Germans of manipulating their concentration camp inmate and death statistics by excluding the gas chamber victims in order to hide evidence of the crime. So they are accusing the Germans of manipulating internal statistics while taking Soviet statistics at face value.
Only this one census is generally considered unreliable. And mainstream historians agree that it is unreliable. The censuses conducted before Stalin went completely insane and after he died are generally considered reliable, as are the Polish censuses.
It is actually pretty ambiguous, the estimated decrease is meant to take into consideration excess mortality and emigration since 1937, so asserting that this figure is some "unambiguous" admission to the murder of 4 million people is quite silly and not even the mainstream interprets this figure in that way. The most controversial figure is "Total Evacuations" which is 1.8 million. Historians say that was code for the number of Jews murdered in gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower. Revisionists that this was the number of Jews deported into one of the many camps in General Government or deported further east. Korherr said he was told it referred to Jews deported into camps in Lublin, which fits the Revisionist claim.
It says the number of Jews in Europe has decreased by 4 million:
From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million. (...) European Jewry should since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost almost half of its population.
This means that it doesn't include Jews who were just deported to a different part of Europe.
Assuming Korherr's claim that he was told those Jews were just resettled is even true, that just means they didn't want him to know what was going on. Need to know and all that.
Revisionists have proven beyond a doubt that the Soviet Union systematically inflated death tolls by orders of magnitude in their investigations, and modified structures to give them an apparent criminal intent, and accused the Germans of war crimes that the Soviets were responsible for... and you're asking why the Soviet Union didn't gather exculpatory testimonies and submit them as evidence? The Soviet Union did not allow Western investigators access to this entire body of evidence. Among the body of evidence that Western investigators had access to, the gas chamber extermination story was disproven.
At Nuremberg, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were discussed in the trial for no more than 20 minutes. Electrocution floors were the alleged method of murder at Belzec at the time, and at Treblinka it was steam chambers. The alleged murder of millions at these camps was represented by a single witness who was examined for not more than 15 minutes and was not cross-examined by the defense. These camps were almost entirely ignored at Nuremberg, the Western camps were at the time more central to the gas chamber extermination claims, particularly Dachau.
The problem with all the evidence these eastern camps being behind the Iron Curtain is that you have to contend with the fact that this body of evidence was in Soviet Custody. So when you ask, for example "why weren't resettled Jews interviewed?" you don't seem to grasp the purpose of a show trial.
That explains why no testimony was submitted to the trials. What about independent research since then? Where are all the interviews historians conducted with survivors? Published memoirs? There are plenty of available accounts of the Japanese internment camps in the US, for example, where only a tenth of the number of people were imprisoned.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Demand for electricity varies throughout the day. People are willing to pay more for a kWh during rush hour than at 2 AM.
For example, suppose the 2 AM discount is 50%. That means that if you can spend 1.5 kWh at 2 AM to get 1 kWh at rush hour, you will earn 33.3% more than if you had just sold that energy at 2 AM.
Edit: And as the other person said, if nuclear fuel can't be produced domestically, only a small amount needs to be imported due to its immense energy density. I recall a comment, probably on Reddit, from someone who lived close to both a coal powerplant and a nuclear powerplant. He noted how trainloads of coal were arriving constantly, while the nuclear plant only received minimal traffic.
Another rarely discussed downside of hydropower is that it is extremely environmentally and socially destructive. Damming a river basically destroys its ecosystem. Dams also often flood very large areas, requiring people to evacuate and destroying anything that was there, natural or manmade.
For example, the Itaipu Dam:
When construction of the dam began, approximately 10,000 families living beside the Paraná River were displaced because of construction. (...) The world's largest waterfall by volume, the Guaíra Falls, was inundated by the newly formed Itaipu reservoir. The Brazilian government later liquidated the Guaíra Falls National Park. (...) The Guaíra Falls was an effective barrier that separated freshwater species in the upper Paraná basin (with its many endemics) from species found below it, and the two are recognized as different ecoregions.[18] After the falls disappeared, many species formerly restricted to one of these areas have been able to invade the other, causing problems typically associated with introduced species. For example, more than 30 fish species that formerly were restricted to the region below the falls have been able to invade the region above.
The construction of the Aswan Dam in Egypt flooded 5,250 km^2 and resulted in the relocation of 100,000 to 120,000 people and 22 Ancient Egyptian monuments.
For comparison, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has an area of 2,600 km^2. That is to say, the Aswan Dam rendered uninhabitable twice as much land as the Chernobyl disaster.
