BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 78d 17h 09m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Maybe in the US, it has always been a big no-no in Europe, as far as I know.
I remember politically fringe people like Sargon of Akkad bemoaning the idea when talking to Richard Spencer back in 2016 or so. Now there is talk of directly deporting people in the UK and Germany by the biggest hard right parties in politics. That's a big shift.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Has the right wing rhetoric gotten more dramatic or stayed the same? I've noticed how Farage in the UK with his Reform party has been talking about deportations and net zero immigration. Something no one would say a few years ago. A lot of that is huff and puff on the campaign trail, but its still a very clear tonal shift.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
When I watch videos children victimizing others, be that students or teachers, I feel no need to "feign" outrage. When they grow up to push old ladies unto traintracks I am well past ever pretending. I am outraged at the scale of how bad brown people are. How bad they continue to be. There is no reason for so many of them to behave like this, yet this is what so many of them do. It doesn't matter if the victims are white, asian or other browns, as is most often the case. They just continue. America, Europe, Africa, it's all the same.
Trillions spent, countless manhours, endless work, all for nothing but another story of someone murdering their fellow man over a piece of chicken. Another rape, another robbery. Just the ever present squalor. Why can't things just turn out better?
I'm not seeing the hole in the logic. Every other racial group on the planet, as well as many African blacks, can come and succeed in America. They are surrounded by these homeschooled, publicly and privately educated native adults, who are so well liked and sociable that every nation on the planet has a seemingly endless supply of wannabe immigrants who want nothing but to live in their societies. Everyone except the relevant subsection of the American black can figure these things out.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Then we do not agree as white people do not owe brown people anything. What they do give is an act of kindness that is comparatively very rarely reciprocated.
I agree humans should help one another. Which is why I find your position so distasteful. You don't want to help white children. You want to risk their wellbeing. We can all be equal in squalor. That doesn't mean its good.
As for human values, what white people are doing and have been doing are not human values. China isn't opening its borders. India doesn't care for equal rights. Africa doesn't care for LGBTQ+ or whatever. The places on earth that engage in what you call human values are white. Humankind as a species only got where it is today because white people pushed it there. Ending perpetual conquest, ending slavery, sharing technology, pushing for an end to unnecessary suffering. The rest of the world was dragged kicking and screaming away from their barbarism and is only kept from it, still kicking and screaming, through the implementation of neo-imperial financial coercion and threat of force.
Children in general do not turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if raised in homogenous schools. It's in fact easier to be tolerant of the things that are so far away from you that they practically do not exist. Children raised in homogenous schools miss out on nothing that's worth the increase in risk.
What you offer parents is a coercive bargain. You promise them total equality and an end to racism in return for placing their children in worse environments. The problem with this bargain is that your end of it is a lie. The only thing that happens is that white children become worse off whilst brown children continue being who they are, good and bad. We know your end is a lie because it, like every progressive humanist effort, has been tried and subsequently failed.
You as a person, like so many others, can not functionally understand this, for whatever reason. So you continue chasing the promise of equality and eternal salvation through whatever means you can imagine. People like you have already cost billions if not trillions in your futile efforts. White people have paid for all of it, and here you come asking for more in the name of humanity, equality and all the rest. Listen, white people already did all of this. They are doing it even today. It doesn't work. None of it works. What do you think progressives have been doing for the past 60 years?
'Success in school' is meaningless. Every teacher could pass every student with no issue by just doing what is already being done and dropping the standards so the browns can pass. What actually matters is peoples ability to interact with modern societies. That means the ability to read and understand, having the capacity for low time preference behavior and the ability to implement mathematics into practice. School outside of these things is not meaningful in the modern context. So long as a majority of the children get a grasp on these things, society can continue to function properly. The problem is that no one knows how to get the children that don't grasp these things to grasp it. It doesn't matter if they're white or brown. No one knows how to meaningfully raise IQ scores or lower a persons time preference.
Taking children and placing them in environments where they are more likely to get bullied is not banal. Arguing in favor of this by abstracting away from reality is not honest. You should take some time to reflect on what you are proposing in practice. Because there are many more values people hold to than just the imperative to help those in need. And your particular emotional proclivities in no way trump those who differ.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
And the best schools on Earth, as well as the ones most people choose to attend, are none of those things.
