BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 79d 00h 08m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
I think there are a few elements of what we call the holocaust that are not up to scratch. But they are maintained through bad incentives.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
From the 'Blue Series', the official record of the trial of the major civilian and military leaders of Nazi Germany who were accused of war crimes.
Twelve million murders! Two thirds of the Jews in Europe exterminated, more than six million of them on the killers' own figures. Murder conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Majdanek, and Oranienburg.
Sir Hartley Shawcross, Britain's chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials. Pay no heed to the other camps that are also not death camps anymore.
A distinguishing feature of the Dachau Camp was the gas chamber for the execution of prisoners and the somewhat elaborate facilities for execution by shooting. The gas chamber was located in the center of a large room in the crematory building. It was built of concrete. Its dimensions were about 20 feet by 20 feet, and the ceiling was some 10 feet in height! In two opposite walls of the chamber were air tight doors through which condemned prisoners could be taken into the chamber for execution and removed after execution. The supply of gas into the chamber was controlled by means of two valves on one of the outer walls, and beneath the valves was a small glass-covered peephole through which the operator could watch the victims die. The gas was let into the chamber through pipes terminating in perforated brass fixtures set into the ceiling. The chamber was of size sufficient to execute probably a hundred men at one time.
The room in which the gas chamber stood was flanked on both ends by warerooms in which the bodies were placed after execution to await cremation. The size of each room was approximately 30 by 50 feet. At the time we visited the camp these warerooms were piled high with dead bodies. In one of the rooms the bodies were thrown in an irregular heap. In the other room they were neatly stacked like cordwood. The irregular pile of bodies was perhaps 10 feet high, covering most of the floor space. All of them were naked.
DOCUMENT 159-L ATROCITIES AND OTHER CONDITIONS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN GERMANY
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
The issue is not that he is a single issue poster. Which everyone is to some extent. It's that he's a single issue poster with an issue the mod team and a lot of the sites users don't like. Users hit report, mods hit ban. It's all very easy when you don't like them much.
We can then go on to listen to a different single issue poster talk about their progressive liberal moralism and how the left has gone to far this time. Which is fine by me. I certainly didn't feel the need to report some guy shitting on Yudkowsky for the millionth time, even if I was starting to feel sorry for Yudkowsky to an extent.
Terrible post. Terrible sentiment. Users get modded all the time for having fun the wrong way. Mods should do the bare minimum of being respectful in accordance with the rules. Though Amadan and friends long gave up on that when the topics of discussion happened to hit their personal sacred cows, it's worth pointing out when they are acting like a cringe reddit mods.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
You assume a certain amount of jews and then assert they have to be accounted for.
You have no grounds to assert anything if the amount of estimated jews is lower than you need it to be. So we are basing our entire belief for the holocaust on the assumption that population estimates. We then grandstand on this premise whenever any specific issue is taken with the holocaust narrative.
The problem here is obvious. You can dismiss every single item of critique without engaging with it. Any attempt to bring a hammer and chisel on the ugly rock of lies that is modern belief in the holocaust gets thwarted away.
What's worse, we're pretending that we hold to a different position than the alleged revisionists. As no claims to a specific amount of jews are made. Instead we afford ourselves the luxury of believing that the number of 'missing' jews just so happens to coincide with the reigning holocaust narrative. If the narrative says numbers go down, our belief in a fixed amount of jews in need of accounting for also goes down. It's a completely onesided standard that leaves one in no place to cast any aspersions on the alleged 'seeds of doubt' being sown by 'revisionists'. Since our belief in the holocaust is completely circular. That is, we start of by believing the holocaust narrative, and then use that belief as proof that it happened.
Besides that, uncertainty is a very common thing in history, especially with regards to numbers and populations, and especially around WW2.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
We also have photographic evidence of bigfoot along with eye witness testimony, for what that's worth. Point being, the conversation pertains to looking at the actual evidence.
A great example of this would be the alleged death camp in Dachau. It has every single element used to prove everything the article you cite uses to prove the holocaust. Except for the fact that an SS document detailed there was no 'gas chamber' ever built at the site. So hundreds of jews who testified to American detectives about the killings lied. All the images from the camp alleging it was a death camp were not from a death camp at all. History rewritten at the stroke of a pen. Reality altered forever. Or, well, for us at least. The people executed for their participation in guarding a death camp that never was could not benefit from the correction.
I have to admit the quotation marks threw me for a loop. That's not what Sobran said so I'm failing to understand where you are drawing these implications from.
