BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 78d 09h 34m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Very hard to call it random when it's so consistent.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Moreover, I'd suggest that no specific proposal is given, and "recognise Palestine as an independent state" covers quite a lot of ground, so it's unlikely that all of that 35% want the same thing. Recognising Palestine as an independent state could mean a number of different types of two-state solution, it could mean totally destroying Israel, or something else.
I think it would be a safer assumption to just say that the supporting public wants to recognize Palestine as an independent state in the same way many other nations have. To invoke the total destruction of Israel as a potential reason why someone would want to do that seems rather silly.
The matter really isn't that complicated. From your post it seems like the main complication is politicians who are unwilling to do it unless it somehow serves Israels security interest. Which pretty much gels with what functor said.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
HBD doesn't even refer to differences in skin colour which are totally uncontroversial.
I can tell you right now that no one uses your definition of HBD. HBD absolutely refers to differences in skin color. In fact, it refers to any differences between populations. HBD doesn't refer to just the controversial parts of human bio diversity.
No one is calling him racist because he's interested in population genetics.
As I went over in my earlier comment, he is catching flak because he's flying too close to too many different subjects that can, in the wrong light, be highly suspect. Population genetics is one of those. To study these fields in safety you need to deny certain things about them, like Turkheimer and co. Hsu doesn't do that so that gets him into a bad light.
I get your point. I'm just criticizing other things you've said.
I'm still wondering why.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
You're not getting the point, which is that there are certain things you are not allowed to be uncertain about. Claiming that you're a physicist and that you hold to some uncertainty principles isn't an excuse for the true sacred cows. To exemplify this I took a quote from Hsu and applied it to the holocaust.
Population genetics is not HBD. That is not what is getting him called racist.
"Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and among populations"
As I already said, and wish you would have read: "I mean, yeah the guy is not a culture warrior and I think he very adamantly doesn't want to become one. But depending on your definition of HBD the guy is very interested in differences between humans. Just not in a way that's incendiary to his career."
You're playing definition games here. Hsu himself says that there are people calling him racist. He does research into intelligence and has no problem with things like IQ. He has interest in population genetics and doesn't rule out a hereditarian perspective. Long story short, he's on a lot of thin ice. He's basically everything an HBD person would be if they were trying to hold down a job at a university. Now, is he? I don't know or care. It's irrelevant to the fact that he is doing too many suspect things. Which is why he is a good target for our fine folks in urbanite journalism.
As an aside: I'd appreciate if you stated your intentions here. I don't care to write every point twice. I also don't care to meet your personal definition for words after I explicitly state that there's an obvious issue with definitions of words going on.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I don't understand what your point is and want to clarify that the video part of your quote is made up
I had hoped that it was obvious to everyone that the part in bold was added by me. Though that may be an error as I just assumed people would read the link given to Hsu's blog. People are obviously more quick to comment than that, sadly.
and not the kinds of questions he is referring to.
It's exactly the kind of question he is referring to. A different example of his, given in an interview were he was asked about his views and the characterization as being racist he says, paraphrased:
so I've been attacked because... I'm not willing to categorically rule something out, I'm suddenly a racist. Which I think is absurd, I think for many question like... Is there a god? You might admit is even a more important question and I'd say the jury is out and I don't think I should be labeled as a bad person for that.
The point I'm making is that being open to everything obviously isn't allowed. You can't be agnostic on sacred matters and Hsu knows this. In my view he's just trying to weasel his way out since he's too proud to outright lie like Turkheimer or that he knows how ridiculous die hard environmentalism is.
Are you accusing Hsu of having an interest in HBD? If so, based on what?
Just casually scrolling through his blog. He did a fun interview with Razib Khan where they go over some of their shared interests together, population genetics included... I mean, yeah the guy is not a culture warrior and I think he very adamantly doesn't want to become one. But depending on your definition of HBD the guy is very interested in differences between humans. Just not in a way that's incendiary to his career.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I don't disagree, but I'd argue that your position is not scientific/knowledge seeking. You want to protect white people. According to the progressive oppression stack white people rest pretty low. That's where your problem with the progressives begins.
