@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

"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

Amadan

"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

Being reasonable and even-handed and waiting to see the evidence is in character for me? Why thank you.

You've consistently been inaccurate in your judgments about me. (I was never on board with TWAW, for example. You see me criticizing trans ideology and think I made a heelface turn. I would gently suggest this should be reason for you to question your priors.)

I am not convinced your distinction is meaningful. White supremacists believe white people are superior to non-white people, at least in most meaningful ways (i.e., anything to do with intellect and behavior; some will waffle about Asian IQ scores). I know not all of them literally want a white empire ruling the untermenschen. If you don't like the label, fair enough, but I wasn't directing it at you personally as a slur.

I’m going to let your uncalled-for use of the slur/exonym “white supremacist” roll off my back, but I do want to take extreme issue with your accusation that I went out of my way to “find that one Jew that agrees” with me.

I didn't say you personally went out of your way to find him. My point is that there are black people who like the Confederacy, Jews who sympathize with the Nazis, probably there are some Chinese historians who side with Japanese nationalists in disputing the Rape of Nanking. Yes, I do think those figures are little more than convenient fig leafs that the pro-denial side likes to trot out as a defense against accusations of ideological bias.

Also, what's your beef with "white supremacist"? Do you just find it less palatable than "white nationalist"? This sounds like the TERFs who claim TERF is a slur even when it's literally accurate (as opposed to being used haphazardly to describe anyone on the other side of a debate).

leftists talking about how their political enemies just need "the mao treatment" "annihilating them and their families"

Is not a literal quote of:

A genocide would have been overkill. The top southern 1%-2% being subject to the mao landlord treatment and their holdings redistributed would have led the country to a much better place long term.

I do not agree with ImmanuelCanNot's sentiments, and you can certainly object to them. But there is a difference between talking about how it would have been good to do something to "The top southern 1%-2%" in 1865 and "leftists talking about their political enemies." Of course if you would like to claim that what ImmanuelCanNot actually meant was "the left's political enemies today," you can do that, but you will have to substantiate it rather than just mindreading or projecting. Given that your interpretation of FCfromSSC's accelerationist post is an even more egregious misrepresentation, I suggest you invest some effort before making such an attempt.

So why do you think I "hit peak trans recently"? In what way do you think my views shifted?

I already explained my take on their encounter. As several other people have pointed out to you, both parties can be acting kind of like jerks, that doesn't mean one party (in this case, the kids) wasn't acting like bigger jerks. You don't have to agree with me that the nurse was not 100% innocent and in completely in the right, but at least recognize this is more like a melodrama where people are getting heated up over what's ultimately a nothingburger, and not a court case where one side is Right and the other side is Wrong. There are situations where even if you are legally and morally in the right, you can be an ass about it and deal with the other party in a less than ideal fashion. That you seem unwilling to even engage with any premise other than one that colors strictly within black and white borders is, well, if I were going to be as snarky and uncharitable as you, I would say "in character." Instead, I don't think you actually think that way, I think you are just seeing this encounter entirely through a tribal lens.

Come on, dude. It's a slur everywhere. Nobody uses it except to be insulting. (No, don't point to the handful of trans people who use it to refer to themselves. You also can't call black people "niggers" here just because some black people use it amongst themselves.)

people like yourself seem perfectly happy insisting that biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts and decided their policy and there's just nothing we can do about it.

I do not think "biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts" (sic).

I do not think there is "nothing we can do about" inequities that may result from biological differences.

I think laws need to reflect facts like, for example, that women can get pregnant and men can't.

If you really are sincere about "Laws against rape, or laws recognizing only women get pregnant: choose one," well, that is certainly a take.

From the sidebar:

All links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If you accuse me of being bad-faith, and I ask you to point out where exactly in this conversation I have been bad-faith, and you reply like this then I think it's fair for me to complain about this moderator intervention here...

You can complain. Clearly you are complaining.

How about you just let this conversation happen

If by that you mean "How about you just let me continue to do the same thing," no.

There are two possibilities here:

  1. You genuinely believe you aren't doing what we described.
  2. You know you're doing what we described, but you think you can litigate it in such a way that we are forced to "acquit" you.

I personally believe it's 2, but if it's 1, you're just going to have to spend some time figuring out what you're doing wrong, because I am not willing to extend the necessary charity it would require for me to walk you through it (again).

If it's 2, well, short of persuading @ZorbaTHut to overrule us, no, there is no other avenue of appeals.

It's not calculated to piss people off, it's a space-claiming strategy that works in tandem with Zorba decreeing that "misgendering" is now a bannable offense

Being an asshole is a bannable offense. You're allowed to say you don't think trans women are women. You're not allowed to make a point of "misgendering" someone to be a dick and express your contempt.

they’re trans, or they’re extremely mentally ill (but I repeat myself)

This comment was reported, and I have to agree that this sort of glibness isn't appropriate here. You are allowed to argue that trans people are mentally ill, but it has to actually be some kind of an argument, don't just throw low effort boos like that.

(I was reluctant to mod this one because you are responding to me, but this comment isn't actually a response to anything I said, which makes it even more of a gratuitous dunk on your outgroup.)

True enough. But "A homeless black guy harassed me, this is why I wish we could go all Turner Diaries" is the direction I see.

Outrage at being bullied and essentially rendered helpless by a criminal psychopath in public is understandable, but all the stuff about "large, high-testosterone, social and biological inferiors" is just racial seething.

White people pretty well accept it, though.

