hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Seething is fine. But throwing your toys out of the pram, downvoting and reporting before storming off in indignation is not. I say this as someone who generally disagrees with Turok posts but enjoys the fallout they generate.
I'm not equivocating the otherization and the examples. I'm contrasting the emotional message. Liberal/leftist/progressive messaging on the human condition is that it is malleable. There is an underlying reality of inspirational hope woven into the subtext of their stories. Similar to what you find in self help. The feeling that you can change, improve and make a difference with your own actions.
The opposite is what Coil wrote. A blackpilled message where the underlying reality is that some things are set in stone. There was never a chance, every effort futile beyond making more lives worse off.
In meme format: 'Future doctors and lawyers' vs 'invasive species'. The emotional message of Coils post is what offends those who hold to the opposite view. People are not hurt by hatefacts and IQ charts by race, they are offended by the implication. That's why IQ by race isn't necessarily racist until you assert that IQ is 'largely innate'.
Feel good stories told by liberal/progressive/leftists go something like this:
To connect the dots, adoption and / or fostering seems to be a great way for this old man to plant trees, especially if biological children are completely ruled out. There is undeniably a population crisis and replacement rate is an issue, but from a (gross?) utilitarian perspective the population crisis is about productive members of society. Adopting and / or fostering well kills two birds with one stone: it reduces the population that is at-risk for homelessness, and creates more productive members of society.
Wow, very noble and inspiring. It speaks to one on an emotional level, fills you with hope and positivity for the future. There is no counter argument without being a bad person or uncouthly bringing up some giant baggage of heterodox arguments that immediately look bad and emotionally divorced.
So @WhiningCoil gave a feel bad story as a contrast. Or a 'feel reality' story. Depending on ones predispositions.
You would not be the first non-right wing extremist person to fail to engage with the direct 1:1 mirror rhetoric you would otherwise extol as just and noble. Faced with forlorn elements of reality laid bare.
One would be inclined to blame your environment for keeping you away from any competing emotionally resonating narratives, but as can be seen, you are the one picking those. And as someone who spent years of his life making the aforementioned heterodox arguments against all the feel good stories, and having that very fact used against me as an argument, I can't say I have much sympathy left to give for your self inflicted predicament.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
I think the general sentiment regarding 5.56 is that it's great up until the point you have to take on armored opponents or longer range engagements. It's not without cause that the Army and Marines have been moving towards larger calibers recently. That being said, a high velocity 5.56 round hitting you anywhere except your chest plate will probably render you combat ineffective. Couple that with low recoil and it's hard to imagine a more preferable option for lightly trained persons.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
I had the opposite happen. Watching the documentary 'One third of the Holocaust', I found I had imagined that there was a much stronger case in favor of the holocaust than what I found.
Same for David Irving's challenge against the gas chambers in Auschwitz. He lost his defamation case on the basis of eye witness testimony, not physical evidence. As, according to Irving and his whole reason for denying the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz in the first place, there wasn't any.
The biggest realization was that I had not once even spoken to a person that had any idea of what the holocaust actually was outside of fiction. Every normie conversation that veers close to the topic is just people filling in the blanks where evidence is absent. They don't stop believing, Schindler's List is just that good.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
Functionalism vs Intentionalism.
For people who villainize Hitler, it's a pretty big step to say that there was no grand plan for a Final Solution orchestrated by him, and that things just sort of happened as a consequence of the war.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Making careful arguments in favor of controversial things in the vein of child rape and cannibalism got a person banned in the past for being too annoying. Though that was back on reddit. Not sure to what extent the 'Eye Of Sauron' was used as an excuse or not. But I remember Zorba specifically saying that a good portion of the decision to ban came down to personal annoyance. Which might have been the posters intent, but it was a ban none the less.
To that extent I think the moderation is functionally against people with sincerely held beliefs. Earnestly defending something you care about will make you emotional to an extent. You will take the discussion seriously and personally, push against what you think is untrue and become more 'annoying' than if you just didn't care that much.
Contrast that with the tone of the unbannable motte poster who is a sort of disembodied birds eye view commentary generator.
I personally like the former more than the latter. So it's sad to see many 'true believers' marginalized by mods and overzealous 'reporters' who seemingly want this forum to be their personally politically comforting morning newspaper, rather than a diverse debate sphere where a wide range of people who actually believe things talk about what they care for.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Right back at you.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
What everyone believes of themselves is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. But taking what you say into account, with reporting that has just been displayed here, I'm confident in my statement, comparatively.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Buddy, I don't think you do. I specifically remember some of your reports which were based on nothing more than you not liking what was said.
I doubt it. I don't report a lot. And in a holistic review I'd wager over ~99% are good reports.
If you mean you think peoplecoughJews are "shamelessly" reporting people for anti-Semitism
No, I meant what I actually wrote, not your bad faith paraphrasing.
and I'd say Jew-haters and incels are actually much more prone to mash the report and downvote buttons.
