hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
6hr ago
First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
There's no cost benefit analysis of desegregation or whether fighting the Nazis was worth it. 80% of people, at the very least, just default towards the fake progressive history. There's not a single person who can claim rationality whilst being wrapped up in all that religious dogma. There are no skeptical or rational or less wrong people doing tonally amoral utilitarian deepdives into these topics, measuring minorities in 'utils'. In fact, every single one of the allegedly rational will kowtow to the religion of our age as soon as these topics are brought up.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad. Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends. I briefly touched on why history is moving in this direction, using the historical analogy of civil rights as an example. That being said, Trans people and black people are not the same, but pointing that out when it's not relevant to the point being made is fruitless.
The trans movement seeks to insert a 'third' or more categories and break the sex binary where needed. To that extent the trans movement is categorically less radical than the civil rights movement. To follow the black/white analogy, it only seeks to assert a minority be counted as a different race. Sometimes the abolition of certain race defined aspects of western society is deemed to be what is best for society. Sometimes 'positive' segregation is deemed to be the best.
By the same token, as societal rules and norms based on race can exist in a good or a bad way, gender and gender expression can be set up in a good way or a bad way. Trans rights seek to make them more good than bad for trans people. You might say they are wrong, or making things bad for other groups, but, again, that same argument was levied by racists in the 50's and 60's. Given the track record of such arguments, coming from people with no power or any mainstream moral weight of support behind them, I'm still left wondering why you even imagine anyone should take your assertions with any weight.
Hopefully this helps elucidate the point of the analogies.
Now, to broach a wider topic of contention and why being against trans rights is being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason:
Society has a bias. It's biased against certain ideas in favor of others. This bias is not coincidental. There's a fabric of logic* (excuse the poetry)* that this bias is woven on to. I don't care for arguments against threads being woven into the fabric when that's exactly what this fabric is made for. It's all it will ever do.
Or maybe you prefer a different description of this phenomenon? The progressive arch of history? Robert Conquest's Second Law? Cthulu always swims left?
I'm not arguing from a position of personal moral claims. I'm just looking at the fabric and what's been sewn into it. I then see people wrapped in the fabric telling me they're against the very thing they're wearing.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just relaying the rules to people who have apparently been hiding under a rock for the past decades. White solidarity is racist. Black solidarity is not. That's what 80% of people believe. Hell, that number is probably higher with just the tiniest amount of moralistic framing from mainstream media outlets.
I do operate under the belief that I am talking with people who agree with the orthodoxy given that, from my personal estimation, I could count the number of people here who are against desegregation on one hand. I also operate under the belief I am talking with misandrist feminists in denial. As the only way to get these people to care about the rape and torture chambers we call prisons is to couch the debate in terms of women suffering, rather than men. To that extent not a single person has demonstrated to be anything other than what I assume them to be.
On that basis I argue that trans rights are human rights. I give no personal weight to these concepts. I just hate hypocrisy. Especially when it owes its existence to a lack of consideration for what is going on, and has been going on, in the western world. The aforementioned 80% don't deserve to pretend that they are anything other than what they are. The generations before them had to do the humiliation ritual of their time. Now it's this generations turn. That is what the dominant system that they support demands of them. Whining about it isn't brave, rational or even tantamount to qualifying as 'disagreement'. It's just hypocritical ignorance waiting to be crushed by the system. A valuable lesson for future generations, just like the opponents of civil rights in the past serve as a valuable lesson for the current one.
In the cases of prisoners, sure, there's a potential problem, though not trans specific. With bathrooms? No. I've used womens restrooms as a man. Nothing happened. The bathroom debate is hysterical nonsense from top to bottom.
If you as a woman are at risk of being raped in a bathroom I can only ask where in the third world you take your dumps. The notion of rape in a public space by a stranger is extremely rare. I'm not even sure I've ever seen a bathroom in a public space that was ever outside shouting distance of someone else. On top of that, research has been done in places that are gender conforming and the stats find no evidence of any trans person engaging in such activity. In fact, gender non-conforming youth are much more likely to experience sexual assault, if sexual assault is the big problem for you.
As for general perverts, they don't need to be trans to put hidden cameras in the toilet. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence of that on the internet if one is interested.
The Lady sign on the bathroom door doesn't protect anyone from anything. Women who refuse to enter unisex restrooms do so for either hysterical or transphobic reasons, not rational ones.
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
The right to express their gender identity. It's the abolition of biological sex as a negative delineator for trans people. Just like race was abolished as a negative delineator for black people.
Civil rights didn't end race based welfare programming. You can still have black only spaces and programs. Just not white ones. This is universally celebrated as a good thing by everyone except racists.
I think it would make the trans activists dishonest, rather than the argument.
We've gone from "some" to all. This is very transparent and irrelevant to the argument, outside of demonstrating that you and others do exactly what I said you were trying to do. Making irrelevant negative associations.
If a policy is allowed to go through, partly on the grounds that it will not cause specific side effects, and those specific side effects do materialize, it is an honest argument against the policy.
