hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
14hr ago
Yeah, and europe is worse than america so that's proof that the presence of hispanic and black populations are actually having a multiplicative positive effect on the welfare of the white population.
That sounds wildly far fetched, but is unrelated to the point being made. Which is that certain populations are net negative tax payers, and that factoring them into a simple cost/benefit analysis, similar to what's been done in overviews here, would obviously alter the native baseline. Which is why I supposed that the assumed benefit of certain immigrants is only relevant insofar as we are counting net negative population groups towards the native average.
For the rest of your post, if you are the diversity you will fit in fine with the rest of the diversity.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I don't think there are that many who can realistically look at speedrunning as a career path. Especially not relative to how many participate in the activity. On top of that, many of those that are living off of it are living a sedentary isolated lifestyle where they have no responsibilities or costs that reach beyond their personal needs. Needs that usually don't reach beyond their bedrooms. Their 'living' doesn't cost all that much, and, sad to say, probably isn't worth all that much.
I'd also add that, relative to a 'good' hobby, you don't need an excuse like 'it makes me money' to confidently partake in it. You spend money on kayaking to go out on the water to paddle around and you still look far superior to someone who takes five hundred to a thousand dollars per month streaming their speedruns of Mario.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I'm inherently skeptical of 'immigration' and 'America' as useful concepts in this context.
If you removed the already hispanic and black populations from the native tally of 'Americans' and compared it to the now mostly white averages, you'd be looking at numbers very similar to Europe. That's to say: Immigration from certain population groups can be economically positive or negative. Just depends on the population group and what you compare it to.
As for your freedom to do commerce with who you want... I don't believe I can convince a true believer that this is a negative. But I am sitting on the experience of watching free market absolutists change faces as soon as the diversity comes knocking on their door, and it's their progeny on the line, rather than those of some 'lazy rent seekers'. They sure can complain then, despite the root cause of their problems being nothing other than people's freedom to do commerce with who they want. They almost start mouthing off that the good of the commons sometimes need overwrite the freedom of the individual. Almost. I suppose they will leave that for their children and grandchildren to figure out.
And whilst my experience is rather Eurocentric, you can see the same thing established in practice in America. As exemplified with regards to housing prices and proximity to blacks.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Could you? I think most normal people have a very immediate and visceral understanding of the difference between a 'good' hobby and a 'bad' one.
For example, kayaking doesn't seem to have any immediate 'practical use', but I can tell you with full confidence that it's a much better hobby than playing Donkey Kong Racing on repeat.
One could probably write essays on why and argue at length through whatever wordgames possible back and forth, but I think most people share this fundamental understanding on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I find the idea of externally 'atoning' for your sins and/or expelling them in some way disturbing. If you do wrong and feel bad you deserve it. These emotions are yours now and you must carry them on with you. Trying to get away from this burden or attempting to ameliorate the pain through some self afflicting physical process is an act of rebellion against your own conscience. You are running away from pain your 'being' is telling you to feel. Paying a price for wrongdoing, for example a legal price, should not be seen as an excuse to free yourself from your deserved emotional turmoil.
Reading about pious pilgrims flagellating for faith, I'm reminded of people who speedrun video games. I feel sad when I see videos of them getting a new best time, springing out of their crusty chairs in a dimly lit room, screaming in elation: A new world record! Who knows how much effort, how many hours these folks spend on this completely insular and self driven compulsion to get the best time that is of no consequence to anything at all. But this perversion of effort and strife gets paraded around as an important accomplishment by similarly minded people.
Much like a sad teenager playing Super Mario for the millionth time, a pious pilgrim will do a real life barefoot desert speedrun. This is not an external exercise. It's completely internal. Completely useless and devoid of value beyond the perverted compulsion of the speedrunning pilgrim.
Reflection is important. Twisting and contorting your body to push yourself towards a better understanding of what life is for you can be noble and good. Struggle and strife for its own sake can also be good. But it has to be done for the sake of something actually 'real'. I think it's universally recognized that the only actually 'real' thing is having children and raising them. Anything else that is not working towards this goal is ultimately fake.
As an aside: To that extent you can pinpoint an ultimate 'gotcha' on the new religious right. As far as Christianity being a proxy for people successfully having children, it is obviously good. Beyond that, it's very little beyond philosophical speedrunning.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Immigration discussion is two faced. You are either talking personally about individual people, in which case the average conflict averse person will have nothing bad to say to anyone's face, or you are talking broad statistical trends that factor over larger populations, in which case the argument against immigration is a very clear and resounding 'not very good'.
These two positions are held at the same time, but never in the same room.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
You should immerse yourself in the horror that is being facilitated, sympathize with the victims and hate the root cause
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Dysfunctional social policies cause/exasperate problems.