I doubt what you are saying is accurate, given how antagonistic and petty you get over the subject matter. But on the flipside, people who criticize jews are, as far as I can tell, vocal and make arguments when allowed. Unlike what is displayed here. Regardless of how many are allegedly behind the scenes hitting the report button.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Like I said, I suspected this to be the case, just not this pronounced or shameless. The post does not even have a single reply that voices disagreement, despite being reported into the janitor queue. I think that's a tell that there is something very wrong with how certain people engage with certain topics on this forum.
Considering the post itself, whilst rather 'hot', is not overstepping what would be considered typical mainstream left discourse on the subject, I think the people who use the report button in such a way should be warned or otherwise influenced to stop their behavior.
I would find it much closer to the spirit of the forum, as I see it at least, to allow the person who worked up all that heat the chance to prove themselves by challenging and discussing their assertions, rather than straight up asking for a ban.
If you think it only happens when people are going on about Jews, you are deeply mistaken and have not been paying attention.
Though I would not think it only happens regarding any specific subject, I would not be surprised that it happens a lot on certain topics over others.
I want to say any majority black country, but I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength with regards to income.
To highlight what I'm getting at the most obvious example I can think of is the fact that the black population In the US can not functionally maintain the white/east asian standard. I.e. you have a population block that does not contribute to the pool of potential quality medical staff in a similar way that the white/east asian group does.
This disparity might not be pronounced in any relevant way so long as there are proportionally enough candidates for quality medical staff, but change the proportions enough and you will run into the aforementioned 'system errors'. This has similar cascading effects when looking at other professions that require high quality people.
To that extent income isn't as relevant a factor as one might think. There are a lot of wealthy people whose wealth is only made relevant by the existence of the quality people that enable that wealth to begin with. You might argue that to be the case with regards to any society in general, and I'd agree, but what I am getting it here is that the wealth generating avenues are not at all equal or equally predicting with regards to social outcomes. Which is exemplified by the fact that even when controlling for income, blacks commit more crime than poor whites.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
I suspected it, but I did not think it to be this pronounced or shameless.
That's the case for all anecdotes. On top of that, the nature of some questions can deprive us of our preferred tools to deduce fact from fiction. That doesn't invalidate the questions or unburden us from the consequence of the answers. Using heuristics to help guide us towards some sense of rationality is perfectly valid and reasonable.
A key example of this would be military propaganda. We know it was used. We know there were branches within the armed forces and government whose sole purpose was understanding, disseminating and otherwise advancing propaganda for whatever purpose. Seemingly all the major players in conflict hide or obfuscate their casualty numbers in a variety of scenarios. So without evidence we can reasonably claim that news about Ukrainian or Russian or IDF or HAMAS casualty numbers are at best skewed. Why would the US army be different in this regard? Maintaining a narrative of how strong the US specials forces are or how powerful the navy is seems to fall within the basic purview of a propaganda arm.
Yes, we are missing fact, but the nature of the subject matter kind of has that problem built in. That doesn't make it unreasonable. In fact, the only position on could argue that point from was if one believed one had a better understanding of reason than anyone else. That one is here to finger wag other people as if they can't understand the nature of the question and the inherent problems just overviewed.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
This comment got reported a lot. Why?
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
It's not based solely on income. I said that it's based on people and the differences between them.
We can tease out some obvious differences using various proxies, such as the examples I gave before: Income, obesity, or 'race'. But the overarching point is that we have big natural experiments when comparing various different health care systems. Those experiments collapse a lot of the complexities, but they also help verify the proxies we used before and the limited but relevant insights they give into the health care systems.
What kind of evidence are you looking for? That the largest brown population groups in America make less money than the Whites and East Asians? That low income people pay less, despite requiring the same treatment? That obesity is a cause for many medical issues? That doctors can spend up to 30 hours in a week servicing people who don't pay anything at all, ever?
Conceptually it's a simple proposition. The system is based on pooling resources together, and then that pool is used for those in need. People who pay more than they take out can maintain the system. People who pay less make it harder. Both ends of this equation matter.
The problem America has is that it wants to maintain a 'high' European or East Asian standard, but it's lacking the population to maintain it on both ends. Which leads to odd systemic 'errors'. The complexity of the system muddies the water as to why it is so expensive. But it makes sense when you operationalize the population differences.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
It's not about the system, it's about the people.
Low income, high obesity, non-White or non-east-Asian will topple any system.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
Assuming the armed forces does not lie about who dies, how when and where seems... silly. The most obvious reason being that you might not want your enemies to know what is going on.
