@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

I will be here longer than you

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

				
User ID: 297


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Amadan


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
I will be here longer than you

				
				
				

				

					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 April 28, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s funny you bring up robots. Personally, I’d rather consult a logic-checking tool than rely entirely on one worldview expressed in one language formed by one country’s political myths.




You can consult all you want, but speaking frankly, a lot of your posts read like they were run through ChatGPT. We do not like people using LLMs to argue here. If you're using it for grammar checking, that's one thing, but no one here wants to argue with a bot, even if the bot has been told to express your argument for you. Unless you are willing to stop doing this, I will be unwilling to let any of your posts out of the new user filter in the future.


It's not the annoyingness of arguing with ChatGPT. It's that it calls your entire identity and presentation into question. On the surface, you seem to offer an uncommon perspective that would be valued here: a Chinese person with a Western-critical viewpoint. But bringing ChatGPT * into the discussion calls all that into question-- we have lots of trolls and sockpuppets who show up here thinking they are clever, and now I wonder if you're just one of them who got the cute idea: "ChatGPT, pretend you are a Chinese person critical of the West arguing with a forum full of Western rationalist nerds."


* I am using ChatGPT as a generic term here, but probably I shouldn't, you could be using any number of LLMs available nowadays.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is so low effort it's barely even a critique. Normally I'd leave it at that, but you've now been told about eight times to stop the low effort sneer-posting and that you were heading for a permaban. I dislike permabanning someone for a post that would normally be just a warning, even if it is like strike nine, but I think it's appropriate at this point for you to go away for a while. Thirty days, and don't come back unless you're going to stop doing this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Knock it off. You are also accumulating a history of anklebiting mods every time someone you agree with gets modded (but curiously, never when someone you disagree with gets modded for the same behavior).


People who post low effort comments that are nothing more than "boo" posts get modded. This has been true since we were still on reddit. People who do this repeatedly and refuse to alter their behavior eventually get escalated responses from warnings to tempbans.


You have a lengthy history of whining, sneering, bad-faith griping, and claiming any mod action you don't like is politically biased. Your history is basically terrible in every way. Not a single AAQC, not a single thoughtful or intelligent argument, just posts like this and a long, long string of warnings and temp bans.


If you want to substantively discuss moderation and why you think someone made a mistake, there are acceptable ways to do this. You are allowed to criticize the moderation here. You are even allowed to accuse mods of being biased. But you need to present it articulately and reasonably. There are several (leftist!) posters recently who've made a habit of writing lengthy complaints, mostly directed at myself but sometimes other mods, about how bad our moderation is and how we let righties get away with anything. I did not like those posts, I did not agree with their complaints, and I found it frustrating to engage with them and explain why I thought they were mistaken. But I did not tell them to stop making such complaints, as aggravating as I find their constant griping, because at least they were being civil and putting forward a sincere case for why they think we suck.


You just hawk and spit.


Stop it or you will be banned.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Have you read the page in question? Did it strike you as erotic? Did it strike you as something meant to be arousing? Did you look at that panel and think it's something a teen is likely to jerk off to, or that the author thought of it as something to jerk off to? Because to me, it looked more like teens trying out a "sex fantasy" that turns out to be weird and ridiculous and completely unarousing, which was the point of that sequence. But maybe it did something different for you. I'll take your word for it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


However, I have to disagree with you here. It's well documented that watching too much porn can induce transsexuality or autogynephilia at least.




Accepting that this is possible (I suspect there's more to it than someone coming across the wrong kind of porn at an impressionable age), obviously media affects people, especially children. This should be pretty obvious, but we fight about it because this can be interpreted as "watching too much porn can induce transsexuality or autogynephilia," "Reading spicy genre fiction is a slippery slope to degeneracy," "violent video games turns kids into mass shooters," etc. There are things I think kids should not watch or read and those things might not necessarily be just graphic sex or violence.


So I don't really disagree with your thesis, but I will repeat mine that this is a sliding and negotiable scale. Of course we should control/monitor what media children consume (and parents should be able to make individual decisions for their children). But inevitably parents who want more censorship are going to come into conflict with parents who want less, especially in common spaces. You should be able to prohibit your kid from reading Gender Queer - should you be able to prohibit mine? Libraries are one of those places where we're going to come into conflict, because it's a commons.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Erotica is meant to arouse. It's meant to be erotic. Obviously porn is erotica. But not all naked pictures are porn, IMO.


