BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 78d 12h 32m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
This rigamarole has gone on forever. Repeat from 2016 onwards:
Anti-Trump: "He's like the nazis! Who were bad!"
Pro-Trump: "He's not like the nazis! Who were bad!"
High minded, mentally elevated and euphoric: "He's like the nazis, who were good."
Hitler was good at public speaking, holding rallies and a lot of other stuff. Being as good as Hitler, to the point of it warranting comparison, is a compliment. Having a 'Hitler' that wants to deport the immigrants, secure the borders, kill the drug dealers, clean the streets of crime and in any other way protect the rights and privileges white coding people care about, and uphold their preferred political order, is good!
The problem here is that people are so religiously captivated by the mythology of Hitler that they can't get over it when the comparison is made. Hitler occupies the 'devil' portion of the western brain. You can't be like the devil and not evil in some way or another. That's just definitionally true. Like being more like Jesus or MLK makes you definitionally good.
Since most people are unable to recognize their true religion, for whatever reason, we get pro-Trumpsters contorting themselves around meaningless concepts and baseless associations in order to defend their chosen one. 'Fascism' 'Hate' 'Holocaust' 'Hitler' '1939'. None of it matters, none of it tracks. It's meaningless nonsense. You'd have a better time deconstructing someone calling Trump a doodoo head.
You're being antagonistic and argumentative to the point that you don't even understand what is being written. My guess is you saw the word 'transphobia' and your head went spinning.
One thing missing here is an actual argument for doing things your way.
What is "my way"? I don't particularly like the changes to western society, but I can observe that they have been and are happening. I can therefor also recognize that pretending that some 'sacred' bubble called 'the Olympics' can exist unaffected is dumb. Especially when most of the people who want the bubble to remain also cheer for the change in society.
Not sure who you think you're owning with this one.
The people who cooked shit in a pot and now don't want to eat it.
This is, in my mind, one of the great unsung tragedies of the rise of the trans movement.
'Real women' being hurt by the trans movement is not an unsung tragedy. It's the fife and drums of transphobia everywhere. Especially when it's coming from women.
Sports in general and the Olympics in particular have always had a large gray area when it comes to innate physical differences between competitors. Doesn't matter if its male/female or, thick or thin, tall or short. Instead of going into these differences in more detail the Olympics decide to live in muddy waters, which allows for incidents such as these.
In a broader context I find it hard to sympathize with anyone even remotely attaching themselves to this nonsense. People want things to 'stay the same' and not change whilst society around them is in the process of ditching whatever quaint conservatism they still hold on to. Whatever purity or sanctity is imagined to live within the Olympics is long gone or in the process of being removed. I mean, who knew the Swedes had such a knack for the long jump?
To an extent I agree with you. If seeing women getting hurt activates some almonds and folks want the display to stop, that's fine. But to pretend this is about sports or the sanctity of categories or whatever is just inane at this point.
Wealthy leftists are an easy scapegoat. In reality all they are doing is the same thing everyone else is doing. Existing within the Overton Window and not pushing the boundaries beyond their own comfort zones.
You can see the same effect in play whenever the police accidentally a black person. Or when someone brings up black/white sentencing disparities. People who would otherwise be in favor of harsh punishments for crimes and a stricter and stronger police force immediately fold. The institutions that desperately need support are abandoned in favor of short term emotional stimuli. Being on the 'right side' of discourse. Not falling into an 'extreme'. Not wanting to burden themselves with any of the cost of the harsh policies they otherwise say they support. Because people really do not want to live with the consequences of their ideology. Leftist or otherwise.
In turn we get George Floyd riots and Disparate Impact legal theory. Unsafe streets and people OD'ing on the sidewalk. An increase in physical suffering and pain. More neglected and dead children. This could have been prevented but people choose comfort and short term happiness over harsh reality. This is history repeating itself and a few chickens coming home to roost. This is not because of white leftists. And there are very few people here that don't themselves deserve whatever it is they wish on the white leftists.
Fair chance that was her husbands doing. I remember a similar anecdote from the 2016 campaign where Bill, allegedly, admonished Hillary's lack of attention to the rust belt. The anecdote was given to exemplify the reigning political strategy for the Dems at the time. That being the 'Coalition of the Ascendant'.
To be fair to Hillary, her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to decide whether or not to allow same sex marriage. Whilst Hillary used gay men getting married in her commercials. So it might not have been that crazy of an assumption to make to say that 'times have changed'.