The best schools on earth are in Finland, Japan and Denmark. These schools are very homogenous.
I suppose you can bend the rules to say that children raised in bubbles grow up to be well-liked and sociable in their bubbles. But that presumes life in a bubble is man’s greatest aspiration.
These children raised in these "bubbles" are well liked and sociable everywhere they go in life. Stop lying about people you know nothing about.
Have you interacted with homeschooled children turned adults? Or people who went to private school? They are, generally speaking, socially stunted and awkward.
No they're not. What a hateful, ugly and bigoted thing to say. The vast majority of the research says otherwise. And if you knew anything about homeschooling you'd know that the kids get a lot of social interaction outside of school, such as in various club or sporting activities.
You highly doubt that someone who graduates valedictorian and places in the top 3 of their class at the SAT will continue to be smarter than most of the people around them? Very smart people still have to employ and work with normal people and idiots.
Anyone who graduates HS and goes to a competitive workplace or university will very likely not be the smartest person around. I point this out just as a simple statistical fact.
But that's besides the point, which is that you don't need to interact with brown people to be able to socialize with people who are less intelligent than you. Like, that's just nonsensical. White societies work just fine and there are plenty of not so smart people in them.
Yes, but it certainly helps. Homeschooled children are weird, unsociable misfits who become predisposed to blindly trusting authority figures and struggle to wake up for work on time.
This is completely untrue and you are ridiculing yourself by saying such obviously untrue things. A simple google search can show you how wrong you are, as homeschooled children faire just as well or better than publicly and privately educated children.
Women who never go to school with men become sexually repressed fetishists who chase cock in their 20s and 30s instead of starting families.
To say nothing of the men who grow up to be incels because they never learned heterosocial customs.
Again, this is ridiculous.
Uncharitable generalizations cut both ways.
What? You're not generalizing, you're just saying obviously untrue things.
Become too insulated in a hyper intelligent bubble, and you become the kind of person who genuinely wonders why no one likes your plan to sterilize or segregate vast swathes of the population because a black boy bullied a white boy once.
Again, what even is this?
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
There is no 'we' here. There are vile people bargaining with the lives of innocent children and there are parents trying to protect them. Most people do not accept marginal risk for their children for no benefit if they can help it. Yes, people make these choices all the time and they are telling you in this case: No. You do not respect their autonomy or value the wellbeing of their children so you refuse the answer.
I'd trade a .1 decrease in GPA for my child any day of the week if it means they turn out to be a better-quality, more tolerant, open-minded person.
And the point I'm making is that this isn't in your control. Every single example and assumption you make is not based on the factor parents are using to decide where to send their children: Risk. You don't get to decide if its .1 decrease in GPA or bullying that scars them for life.
You create hypotheticals and make generalized assumptions based on irrelevant research to draw up a concrete picture when the reality is that you don't know. You just hold to an ideological firmament like a zealous crusader. Parents do not have this luxury as they have to accurately assess real world risk to the best of their ability. Since their primary focus is not ideology but the welfare of their children.
I also believe that some vague sense of diversity exposure (beyond simple racial categories too, as mentioned) is long-term beneficial.
More diverse schools have increased rates of bullying. Whatever benefit you think you are getting, you are not counting the negatives.
Plus, though I don't buy into it to the extent some people do (the whole performative white guilt thing is bullshit), there IS certainly a moral evil in saying "oh my particular in-group is happy and prosperous" and thus let's not do anything to help other, suffering groups. Especially when, you know, broadly speaking your in-group was directly responsible for those poor outcomes of other groups. That's literally dystopian.
White people do more to help brown people than any people on the planet have ever done. They are drawing the line at sacrificing their own children for an effort that defies any logic and reason.
The assumption of your argument is that the problems browns face can be fixed by whites. You also hold to a moral and ideological imperative that white people owe brown people. Neither of these things are true. It's just a classic example of a rape and revenge narrative. Regardless of anything else, no white person should ever listen to a person like you on anything relating to the welfare of their children, given how racially charged your ahistorical ideological viewpoint is.