They accept it because, as I said, it doesn't harm them. Even if you want to be a musician, comic, or dancer (accepting your premise for the moment, and "white men can't dance" jokes aside, I don't think anyone seriously believes white people have a genetic disadvantage in the performative arts), white people are obviously able to succeed there as well.

I see no evidence for any race having a "civilizationally-challenged level of narcissim."

You have no evidence for this. You're just assuming everyone is a bad-faith conflict theorist because you are unable to envision how anyone else could be otherwise.

When your model of your enemies is such that if they do what you expect, it affirms your beliefs, and when they don't do what you expect, you assume they made a mistake and thus it affirms your beliefs, consider the possibility that your model is wrong.

This is nothing but personal antagonism.

Which since you have a long record of this, gets you a ban for another week.

Maybe stop dancing to @BurdensomeCount's tune, since he clearly knows exactly how to make you lose it.

Reading comprehension test:

Who is "them"?

(a) Leftists' political enemies. (b) The top 1%-2% of Southern landowners during the Civil War.

So you mean mainstream online feminists and their normie hangers-on, basically?

No, I mean pretty much everyone except the PUA community. If a "cultural movement" is widely unpopular, it may be because there is some vast feminist media conspiracy against it, or it may be that it's...unpopular, because of the people in it.

No, my point is that you've consistently and commonly argued #2, against people who clearly aren't bringing that position.

No, it is not clear to me that people are not bringing that position. You just (re)quoted FCfromSSC and yourself providing a long list of how conservatives are being persecuted and deprived of their rights. If all you're claiming is #1, then what are we disagreeing about?

I have not, at any point, compared what conservatives today are encountering with concentration camps, even in the figurative sense. At no point in this thread have I gotten anywhere near that. Neither has the_nybbler nor fcfromssc since the move.

You may not literally have invoked concentration camps, but the whole point of @FCfromSSC's accelerationism has been, as I understand it, that he sees peaceful coexistence becoming impossible in the near future. Actual concentration camps? Maybe not, but if we can't even share a country and accord each other civil rights, that seems pretty damn concentration camp-adjacent to me. And the @The_Nybbler's entire schtick is whining that the Left has won, laws and democracy are fake and gay, and the boot is already stomping on his face forever and ever.

You do realize that anyone watching can notice that you're endlessly retreating from specific ground points presented by the people you're talking with, to this?

No, I do not realize this. I think this is a claim you keep repeating because you're playing to the crowd. What specific ground points do you think I am retreating from?

I honestly can't tell if you genuinely believe you're scoring gotchas, or if you've just (correctly) deduced that accusing me of lying annoys me, so you keep doing it for the lulz. I can entertain the possibility that I am misunderstanding you, that I missed the point, hell, maybe even that I'm just too dim to understand your argument. But I don't lie or argue in bad faith or play "word games."

I can point to the OP of this very subthread claiming that conservatives no longer exist as a group in federal administrative infrastructure, in a way that will prevent them from achieving their goals (or, implicitly, seriously slowing the goals of their opponents), in a way that lacks parallels since the end of the South as a racial institution (coincidentally, a time where this meant far less). I can provide a dozen significant tactical or strategic differences, some wildly different, in powers that the progressive movement is actively using today, if they matter.

Do they?

I don't know, it depends on what you want me to do with these examples. Agree that they happened? Agree that they are bad? Or agree that they constitute the Right being oppressed? To what level do you want me to agree that the Right is being oppressed? Apparently invoking Orwell and disenfranchisement is too far, but just agreeing that the Right is losing the Culture War at the moment is not enough. What do you want? (Besides to goad me, so, mission accomplished I guess.)

Or you could just put it in the Friday Fun Thread and not be a jerk.

Dude, this thing where you pretend to be obtuse (while still being insanely nitpicky and condescending) whenever you want to score some partisan points is so fucking old.

Stick to the arguments, rather than projecting motives onto people and flipping out at them.

I think the actual physical threat presented by the average nerd hitting on a woman at a convention is very low. That said, while I don't think women should react to every creepy come-on as a rape threat, I don't think they should just be expected to put up with creepy come-ons without protest. Rebecca Watson arguably overreacted, but otoh, she wasn't even trying to get the guy punished, even informally - she just embarrassed him a little.

If women have to put up with ill-conceived come-ons, men can put up with embarrassment for an ill-conceived come-on.

Calling someone out wasn't exactly a great starting point, as I said, but I've seen ymeskhout get jumped on for "writing verbose Trump-bashing lawyer-speak" even when he isn't calling someone out by name.

Usually?

What do you want me to say, dude? You honestly haven't made that much of an impression on me, but no, I do not think you're an "insipid partisan dick." Try harder and maybe you'll get there.

Your understanding is very poor.

Like him, you're missing the point of the admonishment.

You can make a statement that might be true, and can be supported, but if you make it in a low-effort inflammatory way, it's going to get modded. Several people have written at length about why they think AA studies classes, and this one in particular, are full of CRT teachings and other assorted nonsense. Notice none of them have been modded.

"But what I said is true!" is not a defense for posting low-effort dunks, even if you do subsequently back up what you asserted with more effort.

That's a weird take and I don't think it's an ingenuous one.

Recognizing that biology has a material impact does not mean being a proponent of "based natural law" and fantasies about reverting to Hobbesian savagery.

Lets play dueling anecdotes.

No. Also, you've been told to change your username. Do it. The only reason I am not banning you right now is so you don't whine that I did it in the middle of a thread where I was a participant, but the next time you post with this username, you will be.