@Amadan's banner p


"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 297


"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 297

Verified Email

Yes, it does have that effect. guesswho/darwin stayed in the new user filter despite being a regular poster because he was downvoted so heavily.

It is an inconvenience, but I'm not sure what alternatives Zorba might want to implement.

I don't know. I don't know if it's a fixed number. Just participate regularly and eventually you won't be flagged as a new user.

"Leftists perpetrate attacks all the time" and "Rightists perpetrate attacks all the time" are both true statements. Saying "You guys" (implying the person being addressed is part of the group of people who commit terrorist attacks) is a different kind of statement. People are modded for making equivalent generalizations about leftists.

If you still don't understand, feel free to elevate your inquiry to Zorba or ask another mod if you think they will give you a different answer.

Well, fuck.

I got nothing. Dude has completely lost his shit.

That was my interpretation, and saying "You guys" (meaning right wingers) "do terrorist attacks all the time" violates a bunch of our rules.

I understand that you do not agree with my ruling. Such is the way of things.

You haven't posted much and you haven't earned many upvotes. Until you participate regularly, you will be caught in the new user filter.

Er, no, still broken for me.

Yes. Talking about what "leftists" or "Reds" do is arguable (if FC wrote "Leftists are terrorists" as a blanket statement, that would not be okay - but he didn't). Directly addressing someone with what "You guys" do is not okay unless you can justify it by explaining who "you guys" are (and if what "you guys" are doing is terrorist attacks, you'd better be very specific).

Who is "You guys"?

Speak of specific groups, not in generalities, and if you want to start lobbing accusations of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, you really need to be specific.

Remember Popehat the famous legal blogger? He's on bluesky telling people to do mass shootings at "soft targets" like federalist society meetings. Can link later if you'd like: unsynced phone.

I would like the link. I used to like Popehat before he succumbed to TDS, and I still find his legal commentary sometimes sound. I admit I am slightly skeptical that he actually advocated shooting up Federalist Society meetings, but I would like to see his actual words.

Your last warning and the tone of your posts below leads me to believe that you are not being serious, and you think you're being funny.

You're not. This is why we have a rule about speaking plainly and we ask you to avoid sarcasm.

Ironically testing how many people you can take in with Poe's Law shitposting is not the giggle-fest you think it is.

Stop it.

No one is telling you you can't say Trump is ugly. I'm telling you not to drop contentless-posts and troll. If you want to argue that an attempted assassination on a presidential candidate is literally a Nothing, then go ahead and argue that, but just posting over and over that it doesn't matter and everyone who thinks it matters is dumb and It's All So Tiresome is not contributing anything to the discussion. No one cares about your personal ennui.

Those are legitimate opinions to hold, you just don't like them because it goes against the consensus here.

I really wish I had a dollar for every time we hear this whine.

Avoid low effort sarcasm, it's neither as funny as you think it is nor adding anything to the discussion.

Crappy, low effort comments dripping with sarcasm and failing to speak plainly are not welcome here.

You were warned the last time you went on a shitty low effort posting spree to stop doing this.

Banned for 5 days.

Let me bang my "Read more early American history" drum again.

It is absolutely braindead (to paraphrase @Hoffmeister25) to try to map 19th century politics onto the 21st century. The Republicans and Democrats of the 19th century were not the Republicans and Democrats of today. Republicans during and after the Civil War were the liberals of their time. John Wilkes Booth was a Democrat, but more importantly, he was an anti-Union secessionist who was outraged at Lincoln because Lincoln indicated that he was going to give blacks voting rights. Really, try arguing that makes Booth in any way like a modern Democrat or "woke."

I have less to say about Garfield and McKinley as I haven't gotten to their biographies yet, but the pattern held at least to the mid-20th century. Republicans more and more became the party of northern industrialists and urbanites, vs. Democrats as the party of Southern farmers and working class people, but the Republicans began as the remnants of the Whig Party, with a bit of Know-Nothingism mixed in, while the Democrats began more or less with Andrew Jackson - arguably with Thomas Jefferson, but Jackson really made them into the party they became. None of these people would map to what you are conceiving of as a Republican or a Democrat today.

Why share my opinion? I've opened on Trump before, it makes no difference. I'm just adding to a mountain of shit.

Well, stop it.

This place is literally for sharing opinions, and posting repeatedly "This is unimportant" and "I have an opinion but I won't discuss it" has now become obnoxious. If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, then go play video games.