I find a lot of this skepticism unwarranted. It doesn't take into account that this sort of thing has been par for the course when it comes to military propaganda. The examples that come to mind my mind are the British publishing fake stories on what ships were bombed during WW2. Or repeat claims by western powers that Russia is the one doing the lying about casualty numbers, or accusation to the contrary by Russia. Which makes sense and seems rather straight forward from a military propaganda standpoint, even if it's not honest with the truth.
On top of that, the military isn't a democracy. You don't go around asking questions or digging into graves looking for answers. Not to forget that the US armed forces have covered over bigger events than the ones mentioned here, like the USS Liberty. And that was just for political reasons.
I would find it odd if there aren't internal protocols in place for how to deal with death reports, and how to those are publicized or not in case they might divulge information the armed forces don't want out there.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
Using the wide definition you gave, where 'utility' can be pretty much anything, sure.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
I made a very simple argument relating to a very simple thing and you've been spilling verbiage to get at something that's not that. The rudeness of my language only exists in relation to your condescending tone and asinine word games.
It's not courteous to twist words, walk past context and argue for the sake of arguing. I've explicitly stated what I was saying and why. If you want to argue for whatever it is your view on marriage is, go ahead. But, like I said in a previous comment, I don't know why you are arguing about it with me and would prefer if you just spoke directly.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
I mentioned my coworker as a shorthand for the pervasive phenomenon of people complaining about their marriages in relation to a pontification that marriage was easier than having an employee as a billionaire. To that extent you're not even elevating a point by imagining things about my coworker, just bloviating a cope.
Your axiom says that marriage is a materialist, utilitarian contract that is not of any utility for a billionaire. But the evidence of your own eyes is that very nearly every billionaire on Earth appears to find some kind of utility in it.
'Some kind of utility' is not relevant as a point of comparison between whether or not delegating a duty to your wife or an employee is an easier way to go about organizing your lives together. The post I replied to gave examples of the utility of having a marriage. I asserted that these examples and others categorically like them are not relevant for a billionaire and are therefor not arguments in favor of marriage for a billionaire.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
I dunno dude, the idea of thinking of a wife as like some kind of utility calculation around chore maxxing or whatever seems like the kind of thing that deranges radical feminists.
That's not what is being done by me to any greater extent than it was being done by the person I replied to.
I'm not interested in your selective disagreement with me. Marriage in this thread was leveraged in two contexts, a material function one, i.e. you wife can do things like organizing, doing housework etc, and an emotional function, i.e. you love them, they are your soulmate etc.
My point was that Bezos, on account of being a billionaire, does not need a wife for material function. So leveraging the utilitarian functions of marriage in support of an argument that marriage is beneficial to Bezos is asinine. I'd even argue that such a thing would be stupid. He probably has more than one giant house. Do we expect the wife to clean all of that? Of course not. Same for organizing big social gatherings. Hell, why even bother to cook when you can have a learned chef cook for you? It just doesn't make any sense.
For the emotional function, you don't need marriage to love a person or spend your life with them.
As for your definition of marriage, I'd argue that the only coherent view of marriage is when two persons want to start a family together. Marriage is a contract, Both a legal and not, between two people who a binding themselves for the ultimate task procreating. It can be because two people feel a very special connection and want to be with one another forever and start a family. It can also be because two people who don't really know one another all that much were pushed together because of necessity, and everything in between. Marriage is important and sacred all the same as a starting point for procreation.
To contrast this with your view, you can pay an assistant to functionally have undying loyalty through sickness and health, and you can marry a person who doesn't have that. I'm sure you have an enviable marriage, but I'm not sure if you leveraging that is conducive to a coherent argument.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
You paint a picture of my coworker in your head based on two lines of text. It holds no value to reality beyond whatever delusions you need it to hold in your own mind so that you can express yourself.
To make a long story short: you don't need a marriage to find genuine love and affection. To insinuate the alternative to marriage is prostitutes is inane at best. And if someone has had more than 6 marriages then I'm not sure what the institution of marriage even means in relation to this argument, beyond being some hold over that men gravitate to because they tend to feel affection for inanimate objects and ideas.
On the flipside, there are a lot of losers getting married every day. And they outnumber the winners. Not that this is a terribly relevant thing, as I don't see the relevance in your argument towards anything I've said.
Beyond that, people having issues with marriages is not a thing that exists within the confines of my workplace. There are examples of this all around us. If you want to ignore that fact and pretend my workplace experience is unique or unrepresentative go ahead. But I think most people can understand the utility of having billions of dollars to employ people who can solve most of the problems in your personal life so that you can spend your free time doing something with your loved one that you both like doing, rather than saddling them with household chores or whatever.
It's not just the presence of these events, it's the absence of others.
I remember being shocked as a kid when a bad guy in CSI: Miami turned out to be black. In almost every other case it was some sort of white person. And oh boy was it righteous and great when a white man tried to frame an innocent black man and got caught because of it. Gave an immense justice infused confirmation bias high to my progressive young self.
More options
Context Copy link