Sobran is not saying that towering over the rest of the world is a good or bad thing. He is just stating a fact about the world. The white man does tower over everyone. There is barely a place left on earth that isn't directly impacted by the consequences of his feats. Construction, transport, information. Every element that facilitates the world as we know it is there because a white man, in one way or another, put it there.
How you, or the previous replier, manage to insert jews into the equation is confusing me a lot. How does it relate to the point being made?
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
The jews didn't pull strings to get the white man to the top. They pull strings to control the white man because he is at the top.
Beyond that I am starting to see your point. Which is that you don't like Sobran. Which is fine. What I don't get is how your dislike of him is relevant to my comment and the sentiment being pointed out.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
That's not a contradiction.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
I am not understanding the relevance of your comment. Why wouldn't he, allegedly, feel 'envious' over "the power of Jews to puppet the US around the world stage like a marionette"? Is there supposed to be a contradiction here?
The cavalcade of replies along the lines of 'don't worry champ, you'll beat the odds!' look, sound and feel... silly.
Sure, if you abstract yourself to the point of just being an idea you'll be fine, but human beings are obviously not ideas. They exist as biological entities. Genes expressed in an environment. We are a 'social animal'. We exist in groups. We interact with groups. You don't exist as an idea. You exist as a part of a greater whole.
Someone saying bad things about your 'whole' looks, sounds and feels bad!
I wish that the individual, reason driven, enlightened and fair minded people could understand and empathize with the emotion being displayed in the OP. Being part of a 'whole' that is in some ways lesser than another is a constant feeling of badness. The aforementioned minded, who want to rise above such silly emotions, or simply lack them, need to understand that they are a minority of a minority. Telling someone who feels to simply not feel is silly. You can't understand what the person is talking about and give such an answer. It's not smart, reasoned or enlightened.
I'm reminded of Joseph Sobran, who hit on a similar type of a fundamental misunderstanding of just why some of the emotional expression that exists continues to persist, to the endless bafflement of the 'enlightened' few.
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.”
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
The article carries a relevant message to a commonly held sentiment centered around the proliferation of 'race realism'.
Jarred Taylor should serve as a case in point demonstration that no matter how sane, reasonable and respectful you carry the torch of 'race realism', you will be hounded by people driven by powers that are in no way worried about the truth in any other sense than to suppress it. No matter how credentialled or learned you are, everything you say and do will be pulled into whatever context is needed to make you look bad. As demonstrated by the likes of Rushton and Jensen, or any openly HBD academic.
It's easy to agree with the author, that Cofnas is missing an obvious point: That knowing is only half the battle. But at the same time the author is, beyond recognizing the error of Cofnas, seemingly no better suited to deal with the actual problem. As is illustrated by one of the comments, which the author agrees with:
People reject genetics because they can't control it. Give them control, and the incentives change. Hereditarians should give up on culture, and instead focus on gaming out the economics and logistics of genetic engineering.
Regardless of how futile the fight for truth may have been, to speak from the perspective of the likes of Jarred Taylor or Cofnas, who bound hope to the proliferation of truth: It beats giving up.
What is the actual proposal here? Hope the third world designs their babies white? All this wisdom on obvious social dynamics doled out by the author brings us to... what? Crossed fingers and open legs for white sperm in India, China and Brazil?
As an aside:
I would have preferred something tangible. As I find myself constantly waiting for these bloglords, who talk about the burden of a heavy brain, to produce something actionable for us stupids to cling on to. So far they can't even manage to throw their weight around the conservative rhetorical sphere. As anyone who remembers the old 'cultural marxism' knows. I mean, that was an old meme resurrected. Hey, here's a new one: 'bio leninism'! Is there anything more corny in discourse than dropping a phrase you need to explain to your own side? Yes. See 'Moldbug' on Fox News.
Give us something new and cool. 'Woke' has gone stale a long time ago. I want a word that describes people who automatically ingroup browns and outgroup whites. Preferably as an ism or phobia, like it's a disease or something.
Beyond that, if there's anything I've learned from the modern right it's that every single serious right winger is a failed imitation of the NSDAP. The amount of words used just to not call the enemy Bolshevik jews is ridiculous. Is that too coarse? Too low brow? What is your alternative? Just don't participate? Then why have a blog at all? Why bother with anything when you're just going to hunker down and pretend you don't care about politics. I don't get this at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
Give every native man a house when they demonstrate they have finished some form of work related education, i.e. not arts or theater, and that they have worked for 2 years. Otherwise they would need to demonstrate they have been working for 5 years. The problem solves itself from that point.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
We're always just one Benjamin Spock away from revolutionizing childcare and killing a bunch of children in the process.