Problems are incompetently addressed with system bloat.
System bloat starts weighing the functional parts of society down.
Functional society members want bloat cut down.
Dysfunctional social policy advocates say system bloat cannot be cut down, citing: Who will address the problems?
The correct way to contextualize this predicament is through hate and sympathetic horror. Government waste is just a symptom.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
but I think discussing with someone about their posting is more direct and productive than just clicking report.
I am doing exactly the same thing, minus the report. To that extent we agree.
And, OP has -12.
I don't know what this means. I already see moderation here as way too user dominated. I'd prefer it if the mods weighed the quality and effort of the post put forth rather than buckling to dislikes and mass reports. Though that seems to be the opposite of what they are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
As far as my imaginary vote goes, I prefer the ability to decide for myself what posts are interesting and what posts are not. Moreover, most of the utility of this place is in the discussions. I don't see the point in having to trust someone here to decide what post is likely to generate good discussion or not, when we can just wait and see.
To that extent I'd personally appreciate if you stopped asking posters to not post, and instead just clicked the - on the left.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Seems to belong there.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
Do Pushups Post
Pushups from 18 to 21.
Pullups stay the same. 7. With an added focus on chinups for biceps. Using limited range of movement, not pulling too far up so the tension stays on the bicep.
Note on pushup form: Stand upright, put your hands in front of you mimicking a pushup. Instead of going straight, back and forth, push your arms up as you push them outwards. If you put pressure 'up' as you're doing the pushup you get much better upper chest activation. Makes pushups a real joy.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
This theory would be a lot more believable if there weren't any furries.
You're describing what you want, not how to get there. That's the fundamental difference between engaging with reality and not.
If colleges judge black people on their individual merit you will lose the vast majority of black enrollment overnight. Black people and many others will resent this. Black people and many others will organize based on their race and advocate as a group block for their group interest. This political movement will dominate politics. Call it 'Civil Rights Reloded'.
To fight this you would have to purge academia and nigh every single popular base of mass media in actions that make the Trump of today pale in comparison. That's the reality we're getting at.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
If anything Trump is doing now is giving you pause, what kind of America do you envision where you do not feel similarly towards whatever person it is that could push forth some kind of HBD driven policy? How would anything going on now not pale in comparison to that?
One of the reasons I assume centrists are not dealing with reality is because they never formulate their viewpoint into a political movement. Even if it's just an online larp on X. It never goes further than personal opinions and browbeating their left and right sides within the Overton Window.
I don't think it's a coincidence that when they actually do go into real politics, like Carl Benjamin did a few years ago, that they end up moving towards firmer ground, be that on the left, or in this case the right. Same thing happens all the time in countries with multi-party systems. The big 'left and right' parties scoop new 'not on a side' political parties up into government coalitions, they serve that sides interest and then implode next election. Or, like happened recently with my local Pirate Party, they refuse coalitions and instead slowly drift towards the left until there's no point in having them, and then they implode.
I can go on 'lefty twitter' and see what the various factions on the left are up to, same for the right. Both groups have animating theories for how the world works and what is best to do based on that. They can have fundamental differences with each other about what the world around them actually is. They stake their claims, dig their heels in and stand for something. I can't go on 'centrist twitter' and see what the propositions are from their side. What is their view on the fundamental problems and what answers do they hold? Moderate re-education camps? Racism 0.5?
At the heart of the left-right divide is a fundamental difference in how people see reality. There is also a shared understanding of the inherent necessitated logic that drives both theories. Both parties recognize this. 'Centrists', for the most part, do not. Which is why they seem endlessly bewildered why the two sides are so hostile to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
I'm having some vocabulary issues expressing this but:
I think people with actionable plans based on a theory of how the world works will generally place anyone who does not have any of that in the 'enemy' category. Coming in as Captain Hindsight after the fact to point out that this, this and that had negative outcomes so 'we were wrong for doing that so lets scrap our entire political project' is just, matter of factly, a very juvenile position to hold.
Being in charge is hard. In order to make policy you have to believe in something about the world around you. You then put this worldview to the test when implementing policy and change based on it. Hopefully the changes have the intended effect, but if they don't, quitting isn't an option. You can't scrap your worldview just because it's not infallible or without problems. To that extent both 'left wingers' and 'right wingers' will identify the same strain of short sighted 'centrist' conflict aversion as cowardice and sedition against their cause.
I would ask: Are they wrong? Do you have a solution for the problems that drove western societies towards the 'woke' and all of the precursors? If not, what is your point here? Should we do race communism slower? Should we do fascism more moderately? The vanguards of the left and right would both ask these question. If your answer affirms their worldview they might not brand you as an enemy, but if your answer is just a thinly veiled excuse for the enemy position then they will lump you in with that crowd. What else should they do?
