BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 78d 09h 53m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
The new fable of the white Liberal is born from the same impulse that birthed the old ones. They just periodically update the flavor text to maintain social respectability. White liberals still believe that they are needed to save the world. The utopian ideal for a white liberal is a world ruled by POC that happens to conform to every single preference the white liberal has. They can't help it.
Anglo-Saxons have ruined the country that black slaves mostly created, are predisposed to racism, and they will be saved by people of every race and nation unless we happen to stop liking Asians.
How is this not a typical white liberal daydream? They believe they have the answer to save the world. A multi race coalition. They imagine how it will function, what race will be the captain of the ship so on.(hint: it's a black woman with vitiligo) They get deep emotional glee from imagining themselves as a slightly lower rank person within a multi racial hierarchy. An advisor who, in the coalitions time of need, is the only one the captain can trust... or something.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Ashkenazim being diverse has little bearing on whether or not Portman could be called 'jewish looking'. Since Portman's 'look' could be much rarer than other jewish 'looks' as well as not sharing many of the obvious tells that make the other 'looks' obviously jewish. Which is my impression.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Tate invites her to Europe. She accepts. He takes her sight seeing in his Bugatti. Then, according to her, nothing happened.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Yes, she talks about it in the video I linked.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Many Ashkenazim have the opposite of a straight nose with no hump. The collection of jewish facial features that make up what could be considered a jewish face are very much not on display on Portman. Especially in that sideshot. I'd assume she were Eastern-European. Slovenian or something.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Feminists view of a positive male role model is an attractive man that's mouthing off feminist talking points. An actor like Gosling that women love a lot for his role as maybe the most insidiously tragic example of a man in movie history is the perfect fit.
Andrew Tate isn't that. It's a bald weirdo with a lot of money that's telling young kids that if they want girls and cool cars now rather than in 10-20 years, they should sell drugs now instead of being a loser that wastes their youth studying to be an electrician.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
The front of the nose a bit but on the sides I don't see it.
In an interview he did with his daughter she said that, basically, nothing happened.
I don't think it helps her case that she looks like a pornstar in that interview, but that's just me being a hateful Machiavellian narcistic coward troll demon. Outside of that I'm not cued in on all the drama.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Hard disagree. Portman looks more jewish now in her older years, but young Portman doesn't look jewish at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Seems like an overdramatic reaction. Probably due to you lot having known the guy for some time. So you express your own heavy heart with a heavy hand that's out of line with reality. More frequent short bans would be much better.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Jordan Peterson positioned himself as that guy perfectly, aside from his age. Anti-feminist enough, but not overboard. Anti-establishment media in theory, but pro-everything they are doing in practice. Anti-radical politics that could otherwise influence or inspire young men. Focused on short term tangible real world goals like working and being reliable. Too bad he turned out to be a drug addict that raised a single mother who got railed by Andrew Tate but... eh. The hate he received is extraordinary even when he was the perfect Trojan horse that could potentially 'pacify' young men.
The alternative seems to be the 'cool' feminist types in internet media who are either fat, literal cucks, or in the throes of transitioning into womanhood. All on drugs, legal and illegal.
Can't wait to see what 'they' manage to cook up.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I'm failing to see the relevance. The decline of the total red headed population in the country would not need to have any bearing on how Hollwood casts a comic book character drawn in the 1950's. If anything it would seem like a great opportunity to represent a desperately underrepresented minority.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
That's just a comparison of costumes.
You can't call this more of an hourglass than anyone. At best they are equally flat. Though I only say that since I can't find many photos of Zendaya that show her body.
Gal Gadot has a very similar body, i.e. very flat, no?. She also has a very similarly 'needs proper angle to be attractive' face. Gadot's side profile is awful, for instance. I was under the impression she was only considered so attractive because she expresses a lot of jewish phenotypic traits very attractively. Unlike someone like Natalie Portman who is very attractive but in a very gentile way.
IMHO she's easily the most attractive prominent Hollywood actress right now. Maybe Rebecca Ferguson and Gal Gadot might come close?
Maybe that's true, I'm not much for the movies or Hollywood. But I'd then say that there is a dire lack of actually attractive 'prominent Hollywood actresses' right now.
