@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

Consider the possibility that you get downvoted because your debate style is obnoxious and supercilious and you describe people who weary of it (or maybe just have lives and families to get back to) as "scurrying off."

We were already on the admins' radar when we moved. I agree that we probably moved sooner than we had to, but I absolutely think we'd have been banned eventually, and if we returned, sneerclubbers and other old friends would be reporting every post about HBD, Jews, trans, and Boogalooing. We mods get shit here for sometimes cracking down on people stepping a little over the line in their eagerness to express how much they hate their enemies, but I think people have short memories if they think half of what they get away with here would fly on Reddit.

Yes, we're probably in a long, slow death spiral. I occasionally visit forums I frequented twenty years ago; some of them are still around with the same dozen or so people who were there twenty years ago. Maybe that is the Motte's fate. I'd like to think there is a way out of that, but you're kidding yourself if you think "woke" is so over that we can go back to the days of the first Trump administration on Reddit.

The idea that she married her brother and committed immigration fraud was treated as a laughable conspiracy only Fox News-addled partisans would treat as anything more than a joke.

Elsewhere, maybe. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of people here who took the idea seriously, or at least did not consider it laughable.

I think it's mostly the first thing - we have had a gradual but inevitable decline in activity (and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground), and thus in QCs.

I advocate the romantasy because they make it really easy to see the machinery at work, and there are so many of them you can probably find something to your taste.

I am not sniffing at romances (or romantasies) because I don't understand the allure. I understand the allure. Of course everyone has fantasies, whether they are romantic, power fantasies, competency-porn, or whatever. What I mean is that every romantasy I've ever looked at is just so badly-written, and has so little plot beyond "Which bad boy alpha fighting over me shall I choose?" (I mean, I guess in some of them the chick is also a bad-ass fairy assassin or something, but that just makes it more badly written) that I cannot enjoy them. I feel the same about romance in general, though I've read a couple that were enjoyable enough, despite being very formulaic. Do you recommend any romantasy that would actually stand on its own, with good plot and prose in its own right, beyond serving up female wish fulfillment?

Call me crazy but I think it's the same idea: fantasy is inherent to narrative, narrative is inherent to cognition, and that's how we understand history. News and current events are just stories, and we understand stories in heroic terms. Everything is hero-worship, fantasy is cognition.

Without getting too serious (and off-topic), I don't quite understand your point here, because you seem to be saying that your Iran takes are fantasy and hero-worship, which I am pretty sure is not what you meant. I mean, I get that you literally worship Trump as a hero, but are you saying that framing all events as a fantastical narrative of good and evil is how you think we should understand the world? Rather than messy conflicting narratives where facts exist but are hard to discern or agree upon?

You and @VIM have both been temp banned before for this kind of petty sniping. Stop it. Argue without the snide, condescending pot shots.

You've been warned and temp-banned many times for this kind of posting. We let you have a pretty long leash; you're allowed to hate people, you're allowed to be angry, you're allowed to say you think violence is inevitable as long as you aren't directly advocating it or threatening it (and even then, we're pretty subjective and lenient as long as you aren't fedposting too blatantly or insulting us with "in Minecraft" winking).

But you're not allowed to personally attack people because they don't share your point of view. No matter how angry that makes you and no matter how much you hate that people believe things that make you angry.

We've always been clear that there is a high bar to calling someone a liar directly. And the people you are snarling at are clearly stating why they don't share your point of view. People are not lying when they disagree with you that you are being replaced. You can argue all you like about what "replacement" means, but you do not get to just spit and snarl because you don't like the state of the world and that you have to share it with people who aren't aligned with you. Telling someone "they know it's happening and they think it's good" is uncharitable, and against the rules even if you really believe it's true. (I think several things about you that I really believe are true and which would be unacceptable to post.)

You've got one post above that was borderline and has been sitting in the queue while we decided what to do with it, which was a mistake because you only escalated the antagonism.

