@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

All right, this is a thread full of personal attacks after personal attacks at basically everyone who argues with you. Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is a vicious, racist woke.

I'm also starting to agree with the folks who suspect you're using ChatGPT to generate these screeds. Many of the things you say have no actual connection to what the person you're responding to said.

Stop fucking around. You're banned for three days, and it will be longer/permanent if you just bounce back in to do the same thing.

So, almost everything you just said is wrong. You're allowed to be wrong. What you're not allowed to do here is be insulting and engage in personal attacks. Take heed of that.

It might not be the argument you would like, especially because you fit with said progressive movement of having double stadnards and have consistently promoted the victimhood of the progressive ingroup and downplayed of the progressive outgroup. Hence your attack and denunciation.

Yeah, that's what I mean. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just in the enemy camp, hater!" is not how you argue here.

and you certainly have been very willing to hate on those not sharing your progressive politics often enough.

I doubt you can accurately describe my politics. I hate few people and like a lot of people who very much do not share my politics.

Your insults are expected and mean nothing to me.

I am not insulting you, I am telling you that you need to improve your manner of posting. This should mean something to you because repeated warnings for this type of boo outgroup ranting may result in a loss of posting privileges.

Let ideas stand on their own, without the peanut gallery’s worthless input. Motte monkeys are often not nearly as informed as they believe themselves to be, either, outside of their favorite subjects of “computer science careers” and “why girls don’t think programmers are alpha males.”

Dial down the antagonism, returning-alt-with-a-grudge-against-the-Motte.

Unlike responses, downvotes are typically not moderated

Typically? Downvotes are never moderated. (As far as I know, we can't see who upvotes or downvotes a post even if we wanted to. I suppose Zorba could build that capability, but I know of no reason to.)

The “high IQ” citizens of yesteryear’s Motte were in universal agreement that sub-100 IQ people were physically incapable of understanding hypotheticals

No, they weren't. Many people pushed back against that claim. The Motte never comes anywhere near "universal" agreement on anything.

Indeed. One of several people who just keeps coming back again and again with new alts.

You've accumulated a lot of reports on this post, and it annoys me that I had to read through this wall of text to parse out the arguments you are making.

Essentially all you've posted is a tribalistic screed. Making an argument that boils down to "My enemies are evil" is just culture warring. You hit all the old classics - Jews, MLK, Herbert Marcuse - but here and in the comments below you basically poison-pill the discussion because anyone who questions your priors or your definitions is just part of "woke."

This is a bad post that barely makes a coherent argument. There are ways to write essays about how evil your enemies are that actually make arguable points and present things to discuss. This is just fist-pounding.

I'm going to refer to this post in the future when people say "All you have to do to not get modded on the Motte is be verbose." This is an example of a very long, verbose, arguably even "effortful" post that is still crappy and low value.

Avoid low-effort posts, please.

Just gonna drop another "I see you" comment here. Yes, I know who you are.

Yes, he's banned. Not sure why there is no banhammer icon.

He was warned, repeatedly.

Tell you what - if you survive, let us know, and I will unban you. I'm banning you now because you've been warned and at this point you seem to just be trolling for attention, and frankly, I don't want to indulge you any further in your strange suicidal fetish.

All the questions you ask aren't really questions because you don't actually listen to what anyone says.

I'm more familiar with Bill Maher than Sam Harris, so I believe you. I think he's unfortunately correct.

Near-group and far-group was part of it, but a larger part, IMO, was that Muslims code as POC (notwithstanding the tiny number of white converts) and thus can only be the oppressed, never the oppressors.

I'm not sure if you mean me, but I know the Reformation was not about "freedom of conscience." I refer to the Enlightenment because that is generally regarded as the period in which the church lost much of its grip on state power. (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that, yes, I know "the Enlightenment" is a term like "Dark Ages" and the "Middle Ages" that doesn't neatly define a time period or movement.) The point is that Islam has never had any real subordination to civil authority. Muslim countries controlled by secular authorities generally need to use pretty brutal suppression methods and still give lip service to being Islamic.

Of course the Reformation is something different. Islam has had several (arguable) equivalents. Certainly it's had many schisms, the Shia/Sunni one being only the most notable.

Look dude, I'm not going to mod you for being a smart-ass, but I definitely won't take any objections from you in the future as being made in good faith. I've given you the opportunity to explain where you perceive unfairness, and all you can do in response is be smarmy.

I don't think they believe Islam is uniquely evil and irredeemable but we have to endure it because POC. I think they believe Islam as currently practiced in Islamic countries is still stuck in the pre-modern age where Christianity once was, which makes it "uniquely evil" in our modern era. There's a distinction between "Islam is objectively worse than other religions today" and "Islam is a unique existential threat that rationally we should treat as Ebola."

What point do you think you are making? I repeat: you are allowed to say Christianity is wrong and irrational. You are allowed to say atheism is wrong and irrational. This is consistent with everything I have said in the past.

This reminds me of my tenure on the Atheism+ forums, back before my redpilling/blackpilling (I don't know what to call it, since I didn't really change my beliefs, I just realized the people I thought were on my side, aren't).