That's just one of many reservoirs all over the world. Looking at this list, if we exclude the reservoirs that resulted from the enlargement of pre-existing lakes and consider only the ones that are completely artificial, there are 15 reservoirs which individually rendered uninhabitable more land than the Chernobyl disaster. The total amount of land flooded by dams is many times greater than the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. I don't have the exact figures, but the number of people displaced by dams is certainly also much larger than the number of people who were evacuated from the Chernobyl area.
Don't forget that this is a normal and accepted part of building hydropower, whereas the Chernobyl disaster was a one-time event that resulted from a combination of poor Soviet design and human error. If we considered the failures of dams, we'd get a death toll much larger than any estimate for Chernobyl.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I wonder, is there anyone on The Motte who opposes nuclear power? Either because of concerns relating to safety, waste disposal and other "environmentalist" canards, or because it's supposedly uneconomical.
And if everyone here is pro-nuclear, why is that? Are mottizens just more rational than everyone else, or is it because of chronic contrarianism?
(How do we do the fancy quotes with user, timestamp, and maybe a link? It'd be useful here.)
Like embedding a Tweet? I don't think you can do that. But there's a "Copy link" button under every comment and you can put an @ in front of a username so that it links to their profile and they get notified.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Does that include the prime minister? Really then, who isn't an unelected bureaucrat?
To me at least, "bureaucrats" are usually non-political career civil servants, people who you rarely hear about in the news except in extraordinary situations, e.g. Fauci. Ministers are politicians, appointed directly by the parliament. They feature in the news regularly, their names are well known, and they get voted out regularly, albeit by the parliament and not by some kind of recall referendum.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
See my other comment for why gas and conventional electric are bad.
Frankly, no supposed harm of stoves is likely to convince me that adults shouldn't be able to choose what they do or don't want to cook with.
What about the children who live in the same household? Indeed, children are the ones most affected by pollution from gas stoves.
If it's not clear, I was actually mostly joking when I suggested banning gas and conventional electric stoves. Did anyone take my claim that using conventional electric stoves is "basically a human rights violation" seriously? I was slightly in favour but I didn't really care. A complete ban is well beyond the Overton window anyway. I have now changed my mind and am slightly against it unless it can be demonstrated that they are 100% safe for people with pacemakers (and metal fragments!). Presumably this question will come up if a ban becomes remotely plausible. If it is a real danger, politicians will want to avoid being responsible for cooking someone's grandpa.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Looking up newer information on this, it seems it hasn't actually been adopted yet. Apparently, it is being stalled by the transport ministers of Germany and a few other countries.
The person I was replying to was claiming these sorts of regulations are imposed unilaterally by unelected Eurocrats. This is clearly not true given that EU legislation requires approval by a qualified majority of the European Council, consisting of ministers from the member states. As demonstrated in this case, they can in fact block legislation from being passed.
What controversial environmental decisions has the EU made? What Mr Kraut is probably complaining about is the increased cost of electricity in his country, which is entirely caused by his government's moronic decision to shut down perfectly safe nuclear powerplants before their intended shutdown date out of an irrational fear of nuclear energy. (Is that right, @Southkraut?) Last I heard, the EU was actually considering classifying nuclear energy as "green".
One EU policy I do object to is the promotion of "organic" agriculture, including occult agriculture, but I have literally never seen anyone else complain about this.
Edit: And this bullshit is also largely due to Germany, just look up a map of "biodynamic" agriculture by country. Beware Germans bearing ambitious plans to reshape the world.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
How big is the harm overall? From an outside perspective, things seem to be working fine. Is there a possibility the field will converge on a smaller number of standard refrigerants?
It seems the replacement refrigerants are being replaced because they contribute to global warming. I would expect that once ozone depletion and global warming are dealt with, there won't be any reason to introduce new refrigerants any more.
Edit: Is the danger from hydrocarbons theoretical or are they actually regularly exploding or catching fire?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
OK, pacemakers are the only good argument against the ban I've seen so far. The only research paper that I can find is this one from 2006:
Conclusion: Patients are at risk if the implant is unipolar and left-sided, if they stand as close as possible to the induction cooktop, and if the pot is not concentric with the induction coil. Unipolar pacing systems can sense interference generated by leakage currents if the patient touches the pot for a long period of time. The most likely response to interference is switching to an asynchronous interference mode. Patients with unipolar pacemakers are at risk only if they are not pacemaker-dependent.
I don't know what that means TBH.
Having exhausted the scientific literature, I tried the next best thing: Reddit. There are anecdotal reports from people with pacemakers cooking with induction and people with pacemakers who were told by their doctors not to cook with induction. No reports from people with pacemakers who tried cooking with induction and died.