If you're a supremacist you want to protect white people no matter what. If you're not, why protect white people when there are so many others in need? Surely whitey can wait. And if you want to challenge that aspect of progressive ontology you will be so far outside the Overton Window that they can easily just call you a racist nazi and move on. And I don't think they would be all that wrong in doing so, technically speaking. I mean, we did storm the beaches of Normandy for a reason, right? We depict those guys as heroic for a reason, right?
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I'd agree to an extent, but those are seen as being private conversations. You don't go out in public outside the friendgroup and talk like that. In fact I'd argue most people who engage in such talk believe that it is not allowed. Cue memes of the group chat getting leaked and such.
It's not a matter of having an opinion of being allowed to say X or Y, there's just a recognition that this sort of thing is not allowed in the public eye.
It works up until you need to answer why their literacy rates are so low and why there are practically none of them in higher education.
You can't tell the black people the truth because that's ugly and no one has the stomach for it, so where do you go? The exact same way our modern western society has gone: Towards progressivism. Because progressive ontology actually has a beautiful answer: ordained equality and racism.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I'm not posting it to convince people of Turkheimers viewpoint, I'm posting it to demonstrate at what level the debate is being had. It doesn't matter what the science says. Race science is ugly and offensive. This is a fact and anyone who disagrees can be invited to explain the hereditarian viewpoint to a kind and caring black person without feeling gross.
Or to put it another way: We object to it on the same grounds we object to excavations of alleged mass graves from Nazi death camps: The holocaust happened, there's no reason to desecrate graves of its victims. The end!
If you want to argue in favor of science and knowledge... Why here, why now? What drives ones interest towards race or the holocaust? There is no answer here. You're just a racist nazi.
If there's a genuine position that can meet progressive ontology head on I'm willing to hear it. So far the only competitors I've seen are racists or people who either willfully or ignorantly ignore the glaring issues that lie between blacks and whites.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
We must hang around different types of people.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Whether most people are dumb enough to not understand something or not is irrelevant. The journalist is obviously smart enough to. Doing the maximally benign wrongthink is still wrongthink. The Stasi doesn't owe you any favors to interpret you flirtations with eugenics as anything other than an ultimately hostile act.
Whether they are actively looking for wrongthink or not is irrelevant. You can't do positive flirtations about verboten subjects. Even if you are an old fuddy duddy and think your tweets are benign.
I don't strictly disagree with you. I just don't understand why you are arguing this. Neither one of us makes the rules.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
To use Hsu's own words in a different context:
As a physicist I am used to a high level of scientific rigor. Statistical certainty of 99.9% is not sufficient, in our field, to claim a discovery (e.g., a new elementary particle). Thus, the correct answer to many questions (e.g., do electrons have substructure? Are black people innately stupid? Did the holocaust happen?) is: I do not know.
Sorry, Hsu, but claiming a neutral position on certain topics doesn't cut it.
Maybe as I grow older I also grow more stupid but I feel like a lot of people really needed that article by Eric Turkheimer on why race science is objectionable. Claiming that your interest is purely scientific or whatever isn't good enough. Because the wrong discoveries can do a lot of damage. You need to meet the moral/ideological/philosophical underpinnings of the progressive worldview head on. Otherwise you have no relevant objection to them crushing you when you go too far astray.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
If you talk in a way that implies blacks are innately dumber than some other group you are not getting anywhere. Race and IQ stuff are beyond the pale if you are a hereditarian.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Yeah, journalists aren't normies. No one said they were. That doesn't change the fact they set the standard for normies. Racism bad. Misogyny bad. Everyone except your racist uncle agrees.
You can't go and talk about race and IQ in public and come to any sort of hereditarian conclusion and not be eligible as a racist. Those are the rules.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Even the most ardent of public racists don't even pretend to entertain the notion that people should be treated badly because they are of this or that race.
"Believes there are measurable differences between races" is a fairly new definition.
It's not.
The only game being played here is pretending that there is some relevant distinction to be made between the views of 'rationalist HBDers' and George Lincoln Rockwell on racial differences other than confidence and honesty.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
If you are out in public airing your view that it's an inherently good thing that smart and beautiful people are having more children then you are a eugenicist. The implications of what you have to think and believe to say such a thing are obvious.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I'm not sure what to make of this hostility towards the article. What about it is wrong, exactly?