You used to be able to look towards a healthy society and base your judgement on that. Mixing and matching the old and new, good and bad, like a good conservative. But it seems 'good conservatism' doesn't necessarily lead to healthy children or 'healthy societies'. As we've managed to revolutionize those as well under their watchful eye and careful guidance.
I would like to blame people like Freud, Spock and other culture critique warriors who judged what a healthy society was based on other metrics than the societies ability to rear 'healthy' children. But at the same time much of the blame falls on the societies themselves for failing to defend themselves against bad memes.
Instead of firm guidelines, education and a social fabric built around babies, we get a cyclical revolution driven by anecdotes, hobbyists and professional weirdos constantly trying to keep up with an ever-degenerating society.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
All the more reason to remove it.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
You have no idea whether people wanted to click the link or not. When people click 'Top 10 Reasons Why the Holocaust Didn't Happen' I'd wager they know where they are going. It's a funny headline if nothing else.
People don't want false pages.
Then you have no problem with Google removing wingnuttery.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Then there's no problem with Google banning wingnut stuff.
Because a substantial number of people want to find the things said by their outgroup, but no substantial number of people wants to find Holocaust denial (outside Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Is it classified as 'substantial' when the amount of people clicking the holocaust denial link drive it to the top of Google search results? Are entire nations not 'substantial'? I mean, I agree in a sense. If we exclude everyone who might want to click the link, no one wants to click it.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
And progressives have no qualms about saying wingnuts should be ignored. You're back at square one. Why should they care how many people believe in false things? Let the record stand corrected.
Google is not banning Holocaust denial. Not showing it unless people ask for it isn't banning.
And google is not banning wingnuttery. I mean, there are massive problems with denying people fair access to an algorithm. But hey, you can ignore those for deniers, why shouldn't progressives do the same for their outgroup? Just quash whatever it is you don't like before it gets the chance of gaining popularity.
What's the alternative to using reasons, even if you think your own are good and someone else's are bad--just don't use reasons?
I'm not looking for an alternative to reason. I'm looking for some self awareness and a broader contextualization of things so you can recognize the point of contention.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
You provide no evidence or information that demonstrates how or why it should be considered 'unintentional'. You could say the same thing about any result you don't like. So it's just you saying it. I mean, 'conservative' results are 'unintentionally' there. So they get removed. No problem.
"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.
'Conservatives' want to see those viewpoints. They are a minority. Most people are not wingnuts.
Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Google is not aimed at 'conservatives' either, obviously.
Again, what is your problem here, exactly? You are OK with banning things you don't like. That's the line you draw. Even if it's just words that don't convey any immediate or credible threat to anyone. Other people do the exact same thing. Are you just mad they are doing it to you? Doesn't that invoke any sort of introspection into just what you were doing to others? Can you not recognize some sort of need for a mechanism that deals with this issue that serves a broader scope than just your feelings and whim?
That, at least, was my original impression of 'centrists' or classical liberals. I imagined they were looking for a principled system that could 'make it all work'. But as you've shown, and like many other ones I've engaged with have shown, they have no principles that reach beyond their own nose. They have no conception of a principled system that might leave them in the vulnerable position of having to tolerate things they don't like. They just believe themselves to be so rational and correct about everything that they can't even imagine that their own emotions could lead them astray. In fact, they predefine themselves as morally correct and then use their own emotions as a compass. Operating under the impression that they've ascended beyond personal bias and whatever else. The extent of the worldview is 'my reasons are good, other peoples reasons are bad'. And then we play this ridiculous game of words we've been playing in this comment chain.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Ss the unintentional effect of stupid algorithms.
The algorithm was fine. You saying it's 'unintentional' is just you saying it because you don't feel good about it. By the same token every 'conservative' wingnut nonsense is 'unintentionally' there as well and can by removed by the same reasoning. All you need to do that is someone who feels like you do about the holocaust, except about wingnut stuff.
Again, by your reasoning since a lot of people click on spam, they want to read spam.
That's obviously not the reasoning. Like I already said, everyone agrees that malicious things like malware or other things designed to scam money out of you are bad. People open spam thinking it's something it's not. No one opened 'Top 10 Reasons The Holocaust Didn't Happen' expecting anything else than what it says.