'Classical liberalism' failed completely in solving the problem of the population group gaps within American society. You can approach the reason for as to why in multiple ways, but you have to engage with that fundamental problem. If you don't there is no point to anything you say as far as the political vanguards are concerned. They have to deal with reality.
And what was being argued by me was that the pursuit is flawed from the start, and that the reasoning given here:
I will argue that what makes Hitler literally Hitler, first and foremost, was not his nationalism, or his socialism, or his right-wingism, or his wars of aggression, or even his penchant for genocide, but his identity politics. I define identity politics as the embrace of a caste system with different moral standards for different groups, based on demographic characteristics such as race, religion, and ethnicity.
is just another misstep by fault of the post war consensus permeating everything. It's all 'identity politics', always has been. We've only been pretending it's not for the past century whilst the rest of the world watches in befuddlement and takes advantage. Hence why questions about Hitler and his allegedly distinctive ideology are flawed to begin with. We're passing judgement and pontifications from a historically abnormal ivory tower that's writhing and ready to fall.
But that might very well be presumptuous and unfair of me to say given there is more to follow, though I do feel compelled to defend my originalg post say that what I wrote does pertain to what's been written so far, even if it's just a driveby on a small part of a greater whole.
hanikrummihundursvin
20d ago
More pushups, more pullups, getting back to doing situps and other lying on back ab exercises. Watching this video on an exercise scientist has inspired me to stop fretting over the little things and get back to trusting the feedback my body gives me and start having fun with myself.
Crunches and such got a lot of negative coverage as exercises when I was last digging into the world of calisthenics, a good 15 years ago now. But I've been inspired to get back to the roots of exercise and just do what makes muscles ache without any specific thought beyond that. Lying on back ab exercises certainly do that.
Down from 75~ pushups in my teens, I can now do a measly 18 (jfc)
Down from 17 strict form pullups I can now do 7.
The focus will be on getting these numbers up for no reason other than liking higher numbers.
Notes on form: During pushups, for some reason, I had stopped flaring my elbows and instead kept them close to my body. Probably because I saw a youtube video on it. This makes pushups a chore, as this seemingly takes a lot of the chest out of it. Freely flaring my elbows out makes my chest ache, so we will do that.
Pullup form is still great, probably because I never watched any youtube videos on it.
Routine: 2x per day. High intensity 3xMax pushups and pullups superset.
I'm expecting a moderate improvement to pushups for next week, pullups might only advance by one. To insure high intensity I might start timing the routine. Probably not.
I'll ask for a reminder, if only to keep myself motivated. It would be highly embarrassing to write all this out and then not do it.
To be crude: Those folks will become fertile soil for MOAB 2.0. Like the people unlucky enough to have shared a slice of continent with Osama bin Laden.
The cost of indefinitely providing medical care to people who cannot care for themselves may seem steep, but it is trivial compared to the cost of not doing so.
My gut tells me this isn't true at all. Where is the direct negative for the western world to not giving free stuff to an infinitely growing third world?
It feels like you are hoisting the western world on its own petard. Leveraging the massive amount of sympathy and charity it has given, which has driven it to its knees, in order to justify it continuing the practice to not face the wrath of the people it has been saving for the past century.
hanikrummihundursvin
20d ago
Why this person and these people in specific warrant recognition over all the others is where the pocket theories come into play.
Not to do a driveby on your post, which goes into a lot of topics in fine detail, but it feels like you are falling into a quagmire of interacting with the 'post-war consensus' too earnestly.
Simply put: It's an either or. Either you believe in the 'post-war consensus' 1 2 and you have a pocket theory for why Hitler is justifiably considered the master of evil, or you don't believe in the 'post-war consensus' and you recognize the satanization of Hitler as a function of human psychology interacting with propaganda that is necessary to justify the overarching moral narratives of the winners of WWII and the cold war. Nothing proves 'We are the goodest guys' quite like 'because we triumphed over the evilest evil'.
The most obvious way to tell the belief in HitlerSatan is downstream from propaganda is that nigh everyone, apart from the fringes, has their own pocket theory of why Hitler is satan and not any of the other guys from histories greatest hits. There's no strictly objective metric at play that people can latch on to. It's literally every single reason it can be, all at once. This works since we are not dealing with rational thought but post hoc verbalizations for the emotions that have already been instilled in people.
These emotions are not there because anyone directly told people to have them. They are there as a necessary logical consequence of our informational environments and how our minds deal with not just information but the implicit question of why we are seeing the information. We know Hitler is the most evil because we learned about him the most out of anyone. That's where the association is made. Why did we learn the most about him and his reign in school? Why are there so many movies made about those guys and how bad they were? Obviously because he is the most evil. Why else would we have been learning about him the most? It's a feedback loop in your brain.