I never argued that X would never happen. Many trans activists never argued that. How about you deal with what's actually being said rather than fighting strawmen? It's such an irrelevant strawman at that. Women in womens prisons also rape eachother.
There are costs to any policy. So far society sees fit to pay for mass immigration and desegregation with the rape of men, women and children. The alleged cost of this policy is dwarfed by those, yet you will find no transphobe arguing against desegregation on the basis of the catastrophic amounts of rape, robberies and murder that have happened because of it. You are presenting an inconsistent and irrational defense of boundaries that keep a tiny minority of people from living better lives.
A quick sanity check - would you consider the UK raoe gang scandal a crime against humanity?
Yes. Inflicting conditions upon people that lead to inescapable circumstance that facilitate rape of the defenseless by a hostile group and the systemic blocking of any recourse they might have to be defended by the law is, in my view, a clear example of such a thing.
Everything? Just the mere act of keeping them off the streets already requires enacting suffering.
The mechanism that reduces crime is taking these people away from the public. Rape, torture and murder are not a necessary component of that mechanism.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I'm not seeing the problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
And a racist would disagree that any rights are being violated by not letting a colored go to a white only bathroom.
Trans activists were originally promising none of this situations will ever happen.
It's a dishonest association regardless of what some trans activists said or not. If a criminal who happens to be trans further commits crimes in prison then they can be dealt with like other criminals who do the same.
You seem to be assuming that the case for trans rights requires no justification, and any disagreement must stem from lack of knowledge. I disagree, and believe the case for "trans rights" is simply unsupportable.
Then we have an obvious disagreement. I would argue you could much more readily say the same for civil rights in America. The cost and scale is far greater, yet it's easily glossed over by the proponents of civil rights and desegregation. Doing the same for trans people is trivial in comparison.
Again, I completely disagree, and believe this renders the concept of "crimes against humanity" meaningless.
Reading first hand accounts followed up by official definitions of crimes against humanity, you don't have a rational leg to stand on when you say this.
You have to look no further than what happened with El Salvador's crime rates to see that the benefit to the rest of society is quite obvious.
What exactly about the prisoners suffering makes the streets they no longer occupy safer?
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I'm not a fan of the moderation here in general. But it is here, and I'd prefer if it was applied to others as it's applied to me. To that end I'd already be out the door if I wrote like you did here about certain things I believed to be factually accurate.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
Cases of criminals raping their fellow inmates is not an argument against trans rights any more than interracial rape is an argument against civil rights.
If you want to argue that being raped by penis is worse than something else, you should start by looking at men's prisons. If you want to argue rape in general is the problem, female inmates rape eachother more than male inmates.
Individual cases are irrelevant to the scope of the discussion, which is human rights for trans people. When we are talking about prison populations and criminals the discussion will get dragged into an unsavory quagmire with a lot of negative connotations that transphobic people try to associate with the concept of trans rights. This is a dishonest guilt by association tactic that's not relevant to the actual discussion of the topic. Proven by the fact that people refuse to engage in similar rhetoric regarding race.
I'm not surprised people object when they don't know what trans rights are, nor what transphobia is. The modern prison system is a crime against humanity. It places people in terrible conditions that facilitate further suffering and strife to no one's benefit. Those who choose to argue against trans rights rather than argue in favor of a better prison system betray their transphobic bias and abdicate any moral highground they may have pretended to occupy.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
To take your bowl of honey analogy a step further, Coopers problem isn't necessarily the honey or the bees. It's more the people coming around accusing him of being a beekeeper because there are a lot of bees in his garden.
To that extent I am sympathetic to Cooper since the people complaining about bees seem to have no reasonable cause to do so. They just go around finger wagging at other people who associated with Cooper, telling them: 'Don't you know he's a beekeeper?! Imagine if the bees multiply and start questioning the holocaust?'
To that extent I find the whole thing ridiculous. It seems that on the orthodox right, their only raison d'être is the consecration of the post war consensus.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
They're a faction on RW twitter that is considered a pest by a different factions on RW twitter. I think that's fair to say? However, both of your posts are overtly rule breaking 'boo outgroup'. Which leaves me wondering why they're not modded. Beyond that I have nothing to add.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
Are the mods asleep?
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
If you think your coworker is a weird pervert then you need to take that issue up with your supervisor. Not wave it around as a hypothetical at the expense of human rights for trans people.
Restrooms aren't just a place of vulnerability for women. They are also a place of vulnerability for trans people. There need to be some pretty strong material arguments made for why trans people should be barred from the bathrooms of their experienced sex that go beyond TERF'ist misandry. That is, if we want to ground our position in reality rather than phobia.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “this guy just said he was a woman two minutes ago for the first time, so sorry granny, he gets to be in your changing room and see you naked.” With a process that involves time and effort, I get it.
Gender dysphoria and being trans is not treated with 'two minute' levity anywhere I know of.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
The original phrasing doesn't need to imply anything beyond what Cooper himself would want it to imply. If the government is run by jews then that's a factual matter that can be examined. That's the position Cooper is affording himself.