Mitigating circumstances are that we took a few days to get to this, and we're generally reluctant to drop a long ban on someone a few days after the fact (reluctant- but that doesn't mean it won't happen), and that you deleted the even more incendiary post you wrote, which suggests you at least had second thoughts about the wisdom of behaving like this, if not the appropriateness of it.

Less mitigating is that your mod notes are lengthy and show no sign of improvement, only a temporary willingness to tone it down and hope we forget before the next time you lose your cool.

So I'm not going to permaban you as I threatened to last time. But I am giving you a 30-day temp ban.

It seems pretty clear you don't want to discuss, you just want a place to spit and stomp your feet and pound your fists and rage. This is not that place. You won't get another warning, at least not from me.

and the artwork for the single is blatantly AI-generated (note that the word "the" appears twice at the top of the image,

I didn't even notice that because I was distracted by her nipple being in the wrong place. AIs nowadays usually do better than that with anatomy unless they're told "Make sure the nipple is half-visible beneath her collar."

I don't think a firing squad is inhumane. I'm talking about livestreaming it, which also is not in itself inhumane, but I don't think the motivation for that is anything other than base spectacle. It does not strike me as taking the responsibility of executing someone seriously, but rather turning it into entertainment.

I'm sure many people will be entertained.

Yes, they're disgusting. Call me old-fashioned; I remember when we expected presidents to be above acting like that.

I am not, in principal, against the death penalty, and I certainly think Nidal Hassan deserves it.

However, IMO, it should be a sober, deliberative action we do because we have made a rational decision, not something to please a bloodthirsty crowd. And it should be done humanely, no matter how big a scumbag the condemned was, and no matter how many people would like to see him slowly tortured to death.

reveling in low-class pandering and/or ostentatious cruelty

is exactly the point here. I fully expect the administration to "botch the aesthetics of the occasion," by which I mean they will treat it like a celebration and sell T-shirts, and if they botch the execution itself and Hassan lies on the ground, bleeding out but not dead, Trump will probably do a cute imitation of his dying gurgles, to wild cheers.

You could probably call it that nowadays, in the same way that a lot of stuff that wasn't originally "YA" is now called that. I've read very little Mercedes Lackey, but my recollection of the Pern books is that the romance subplots were mostly pretty light, not the primary running theme.

I like your Harry Potter takes much more than I like your Iran takes.

I generally agree with you about the nature of the Potterverse, but one of the reasons people get wrapped up in the illogic, and the "shipping," is that the books made an awkward transition from "children's series where we can accept that magic is whimsical and fairy-tale like and doesn't need to make sense" to "YA series where people are starting to have adult relationships, the story is increasingly metaphorical, and the world is starting to look silly." Thirteen-year-old Hermione being given a Time-Turner so she can take more classes is funny. The Time-Turner is a MacGuffin. Seventeen-year-old Harry fighting wizard Nazis and being threatened with torture and death makes you wonder why he (or Hermione) isn't thinking about Time-Turners.

Rowling is a good author. The sense of wonder, the aliveness of the wizarding world, the investment in characters, is why HP became huge despite neither her world nor her prose being better than many other authors writing in the same playground. But she's very much an author for whom "numbers aren't real" and "worldbuilding isn't a thing," and that means when the audience gets older and starts thinking about the inconsistencies, well, they realize that the Wizarding World only works if you don't think about it too much.

Getting back to Malfoid, I agree that this is gooner slop, even if the visual presentation is chaste. Harry marrying a nice girl next door isn't good enough; gooners don't want a quiet girl next door, they want a hot blonde badass who's pretty and feisty and kind of bitchy but will become submissive and demure (but still sexy) for you... only for you. It's the flip side of the woman who fantasizes about the rough bad boy alpha who reveals his tender squishy heart only for you.

