@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
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, so, people may indeed be backing their tribe and justifying actions on that basis. But no one literally believes it's legal to run over a cop. Snarky "hth" "explainers" are a very bad way to engage with someone you think is making a bad argument. Is this what you really want threads to look like here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, just to be clear, your mental model of the OP is that he literally believes it's legal to run over police officers?


Even in the unlikely event one believes this, we still wish people to engage without unnecessary sarcasm and condescension.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you think he's actually confused about the legality of hitting police officers with your car?


Are you genuinely trying to be helpful? Because you think he genuinely needed that to be explained to him?


No, you are not. You're being sarcastic in a condescending manner, which feels good and snarky and takes much less effort than actually rebutting an argument.


I would in fact wager you didn't even read the entire post. At most you skimmed it while composing your cutting response in your head.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Do not agree" is not the same as "do not understand." I understand exactly what you are saying. You seem incapable of understanding what I am saying.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


First, you are being an ass.




Buddy, I wish I could grant myself as much latitude as I grant you.




I didn’t ask you to mod for an opinion I disliked.




Yes, you did. You do not insist on this scrupulous adherence to legal definitions for arguments you agree with. You want him modded because he annoys you and makes arguments that anger you.




I’m pointing out the other poster made an inflammatory factual claim that is obviously false but you won’t do shit about it.




That's correct. We won't do shit about someone saying something that may or may not be factual.


The factual nature of the claim is the point you should be arguing. We do not adjudicate truth values of claims made by posters.




Second, you stated it would be reasonable to mod if the other poster claimed ICE was killing a bunch of people. Well, if I made that claim and then said “when I use the word kill, I mean arrest” you would rightfully see that as fucking bullshit.




Yes, because that's a specious, inapplicable comparison. Someone who uses "kidnap" referring to arrests they consider to be immoral and illegitimate (but are legal under the law) may be legally inaccurate but everyone understands what the meaning and intent is, and if you think "That's stupid, that's not kidnapping!" you are allowed to rebut with that. But you don't want to rebut, you just want us to tell him he's not allowed to use words in a way that grinds your gears. No, we will not do that.


You are pretending (I use that word intentionally) that it's the same thing as saying "kill" to mean "arrest." But doing that would be legitimately confusing. No one would understand you actually meant "arrest." When @LiberalRetvrn says "Kidnapping" you know exactly what he means. You are not confused, and he is not trying to confuse you. You disagree with how he's using the term. Fine.


Now let it go, you have nothing else to say on this that will be anything other than (more) annoying.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Kidnapping suggests illegal. Where is the illegality?




That's a fair question. Address it to the person you are arguing with.


Oh, I see. You don't want to argue with him. You just want us to shut him up.


You are failing to articulate a broader principle than "This poster annoys me, make him stop." But sure, if it soothes you to believe it's about protecting lefties, you go right ahead and tell yourself that.


This is particularly amusing given the guff we're taking elsewhere.




You mod for much less absurd things.




I am sure your opinion of what other absurd things I have modded for is equally reasonable and principled.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you actually have a case in mind where a pro-life activist drove a car at the police and got shot? I can't recall any, but maybe I missed it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But the entire dispute is whether Good used violent action. I don't see any leftists who are saying "Yes, she tried to run down an ICE officer and she was justified." Rather, they are claiming she panicked/she didn't see him/he wasn't in danger and shooting her was unnecessary.


In the equivalent situation, no, I don't think the pro-life community would defend a pro-life activist who was actually trying to run over a cop, but they would defend someone in an ambiguous situation like this, where it is not at all clear what anyone's intentions or situational awareness was.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I thought about suggesting a megathread and then didn't get to it. My bad, but you're right, it would have been better to create a megathread than having a dozen people each creating a new top level post.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I apologize for going in on you so hard. Against my initial, wiser judgment, I have found myself invested in this ridiculous case, and the more I am assailed by what I perceive to be low-effort culture warring bombs thrown by rightists and leftists alike (I genuinely do consider both sides at this point-at least at the edges of the argument-to be bad faith, dishonest, and actively destructive to this country), the more disgusted I am. For some reason that manifested in my response to your post, which I really did perceive to be kind of dismissive of the brutality of the police and the state wielded against its "enemies." While I do think you are frequently oblivious (or at least, indifferent) to people outside your social class, it was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-tyranny.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not in any way endorsing anarchy. On the oppression-anarchy spectrum I'd be closer to @2rafa's POV than the typical DSA or antifa or what-have-you activist (and they would consider me as fascist as her). I agree that at a certain level of anarchy, it's better to have a brutal warlord who at least keeps the bandits at bay than a hellscape of marauding gangs.


That said, tyranny is bad too, and the Warlord's friends telling me life is better under the Warlord's absolute rule is not going to be very convincing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Inflammatory" is subjective. We don't apply it every time someone says something that pisses you off. Arguably almost every argument made here is inflammatory to someone, and unsurprisingly, people who don't agree with the argument made typically consider it to have been presented with insufficient evidence.


I already pointed out the answer to your specific case: charitably, @LiberalRetvrn does consider the people ICE is arresting to be "us" and he does consider their actions to be lawless and tantamount to "kidnapping." I am not speaking for @LiberalRetvrn here, but this is definitely a perspective common on the left, and I'm sure you know this. That this make you angry does not make it "inflammatory" such that we're going to mod people who say it. (Nor should you make any assumptions about whether or not I personally agree with the argument.)


As a meta-comment, one of the failures of the Motte is that while in theory, we are here to debate and argue and test ideas, in principal most people just want validation, venting, and affirmation. When they see an argument they don't like- especially from an ideological opponent, especially someone whose tone or style or specific POV really pisses them off - rather than saying "Ah, someone with a challenging perspective to take on!" or "Hmm, a worthy opponent?" they rush for the report button, and then yell at the mods for not shutting the mf up.