There are plenty of mechanisms for which Black kids can have better outcomes other than some vague notion of proximity or magic, you are correct. I haven't listed them explicitly, but I could if you doubt they exist. Put briefly, part of the problem with US primary and secondary education has to do with the funding and geographical schemes used.
If the problem is money, which its not, you could just argue to give these schools more money without punishing white children. Yet that is not your argued course of action.
Overall, though, it's still so bizarre to me that you outright accuse me of racism. You blocked out a quote of mine and I fail to see anything racist there.
The assumption that white children turn out intolerant, ignorant or sheltered if not raised in proximity to browns is racist. I explained this to you in the reply to that paragraph of yours. As I said then, white people raised in their homogenous societies produce the best people the world knows who drive the best societies. The only reason you would assume that they are somehow turning out evil is if you were making a baseless racist assumption. Which is exactly what you were doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
To make a long story short: If you care about your group you want people who care about your group in charge. Ben Shapiro doesn't care about the 'white America' group at all. This bleeds into his rhetoric. He does, however, care a lot about Israel. If he cared as much about white America as he did Israel there would be no problems, but he obviously doesn't.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that your entire argument is predicated on the belief that child-on-child, permanent-consequence outright violence is inevitable (or at least highly likely) to occur in deliberate group-mixing.
Where was this "acknowledgement" made? Also, where does this language come from? "Acknowledge"? Am I hiding something or doing things in a way you are not?
I take strong exception to that. I think your belief that somehow placing your presumably-white kid in with your thinly-veiled majority Black school has a significant chance of landing them in the hospital or something is unsupported and warped by media perceptions and fearmongering.
Not a "significant" chance. A greater chance. You clearly do not understand the argument. You can stop being glad.
Sure, we can go and agree that many Black communities have a violence problem.
Then there is no need to pretend there is a "fearmongering" part at play. Parents choosing to go to a safer school are doing what is best for their children if they value safety highly. We both agree which schools and which communities are safer.
I am aware and acknowledge your concern about how using kids to break a negative, self-reinforcing cycle feels a bit bad. But seriously, what else can we do?
If your only move is using other people's children, you need a new something.
Kids are sponges and need deliberate exposure to other ways of being and living while young.
Homogenous schools do just fine with their students and they, generally, have much better outcomes.
So I'd challenge this whole paradigm that parents are being somehow brainwashed by SJW-stuff into putting their kids in danger for no real return. Rather, I would like parents to acknowledge the time-lag danger of accidentally raising an intolerant, ignorant, or sheltered child.
This is an extremely racist statement that has no basis in reality. White children that come from homogenous environments are some of the happiest, healthiest and smartest in the world. There is nothing bad, comparatively, about them or their education to be found. If there was any benefit to be had from studying with lower income blacks, then those lower income blacks would surely have found it. Instead the first thing they find is delinquency, illiteracy and worse.
Again, in case I lost some focus: the whole point of my post is to point out that otherwise-benign and rational actions like the self-sorting only when in strongly minority situations can have severe, negative consequences for society at large. Think of it like a game theory problem. All we need is to tweak the rules slightly and we can fix the game! In this case, acknowledging that there are negative consequences of growing up in excessive homogeneity.
That is based on the assumption that white children can somehow fix black kids through their white supremacy via proximity. Considering that this is obviously not true, you have nothing outside of fancy game theory that looks great in an interactive blog post to defend your, frankly, vile and racist ideologically driven social intervention that would see children suffer in the name of ending racism or whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
You’re ignoring the obvious counter point, which is “it is useful for children to learn to interact productively with people that neither look, act, nor think like them, lest they become unemployable social outcasts.”
This is a counter point to what? Homeschooling works great, sex segregated schools work great. Highly homogenous schools work great. Where are you getting the impression kids from these backgrounds are growing up to be social outcasts?
If your child is the smartest person in their school, then it is likely they will continue to be one of the smartest people wherever they go.
I highly doubt that. Maybe if they're in a very big school, but even then there are a lot of smart cookies in the world.