A+, as you know, was woker than woke before "woke" became a thing. And one of my "WTF?" moments when I realized these people are fucking crazy is when they went hard on defending... Muslims. Not against general racism and bigotry, but against criticisms that the "New Atheists" had no problem applying to every other religion.

At one point, the forum got trolled hard by a poster from one of the hater-forums who monitored them, a set of people running an account that adopted the persona of a gay man who proceeded to post long effort-posts about the connection between homophobia and Islamophobia, and how seeing the latter "triggered" him, as a gay man, despite the fact that he was an atheist.

The mods on the A+ forum proceeded to take him very seriously and started modding comments that were too "Islamophobic."

He also declared that the term "homosexual" was homophobic. The mods proceeded to mod anyone who used the word homosexual.

I was one of the few people who pushed back and kept getting in arguments with him, until he eventually DMed me and let me know what the game was. I already suspected something of the sort, because to any sane person his arguments were so transparently nonsensical. But the mods and the other SJWs on the forum ate it up.

As to your broader point, I think liberals like Maher and Harris suffer from a misapprehension that I had myself until recently (my beliefs have changed on this one): that Islam is just another religion and that, like Christianity and Judaism and other bronze-age religions that were once full of barbarism and genocidal ideology, the civilizing effects of modern Western liberalism will eventually secularize them until they are just like the rest of us, and we'll have a big joint Christmas/Hannuka/Ramadan holiday season.

This does happen to an extent. Moderate Muslims in the West are... mostly like the rest of us. I hesitate to say that Islam is fundamentally incapable of undergoing some kind of "Enlightenment." (Leaving aside the arguments from some of our resident Christians that post-Enlightenment Christianity isn't real Christianity at all.) I don't think Islam is some sort of unique Neal Stephenson mind virus that turns its followers into violent p-zombies even if many of Islam's critics do.

But I am pessimistic about Islam, in its current form, being capable of coexisting long-term with other ideologies. I have a lot of other uncharitable and blackpilling thoughts I've been tossing around and trying to decide how much of it is Chinese Cardiology and selection bias.

I do think a blanket "Muslim ban" is stupid (and clearly unconstitutional). But a ban on importing large numbers of people from countries that just happen to be dominated by Muslims of an uncompromising, anti-Western, pro-jihadist bent does not seem irrational or bigoted to me, but it would be hard to frame it in a way that would be acceptable to those who believe Islam is "just another religion."

it eats away at the detente that the mods claim to believe in/enforce. The result of you continuing to break down the detente is that, unless the mods continue to protect you, your irrationality will no longer be given a pass

"Christianity is wrong and irrational" is not a moddable offense. Neither is "No it isn't." What is this "detente" that you claim is being broken and which we are not enforcing? (ETA: Okay, this one. Yes, that still pertains. You can criticize beliefs, but do it without sneering or personalizing it or trying to evangelize/recruit for a cause.) People are allowed to argue for/against religion and for/against atheism, no matter how tiresome and repetitive such arguments become (but in fairness, so is most well-trodden ground here).

@Goodguy hasn't been "protected" from anything. He can say your beliefs are irrational, and you can say his beliefs are irrational. What we would prefer is that people offer serious arguments rather than "Uh huh!" "Nuh uh!" back and forth. And what we would definitely prefer is that you refrain from trying to personalize it in the antagonistic manner you're doing here.

@HlynkaCG and @self_made_human: knock it off.

Or echoing @ArjinFerman: get a room.

For whatever reason, the two of you have gotten to the point where every argument becomes a long thread that gradually unwinds into this sort of low-effort asinine bickering. It's annoying, it's not entertaining, it's not proving anything (except that you can't quit each other), and if I have to give you timeouts for this petty bullshit, I will not be happy about it, but I will do it.

That was his tenth warning and/or ban for similar behavior. He's been told repeatedly to stop doing that. Last time he was warned that he was heading for a permaban.

I assume this was your public declaration that you no longer wish to participate here.

Wish granted.

I would rather @self_made_human not call you a pain-in-the-ass pedant, but you are being a pain-in-the-ass pedant for no evident purpose other than to insult him. You keep doing this.

@naraburns and I have both repeatedly told you to chill out, and that your accumulation of crappy comments (in which no one comment is really bad) paint a picture of someone uninterested in civil discourse and unable to refrain from low-effort shitting on people.

Banned for two weeks. Don't bother DMing me with griping and resentment like last time - you've been warned, multiple times, and frankly I'm pretty sure I'm just delaying the inevitable by not permabanning you this time.

Which is why they didn't agree to the Constitution until they had assurances that it was under their control. I view that they are right in that assessment, you seem to think that they should have just rolled over and quit.

I am not making an argument about whether or not they were morally or legally in the right. What I am disputing is that they didn't secede over slavery. They did. You're free to argue that they should have been allowed to secede, and you're free to argue that slavery should have remained legal, but that isn't the argument here. I'm just refuting the "states rights, it wasn't about slavery" claim.

Only one side was able to impose their unconstitutional vision on the other.

This is not true. The whole point of the series of (ultimately failed) compromises that led to the Civil War was that both sides were forced to agree to laws they didn't really want to obey, and both sides frequently played fast and loose with those agreements.