Now here's a concrete example: "ICE is killing dozens of people every day!" would be an inflammatory and falsifiable claim that you could legitimately demand some evidence for. "ICE is kidnapping people" - well, you're going to have an argument over what constitutes "kidnapping." And that's okay.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Pointing out that "What's so bad about tyranny?" is coming from someone who will benefit from tyranny is not bulverism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your point of view is consistently that of a wealthy, entitled person who sees the police as her personal gendarmarie whose job it is to keep the riff-raff from inconveniencing her life in any way. From that point of view, yes, anarchy is a much greater threat than tyranny, because tyranny will mostly leave you alone, while anarchy threatens you. Not to get all "woke" (har) but this is exactly why "privilege" dialog took root. There was originally a legitimate point to it. You consider the lower classes to be undesirables to be kept away from you, and the only thing you fear is revolting peasants. So nearly any level of state crackdown is acceptable to you because only at North Korean levels would it actually threaten your lifestyle. Whereas those beneath you understand what tyranny will do to them.


From a Conflict Theory perspective, there is no reason you should care about this, or people who are not you, as long as your side maintains the levers of power. But "Let them eat cakeboot" does have the potential to redound on you. Traditionally, rich people had some concern about oppression either out of genuine (liberal) conviction or self-preservation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We are often asked to mod people for "being dishonest."


We aren't mindreaders. We often suspect someone is being disingenuous, but the poster may really believe what he is saying. (You are surely aware that most progressives do consider illegal immigrants "us" so it's not implausible to me that they really believe ICE is "kidnapping people.")


Do I think @LiberalRetvrn is sincere, or a troll trying to push buttons? He's certainly on our radar, but making bad arguments is not something we ban people for. Demanding we mod people for "being dishonest" is asking us to use more personal discretion in judging posts than I think you really want. Lots of regulars are, IMO, at the very least fond of making unsubstantiated and unverified claims very confidently.


"Inflammatory claim with insufficient evidence" is the rule usually cited. Contrary to what many people think, though, this does not mean "A claim that inflamed (pissed off) me and that I don't believe."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So you would confidently assert that if a crowd of leftists entered the Capital building to protest/disrupt Trump's inauguration, and a woman who had previously been standing next to several officers for several minutes subsequently broke through a door in the building and was shot, that you would say "This was murder and the Capital police officer should be charged"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I haven't disputed anything.


I said that in this thread (and obviously elsewhere) people are disputing whether Good struck the officer, whether her actions meet the definition of assault, and whether either Reed or Babbit's actions merited a lethal response. I have opinions on some of these things, but I do not yet have a definite conclusion about everything with regards to the Reed case.




Which side is my side?




Which side is my side?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As this thread has shown, both "assault on a police officer" and "breaking and entering" are disputed. As I keep repeating: yes, both sides will frame the respective events so Ours was martyred and Theirs FAFO'd. And no matter how much you (general you) insist the facts are indisputable and your version is true, I don't believe you (general you) unless your previous demonstration of principled and not motivated reasoning makes me believe that you wouldn't just frame them differently if the tribal participants were reversed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Another consistent view is that Ashley Babbit deserved it because she was protesting for a bad cause (overturning an election) whereas Renee did not because she was protesting for a good cause (stopping the feds from kidnapping us).




It's consistent if you openly acknowledge you are embracing Conflict Theory ("we are Good, so it's Good when our side does it - you are Bad, so it's Bad when your side does it").


Most Conflict Theorists aren't so nakedly open about it. People want to pretend they have principles and their conclusions are based on reason and some form of justice.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We've been doing that for days




I have not seen much specific discussion of how Ashli Babbit was materially different (there is now some discussion of it in this thread).




and I believe you specifically mentioned in a subthread yesterday that you didn't care to follow closely because it was tiresome or some such thing,




I said in general, I've avoided arguing about Renee Good online. Notably, I was not only referring to the Motte. I was referring to all my online spaces, most of which are rather different in orientation from the Motte.




"This looks bad for the side I like aesthetically and I want plausible deniability that the MAGAts were right".




Really, that is your model of where I fall ideologically?


How fascinating.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To be fair, I was asking a genuine question: how could you convince me? Since I don't know you (and don't really have much of an impression of you, specifically), I'll just have to take your word for it that if the polarities were reversed you'd stick to the same principles.


Provisionally, I will take someone's word for that (unless they've already given me reason to believe otherwise). But generally speaking, I think we're so deep into polarization that I think most people form their opinions based entirely on who? and whom?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's harder to come up with an exact equivalent for Good, true. But I'm thinking something like, an anti-abortion protester has her SUV blocking the street in front an abortion clinic, cops arrive to clear out the protesters, she and/or other protesters are screaming at the cops, and then some cops tell her to 'Get out of the fucking car' and she accelerates- with all the subsequent minute analysis of whether she hit a cop, whether she saw the cop, whether she was provoking the cop, whether she was moving towards the cop, whether the cop was in danger, etc.


I am convinced rightists and leftists would mostly change their opinions about whether the cop was justified in shooting her in that case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Indeed. I think both sides are equally unprincipled.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can you convince me that you would make exactly the same argument if Ashli Babbit had been a leftist protesting Trump's inauguration, and Renee Good had been, I don't know, a Christian at an abortion protest or something?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, exactly. People can argue that they are different because one was Good fighting Evil, and the other was Evil fighting Good. But then you're arguing the politics surrounding the events, not whether there was actually a difference in how the state responded to someone acting against it.