I am kind of surprised to see you praise romantasy, as hereabouts it's often criticized for being basically literary porn for women. Now, I am a literary snob (no, not really, I like Dungeon Crawler Carl and Harry Potter), but I'm also a literary gourmand. I'll try anything. I've tried romantasy. Have yet to find one that didn't bore me or strike me as execrably bad writing. I tried to read Twilight back in the day. I didn't hate it, it didn't give me girl cooties, it just... bored me. You say the bad writing is the point, and maybe that's true (romance has always been a very formulaic, mass-produced product), but I don't know why I'd want to suffer bad writing and boredom if I am not the target audience getting dopamine hits from an enemies-to-lovers alpha story written like a fourteen-year-old's first fanfic.

Is Progression Fantasy still "niche," with Dungeon Crawler Carl breaking containment?

DCC is LitRPG, which is another sub-genre of Progression Fantasy. Yes, DCC has dramatically expanded the audience for both, but I have yet to see a harem fantasy hit the mainstream. Would be hilarious when/if it does. I can only imagine the CW discussion points it will spawn.

If you say so. I cringe (for the blocker) every time I see someone do it.

There is already a male romantasy genre, but it's called Harem Fantasy and considered a very low-status sub-genre of the already rather niche Progression Fantasy.

Male-POV strictly monogamous romances with a HEA were more popular in the Regency and Victorian eras, but fell off by the 1950s, as romance became mostly for women and men were more interested in the (fantasy) world shown to them by the likes of Hugh Hefner. There's probably a 2rafa-style argument to be made here, something-something sexual revolution, but yeah, these Malfoid stories are touching a chord with guys who want a waifu and not a harem, I guess. (These kinds of stories are much more common in Japanese manga and anime.)

and we now got to the point where BlueSky is having meltdowns over fanfics where a girl falls in love with a boy

They're having meltdowns over fanfics based on the works of She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

Left wingers love stories where a girl falls in love with a boy. Most romance (including "romantasy") is very left-coded. The girl may be a Strong Independent Woman who can outfight five times her dainty elfin weight in Navy Seals, but they are still fundamentally about a girl who falls in love with a vampirewerewolfboy.

I think a lot of people performatively block someone who once humiliated them, but regularly read the Motte while not signed in to see what that-asshole-they-totally-don't-care-about is saying.

If you drop "Also, we should kill my political enemies" into an otherwise acceptable post, that's the part that's going to get modded.

Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.

Who would these be?

Well, don't answer that. Better yet, don't post like that.

There's probably an acceptable effortpost that could be made that argues that some people are traitors and we should execute them, but you need to put effort into it, not just imply that your political enemies should be killed in a free-form rant.

I'm sorry to, uh, throw a wrench into a fine rant, but I'm not a sex-positive liberal so you seem to be addressing it to me on the assumption that I believe things I don't.

I mean, I guess I am a "sex-positive liberal" in a literal sense, or in the sense that a lot of behavior I consider shameful and disgusting shouldn't necessarily be illegal. But if you see me defending Jane Doe or Mattress Girl or Jackie, et al, then you have been operating on a very poor understanding of my liberalism.

I didn't say they aren't entitled to a defense.

They can be dirtbags without being guilty of criminal charges.

It's arguably "virtuous" to defend their right to innocence until proven guilty of criminal charges. It's not virtuous to line up on Team Dude and say they did nothing wrong because you hate the slut.

ESH is a perfectly valid conclusion.

She's gross, the men are gross (seriously, consent or not, who thinks it's not gross to put your dick in the same place a dozen other guys just put their dicks?), and social shame and disgust should befall all of them regardless of criminality. But most people are lining up on Team Woman or Team Bitches Ain't Shit. And so it goes.

It's amazing how clouded some people's minds get when you tell them that 18 is an irrationally high age of consent.

Nobody here is "mind clouded" by the idea of lowering the age of consent. People will agree or disagree that 18 is too high or 14 is too low, and the discussion is not prohibited (because it comes up regularly). You aren't dropping some unthinkable 70-degrees off-the-azimuth hot take that makes people freak out. You're just being predictable and annoying and you think you're being clever by inserting your obsessions into tangential posts that dance around without quite naming the thing you want to talk about. But do go on testing our forbearance.