At risk of getting too deep into 'generative anthropology', we can only hold one primary victimary narrative at a time(with some caveats). The victimary narrative of our age is focused on the iewish people, their suffering and why it was a result of HitlerSatan and his evil beliefs.
To make a long story short, the answer to the question of what makes Hitler into "literally Hitler" is not found by digging deeper. It's found by throwing away the shovel and leaving the hole of the post war consensus.
Driving away effort posters is bad. Especially when it's via 'grudge mobbing' where the effort posters are saddled with the baggage of previous effort posts and have to face criticism for those posts every time they make a new one. Getting mobbed from multiple directions on multiple topics. Tracing got some of that last time I saw him here and it was not fair.
But effort posters driving away criticism is also bad. If you want to interact with an online space where everyone adores you as the minor e-celeb you are then you might need a different venue than an open forum. Walking on eggshells because the residential online royalty decides his balls need fanning today is in one word pathetic. It's one of the hallmarks of a toxic forum.
Tracing got support here along with the negativity. His ultimate response was to threaten to pack up his toys and leave. What he wanted done by the mods or the users of this site is still not clear to me, though it is very clear this space is poorer for him not being here.
I would however want to ask him and those who lament the lack of him: Why are they here? Is it not the discussion generated, negative and positive, that is a big part of the reason why? Surely the fear of losing the effort posters has to be weighed against the ability of the fringes to comment on them. And that instead of leveraging their own importance as an effort posters to ward off criticism, they might need to take the high road every once in a while and trust that their effort is appreciated despite the grudge mob.
On that note I'm not sure where people like Tracing will go or what they seek there. Last time I saw him he was having his world philosophy rejected by trad caths on X. Where the implicit proclamations of his own importance ring a lot more hollow than they ever did here.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Because it's the best predictor. For example, how black an area is is a better predictor for crime than how poor it is. You can't look at things after the fact when you are trying to make predictions. Which is why a simple group based immigration policy like 'white men of good character' is better than 'lets throw shit on a wall and see what sticks'.
If you want the long and short of it look at economic outcomes for immigrants in Denmark. Turns out the only net positive tax paying immigrants are from other European countries and specific Asian countries. Everything else turns into a net negative. With that information you can craft a very good immigration policy if you care about net positive tax payers. But for some reason that's not good enough for any 'liberals'. As they stumble over the 'racism' aspect of it. Bending the knee to the modern 'woke institutions' they claim to be in opposition to.
And again, how has that worked out? Would you describe thier 60 years of tenure as a good thing?
Not for me, no. But it's been very good for them. They have had conservatives bent over the bed for 60 years and they show no sign of letting up. In fact, every decade a new crop of 'conservatives' pops up it's more progressive and liberal than the one before. And they all believe themselves to be the opposite! It would be comical if it weren't for all the ugliness, destruction and pain it causes.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
No, you care about race because you made a choice to care about race.
Race correlates with behavior. This is a fact. You can ignore it and make bad decisions or take it into account and make better ones.
And again, how has that been working out for them? and how has it been working out for those institutions?
They've been in charge for the last 60 years and have been solidifying an underclass to secure their existence into the future... Pretty good, I would say. Most of them have ballooned in size, with the people in charge becoming richer and more powerful. At the same time they have increased their influence. Not just in America but globally.
Mine is not the "cucked liberalism" of 30 years ago, mine is the cucked liberalism of 200 years ago.
Your anti-race position says otherwise. There is no reason for a classical liberal to hold any reservations about race as a relevant metric. Which is why actual classical liberals who had to make decisions took it into account.
Define black, define poor, define violent.
Is this a joke?
I understand that you will likely disagree but i would contend that a reduction in social status is a small price to pay for clean streets and relative peace.
I don't understand your point. For instance, Jacksonville has a very high violent crime rate. Not a surprise given its sizeable black population. Compared to San Francisco, with a relatively small black population, but a big Asian population, it has a comparatively and relatively low violent crime rate. I don't understand why you are comparing these cities as if I would like one over another. There are areas in both that are safe and not safe. The most predictive variable when looking at crime is how black the city is.
Representative of what? What should a chatbot consider to be 'obviously biased input'?
For whatever it's worth, terminally online racists have done a fair bit of work in establishing distinct and vibrant online spaces. Regardless of how one might feel about them, their discourse with each other is genuine. Why presume it's not genuine when directed elsewhere?
Regardless of the endeavor starting of as a joke or not, the racists are not laughing now.
More options
Context Copy link