hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Not that everyone here is friends or anything, but this seems a rather hostile post towards ymeskhout. Am I missing lore?
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Your point, as it could be read from your post, was tethered to the idea that populism was some kind of related problem. I don't see how that can be relevant when so many of the questions you assert to not being asked of Musk can be very similarly leveraged towards the ruling class that sat prior to Musk.
I mean, Musk has seen plenty of open criticism recently. The H1B/Vivek stuff, along with him pretending to be good at video games. Alongside that you have a budding media industry centered around hating Musk 24/7. His companies being subsidized by the government is certainly not an uncriticized element.
I'm not sure to what extent dislike for USAID needs to be astroturfed or to what extent you want to question the media narrative surrounding it. I think there's a sizable population that doesn't like their taxes wasted on trans operas in Ireland or whatever. I find the whole ordeal more similar to something like the 'twitter files'. Just with more meat on the bone. But yes, Musk sure can press his finger on the scale considering his reach on X. And between the reach of him, Trump and Joe Rogan I'm not sure what oddity you are looking to question.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Musk has more overt power than Soros because he's playing a strongman on social media. Soros, in contrast, was a part of a giant emergent international blob. Financed via other 'billionaire philanthropists' along with tax dollars from all over the world. Working around the clock to skew peoples perception of reality to a preferred political end. There's no comparison.
Maybe when Musk and friends start fermenting their own global blob we can start asking questions. But so far there's not even a coherent idea of what that blob should be or why.
Unemployment was tiny (at least through biden's presidency) and labor productivity keeps going up. The empirical data is not on your side.
Unemployment is irrelevant to the point, and labor productivity is in this context just relabeled GDP.
The kind and degree of inferiority matters a lot. I've been arguing the whole time that the degree is small and the kind has no real evidence of being genetic.
The degree being small is dependent on context. A small degree of negativity can have large cascading impacts on a population that relies in part on civil services that can only exist with a certain amount of surplus within an economy.
As for evidence of something being genetic: It's all genetic.
Okay so then they're doing totally fine? Then they have nothing to complain about! You can't have it both ways. Either these communities are threatened or they're not.
No, they're not fine. They are pissed off and want radical change. The point here is very simple: If your economic policies produce political unrest then you are going to have problems.
Don't be so quick to dismiss my "pocket theory" out of hand. It's the difference between low-fertility rates being a structural feature of cities vs. something cities have the power to change.
I don't see the consequence. Liberals are failing to have their own children and this can be seen by simply looking at birth rates by political affiliation.
I've been talking to a lot of anti-immigrant people and to the extent that they've been concerned with demographic replacement that's exactly what "seeing other people's children as competition" means. Certainly, that's the position of the original blog post in question. But if it's not, I'll be charitable and assume that the question of demographics is fundamentally uninteresting to you, and-- assuming that's settled-- only address the question of economics from here on out.
There is a difference between being against demographic replacement and 'seeing other peoples children as competition'. If you want to discuss the former I suggest getting rid of the latter.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
Who is to blame for the trans madness took years to get 'unearthed' in a publicly accessible way. Prior to 2016 you could not find any tangible info on what was happening and why beyond /pol/ schizos talking about John Money and what books the Germans had been burning in the 1930's. By the same token you can not easily find out who is to blame for the AAA spiral into insanity. The ousting of Carleton Coon is just the tip of the iceberg and 99.9% of people don't even know who that is.
To the extent the AAA needs to pretend to hold to some sort of code of conduct, so does Elon. People make fun of him online if he doesn't. The H1B/Vivek debacle is a great example. Or when he pretended to be good at video games. Even if that amounts to nothing, it's at least transparent. Elon can be yelled at personally. The AAA presents no such target for the public. It only has to pretend to maintain the disguise of sensibility to the public and to please their 'masters', who are more or less completely hidden. If it is ever attacked by the public it can hide behind the mass of media and academia that are all running the same playbook to please the same 'masters'.
I know what you're getting at. I don't think an accretion of Twitter reposters make a good institution.
Neither do I. But when the alternative is mind bending insanity from people who have made it a career to look sensible to fool the gullible I choose to pick my own poison and sort my own substack subscriptions based on a more primitive but holistic human approach, rather than pretend that there exists some 'system' of science do gooders that receive grants from heaven and are therefore definitely not in the tank for whatever is funding their existence.