Learning to interact with 100 IQ “subhumans” is essential to becoming anything more than a white collar grunt who takes orders for a living.
What even is this... Like, I don't know where you are coming from but you don't need to go to school with brown people to learn how to interact with people who have lower IQ's than you.
But this is all very much besides the point, which is that the people proposing these changes, like the one in the article, are not proposing we do this for the benefit of the white children. Your attempts to tease out some necessitated benefit after this has been pointed out are bizarre to a point of self refutation.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I am in favor of homeschooling and sex segregated schools.
On a different note, the school system in general serves a purpose. I.e. daycare for kids. Desegregation does not serve a purpose, as there is no magic dust sprinkled on white kids that can make the brown children behave better via proximity. All you're doing is drowning out the statistics that would otherwise be very noticeable.
Putting your children in school is a risk, but the assumption being made is that it's something you must do if you want what is best for your child. The assumption is not 'if I sacrifice the potential wellbeing of my child some brown people some other place might become more literate'.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Counterpoint: Your neighbors child(A smiley square) got its head stomped on repeatedly by schoolmates(smiley triangles). Its head bounced off the pavement again and again and now its braindead in a hospital bed. Are you happy with your child(a smiley square) attending that school knowing the persons responsible are going to attend it again in a year?
To make my point clear: I am not against social interventions. I don't understand why you would think that. I am against putting innocent children in harms way for the sake of some ethno-sadomasochistic ideology. The squares and the triangles are not equal in the real world. We can abstract the real world to a point where we don't see the relevant details. But basing our arguments on those abstractions is no different from lying.
To further elaborate, maybe if this particular act of triangle on square violence was an isolated abnormality, we could excuse it as such. But it's not. It just so happens that smiley triangles, despite being 13 percent of the population, commit over half of all violent crime. It just so happens that smiley triangles are more likely to engage in bullying. More worryingly, smiley triangles are more likely to view bullying activities as high status, unlike smiley squares.
So yeah, we can pretend that our extreme child-sacrifice based interventions are not actually that by using smiley faces. But I am not going to pretend with you. I will, as politely as I can, point out that you are intentionally throwing children into a chain of causality that has many more bad outcomes than they otherwise would have had. This is evil and you should be punished for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I was spurred to ask this question by this article and especially this paragraph where author builds logical sequence connecting segregation with various social ills:
The author doesn't build any connections, he just asserts them. To that extent there is no reason to make any assumptions based on what he writes as being true. It could all just as well fall under the umbrella of baseline brown inferiority and white supremacy when it comes to the gaps between the groups.
More to your question: There is no world in which parents accept placing their children into worse education facilities than they have to. The only way 'desegregation' is done is through direct or indirect coercion. It has long been the case that the poorest and worst off whites have to suffer living with the browns. Nothing about this will change. It's only now, as is evident in the comment section of the article, that the white middle class is feeling the heat it once left the white lower class to sweat in.
There is certainly justice involved in the disintegration of the white middle class in America. But it's not to anyone's benefit. Schools will still have to segregate the bad browns from the good. And for every brown that might be uplifted by white excellence, there might just as well be a white child dragged down by brown inferiority.
On a final note, something about this topic always strikes me as disturbing. Maybe it's a personal problem but I find it hard to tease out some cosmic righteousness through the suffering of children. If the fine folks in favor of these policies want to volunteer theirs to make things right, so be it. But if they want to volunteer other peoples children for this sort of endeavor I would find it more right those same people be thrown off a cliff. Because there is an inevitable increase in suffering coming the way of children that would otherwise be free of it, if not saddled with browns. I don't feel like anyone owes society their children in an effort to facilitate some devils bargain to differently distribute suffering amongst children. But considering the support for desegregation across the board, I'm not surprised the discussion crops up from time to time. People accept the suffering in the name of social justice.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Any skill requiring 3-demensional thinking and hand-eye coordination favors men. Video games and chess have proven this beyond all doubt.
I can't comment on the viability of women as drone pilots in the absence of men, but if you have men available you would obviously want them as a first option.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
As well as judaism or philosemitism, we need to protect our kids.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
I'm no Jew.