Edit: And what about people who have embedded metal fragments that can't be removed? I guess my ban isn't a very good idea after all.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
What kinds of pans? What's wrong with ferromagnetic pans?
See my other comment for why gas and conventional electric are bad.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I thought the downsides of gas and conventional electric stoves were well-known.
Gas stoves cause indoor air pollution (I believe this is what the aforementioned media circus was about) and require gas, which is a fossil fuel – do I need to explain why fossil fuels are bad? And they require either a network of gas pipelines, which are an additional bit of infrastructure that needs to be built and maintained (and they tend to explode), or distribution in individual tanks, which is very wasteful. Induction just needs the existing electrical grid.
Conventional electric stoves are extremely inefficient, so they waste a lot of energy. And they are horrible to work with, it's basically a human rights violation. If conventional electric stoves are Americans' perceived alternative to gas, then I can understand the overreaction to the mere suggestion that gas stoves might be banned. In fact, in that light, it was probably an underreaction.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
gas stoves
There was a minor media circus about them, but they haven't actually been banned, have they?
Anyway, induction is amazing and I hope both gas and conventional electric stoves get banned.
I think that's a trend that's common with environmental regulations. Whether it's CFL bulbs, paper straws, gas stoves or low flow toilets, consumers get stuck with an inferior substitute and the alleged crisis never seems to actually get solved.
Lest someone conclude that environmental regulation never works and only serves to make people's lives worse without addressing the actual problem:
-
CFC refrigerants are banned, the ozone layer is recovering, and modern fridges are perfectly fine.
-
Leaded petrol is banned, lead is no longer being constantly spewed in people's faces, and modern petrol cars are perfectly fine.
-
SO2 and NOx emissions are restricted, acid rain has been greatly reduced, and modern vehicles are perfectly fine.
-
DDT is banned, bird populations have recovered, and food production is perfectly fine.
These aren't just random examples – these four were some of the biggest environmental problems of the 20th century, and they have all been solved with minimal harm to consumers. (The others were nuclear energy (which wasn't a problem at all, the only problem with nuclear powerplants is that we don't build enough of them) and anthropogenic climate change (which hasn't been solved because no laws that would actually solve it have been enacted).)
Regulators were overeager to promote CFLs which ended up not being very good, but in time LED technology was developed and incandescent lightbulbs have now been completely phased out in favour of much more efficient lighting, so the original goal has in fact been achieved. LED lighting is still not a perfect substitute due to colour problems, but this is a technical problem that will be solved eventually.
But there are so many uncertainties and contradictions in the numbers. How many Jews are in the Princeton class of 2026? We couldn't figure that out, we could only conclude that the Jewish organizations presenting the estimates were fudging them based on political and economic incentives.
The difference between the data on the number of Jews at Princeton and the number of Jews recorded in a census is that at Princeton no one goes around asking everyone if they are Jewish, yet this is exactly what happens during a census. And the census data was certainly not collected by Jewish organizations.
But so many here stake the truth of this tall tale on some Jews that should exist on paper, by doing some simple additions and subtractions from many different demographic studies conducted before, during, and after the war in the Russian empire, Poland, and Soviet Union. It heavily relies on a level of precision (how many Polish Jews became "Soviet Citizens" on paper after the war?), accuracy and honesty that simply does not exist.
Censuses record the population at the local level, too, not just the country level. We can look at the number of Jews within Poland's current borders, for example: a table on Wikipedia records over 3 million Jews in 1939 and less than 300,000 in 1946.
I don't know what your point is with "Soviet Citizens". Census takers don't look at a list of citizens, they go around from place to place recording how many people there are and various data on those people. It's hard to over- or under-count people in a census.
For example, there are documents where both Himmler and Pohl, head of the concentration camp system, identify Sobibor as a transit camp (Durchgangslager). (...)
Witness testimonies: The most strong aspect of the Revisionist case in my opinion. Witnesses are by far the most important part of the body of evidence for the mainstream narrative, so the Revisionist critique of that body of evidence is devastating.
As I understand, you believe Operation Reinhardt was about resettling 2 million Jews, and the few deaths that happened were unintentional. If this is the case, if Sobibor and the other Operation Reinhardt camps were just transit camps, where did all these Jews who passed through them end up? Where are the testimonies of Jews who passed through the camps and were peacefully resettled?