To put it differently: Lift the veil on the 'systems' and it's just the left wing version of cringe permanently online right wingers. But instead of scientific racism, misogyny with anime profile pics you get feel good humanism, misandry and a LinkedIn profile.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
That's not much of a rejoinder when this system of the best and brightest in the richest and most information dense time in known human history can't figure whether men can get pregnant or not.
The argument is not about what system to use. It's about the nature of power and how the people who wield it will push their will through regardless. I prefer to know those people by name. Rather than rolling around in confusion and conspiracy regarding how on earth the American Anthropology Association managed to deduce that biological race is a mostly imaginary social construct cooked up by evil racists in the 1700's.
Some guy and his cronies just randomly being right continually seems unlikely even in theory. Why did we need institutions in the first place then?
What are institutions?
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
When the choice is between guys pretending not to be white identitarian and guys pretending not to be zionist my wish is that we could all come together, stop pretending and just be ourselves.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
Musk representing himself as a powerful man is a break with the conventional institutional 'representatives'
The strength of the 'institutional representation' system is how intangible it is. Lies get woven into 'official' reports that get represented as fact based on 'scientific consensus' by completely replaceable 'spokespeople'. And when someone seeks to fact check these representatives and what they say they are met with the rhetorical equivalent of cold hard brutalist concrete: "Are you saying science is wrong? Do you not believe our intelligence communities? Are you anti-intellectual? Do you not believe in physics?!"
To this extent academia and media are just PR firms that wash dirt off of policy positions for the people in power. Like immigration being fantastic and without any flaws. Or that we can't share one last moment with grandma on the hospital bed due to risk of spreading COVID, but that we can protest against racial inequality by joining a giant street protest, rubbing shoulders with hundreds if not thousands of random people.
So, in fairness to Musk being incorrect sometimes: So to was the prior system sometimes incorrect! And just how incorrect it got and how impossible it was to fact check is practically why we have Musk where he is now.
I'm not sure what Hanania is after here, other than whining about the fact that X doesn't boost his posts when he links to his substack and that he wasn't picked up to be involved with any of Musks projects. Or that mass media has allowed people Hanania considers lesser than himself to reach heights of clout and upvotes he can only dream of... All things directly or indirectly mentioned in the article. To that extent the entire thing is just an embarrassing pout from the author. I mean:
The right-wing clubhouse Musk has created is just repulsive to anyone who is independently minded. I wasn’t surprised when Musk unfollowed me...
Yeah... At risk of breaking the rules: lol. lmao even.
hanikrummihundursvin
18d ago
Why wouldn't we get the full story if the 'elements' are within Israel? I think some people might understand that sort of a cut off as a dark hint. Especially considering how outspoken Ian Carrolls is on the subject of Israeli influence in the US.
My family routinely works with the same pair of illegal immigrant contractors and they always do great work. The idea that immigrants do poor work is just cope from people who can't compete.
The opposite of my work experience. But regardless of that, the X in ten that happen to be proficient workers is not worth the hollowing out of the native labour force. Furthermore, my point still stands. GDP would go up if the assumptions made in my comment are correct. An obvious example of why GDP is a bad metric for this topic.
The original article tries to argue that immigrants are inferior to natives by using statistics from the immigrants' home nations.
Which is irrelevant to the point being made. We could see by simply looking at immigrants already here that they are 'inferior' to certain native populations. They are only positive when we lump in negative population groups into the native tally. This is why I said I don't like the term 'immigrant' and 'American'. We can see where the 'good' immigrants come from by comparing them to net positive native population groups.
Except that is what happens, as demonstrated by identity grievance politics! All this anti-immigrant, protectionism nonsense is as much grievance politics as affirmative action. You want to force pluralistic urban areas into giving you money for labor and goods despite the fact that you can't compete on your own merits.
You said they would 'disappear into the void'. That's not happening. They are advocating for themselves based on identity grievance politics. Stop trying to pivot out of your arguments.
The policies and beliefs that make California suck are Nimbyism and Prop 8. Anti-immigration, protectionist whining is just more of the same.
In the most polite way possible: I did not ask nor do I care about what your pocket theory for why California sucks. The point of contention related to how urban liberals are the lowest fertility demographic in the world. You said that their culture is 'strong' and here to stay. In reality liberals are on the fastest track to self replacement of all the demographics.
So why would I want other people to have children? That's just competition.
This is a fundamental disagreement we have. I don't see others people children as competition nor do I celebrate human shortcomings and failure. To that extent I think your viewpoint is extremely anti-human and ugly. Aside from it being very different from most Catholics I've interacted with.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
GDP is a bad metric for the topic. It goes up even when things are going bad. A 100% increase in foreign construction workers driving down pay whilst doing sub par work that needs to be repaired in two years is actually great for the GDP but terrible for anyone that wants to live in a well made house in a country with a healthy construction labour force.