With the caveat that literally everything is "erotica" to someone, I have a hard time imagining anyone finding the specific scene we're talking about in Gender Queer arousing or stimulating, and it seems pretty obvious to me that that was not its intent. You can take issue with all kinds of things (like its suitability for children), but I think a lot of people are performatively clutching pearls about kids reading about sex.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


When my grandfather was sixteen going on a picnic with a girl and her chaperone was considered risqué.




I find this... unlikely, unless your grandfather was Amish.


Assuming you are no older than me (and probably younger), your grandfather was dating in 1930s at the earliest. Picnics with a chaperone were considered old-fashioned in most of the US even then, and certainly not "risque."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It means you won't be able to read our posts. But if we modhat a comment to you, we treat it the same as if you read it and chose to ignore it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How about don't say either one?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Sure they are. We can do this all day.




Okay, but using your own personal definitions and saying "Nuh uh" isn't much of an argument.




What I have argued and will continue to argue is that there is a constant churn of Cthulhu swimming left, towards greater and greater degradation of the commons.




Maybe so, though I am unconvinced by arguments that have been made basically since Roman times about the degradation of morals and the corruption of the youth.


I wouldn't have any heartburn about prohibiting Gender Queer from school libraries, but public libraries (which are meant to serve adults as well as children, and which can impose age restrictions on certain books) do not need to cater to your personal preferred level of acceptability.




Or maybe you’ll find your grandkid reading it in the library’s booknook and you’ll be appalled. I don’t know. But your current arguments are toothless to me because my stance is that Gor in the school library was already too much.




Likewise, your arguments are toothless to me, because I don't know anyone who turned into a degenerate because they read spicy genre fiction as a kid. I am not saying there is no line, but the line is always going to be fuzzy and negotiable and subjective. You are afraid I'd be okay with exposing children to bestiality; I am afraid you'd like to censor anything that would raise a maiden aunt's eyebrows in 1890. You're right that this is where the battlefield is, however much I personally find Gender Queer offputting (and inappropriate for pre-teens).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sex acts aren't inherently "erotica." The idea that no library books ever depicted sex acts (visually or textually) before Gender Queer is false.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I am happy to defend the idea that drawn erotica is inappropriate material for a public library to carry.




So I have actually looked at the images in Gender Queer. I would not call them "erotica." It's supposed to be a coming-of-age novel about a queer kid experimenting with sex acts that she ultimately finds unappealing.


Would I want my pre-teen kids to read it? No. It definitely should be age-restricted. But "This shouldn't even exist in a public library" seems a bit much.


Influencing my opinion is the fact that I distinctly remember books like Flowers in the Attic and the John Norman Gor series existing in my school library when I was a kid. Now maybe you can make a case that text is less harmful/dangerous than images, but I would contest that. Those books had some fucked up themes and scenes, and the sex scenes weren't even explicit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We are not cops, and we are often not unanimous. In the event of a serious disagreement, we will very occasionally undo a previous decision, but no one "overstepped his bounds." Mods are autonomous; we will often consult with one another when we're unsure of the most appropriate course of action, but sometimes we'll just act because no one else is around. Sometimes afterwards one of us will say "Eh, maybe that was too much."


You're getting transparency here because I value that, but it's not an invitation to demand a humiliation ritual because you think a mod made a bad call.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You should really try reading an entire post before jumping on your keyboard to Au Contraire Mon Frer now and then.


If you had, you'd see I am indeed not blaming him for restating his original message with more words.


I am blaming him for prefacing it with the "drooling retards" crack.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I asked @ZorbaTHut, and apparently that is how it works currently. He might change it so that mods can't be blocked, but for now, that's how it is.


So if Whining gets banned because he ignored my warning... ¯_(ツ)_/¯.


(No, blocking does not make you immune to banning.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
11 reports so far. 2 of them "Quality Contributions" from the usual "AAQC anything that drops a hot steaming turd on the floor" reporters. (To be fair, a couple of negative reports from people who negatively report everything they don't like, as well.)


So just to peel back the curtain a bit, there was a lot of mod discussion about your earlier post, and several of us (including me) thought it really didn't warrant a ban. We didn't roll it back (as we did last time) because it was just one day. However, I predicted you'd come back super angry and spoiling for a fight, and here we are.