I can't even think of there being any particular hubbub about her race in casting decisions.
Hollywood has been ethnically cleansing its movies of redheads for a while now. A quick Google search will reveal that there is plenty of discussion on the topic. If there hasn't been any hubub in 'recent years' then it would only be because it's an old culture war that was has been completely lost by 'team red'. More and more of those.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
The difference is that HBD folks have to own it. Many academics throughout the years have done so for decades at great professional and personal risk. Yes, the truth is ugly and the fallout of widespread recognition and actualization of it might be even more ugly. But that's the fight being had.
Versus the likes of James Lindsey who simply ignore the inevitable fallout of their advocacy for colorblind meritocracy, acting as if the negative consequences simply won't happen. Not that he or the likes of him would ever allow the conversation to even get to that point, as that would be too great of an admission. No, the 'liberals' act not just like they have the most functional solution, but the most morally correct one. Like the author points out, it's as if they can't see that the system they are advocating for might end up shipping a bunch of melted ice cream. They refuse to even engage with the proposition. Instead they just assert that they are shipping ice cream to everyone the same way so it's fair.
Contrast this complete lack of self criticism with the way they engage with topics like HBD, where suddenly every little detail becomes functionally impossible to deal with. They don't actually have to engage with the truth proposition of HBD, they can just ignore it through the cover that any real world implementation derived from HBD is impossible, even if the results would not necessarily differ in any way compared to the 'liberal' one, the only difference being moral palatability, which is really only a cover for social acceptability. 'At least we are not nazis!' when in function they are shipping the same melted ice cream.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
This is a great article, well worth the full read. Especially in context with the comments written about it here. It seems the author hits the nail on the head when he talks about the elusive nature of the point of contention and the issue he has with getting 'liberals' to engage with it. He is also conveniently vindicated as being correct as this issue is exemplified in the comments here post after post. Where every manner of framing the issue away from reality is tried. It would be a miss for me to not highlight those comments if not for the convenience of the columns author already doing it for me:
At this stage, short of some grand conspiracy of white people “to keep the black man down” (the Woke explanation) the cause of group disparities must come down to some combination of the following sources:
Genetic group differences stemming from human bio-diversity, as attested to by a growing mountain of evidence,
Deep historically situated cultural differences that are almost impossible to change,
Recently developed behavioral differences that cannot be modified with tools we consider "liberal" and acceptable in the modern world.
On paper, and when I talk to them personally, many of the liberal-centrist types tell me they understand this problem. They have read Steven Pinker, they have read the Bell Curve, and they know the issues with Affirmative Action and disparate impact in the context of persistent group differences. Their eyes are open. They've got this one.
So what is their solution? More individualism and objective standards for achievement. We need to go back to color blindness, the legal fiction of equality, and judging everyone like a blank slate even though they are not. We can just call that a "meritocracy" as we did in the 1990s. Let the chips fall where they may, and be done with the matter once and for all.
Perhaps this is a great “debate club idea”, but who is going to own the consequences if indeed we were to tear down all disparate impact regulations, equal opportunity programs, and affirmative action? I don’t think an appeal to "meritocracy" would cut it.
Many commenters here seem to have missed this part of the article and what follows. It would be much better for everyone if they didn't. Though I would suspect the problem they have with it is hard for them to verbalize. Since any movement in this direction on their part is an explicit admission that they are willing to break baseline social taboos. To stand up in person and say you don't care about starving children in Africa because you don't recognize borders, would be an obvious low status signal. You would have to be stupid or of low moral character to say such a thing. The same would also be true for saying you don't see a problem with extremely poor black educational attainment or medical conditions like obesity and heart disease, because you don't see race. You would have to be a fool or the most brilliant of racist comedians to earnestly say such a thing in public under your own name.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I'm sure the author of the article feels the same way about your comment.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Reading the article and then this comment makes me wonder if you skipped the article.
To make a long story short, the 'truly excellent' want minorities at Harvard. Now what do we do with your 'liberal position'?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Illegal immigration enforcement had its worst years since the establishment of ICE in 2003.
