@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.

Women are, and they reject it.

You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.

I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.

We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..

Comparing 2025 to 1925 has so many conflating factors that trying to reduce men's dating woes to "Women have become too selective" is like saying our modern economic woes are because we moved off the gold standard. There may even be a degree to which that is true, but someone harping about the gold standard as the reason for everything wrong with the economy today is ... probably not seeing things clearly. Yes, women today can be more selective than they were in 1925. What are the reasons for that? I imagine you don't like your position being reduced to "Women should be forced to settle or starve," but how else to interpret "The problem is that women today don't have to get married to a man they don't particularly like"?

Despite being non-religious, I don't entirely disagree that "the Christian standard" had certain advantages, and I give you credit for arguing that we should impose the old rules on men as well as women-- if we force women to settle, we should also force men to stop alleycatting. But I don't really think we can do either without reverting to a level of authoritarianism we didn't have even then. Given that most people are not as religious as they used to be, and without a religious justification, you're basically going to have to impose state-mandated dating controls. Sounds like a cure worse than the disease.

So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.

So you keep saying. Women would argue that the problem is with men. We could go back and forth on to what degree this is self-centered female narcissism (your preferred theory) and to what degree this is men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving. You hate "men need to step up," but some men really do need to step up, and by that I do not mean they need to wife up carousel-riding Cathy at age 35, but I mean I see a hell of a lot of men who don't really bring much to the table at all other than "Penis, not a drug user (unless you count weed), has a job." Why would a woman want to settle for that if she doesn't have to? Why would you settle for that level of pickings?

I honestly do not see men who actually have something going for them unable to find a partner.

Assuming, of course, that their standards are not too high... You don't want fat Sally the checkout clerk or carousel-riding Cathy, fine. You insist on a 20-something slim attractive virgin who is agreeable and submissive? Hmm, good luck if you're not a 6/6/6. (Or a Mormon.)

I don't know what else to tell ya. If the solution to this was to browbeat men, we'd have solved it a long time ago because that's all men get from every angle is constant browbeating.

I don't think the solution is to "browbeat" men, but I think moral disapprobation on both sexes has been implemented, historically. That horse is out of the barn. Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."

Although we've argued about this in the past, I don't disagree with you, in very broad strokes, about your key points. Women's expectations have gone up, women's desirability has gone down, and a lot of people are finding it hard to find a partner. I think the reasons are actually a lot more complicated and multi-faceted than "Women are unreasonably picky (bitches) and aren't willing to settle," but sure, that's part of it.

I am going to repeat one point that I have brought up before and add another one I haven't:

"I'm actually perfectly fine with marrying a man who is not exceptional in any particular way, as long as he fulfills his role as a man."

This kind of sugarcoats the whole notion of "settling." You're right, most women would not agree to that statement. How many men would agree to that (gender-swapped) statement? Probably more men than women, because yes, there are men who will settle for literally any willing pussy, while there aren't many women whose sole criteria is "penis." But there are not many men who would really be happy about settling for a woman who just checks the "sex, mother" boxes and nothing else.

(Caveat: Obviously I am talking about the West here. We know that in many parts of the world, "vagina and fertile" are indeed the only criteria men have. Are those cultures models we would wish to emulate?)

So how about being likeable as a person, being attractive and pleasant, being smart or at least sensible? (As Mr. Knightly said in the very redpilled era of 1816: "Men of sense do not want silly wives.") Most men don't want to settle either, even if their standards for "settling" are lower than the average woman's. Not to belabor the stereotype about incels thinking their obese cheeto-crumbed-neckbeards are entitled to a hot fit young blowjob enthusiast, but it's hard to avoid the impression that it do be like that from many of the most vocal grievance-mongers. This is somewhat unfair, but it's also somewhat unfair to just write off women as being unreasonably picky bitches who will not settle for less than the "three sixes". Both these stereotypes exist, but you keep bringing up things like the OKCupid survey (from, like, 15 years ago), which given the limited and narrow datasets (the attractiveness surveys, IIRC, mostly ask people to rate based on photographs alone) do not convince me you really have evidence that "50% of men are invisible to all women" and that no women will "settle" for a guy who is just a basically decent, normal man.

My other point:

Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.

On the one hand: sure. If it is true (big if) that chubby grocery clerk Sally is waiting for her 6/6/6 chad to marry her and let her live her life as a TikTok-watching SAHM, Sally should really adjust her expectations. But your notion that women should "make their desires comply with reality" really gives me "If you don't find fat/black/trans women attractive, you should work on yourself!" vibes. I know you are not saying that, but you are saying something in that ballpark: that people are responsible for who and what they find attractive and should be willing to change their attraction for the social good. That is going to be a pretty hard lift for anyone.