By normie ideological purity standards sympathy for incels from a man is misogynistic. Pro-HBD guys like Razib Khan and Stephen Hsu are racist. By objective measure standards, wanting smart and beautiful people to have more children is eugenic.
Reaching verboten conclusions through 'rational means' on topics long decided by the 'ruling class' doesn't protect you from the consequences. Even if you always imagined yourself an enlightened rationalist far above the boorish outcasts that, unlike you, must have reached these very same racist conclusions through some dark age anti-rationalist sorcery.
Though I doubt this will lead anywhere, as this sort of reporting is usually just about petty politics and interpersonal relations between the uncool kids from school, I wouldn't mind it actually doing some damage. Why should this group of smarts be exempt from the contempt of mainstream society? They have certainly proven themselves to being no better morally.
It seems like some humbling is in order. After all, the very same 'rationalist sphere' in question has proven time and time again that they stand firmly behind the principles of 'racism bad', 'misogyny bad' and all the rest. By what mechanism do they propose to defend themselves after their better part falls firmly on the wrong side of these things? Like, does it need spelling out to these big brained luminaries of ours? You can't call an entire race of people stupid just because you understand statistics and studied psychology. It doesn't matter how nuanced and detailed your blogpost is. Some wordcel is just going to copy paste your conclusion and now you're no better than the evil racists you spent 15 paragraphs trying to distance yourself from. And you know what? The wordcel is right! You did reach the same conclusion, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I don't disagree. I just think it's easier to argue the point that there is no stated upper limit given by folks that argue what MaiqTheTrue argues. Since their position, in my experience of arguing against similar ones, is ultimately not based on objective thinking or anything related to the real world but rather moral preference.
When you push motivated egalitarians far enough they will simply resort to impossible to prove theories and assumptions, be that prenatal environment, systemic racism or whatever else. It's much quicker to simply ask them why they expect all of their confounding factors that can never be tested to only be able to affect black people. It helps highlight how the proposition that we could possibly increase IQ doesn't do much for equality.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
The politics of Joe Rogan, more or less.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
There's a lot of interesting ethnic variation in England. The meme explanation is that small round heads and beady eyes are the 'indigenous' britons whilst other physical characteristics, like a longer face and more prominent jaw are primarily due to the Norman conquest. How the Germanic admixture fits in I don't know, but there's certainly a noticeable trend in phenotype.
I wouldn't be surprised if the round headed beady eyed hobbits of England who managed to weather every storm history has thrown at them would be less inclined to move to a far away land, whilst the long faced Normans who had already sailed and conquered would be more predisposed to doing so again.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
He is still marketed as a counter-culture guy after getting canned by SNL. You might not agree that he is actually counter-culture or whatever but he is undeniably the face of counter-culture comedy.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Right but it feels like you're assuming that somehow white people have no gains to be made. I think that assumption would fail on the same grounds you would fail those who presume that blacks have no gains to be made.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Isn't this kind of it?
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Do you not think it's damaging the product that an AI can't depict white people?
Israel's lack of cultural proximity is also the prime reason people don't like Israel. Zionists and philosemites make claims of Israel being very culturally 'western' whilst at the same time Israel is getting itself into all sorts of trouble relating to the conflict precisely because they are not acting 'western'.
The response to a muslim terror attack, as demonstrated by the many European nations that have suffered them, is not to bomb civilians into oblivion. In fact, the preferred response is to venerate the outgroup that hurt you and seek reconciliation even harder. Israel does not do this. Israel should be taking in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Possibly millions. Israel does not do this. Instead they bomb women and children. You could not be any less western.
By the same token, many people do not know how some jews view the outside world and have no concept of how ethnocentric semites are.
I think many zionists and philosemites need to understand that the 'rooting for the underdog' mentality that drives some support for Palestine is the same one that drives tolerance for semites around the world. You can not have it both ways. Either the culturally foreign, which includes both muslims and jews, is not tolerated or they both are. Trying to have it both ways because you love yourself so much more than anyone else is not going to cut it for fair minded westerners. In fact, trying to employ classic dehumanizing rhetoric like you do in your post is not going to work precisely because of jewish anti-prejudice propaganda driven into every westerners head.
More options
Context Copy link