I think you're actually hoping you eat another ban, because you really like to feel persecuted. But despite your repeated claims that the mod team (and me specifically) are out to get you, this is not true.


The points you make here are valid, including that it's okay to say "I believe there are no viable political solutions or legal solutions left." You can even talk about the potential/likelihood/sad inevitability of political violence. We're not going to ease up on modding anything that even smells like fedposting, but yes, I think you got an unnecessary timeout (even if you did, as is your wont, come back shrieking like the child who screams bloody murder because he got a tap). And for that reason, I'm going to let this:




(Drooling Retard Edition with words, words, words fo the slow kids in the back who have hammers they can't be trusted with)




go.


This time.


But to be clear, this is unacceptable and if I didn't think you'd already kind of gotten a ban you didn't deserve, I'd ban you for this. You do not get to call us drooling retards no matter how indignant you are.


Anyway, since you've blocked me, you won't read this, which doesn't mean it won't apply in the future. So be it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Talking about fundraisers is comparable but peripheral.




It's not peripheral to what we're actually talking about here. I really don't care to relitigate the Rittenhouse case. What @FCfromSSC pointed out was that the legal defense fund for Rittenhouse was shut down, whereas the legal defend fund for Karmelo Anthony was not.


No matter how wrong or guilty you think Rittenhouse was, would you not agree that he was entitled to a legal defense? And that people who sympathized with him had the right to donate to it? And that it would be wrong to decide whose legal defense funds people are or are not allowed to donate to?




Regardless of which of us comes out the victor, either of us could be plausibly at fault.




Yes, of course the facts of the case are going to matter a lot, and we can construct hypotheticals where pulling a knife when being threatened by fists would be considered justifiable. But most of the time, it's not.


I am not rushing to judgment on the Karmelo Anthony case, because often some details emerge over time that change what everyone thinks they know, but based on what I've heard so far, if a teenager pulls a knife and stabs another teenager who was threatening, or even shoving him, I would expect him to have a hard time making a convincing case that it was justified.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The situations at hand are neither symmetric nor complementary.




I'm on the record as saying that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there but his acquittal was correct. That said, c'mon, while no two situations are exactly equivalent, they seem close enough to me. At least close enough that arguing that a fundraiser for Rittenhouse's legal defense was illegitimate while fundraising for Anthony is legitimate sure makes me raise my eyebrows, and I'm not an accelerationist.




Personally speaking, I do martial arts, and I would consider pulling a knife on someone who wants to throw hands a reasonable, proportionate act.




I do martial arts also, and I predict you'd be facing an unsympathetic DA and a very tough jury if you did that. "People can be killed with bare hands!" Yes, but it's very uncommon, and pulling a lethal weapon is an obvious escalation and most courts will see it that way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


or else you have to admit you hold beliefs purely because they’re convenient for you and that you’re okay with letting your less fortunate peers sink.




I think this has always been Scott.


I came to SSC because I liked his writing and he sometimes had some good insights. But he's always been the guy you're seeing today.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not saying Scott used to be a firebrand. But it shouldn't be surprising that getting married and establishing a career means he's not as willing to stick his hand into the fire. Hence everyone complaining about him losing his edge and not writing bangers like he used to.


That said, I never thought he was courageous or even particularly principled. He's always been a squish and something of a coward, and it surprises me that people are surprised by this now.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Who's "us"?


I agree Scott got soft, but stability and family making you more mellow and less of a firebrand is an eternal cycle, it's how things are supposed to be. It's why Kulak in his incessant calls for violence never actually talks about building things, starting families, falling in love, having children. Men who have lives and families to care about don't want to burn down the world.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I can extend enough charity to believe you actually believe this, but this is such an inaccurate description of reality I am tempted to give the Luke Skywalker TLJ quote.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not a warning, but I'm seeing an increase in "I don't believe you really believe what you're saying/you are who you say you are" accusations lately, and it really poisons the discourse. Yes, we get trolls and sock puppets and some people may be pretending to be more principled than they are, but this forum is by its nature anonymous and no one is going to show you their Internet CV. Take people at face value if you choose to argue with them, or have a reason beyond "vibes" to accuse them of dissembling.