There is a double edge to the nihilistic view on race that whites are allowed to have. That being as soon as someone flips the narrative on its head, you are greeted with all the same nihilistic arguments facing any other ethnic group. Best exemplified in the 90's era rhetoric of 'everyone is racist'. It deflates the whole victimary discourse and drives it towards whatever pit of nihilism awaits it. Further than that, if you set up teams, it's only a matter of time before someone starts to genuinely root for theirs, even if it's the designated bad team.
People against European-white ethnocentrism, like Jordan Peterson, saw this coming a mile away and have spoken about the dangers of invoking any sort of ethnic identity for European-whites. Instead preaching the universalist individualism stuff.
There are multiple reasons for doing this if you are against positive white identity in general. The most obvious being that if you ever lose the reigns on that particular horse you might not get it back. Even if it's all supposed to be negative, you might end up with an institutional structure where the power ladder you have to climb drives you towards ethnocentric action in favor of whites. It might seem impossible today, but give it a generation or two and you have no idea what priors the youngest generation has.
On top of that, having white people not think about themselves in collective terms is simply better. You can just tell whites to not commit to any rational group action and they wont. They will seemingly buy into any individualist ethos regardless of how obviously stupid and suicidal it is. Just wrap it up in some novelty and have it appeal to their vanity and off they go. There is no risk there. Comparatively, even with a negative identity, there is always risk that some pathological nerve gets struck one too many times which, as mentioned prior, can easily spread. I'm worthless? We are all worthless. You are worthless.
That's the first anime profile picture I've seen attached to a research paper.
I mean, it doesn't really. Rich people playing golf is a meme. He has all that time to get good at golf because he's not doing real work. He just passed a wealth threshold where his money works for him now.
It's not hard for a lefty to spin this as just another manifestation of Trump being a bad guy.
I feel like Donald Trump being good at golf is like Hitler being an animal lover. "See! He wasn't all bad..."
As for that, I don't think it matters a whole lot. The general blue-ish public is likely not going to stumble upon political content about Trump that's not negative. Media polarization and algorithmic bubbles do a powerful job. If you like Trump you can like him more. If you dislike Trump you can dislike him more.
There is a lot of untapped frustration after the Floyd riots. Just like there was with endless sob stories about immigration and refugees. People just need someone mainstream to channel their emotions.
You and I are talking (typing) at cross-purposes. And for my part I'm not "accusing" you of anything, except possible pointless hostility.
You wrote: "I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons." Insinuating I believe or said something to the tune that glossing over violations of public trust is preferable or in some way good. I did not say anything of the sort. I would in fact argue that it's near impossible for the public to determine whether something was a violation or not in a media landscape as toxic as the one we have.
How do you want me to reply to such behavior on your part? You do this again here:
I agree that releasing this footage was shittily political.
I never said anything about releasing the footage or not. Like, what are you doing?
But enough of that. You replied to a comment of mine that was very expressly about the political angle of this. You take a personal stance. My point would be that your personal stance is counterproductive to your stated support of the police. Your personal feelings towards a specific incident are irrelevant. The broader context is shaped by a political media machine that is propping up specific cases at specific times for their own gain.
If you don't realize that political reality I don't know what to tell you. Why bother stating your political stance of generally favoring the police if you don't care enough to stand against a force that very recently dealt some very serious blows to policing in the US off the back of exactly this type of situation?
You are defending the foundations and principles when you stand against politically motivated mass media attempts at smearing and weakening the institution. You do the opposite when you don't. Officers will make mistakes. You don't crucify those who make them in media.
If the institution itself is deteriorated and bad, you need to cast a light on that, but the fake news narrative of racist police and black victims is a lie, so this event is very clearly not it.
Most people would prefer the police shooting someone than being scalded, yes. I don't know how or if that fits your 'constitutional' priors.
Policing is whatever it has become. Its sanctity lies in its foundations and principles, not individual events.
Policing in the US has degenerated a lot to face third world challenges. Sometimes old ladies get shot. The police are still sacred, though, for all the old ladies that don't get shot. Or so goes the tale of why we need police in the first place.
When the alternatives are race riots and 'prison reform' I have a hard time sympathizing with the "high road". Whatever that even is, aside from tut tut's.
I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons.
No one said this should be done. No one said this should be 'condoned', no one said anything about what you advocate.
By the same token I can accuse you of a similar thing. Hyperbolizing an event like this in an effort to throw a bunch of gasoline on an ACAB fire and then say you back the boys in blue. Which seems counter intuitive to me, but you do you.