Urban liberals are either dead end economic units with no children, or in their late 30's trying to move away from the city to find a better life for their children. Red tribers in America have identified the threat. They don't want those kinds of people in their neighborhoods since their policies and beliefs create places that are terrible to live in. It's less fear of supremacy, and more fear of a plague.
Did you read nothing I wrote? I'm not saying there are no differences between populations-- I'm saying that immigrants are not a representative sample from their native population.
Try reading yourself. Immigrants not being representative of their native population is irrelevant to the point.
But in point of fact, yes, forcing immigrants to stay in their home countries would improve them. That's why I'm against it!
The immigrants move, facilitating the western countries becoming worse along with their own. Everyone loses except a few economists that look at the world through a monetary lens and somehow can't wrap their brains around the fact that an economic theory that necessitates demographic collapse is a bad thing.
Let me drain the brains! I want all the backwoods towns and backward states to collapse into the void left by the absence of all their best, most motivated people.
Except that's not what happens. As demonstrated by identity grievance politics.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
If we are allowing ourselves to 'reason' so far beyond the bounds of data, we can just look at these nations today and see the effect of these sort of economic policies on aggregate.
All western countries are in a downswing. The cost of living is prohibitive, and the culture needed to keep the public open to immigration is functionally suicidal. The economic system that drives this is obviously dysfunctional and needs to be dismantled.
To that extent no further discussion is needed. If the genetically superior immigrants were who they claim to be, on aggregate, they should be able to make their own societies that far surpass the west. They don't because they can't. Thats the end for the immigration debate.
hanikrummihundursvin
24d ago
should an intelligence allow itself to get swayed so easily by obviously biased input? The users trying to "corrupt" Tay were not representative and were not trying to be representative - they were screwing with a chatbot as a joke.
Representative of what? What should a chatbot consider to be 'obviously biased input'?
For whatever it's worth, terminally online racists have done a fair bit of work in establishing distinct and vibrant online spaces. Regardless of how one might feel about them, their discourse with each other is genuine. Why presume it's not genuine when directed elsewhere?
Regardless of the endeavor starting of as a joke or not, the racists are not laughing now.
hanikrummihundursvin
24d ago
Yeah, and europe is worse than america so that's proof that the presence of hispanic and black populations are actually having a multiplicative positive effect on the welfare of the white population.
That sounds wildly far fetched, but is unrelated to the point being made. Which is that certain populations are net negative tax payers, and that factoring them into a simple cost/benefit analysis, similar to what's been done in overviews here, would obviously alter the native baseline. Which is why I supposed that the assumed benefit of certain immigrants is only relevant insofar as we are counting net negative population groups towards the native average.
For the rest of your post, if you are the diversity you will fit in fine with the rest of the diversity.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
I don't think there are that many who can realistically look at speedrunning as a career path. Especially not relative to how many participate in the activity. On top of that, many of those that are living off of it are living a sedentary isolated lifestyle where they have no responsibilities or costs that reach beyond their personal needs. Needs that usually don't reach beyond their bedrooms. Their 'living' doesn't cost all that much, and, sad to say, probably isn't worth all that much.
I'd also add that, relative to a 'good' hobby, you don't need an excuse like 'it makes me money' to confidently partake in it. You spend money on kayaking to go out on the water to paddle around and you still look far superior to someone who takes five hundred to a thousand dollars per month streaming their speedruns of Mario.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
I'm inherently skeptical of 'immigration' and 'America' as useful concepts in this context.
If you removed the already hispanic and black populations from the native tally of 'Americans' and compared it to the now mostly white averages, you'd be looking at numbers very similar to Europe. That's to say: Immigration from certain population groups can be economically positive or negative. Just depends on the population group and what you compare it to.
As for your freedom to do commerce with who you want... I don't believe I can convince a true believer that this is a negative. But I am sitting on the experience of watching free market absolutists change faces as soon as the diversity comes knocking on their door, and it's their progeny on the line, rather than those of some 'lazy rent seekers'. They sure can complain then, despite the root cause of their problems being nothing other than people's freedom to do commerce with who they want. They almost start mouthing off that the good of the commons sometimes need overwrite the freedom of the individual. Almost. I suppose they will leave that for their children and grandchildren to figure out.