The "Where did they Go?" trump card is the most popular retort against Revisionists as it's an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. The mainstream narrative makes these claims which are honestly pretty hard to believe, Revisionists build an extremely strong case against that narrative, so the ultimate strategy is to try to demand Revisionists track the population movements of Jews in the final years of the war, right before the Soviet Union conquered that half of the continent and the most important German officials involved had died or been killed.
It's a perfectly reasonable question. Millions of people don't just disappear. It should be possible to track the movements of millions of people.
Compare the Armenian genocide. (You believe this one happened, right?) Even though most of the deported Armenians died, some managed to escape and today there are significant Armenian communities in places like Lebanon and Syria. Armenians were already present there, but most of the modern population descends from victims of the deportations. There are hundreds of thousands of them today. Where are the comparable Jewish populations in the "Lublin district" or wherever it was they were being resettled to?
(Edit: see also this comment by @To_Mandalay.)
But neither is there documentary evidence remaining for transports into those camps either.
What is the "revisionist" interpretation of the more than one million Jews the Korherr Report says were "processed" in various camps? The letter to Der Spiegel is presumably the same one quoted on the report's Wikipedia article:
statement that I had mentioned that over a million Jews had died in the camps of the Generalgouvernement and the Warthegau through special treatment is also inaccurate. I must protest against the word 'died' in this context. It was the very word 'Sonderbehandlung' ['special treatment'] that led me to call the RSHA by phone and ask what this word meant. I was given the answer that these were Jews who were settled in the Lublin district.
So, more than a million Jews entered those camps. This is uncontroversial, right? Either they didn't leave or they left and were resettled. In the latter case, where were they resettled? Where are the testimonies of the more than one million Jews who were resettled?
The Korherr report says:
The total number of Jews in the world in 1937 is generally estimated at around 17 million, thereof more than 10 million in Europe. They concentrate or concentrated mainly in the former Polish-Russian areas occupied by Germany between the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland and between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, further in the centers of commerce and the Rhine area of Central and Western Europe and on the coasts of the Mediterranean.
From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million. It must not be overlooked in this respect that of the deaths of Soviet Russian Jews in the occupied Eastern territories only a part was recorded, whereas deaths in the rest of European Russia and at the front are not included at all. In addition there are movements of Jews inside Russia to the Asian part which are unknown to us. The movement of Jews from the European countries outside the German influence is also of a largely unknown order of magnitude. On the whole European Jewry should since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost almost half of its population.
This is pretty unambiguous: the number of Jews in Europe has decreased by 4 million. What is the "revisionist" interpretation here? There certainly weren't millions of Jewish refugees outside Europe at this point.
In recent years it has been revealed, to the surprise of historians, that there were tens of thousands of labor and concentration camps which were previously unknown (...) So historians missed tens of thousands of camps that existed in these areas which happened to exist in a network around rail lines that were subject to the gas chamber extermination rumors. This revelation certainly gives more context to Korherr's interpretation of settlers "sifted through the camps of General Government", of which there were many more than historians had previously understood.
This number includes labour camps, "detention facilities", "a variety of penal camps, prisons, and other sites for mostly non-Jewish prisoners" and POW camps. The total number of people who were imprisoned in these camps is much higher than 6 million and many of them, probably a majority, were not Jewish.
They exhumed the mass graves to conduct autopsies, investigate time and cause of death, and to identify victims. (...) No similar investigation was conducted for the alleged murder of about 2 million people at these three camps.
Of course such an investigation wasn't done because the bodies were destroyed. Indeed, the Germans' discovery of the Katyn massacre is said to be the reason why they decided to destroy the bodies, as they didn't want their own murders similarly discovered.
Edit: As a counterfactual, suppose the Nazis did murder millions of Jews and destroy the evidence by cremating the bodies and then destroying the crematoria and all the documents relating to the genocide. What sort of evidence would prove that this happened?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Patrik I early
Was that supposed to be "patrilineally"? Huh, my spellcheck doesn't recognize it either. It recommends "Patri lineally", "patrilineal" and "matrilineally"! Feminist conspiracy?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Supposedly the organization that popularized plastic straw bans wanted it to be a kind of pilot project for larger-scale bans on single-use plastic. They thought a ban on plastic straws would be more acceptable given how insignificant straws are. It seems this backfired and people ended up thinking the ban on plastic straws was itself the goal and that it was pointless.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Homelessness is a political problem, specifically relating to local politics, not a money problem. An extra $100 billion in the federal budget wouldn't do anything.
I'm not sure what you mean by "broken buildings". You could photograph cherry-picked decrepit buildings at any point in US history. It doesn't mean anything.
The last term is related to English authentic.
More options
Context Copy link