You can stand by officers in cases like these by letting due process run its course, or by recognizing these cases as statistical outliers, or by recognizing that policing a third world population with a first world police force simply doesn't work. Not by swirling around in a media fueled frenzy. If your takeaway from any of the previous media fueled ACAB frenzies was that policing got improved or things got better in some way I'm not sure what planet you are coming from.
With supporters like these, who needs enemies. The point is that you don't cave in, instead you show you actually stand behind the thing in its moment of weakness. Precisely because it's being attacked by your enemy.
If the GOP was smart they would do the opposite. Full scorched earth Womp Womp's.
I can't believe that GOP and friends don't have guys crafty enough to weave a narrative of law and order, back the blue and whatever else out of this.
Don't make the shooting an issue, make the media and Democrats the issue. They are attacking a sacred institution, these hallowed halls of law and order and blah blah blah. Show teeth. Don't be weak and limp wristed. Blame the Democrats and media for the shooting. Whatever you do, don't let the foot off the gas. Organize pro police protests, do whatever. Everyone is sick and tired of this play. No one respects it. People just go through the motions because it's the only game in town and they're forced to participate.
I am comparing relevant metrics. 'Immigration' is a meaningless category since it only tells us what is recently going on, not what has been ongoing. A short look at US demographics tells a very clear story: Used to be majority white. Soon to be minority white.
There is a far greater difference in firearm availability.
If you are Canadian you can reliably attain an 'assault rifle' so long as you don't live in specific cities and jump through a few hoops. Not as smooth but very similar to the US. Yes, you can't get a million and one different variation of an AR 15 or an AK platform rifle, as many of those are banned, but you can get relevant stand ins. At the end of the day you have reliable platforms that fire rifle caliber rounds.
It is popular to be excessively critical of the US. I think pretending the US is as bad as Canada is an example of that.
It's popular to point at others and say: See! We're not that bad!
There are plenty of measures where the US is an embarrassment. Violent crime and prison rape to name two very relevant ones.
What do Trudeau conservatives like this want? We can't kill our enemies, because then they win. So when we get power we ??? and profit?
It seems like the overarching theory is that we can induce some sort of stasis where, if everyone behaves and doesn't do anything self serving with power then we can live happily. OK, that's obviously not reality, as this entire rigamarole is fueled by people abusing the power they have. On top of that they have no reason to stop so why would they?
I'm more inclined to chalk this line of thinking to conflict aversion. It's not principle but cowardice.
The US is no better off than Canada on the immigration front, where 25% of the US population is now hispanic or Asian. Demographic projections are only going one way.
I don't care if you think Canada's gun control laws are 'extreme'. The fact is you can buy an 'assault rifle' in Canada. It might have a 10 round mag and your selection is more limited, but it's a rifle all the same. The rest is semantics.
I really don't sympathize with pretending
No one does. Which is why the feeling is so mutual. Americans are great at isolating themselves from the world around them since their country is so large. You can live a lifetime in the US without feeling any of the things being talked about in media.
I used to think of America as a silly place that, from my end, didn't really exist. All the news and media coverage felt similar to a reality TV show. It was striking for me to learn that most Americans feel the same way and that their own reality, like mine, is far away from 'America'.
In that respect the US is much worse than Canada. Most Americans have no idea what their country even is. How could they?
You're not resisting the government with handguns.
Counting illegal immigrants I'm not sure the US is that much better off. Maybe 'time', before their European population is dwarfed?
Canadians can own all the relevant firearms needed to resist the gubment. The only relevant strike is 10 round magazines, as far as I can tell.
We didn't go full Australia on Covid lockdowns.
Neither did Canada.
We are still allowed to own guns.
So are Canadians.
The state only takes 35% of our income instead of 50%
Again, look at Canada.
All involved are neck deep in mass immigration. I'm not seeing the boomer utility here.
There are a lot of right wing boomers in the world. Be that by birth or spirituality. I don't remember the last time any of them at any time in the past 80 years could make any relevant change to the course of history. It seems like it doesn't matter how many 'SJW Owned Compilation's there are, or how many boomers watch them and cackle.
The point of a Hitler comparison is that Hitler is Satan. Satan is obviously bad to everyone who shares the western religion so the negative association is not to anything specific, it's just definitionally evil to be like Satan. Saying someone is like Napoleon or Caesar is not the same, since those two are not the antagonists of the ruling religion.
If you want to make an earnest comparison between Trump and Hitler I'd stop you are the part where Trump is Trump and Hitler is Hitler. If you feel the need to invoke mythology and shared religious gestalt to get your observations across I'm not super interested, but would prefer 40K lore as the medium.
More options
Context Copy link