I'm not saying you might not be right, but this kind of purity testing and challenging someone's not-a-basic-bitch-lib bonafides is worse than either sincere engagement or choosing not to engage even if someone is being insincere. You cannot read anyone's mind.


I will note also (before @SteveAgain screams at me) that this is not a right wing or "anti woke" forum, even if that describes the majority of posters, and a leftist "Orange man bad" redditor is actually allowed to participate here, if they can follow the rules.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Right, so I have to deal with this one too.


There are two issues here: (1) the post itself, and (2) your history.


The post itself is just a rather sneering boo-outgroup directed at Nick Fuentes and his supporters. You are certainly allowed to have a negative opinion about any particular group (Fuentes fans, the Alt-Right, Democrats, Neo-Nazis, MAGA, Muslims, blacks, moderators on the Motte, etc.) and you can talk about why you have a negative opinion of them. But the combination of lazy insults ("Fuentards") and assertions without evidence (I have no idea if Fuentes is homosexual or an FBI informant or whatever, but if you want to throw those accusations out there, you should back them up with something beyond repeating Internet memes) is not a good way to criticize a group you dislike. Once again I am making no judgment about the claims themselves or based on what I personally think of Nick Fuentes and his crowd. We just don't want to see people dropping lines like "Fuentards" into conversation; it does nothing but poison the discussion. On rdrama that may be funny, but this isn't rdrama.


Now, regarding you. You are one of our worst posters. You have acquired a rap sheet so long I have to use to the scroll button. Last couple of reports were basically "Last chance." Honestly, I think I should permaban you because you're inevitably going to keep coming back to shit up the place. But I am loathe to permaban someone for what would normally just incur a warning, even taking your history into account. I will probably regret this- this is not an invitation to come back and post something really bad so I can permaban you with prejudice. But I am giving you a one-week ban this time, and if (when) you get modded in the future, it will very likely be your last.


@hanikrummihundursvin, next time report the post, don't whine publicly, and you've been here long enough to know that we are not on call for you 24/7.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They don't. They are simply lying. Yes, it is my belief that to say Garcia was "denied due process" is a lie.




Okay, coming in to this late because I was hoping someone else would address it.


This is really skirting the line. You may sincerely believe that literally no one actually believes Garcia was denied due process. If so, you are engaging in a complete failure to extend even a little bit of charity or theory of the mind to people who think differently from you, including (obviously) people here in this forum. Even if you didn't directly address them, you're clearly addressing this at them. Coming as close as you think you can get away with to "Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a liar."


Besides obviously being intended as a slap delivered to anyone arguing the opposite, it's simply very poor argumentation. You don't have to steelman every argument you disagree with, but you should at least keep in mind that very often people really do believe the things they say they believe, and saying "No, you can't actually believe that, you're just lying" is a cheap dodge to avoid defending your own position or addressing theirs. It never produces good discussion, and here it just inevitably leads to clusterfuck threads where people are trying to get their digs in to express how much contempt they feel for the other side.


Note that I am not trying to rule on the object level claim here- I have read the same breakdowns of the Garcia case as everyone else and the situation is, at best, fuzzy. I am sure there are people arguing in bad faith. I'm sure there are people who really believe what they say, regardless of how well-founded their beliefs are.


Despite all the upvotes, you also got reported six times and the "volunteer janny" banner seems to agree with me that this post was borderline, since it keeps alternating between "bad" and "not bad."


In my opinion, this is a bad post because while the rest of it was fine, the very first sentence was its purpose, and that purpose was just to tell off your enemies because you're angry.


ETA: and to @UrgentSloth and @Thoroughlygruntled, who were so thoroughly disgruntled that I modded the "Fuck you" in response to this post but did not mod this post. My initial opinion on this post was that it was borderline. I don't like people calling other people liars, but you are allowed to believe that other people are lying. You are allowed to have negative opinions about your opponents. You have to be civil about it, no matter how uncivil you are actually feeling, but this was borderline.


I did not mod @HighResolutionSleep right away because I kind of wanted another mod who hadn't already intervened in this thread to make the call. But three days later it's still sitting in the queue with six reports and a controversial vote count so someone had to say something, or just dismiss it, and well, I wanted to say something because I agree that "Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar" is not good discourse. So don't do that. Also, don't tell someone off with a "Fuck you" because they are not engaging in good discourse. ESH.