I see that your previous reply was more about what Hoff actually believed, or at least what you thought he believed, than anything actually in this thread, and that he acknowledges that you're at least a little bit right. What I'd like to ask, though, is - what makes anti-black racism from whites special?

Nothing. If I found out my black coworkers actually despise me for being white, I'm sure I'd feel similarly.

I don't disagree with your final point. I mean, that's why I've stuck around here, on the Motte, as a mod, interacting with people who have views I find reprehensible, even some people who've outright told me they think I deserve to die. Yet most of them I find tolerable enough. As I said, I'd probably get along with Hoff fine in person. Knowing he's a white nationalist would always be in the back of my mind, but I would not be looking to "get" him or anything. The same is true for many other people here (someday maybe I'll play Command & Colors: Ancients with @WhiningCoil).

But, he asked someone specifically why they should consider him a "poor neighbor" just because he wants to disenfranchise people. And while I could get along with Hoff or WhiningCoil, they aren't trying to directly deprive me of my civil rights or citizenship. They do not (so far as I know) consider me to be a lesser being. If I know someone did think of me that way, yes, I would still "tolerate" them to the degree that I'd be civil and interact with them as needed in a professional manner. But would I be friends or want to live near someone who literally thinks I'm an untermensch? No. And for Hoff and WhiningCoil, it wouldn't be entirely absent from my mind that in the event of a civil war, we're probably on opposite sides. (That said, I have lefty friends about whom I predict the same thing. This shadows my thinking about them as well.)

You're right, of coourse, that we can't and shouldn't know what everyone really thinks about everyone else.

Patience, or obstinacy? The fact that you're willing to keep trying to do something for 20 years doesn't necessarily show patience and the ability to plan and bide your time. What exactly did Trump do to work on his next bid after his joke 2000 run? Was The Apprentice a genius move to make him a celebrity so he'd have a better shot in 2012? I don't think so - I think it's true Trump has always wanted to be president and that ambition never went away, but I also think he flits from project to project and does whatever he wants to at any given time, with very little forethought. I see no evidence that he's a careful, patient planner.

Musk, I am less sure about. He's certainly smart but the jury is still out on whether all his SpaceX and Twitter and Tesla bets will turn out to be genius or hubris.

Deliberately phrasing things in a maximally inflammatory manner just to push buttons, once again, seems to be your only reason for being here. You've been told before to knock it off with low effort one-liners. Since this seems to be all you're here for, this ban will be five days. We'll keep going up from here.

If studies found that adults were making continually poorer decisions year after year, and that by 2030 half of all adults chronically made poor decisions, and this was ever-increasing, then I would look for non-volitional factors at play.

Why? Why is it so hard to believe that humans are flawed creatures who, by and large, are not good decision makers? Why is it so unlikely that faced with unlimited temptation, most people will fail to resist?

Food is delicious. Exercise is unpleasant. That's a sufficient explanation.

Do Americans today lack willpower relative to Americans in 1980 or did other things change? You could have bought lots of pastries and sugar and candy as early as the 1920s, when few were obese. Milk was cheap and highly caloric, alcohol plentiful.

Sugary food existed in the 1920s, but not in such abundance and variety, and not as cheaply. It wasn't so easy to pack HFCS and fat into absolutely everything. Fast food was still a luxury. Prepared meals were very much so. And the ratio of sedentary desk jobs was much lower.

Americans eat many more calories today, on average, and burn much fewer. There are probably cultural factors as well, that made eating fast food and sweets as staples more acceptable, and that caused a decrease in activity levels. But you are looking for some explanation for why people are bad at resisting temptation, and the answer is the question.

Your arguments are completely irrational.

People make poor, counterproductive decisions they know will hurt them all the time. People stay in bad situations they know they should leave despite ongoing misery and self awareness. That fat people don't want to be fat and yet it's not enough to get them to sufficiently change their lifestyle is entirely explainable by human failings that affect all other areas of life.

As for fasting, most people can fast for a limited time. They can also do a vigorous exercise program for a limited time (the "New Year's resolution" phenomenon). Usually they'll lose weight. The weight doesn't stay off because the lifestyle changes don't stick.

Yes, fat people are aware they need to eat less and exercise more to lose weight. The problem is twofold: (1) They don't. (2) If they do, they become discouraged when they realize they have to keep doing it, and they stop.