And whilst my experience is rather Eurocentric, you can see the same thing established in practice in America. As exemplified with regards to housing prices and proximity to blacks.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
Could you? I think most normal people have a very immediate and visceral understanding of the difference between a 'good' hobby and a 'bad' one.
For example, kayaking doesn't seem to have any immediate 'practical use', but I can tell you with full confidence that it's a much better hobby than playing Donkey Kong Racing on repeat.
One could probably write essays on why and argue at length through whatever wordgames possible back and forth, but I think most people share this fundamental understanding on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
I find the idea of externally 'atoning' for your sins and/or expelling them in some way disturbing. If you do wrong and feel bad you deserve it. These emotions are yours now and you must carry them on with you. Trying to get away from this burden or attempting to ameliorate the pain through some self afflicting physical process is an act of rebellion against your own conscience. You are running away from pain your 'being' is telling you to feel. Paying a price for wrongdoing, for example a legal price, should not be seen as an excuse to free yourself from your deserved emotional turmoil.
Reading about pious pilgrims flagellating for faith, I'm reminded of people who speedrun video games. I feel sad when I see videos of them getting a new best time, springing out of their crusty chairs in a dimly lit room, screaming in elation: A new world record! Who knows how much effort, how many hours these folks spend on this completely insular and self driven compulsion to get the best time that is of no consequence to anything at all. But this perversion of effort and strife gets paraded around as an important accomplishment by similarly minded people.
Much like a sad teenager playing Super Mario for the millionth time, a pious pilgrim will do a real life barefoot desert speedrun. This is not an external exercise. It's completely internal. Completely useless and devoid of value beyond the perverted compulsion of the speedrunning pilgrim.
Reflection is important. Twisting and contorting your body to push yourself towards a better understanding of what life is for you can be noble and good. Struggle and strife for its own sake can also be good. But it has to be done for the sake of something actually 'real'. I think it's universally recognized that the only actually 'real' thing is having children and raising them. Anything else that is not working towards this goal is ultimately fake.
As an aside: To that extent you can pinpoint an ultimate 'gotcha' on the new religious right. As far as Christianity being a proxy for people successfully having children, it is obviously good. Beyond that, it's very little beyond philosophical speedrunning.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
Immigration discussion is two faced. You are either talking personally about individual people, in which case the average conflict averse person will have nothing bad to say to anyone's face, or you are talking broad statistical trends that factor over larger populations, in which case the argument against immigration is a very clear and resounding 'not very good'.
These two positions are held at the same time, but never in the same room.
hanikrummihundursvin
30d ago
You should immerse yourself in the horror that is being facilitated, sympathize with the victims and hate the root cause
hanikrummihundursvin
30d ago
Dysfunctional social policies cause/exasperate problems.
Problems are incompetently addressed with system bloat.
System bloat starts weighing the functional parts of society down.
Functional society members want bloat cut down.
Dysfunctional social policy advocates say system bloat cannot be cut down, citing: Who will address the problems?
The correct way to contextualize this predicament is through hate and sympathetic horror. Government waste is just a symptom.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
but I think discussing with someone about their posting is more direct and productive than just clicking report.
I am doing exactly the same thing, minus the report. To that extent we agree.
And, OP has -12.
I don't know what this means. I already see moderation here as way too user dominated. I'd prefer it if the mods weighed the quality and effort of the post put forth rather than buckling to dislikes and mass reports. Though that seems to be the opposite of what they are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
As far as my imaginary vote goes, I prefer the ability to decide for myself what posts are interesting and what posts are not. Moreover, most of the utility of this place is in the discussions. I don't see the point in having to trust someone here to decide what post is likely to generate good discussion or not, when we can just wait and see.
To that extent I'd personally appreciate if you stopped asking posters to not post, and instead just clicked the - on the left.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Seems to belong there.
Another example of 'rationalism' and related isms, just being conflict aversion.
If you hide your preferences behind an 'is' you've rhetorically/aesthetically removed yourself as a motivated actor. You're simply a 'rational' being doing 'what makes sense'.
It would be permissible to excuse certain actions and beliefs on the basis of objective reality. And we certainly shouldn't believe things that are false. But the inexplicable predicament many 'rationalists' have to contend with is that their view of objective reality somehow manages to conform itself precisely within the lines of the mainstream Overton Window. Often rubbing shoulders with the more left leaning parts of it. It betrays their alleged pursuit of truth and reason as little other than social conformity. Furthermore, their seeming inability to notice this and question in an endless ocean of articles and blogs paints them and their social networks as, at best, childishly ignorant of their own motivations.
More options
Context Copy link