The meaning of the demands is to illustrate that 'antisemitism' isn't magic that sprouts from thin air. People air their grievances. They purport to have facts on their side. If those are wrong then that should be exposed. Not buried under accusations that any inquiry is just a first step towards a second holocaust. And if those accusations turn out to be true then it falls on the accused to make amends, not dig their heels in the ground and refuse responsibility.
It's also there to illustrate that inroads and peace between different people can be made if both parties are interested. It certainly wouldn't take much to get most of the right on your side. As has been demonstrated in France by Éric Zemmour, or to a lesser extend by Stephen Miller in the US.
What emotion can a "host" feel for a ruling population but hate, unless those rulers have killed those neurons altogether?
Depends on how they are ruled. There have been plenty of multiethnic empires and countries in Europe. Why anyone would presuppose that harm would befall them if they acted with kindness and respect towards Europeans is a mental illness with no name.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
You're morally framing these things. Cooper, as far as I can tell, wants to factually frame them.
The Holocaust was exaggerated
Jews influence a lot of the media
Jews influence the government
Jews have split loyalties
Hitler was not that bad
From there you don't need to hate jews. I don't know what Cooper thinks beyond that, but I would just demand they don't act like they are above the common courtesy everyone else has to show eachother.
For example, stop promoting the ethnic denigration of the people who allowed you to live in their countries. Stop dropping our bombs on your neighbors and then demand we take them in as refugees. Stop pathologizing and villainizing your hosts. Take an active role in caring for their wellbeing rather than being ambivalent about them and their future. If you want to be jewish and care for your people and culture, with the goal of maintaining both, that's great. But you can't do that at the same time as you undermine other peoples and their culture. That action can only lead to conflict.
I mean, if nigh every western leader can go to the wailing wall and proclaim their undying loyalty and friendship to Israel, surely jewish leaders can return the favor sometimes.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
Yeah. As if killing children and filming yourself lighting people on fire wasn't PR disaster enough.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
We are talking about Darryll Cooper. I don't see how the steelman is abstracting anything relevant as Cooper, in his own words, describes himself and his viewpoint similarly, though at greater length. What claims and facts you refer to or their relevance, I am missing.
And now I've fully lost sight of how this metaphor corresponds to reality at all.
I'm referring to the paragraph written above, where I note that people like Douglas Murray take issue with the viewpoint of people like Daryll Cooper, who allow themselves to exist outside the post war consensus orthodoxy with regards to WW2. I assumed you were in a similar boat to Murray, and that when you referred to Coopers viewpoint as not being a 'stable equilibrium' you were referring to a similar contention, just relating to the JQ, not WW2. I'm happy to hear where I misread you and what you meant by 'stable equilibrium'.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
I don't see the reason for the one sentence strawman. To reply with a one sentence steelman of Cooper: 'Here are historical circumstance, here's why they came to be, here's the horrible outcome, here's what could have gone differently. By the way, don't hate people.'
I think the issue rests more with people who are unwilling to let go of a pseudo religious otherizing ahistorical narrative, similar to Douglas Murray on his recent Joe Rogan debate, rather than people forming opinions that exist outside the post war consensus.
I mean, I agree, it sure isn't a stable equilibrium for the church to sit idly by as heresy is spread. But I don't see why anyone should be concerned with the church.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
I think it speaks to the expansion of the right wing ecosystem that we now have principled antisemitic centrism.
I think it also speaks volumes of how different the landscape is now compared to 10 or 20 years ago. It's very hard to be public on the dissident right and not have some critical caveats on the consequences of jewish representation in America.
I'd be interested to see what the difference would be between the overall reach of something like the National Alliance was and the modern dissident right. Since this might just be history repeating the 90's-00's dissident right.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
I'm just surprised this isn't more common. Islamic terror attacks in the west would make a lot more sense if done under the guise of just being a part of the war in Palestine.
To that extent it will be interesting to see if there are any global events that manage to push the western public to action. A globalist world is a lot smaller, and the hands that can reach the center of power are much more diverse.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
"Jews are pernicious, they should have been gassed, and Hitler wasn't such a bad dude, but that doesn't mean that you should hate them"
Whose opinion is this?
But that's what a trans person is and that's what trans rights are in practice. Anyone who is squeamish about these things is by definition transphobic. As well as being, pardon my French, hysterical and ridiculous. As if your male coworkers suddenly turn into a physical danger as soon as you have to share a porcelain bowl...
There's an entire progressive dialect invented to get past these hurdles. Followed by a ruleset that should allow any well-meaning actor, who is concerned with the rights of trans people, to get along with their day without allowing their transphobia to negatively affect trans people as they try to exist.
Unisex toilets exist all over the world. This is transphobia masquerading as misandry. It should not be allowed to stand in any case if we are holding ourselves to any egalitarian modern standard.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
I presume this is the type of observation I will be hearing about until the day I die.
Most people seem to have no idea what a trans person is or what trans rights are. So when even the slightest personal inconvenience arises, the good folk will balk at the notion and do their best to shield themselves and their immediate environment from the thing they've been advocating for most of their lives. You could make the same observation for nigh every policy.
Isn't Scott jewish?
More options
Context Copy link