Legal immigration fell during COVID but otherwise it only slightly decreased.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
"MAGA" from the 2016 campaign trail or "MAGA" from the 'legal immigration is actually good for the economy' that Trump started parroting in office after one too many a meeting with the fine folks from the Heritage Foundation?
"MAGA" is an empty political slogan that one too many 'right wing' American pours all their hopes and dreams into. It's vague enough to fit all of them. Vote for change!
To give a factual example of why "MAGA" is a marketing thing and not a political thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown
"MAGA", if it ever was a thing, caved in, got on all fours and kissed the ring of TPTB. No wall, no deportations, more immigration. That has been its state ever since.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Power might not change but who benefits from it does, depending on who has it.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
I'm reminded of the old clip of an alleged 'jewish Democrat candidate' gleefully contextualizing how many white men are killing themselves.
In ingroup/outgroup terms, if my enemy is dying, I can only shrug my shoulders. Is it by his own hand? Wow, how curious, I can't imagine why he would do that. I can't contextualize his death in a wider context. It's just happening. Probably due to some failure on his part, obviously. There's not wider causal chain at play, no broad narrative to examine. Because if there's one thing I know, it's that my people are innocent, and my enemy is guilty and deserves it.
Now, if a member of my ingroup dies, that's not their fault or mine. There's a wider context, a system, that's at fault. We need to do something!
That's at least the rhetorical implication of noticing this event. Maybe now something will be done since the 'people with power' will take up arms for one of their own dying. In that sense, this is a joyous occasion for the 'have nots'. The more 'elite' children that die, the more their parents are forced to take up the common cause of others who have had to live in with such conditions for much longer. Conditions that people like Susan Wojcicicki had helped create, facilitate and ignore for a long time now. Some might even be waiting for any brave soul to take aim at more direct causal factors, like the Sacklers. Why do they get to exist free of the conditions they inflict on others? Not only that, they get to profit from it.
I think posts like this help illuminate where one stands in the hierarchy of everything. Those with power can place landmines in your environment, and if you or yours step on them you just get to suffer whilst they get to profit. The worst part is that your only recourse as a 'have not' is to hope that someone with power also steps on a landmine so that they just might lead your cause forward. A sort of validation of your suffering. That's it. Patriotism/national identity doesn't play a part, voting doesn't play a part, 'the voices of the many' doesn't play a part. The statistical significance, the economic impact, none of it matters even if it is so often acted like it does matter in so many different contexts. In the modern western democracy these things don't matter at all. The only common cause people can find is suffering. In clear terms: If a powerful jew isn't suffering your problems, you will just have to live with them.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
My point would be: If "strong HBD" is right, what does being 'racist' even mean, and why would it be bad to be one?
It's not just that we can be discriminatory against people with intellectual disabilities. We actually are. We make rules, laws and train professionals to deal with all sorts of people who fail to meet whatever standard society sets. Does that mean we are 'racist' against those people? Should we let people with Down Syndrome play with power tools on a construction site because we are not 'racist' and don't want to perpetuate 'harmful' hiring practices?
Like with most things of this nature, most of the politically centric who would lament this development would otherwise celebrate its birth. I.e. The end of holocaust denial being the top result relating to the holocaust.
There was a big media storm surrounding the topic in 2016. I'm pretty sure Google had already been working on something before this. (Though that might have just been a concentrated effort of extremist jews trying to skew the results through very radical 'manual click farms', wish I could find those forum posts again.) As this matter had the added controversy of the site in question being Stormfront, a well known media boogey monster. The matter was closed in the same year as Google expunged holocaust skepticism from its top results.
It's hard to say what exactly a gray/centrist would change about the past to make the present a better place. I'm sure most of them on this website are far outside the norm when it comes to tolerating 'unsanctioned' holocaust revision and would just not press the censorship button. Or at least that's what they would say when faced with a hypothetical. However, when they actually have the button... well, then things can get messy.
I'd expect the typical reasoning of 'Only do it to the smallest of outgroups', but given how demonstrable it is now that such reasoning does not hold when we are trying to uphold broad principles for big populations... Where to? Can we at least stop using that argument?
More options
Context Copy link