I didn't say you were.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough why I was arguing things. I read your argument as follows: Jews want these things in Europe, but act differently in Israel.
I don't understand how. It seemed you just wanted to get Israel apologia into a comment.
Of course, there would still need to be further steps to back up your stance in the current conflict, for reason 3 that I mentioned (even if that addresses reasons 1 and 2): there's a pretty meaningful difference between people who are actively trying to kill all your people versus whatever's happening throughout the first world.
I don't know what you mean by 'current stance'. The default in Europe is to treat the outgroup kindly. Despite wars, despite terror attacks, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders. Israel does not do this, nor do most jews.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I do not understand how you are reading these things from what I write.
On top of that you seem very interested in Israel apologetics. To the that extent your comment reads like a copypasta. To that end I can only congratulate you on your dedication to your ethno-centric cause.
I mentioned a crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide to span the width of the spectrum of jewish influence in European political culture. Be that from Jihad Watch or jews promoting open borders and general anti-whiteness. The point was that I don't concern myself with what Israel does in its backyard beyond what Israel concerns itself with in mine.
To make a long story short: Jews want inclusion from everyone else, but exclusion for themselves when it comes to Israel. I don't like that. Jews around the world stand behind Israel and its hypocrisy. I don't like that either.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I see very little of them, especially in the aftermath of Oct 7. I can't say I agree that defenders of past colonialism and the defenders of Israel are basing their arguments on common ground.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
Defenders of western imperialism like the aforementioned men defend said imperialism on the basis that it was good for the conquered people. I don't understand what parallel you are trying to draw on unless you are saying Palestinians are better off with Israel ethnically cleansing them.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I don't care to propose any actions for them beyond what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them. Be that a new crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide.
I think that is only fair. If Israel thinks the rules of the western democracies are unfair then I'd be more happy to play by Israels rulebook and expunge every jew into Israel and make it into the Greater Gaza Strip. Should I think different?
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
The west comes in and does whatever it wants. They're paying for everything after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
And? Douglas Murray also exists. Fielding a similar point of view. His wiki page is filled with a similarly long list of 'controversial comments'. None of them go against the bigger elements of the white mans burden. All of them hold to the typical conservative ideals of 'family values are the reason the browns are the way they are' or 'Islam is the problem'. If they even stepped a foot near total expulsion of the brown or flirted openly with the ideas you have entertained their heads would be on a spike.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I don't disagree. I just wonder why that criticism of the white mans burden is only pushed when the topic of jews, Israel and Palestine are on the docket. Outside of that you would only hear it from ethno-nationalists. Yet the people pondering these things now don't consider themselves as being ethno-nationalists. At least they don't advertise themselves as such. So what gives? Does it just happen to be that in this case we can actually genocide the browns for the greater good and not the other way around?
I mean, just as a point of honesty, for how long could anyone back in 2016 or so uphold the idea that they were just rational skeptic centrist logic lords whilst constantly railing against the white mans burden? Wouldn't everyone just see that they are white nationalists? Isn't that transparently obvious?
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
That's been the program so far.
No one asks these questions in any other context. I mean, isn't a lot of suffering self inflicted? No one forces the third worlders to continually make mistakes. We just keep giving them money and privilege them in our first world societies. Their populations keep growing and we just accept more immigrants for the greater good.
The pro-Israel narrative doesn't compute with the rationalism or moralism behind all the other oppression narratives. People are continuously trying to carve out some special clause that allows us to ethnically cleanse the browns just this once. The inconsistency is glaring and the ethnic motivation behind it transparent, as this is only being asked because it's jews and Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
My point would be that the selectiveness in application of when might is right or when suffering and oppression count will be transparently self serving to an undeniable degree.
When was the last time people weren't cheering for the brown and oppressed? That seems like the default. Suddenly that's just obviously up for contention when it's Israel? Are we really still just trying to be 'less wrong' or whatever? I find that hard to believe.
For someone who is not inside this particular cinematic universe, how much is 'PC' damaging the product?
In light of the aforementioned Stable Diffusion problems, as further highlighted here, was this an attempt to dodge a future lawsuit or something? What's the culture like that drives this sort of decision making?
More options
Context Copy link