If someone has capable willpower in many areas of life but still finds himself fat then we should consider whether being fat is mostly unrelated to willpower.

Why? Some people want some things more than they want other things.

If there is domain-specific willpower regarding dieting, then why is it that the 30-day yearly Ramadan fast does not result in sustained weight loss?

Because temporarily restricting your caloric intake does not permanently change your weight. This is well known. Everyone knows a fat person who dieted for a month and lost 20 pounds. What happens when they go back to eating the way they were before? They regain the weight. Permanent weight loss requires permanently changing your CICO equation.

If the willpower theory is unevidenced then we want to focus our efforts somewhere else — not on hating fat people but perhaps hating the ultrawealthy who sell poison in stores.

Believing that people have agency and that losing weight is mostly a matter of finding the will to do it does not require hating fat people. Sure, a lot of people do hate fat people, and justify it with variations on "They could just put the fork down," but you can recognize that losing weight is very hard without either shaming those who fail or inventing ways in which fat manifests out of the aether.

My apologies for not being familiar with what is actually considered "wignat" and what isn't, and also I apologize for misunderstanding what you actually believe. I don't think you're lying (though I do think your solutions are naive and you seem to be quite idiosyncratic for someone in the WN sphere).

That said, the original question was "Would someone feel justified in considering you a bad neighbor if they knew what you really believed?" As you point out, your black boss would almost certainly cease to consider you a good employee or friend if she knew what you really thought of her ("but you're one of the good ones" exceptionalism notwithstanding). So - would she be unjustified in having such a negative reaction? I think your black friends would be justified in not just being hurt, but finding you untrustworthy and potentially dangerous to them, even if you personally have no intention of directly threatening them.

It's asking a lot for people to be cordial with someone they know literally considers them, well, lesser. Some people can do it, but it's a big ask.

I guess, "all else equal," but that's a caveat that pretty much makes the generalization useless. Do you think a skinny smoker is morally superior to a fat non-smoker? Is a very fit guy who cheats on his wife morally superior to a fat guy who's a great husband?

Sure, I understand what you're saying here, and those who maintain (or lose) weight have something that makes them "better" in some sense than those who don't, but I think it's way too easy to get judgmental about such a common human failing. I reserve my scorn for those who make excuses or deny agency.

Way too many successful fat people IMO. Elon, Trump…

Being able to stick to one goal doesn't necessarily apply to everything. Lots of very successful and driven people become alcoholics or addicts, can't stop smoking, seem unable to resist engaging in trivially discoverable infidelity or corruption, etc. You keep trying to make universal generalizations about the world that don't fit.

Right, but why do you contend that fat people lack motivation to not be fat

I didn't say fat people categorically lack the motivation to not be fat. Most fat people would like to not be fat. Some of them make an effort to lose weight, some don't, and some who make the effort succeed and some don't.

If you put a plate of cookies in front of me, I know I should only eat one and I definitely should not eat half a dozen. I can tell you from experience that sometimes I resist the temptation and sometimes I don't.

But this can be survivorship bias. What do you believe is special about your case that could have been utilized by the average fat American but wasn’t?

There is nothing special about me. The average fat American can do the same thing I did.

We have studies on fat people and dieting / exercise regimens that show poor longterm retention.

Yes, because controlling your diet and exercising for the rest of your life requires effort. The stat that fat activists often throw around ("90% of diets fail") besides not actually being born out in studies, also has a simple explanation: most people who go on a diet do it until they lose some amount of weight. Then they stop the diet, and gain the weight back. Obviously, temporarily decreasing your caloric intake will not be successful long-term.

Okay, but why were you more motivated than the average fat 40 year old who has seen relatives die, or who has received dire prognoses from their doctor? This is why motivation is a “just so” story.

I doubt I was more motivated. Sometimes people attempt to do things and they either succeed or fail, and their success or failure is a combination of numerous factors, some of them random. I don't think I have some special gene or metabolism that makes me able to do what other people cannot.

There’s no way to empirically validate that those who ameliorate or cure their obesity are, indeed, more motivated.

I don't think they are more motivated.

And if could just as easily be something that boils down to (1) exercising is less painful, due to something related to health or microbiome, (2) food is less desirable, due to same reason.

I suppose it could be, but this sounds very unscientific (and probably would have been discovered by now, since we can measure how much pain and desire people feel).