It's not banned. It's just not shown to people who want something else. People who actually want will still get it if they search for it. You're acting as if Google won't return Holocaust denial no matter what you do. They're not doing that. They're not even making it difficult to find.
Same is true for 'conservatives'? What is your problem here with anything exactly?
Besides, there is no "discussion" except among a tiny minority.
There are more people who don't believe in the holocaust than there are American 'conservatives'.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Because it was on top of Google.
And why was it on top of Google? Do the people clicking the link need your protection? They can't read something on their own? Why not? What might happen? They might believe something you don't personally approve of?
You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.
I am not saying that anyone should put it on top of Google. I am saying it should not have been removed if we are trying to uphold any sort of liberal/centrist fairness across the board. It was a website doing exactly as advertised. 'Top 10 Reasons Why the Holocaust Didn't Happen'. That was the link, that was what people clicked. It wasn't predatory, it didn't have malware. It did exactly as advertised. It was only removed because a certain minority of people didn't like it there. There was no mass movement, no popular sentiment. Just a few journalists and philosemites leveraging power.
Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.
You keep oscillating between 'true/false' and 'minority', it's annoying but still besides the point. It doesn't matter how many programmers use C++ vs C#, you can't ban one from the results because you feel like most people, in your particular context, which you arbitrarily decide to favor your argument, don't use one or the other. The people using Google click those links. They get bumped to the top. As soon as you have an arbiter above that process that can decide what is and isn't true you are bound by their will. That's the precedent you set. Stop complaining about it. The fact you surround yourself with the opinion of a bunch of idiots from the US doesn't change what's actually true for the global majority.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?
No, I'm seriously suggesting you start reading what I write instead of cutting it into bites you can twist out of context and lie about. What I am suggesting is that you can't even have a discussion on whether or not something is true or not if you ban it. If you do that you've already decided what is true and what is false. Not just for you but for everyone else who is deprived of information they might otherwise have used to find out. Case in point being Dachau.
Why does every folly of censorship have to be trotted out to people like you? You want to ban your outgroup. So do progressives. You don't have an argument. You're just mad your false beliefs get banned. Want to prove they're true? Try Google. Oh wait...
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Can you please do some kind of summary, commentary or other type of contextualization? Why should I even care about this? I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, I would latch on to the most flimsy reason available.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
By your reasoning, Google should be sending people to the SEO spam and should not try to get rid of it in search results.
Are you playing antagonistic defense for some particular reason?
Search is at least partly supposed to be a popularity contest.
This is what you said. How is Stormfront comparable to SEO spam? Yes, I think Google should remove predatory sites that, for instance, try to put malware on your system. Everyone does. That's kind of obvious, no?
Holocaust denial is neither something that many people want (since they want truthful things and it's false)
It won out the algorithm. The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it. You saying that people don't want that kind of stuff is just you saying it. Actual reality is different. Wanting to play veto by your feelings is not a good or fair. Don't think so? Don't lament progressives banning your 'conservative' conspiracy theory hogwash. They're just playing by your rules.
"It's a tiny percentage" is false for conservatives and true for Holocaust deniers. That's a big difference; being true or false actually matters.
It's not false. It's true. That's the difference you need to understand. You might think you can prove it but you wont receive the platform or information to do so. Those are the rules you follow when dealing with the holocaust and they are the exact same for wingnut nonsense. How can you complain? The situation could not be any more symmetrical. You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it. Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Yes, that's the centrist position. What I don't understand is how you can stand by it whilst refuting it in your own post.
Holocaust denial got the most clicks. But centrists don't like that so they want it banned. So screw any principle or fairness, I should just have my way because 'reasons'.
Funnily enough, that's how the people banning 'conservative' stuff think. They see a tiny portion of the population. A minority in their own communities and a minority globally. They see these 'people' denying obvious truths about global warming, racism, transphobia, the J6 insurrection, Trump the racist fascist, the truth of the election result, trans children and hormones, Immigration... I mean, have these 'conservatives' just considered not being factually wrong on everything? 99% of people don't agree with them. No one wants to go on google and be bombarded with false information. There are few conservatives, and no truth in conservatism.
No really, it's so easy to justify against the outgroup, as you artfully show. How can't centrists figure out that other people can do that as well?
My mistake, when I said 'gas chamber' I meant 'homicidal gas chamber'. The camp had a 'gas chamber' but it was never used to kill anyone, as was later reported, it was for decontamination. Funny how that term 'gas chamber' just gets thrown around heh...
More options
Context Copy link