Coffee_enjoyer has a rather simplistic view of this stuff, but yours is pure denial.

No.

Epic poetry was born as a means of exploring and understanding violence, not moralizing about it

Yes.

I don't deny we glorify and celebrate war, but as a means, not an end.

It's only with fairly advanced civilization we even get the concept that this violence could be bad in itself, instead of merely situationally unacceptable

That was my point.

Chimps do violence for the sake of violence (and because their instincts tell them to, because there's a lot of evolutionary hardwiring).

We should prefer not to live in a society of chimps. That doesn't mean castrating men. We can still acknowledge the evolutionary hardwiring.

I don't want to "beat down" boys, but anyone who celebrates violence for the sake of violence and revels in pain and suffering and destroying what others have built is a chimp.

War. Why do you think this is a gotcha?

War is a means to an end and we sing songs about it, but

Yes, I'm aware.

You’re not coming up with any direct or circumstantial evidence to forward your theory, though.

And yours is just "My feels."

I think you have no idea what either the average Swede or the average Somali feels, only just- so stories to flatter your preconceived notions. You just make stuff up, throw it at the wall, and pontificate about "explanatory power" when you're just starting at a desirable conclusion and working backwards to construct a theory.

I think you're the one typical-minding. If your mindset is that it's fun to hurt people and take their stuff, I can see why you'd project that onto others and even construct justifications for it under your religious frame, but I do not think that is in fact the natural default psychology of most men. Most men want to be respected, to achieve things, and to defend the people and things they care about. War is a means to an end and we sing songs about it, but it's not the end. It's not our reason for being.

Your philosophy, like KulakRevolt's, is that everything else is all just a veneer over our desire to rape and kill. If that's true we'd never become a species capable of epic poetry, of grand architecture, of space travel. You and Kulak would have us never evolving beyond chimp behavior. Yes, we all have a bit of the chimp in us. That's why we teach boys that you shouldn't hit people because they hurt your feelings, and that fighting should be a last resort, not your first recourse. People like Kulak who say no, violence is the first and only answer, and people like you who say, but violence is fun and everyone wants to do it, cannot be trusted to build and maintain the very societies whose decline you bemoan.

I did not say Christians don't endorse defending themselves against bad actors.

According to the revealed preference of their favorite leisure activity, men really love raiding enemies and aliens.

I already addressed that - yes, men like the idea of fighting and winning glory. You have provided no evidence that this means we all deep down enjoy causing pain and suffering and wrecking what other people have built. Like all your just-so stories, it's just something you spun out with deepity words.

I think if you actually read journals of people fighting in the Napoleonic era who were not Napoleon, you will find that as in most wars, most of the men fighting it did not actually enjoy it, even if they have fond memories of the camaraderie afterwards. They justified it with pride, with self-defense, with national interest, but not "'Cause it's fun to destroy what other people have." Master and Commander is not about guys enjoying destruction and pillage. The whole point of the movie is that they are trying to defend their homeland; Aubrey's rousing speech to his crew is all about preventing the French from taking over England.

But you don’t have to do exegesis, you simply have to understand that very devout Christians have always engaged in the joy of taking from enemies.

Very devout Christians have always enjoyed fraud to get rich and consorting with whores, too. You are still just making up what you want the Bible to endorse.

You called me out by name. I mostly ignore your posts except when they turn up in the mod queue.

Jews are one of the most important political and cultural forces in understanding Culture War in the United States and globe. But because of their political and cultural power, it's taboo to critically analyze their perspective, behavior, and identity. People like you and Aamadan constantly complaining about me talking about Jews is a side-effect of that.

I don't care about Jews per se, and lots of people on this site talk about Jews (negatively) and don't get modded for it.

You are the "Jew guy," the guy who posts nothing but rants about Jews, whose entire identity is hating Jews, whose entire personality is "I hate Jews." If I see a @SecureSignals post, I know that every. single. time. it will be about Jews and nothing but Jews. You start out talking about a TV show? Jews. You bring up a news article which initially has nothing to do with Jews or Israel? It will be about Jews.

That is why the "single-issue posting" rule gets applied to you (as it has been applied to a handful of other tiresome obsessives). Not because it's "taboo" to criticize Jews.

Ahistorical nonsense. "Witches" existed far more often in popular retellings than any actual trials, and yes, they killed Indians with whom they were at war but contrary to the propaganda we're relentlessly bombarded with now, not every white European wanted to exterminate the Indians from the beginning. Many, from the first settlers, were perfectly willing to coexistence (and many of the Indians were too). There were just too many points of collision, too much cultural friction, and too many defectors on both sides.

The philosophy of the first colonists was certainly imperialistic by modern standards, but most of them weren't seeking to genocide the natives as an end in itself (you'd certainly hear people saying that, well into the 19th century, but even generals who breathed fire about pacifying the Indians would generally tone it down in practice if the Indians were pacified), and the early settlers' hostility towards outsiders was the typical hostility of people living in small precarious communities with little room for slack and few resources to spare. Note that they wanted trade and exchange (of news, technology, people) with the network of communities around them, not to gather in warbands and go out and conquer them.

None of this has much to do with Christianity, but your Kulak-like revisionism in which the founding fathers loved violence for its own sake annoys me more than your attempts to "base" Christianity in bloodlust, because I actually care about American history.

No. Young men are aggressive, belligerent, proud and honor-conscious, and seek glory. But not all men are natural despoilers who live for nothing more than to wreck what others have built, to ruin others' works.

This is the philosophy of the ant, mindless raider and reaver who is incapable of seeing anything other than an Other to be killed.

This is the philosophy of the thug, violent, of short-time preference and low impulse control, devoid of vision or higher purpose.

This is the philosophy of the petty and the small, who enjoys the misery of other people more than anyone's happiness or anything ennobling for himself.

This is the philosophy of the sociopath, who sees others as only prey, who cannot see other people as anything other than potential resources to be exploited or rivals to be eliminated.

This is the philosophy of the psychopath, who loves only violence for the sake of violence, and writes alt-historical pseudo-political screeds to justify a desire to pillage, rape, and kill, and reduce all of humanity to war to the knife.

As best, this is the philosophy of an insecure and callow youth who soothes himself with words like "männerbund" to tell himself he is embarking on glorious viking with his warband, and not simply seeking group security to go bully others in a game because he's not brave enough to gangbang.

This "joy" you speak of is a joy that everyone feels from time to time when our monkey-brains trigger, whether it's imagining hunting down a horrible criminal you saw on the news, beating the crap out of the guy who pushed your buttons on the Internet, or running down that motherfucker who cut you off on the highway. It's a joy you might temporarily feel when your fight-or-flight activates "fight" and you win... until the consequences arrive. But there is a reason we regulate and channel and try to restrain violent young men, especially those who seem to have no higher aspirations than to tear down what others have built, to kick sand in the faces of those weaker than them, to wax rhapsodical about the joy of hurting other people and laughing at their pain.

It is not a philosophy for men. At least, not men we want to share a society with. Not men capable of building a society. Certainly not men who speak of shared values and community and building a greater civilization than a mere tribe with spears all pointed outward from their very tight and insular circle.

It's fascinating how you breathe this "joy" of rapine in one post and extoll Christianity in the next. No amount of Biblical exegesis can rationalize a Jesus who says yes, it is right and good to crush your enemies and hear the lamentations of their women and take joy in it.

Though it is amusing to watch KulakRevolt go off on how Christians are cucked puss-pusses who sold out white Europe, and his outraged Christian followers, like you, try to describe a "Based Jesus" who totally says it's good to hate and kill and wallow in the infliction of your enemies' well-deserved suffering.

It's funny, this is a particularly Catholic argument, in that whenever I see a Catholic culture warrior online, they are usually saying basically this ("I mean, the culture wars are basically over, we won" - first saw it during the Clinton administration). Not sure if it's an aggressive and slightly delusional form of conviction or cope, but it's almost charming, for the vast majority of us, especially in the US, who really don't care much about the schism. It's almost like seeing a "papist!" epithet in the wild.

No, "smug" is not against the rules.

You're posting a number of sarcastic comments in which you fail to speak plainly. Stop it.

Of all the things for me to be legendary for...

I can't speak for all the other mods, but I pretty much never look at the AAQCs folder. It's all @naraburns AFAIK.

Criticizing people (and their behavior) isn't against the rules, only making personal attacks (which you didn't do).

5 warnings is what you have in your mod log, regardless of whether you agree with them.

If you think something is not worth responding to, don't respond.

Everyone who responds by being antagonistic says (and believes) that they were provoked. You are still responsible for your response.

Be less antagonistic. You write a lot of AAQCs, but you also have a real problem with not being a dick when arguing with people you want to talk down to. You are not a put-upon genius forced to interact with fools. Stop acting like you are.

Five warnings in as many months is repeatedly, and probably a ban next time.

Avoid low effort comments. Especially when you've been told repeatedly not to do this.

must admit that explicitly using a bundle of arrows to represent strength through unity was a bit much. In a movie that was less explicitly leftist to the point of tears, it might be interpreted as some kind of dogwhistle.

Or he thinks he's cleverly paying tribute to Akira Kurosawa.

(Also, shouldn't this be in the Friday Fun Thread)?

I don't keep links bookmarked like some people do. I guess I would if I wanted to come back and play gotcha later, but you know I know and you know I am not the only one who's noted this. You're fooling no one.