Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
I want to make sure I understand this, but first I’d ask you to stop using Reddit drama language like “the trains”.
... Are you trying to be funny? I quoted you (hence the quote marks), because I told you in my initial warning to stop doing that.
Are you disputing that these things are happening at all?
No, I am not. I spelled out the problems with your post clearly and explicitly. That you are pretending that we're disagreeing about "ground realities" like whether or not trans people exist, combined with whatever you are doing above, suggests to me that you are not engaging in good faith. You've been warned several times in the past for low-effort comments like this, and every time you have pushed back insisting that everything you said was right and reasonable. This is of course not an uncommon reaction, but your reaction in particular is really doing you no favors. You are not going to gain any traction by saying things and then claiming you didn't say them or that you actually said something different.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
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.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Are you saying 13 is too old to count as pedophilic?
This does nothing to convince me you are posting in good faith.
If you want to start a discussion about a historically contentious case and make a broader argument about how this reflects on the ADL, put the necessary effort into a post making that argument. Do not write low-effort "boo"-posts asserting your uncharitable snarl as fact.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3mo ago
I think many Trump supporters really do see themselves as the underdogs being picked on by Chads and Stacies, and that is a common perception even here: many, many posts are devoted to how the "Elites" (whether that means liberals, Democrats, Jews, the media, all of the above, whoever) are the popular kids picking on the losers.
However, this is blatantly at odds with the original core appeal of Trump, which is that he was a champion of normal, well-adjusted, classic and confident America, here to take the country back from the freaks and faggots and pencil-necks who have essentially usurped control through subterfuge and used that power to resentfully force their unpopular obsessions on the mass of normal popular people.
Thank you for an example of an acceptable use of slurs, since recently a number of people have been claiming not to understand when they can and cannot use words like "faggot." If you were directly calling Democrats, or the "Elite," or whoever, "faggots," I would mod that as being inflammatory and boo outgroup. It would be little more than namecalling: "My enemies are faggots." Not because we don't allow people to use "faggot" or other slurs, but because we don't allow namecalling and unnecessary antagonism. However, using it to represent what other (hypothetical) people think isn't going to get a warning for using "no-no words."
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
5mo ago
What I would like is for you to stop jousting with old posts. I've already expressed to @FCfromSSC that I regret having taken the tone I did in that post you're still beefing about. If you're genuinely wondering (as opposed to just seeing if you can bait me) whether I still stand by something I said years ago, ask me directly (and be clear what it is you think I believe since your interpretation of what I believe is often inaccurate).
But I am not going to tell you to stop being petty and trying to dredge up old fights. That's your prerogative.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
You know why this is obviously wrong. I know why this is obviously wrong. It is not obvious from first principles why this is wrong.
Yeah, feminists have certainly pushed the idea that women enjoy sex (as opposed to the traditional view that sex is something women grudgingly, reluctantly provide in exchange for commitment, and that women who actually like sex are sluts), but like all fraught social interactions, people have to learn how to actually navigate the territory. I feel sorry for the OP that no one ever taught him anything, but I still feel like even passively observing people and popular culture, you have to be pretty socially oblivious to reason from "Women like sex" to "Women like being propositioned for sex by their classmates without even being offered a date."
You have been warned about this kind of personal antagonism and attack-dogging repeatedly. You have been told to stop playing political commissar.
You have one of the lengthiest rap sheets here in our short time on the new site, and clearly you don't care; you're not here to discuss anything, you're here to snarl, spit, count coup and try to score gotchas.
Banned for 2 weeks, pending mod discussion (I will be arguing for a permaban).
ETA: Following mod discussion, general consensus is that you're a terrible commenter with a terrible history, and while there was some ambivalence about permabanning you over this comment in particular, your track record justifies it. You were warned repeatedly to knock it off or you'd be banned, and you very intentionally chose not to knock it off, even continuing your petty aggression and personal grudges in DMs and reports.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
She's a black homosexual female athlete (but I repeat myself). It's a diversity triple whammy, and yes, it's pure culture war.
As is your "but I repeat myself" crack. Don't do that.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Tell me, do you keep a diary of your political goals and beliefs? I think it would be very interesting to see how it evolves over time as the Overton window in your head is shifted by party doctrine.
Banned for a day. You've been told repeatedly to knock this shit off.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Contribute something more than snark, please.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
2mo ago
This post has gotten a bunch of reports, and while Susan Wojcicicki is a public figure and we usually relax the rules about being unnecessarily antagonistic to public figures, it seems to me that if you want to dance on someone's grave (in this case, a dumb rich college kid who ODed) you should justify it with a better reason than "She's one of my tribal enemies so Ha! Ha! (insert Simpsons gif)." The OP was about fentanyl and drug policy in general: your response is just culture warring.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3mo ago
You are answering only those parts of @raggedy_anthem's post which you want to address, and ignoring the actual salient points. Which is, ironically, the same thing you do every time someone engages with you on your Holocaust revisionism: answer the points you have ready pat answers for, and ignore the points that you can't actually refute.
You are not being threatened with moderation because this is your pet topic, or because we hate Holocaust deniers, or because we're coopted by Jews, or because you answered someone else who (indirectly) brought it up. That is not the problem, since you have indeed cut back on the manifesto-posting after the last time we told you to give it a rest.
The problem is that, precisely as @raggedy_anthem described, you are not engaging in good faith. What that means is, for example, multiple people have walked through your claims that there is "no written evidence of an intent to exterminate Jews" or "the numbers don't add up," etc. etc. And while I'm sure you will disagree about whether your claims were effectively refuted, you cannot claim that people haven't given you very solid (and cited) responses, which at least deserve to be acknowledged and answered in turn.
Instead, what you do is disappear after someone does this. And then return, a week or two weeks later, making exactly the same claims as if no one ever responded to them before.
Understandably, the last person to go point by point with you probably doesn't feel like doing it again, only to be ghosted and ignored again and then see you weeble-wobble your way back into the same talking points after short-term memory of the discussion has faded. Other people see you do this, and also feel like it's not worth the trouble: you will just stick to your talking points, disappear when effectively challenged, and then come back with the same talking points. Repeating the cycle over and over again until you are effectively in command of the field because only the occasional newcomer encountering you for the first time wants to bother. Occasionally someone will be frustrated at this tactic and call you a liar and then we have to mod them because calling you a liar (even when you are being transparently dishonest) is not allowed.
This is not how debate is supposed to work here. We don't have rules requiring you to keep responding when someone challenges you. You don't have to answer anyone. We don't have rules requiring you to admit when you've been refuted. We don't have rules forbidding you from making the same argument you've made in the past, or requiring you to acknowledge that someone else made a counterargument you never answered. In other words, what you're doing, while obviously a very bad faith debating tactic, is as one mod put it, "finding a bespoke way of arguing like an asshole in a way that's hard to mod without singling him out."
What we would like you to do is actually engage in good faith. I don't think you can or will do that, so that puts us in the position where we can either let you keep exploiting our charity, or decide we've had enough. If your response continues to be "Well, I'm going to post what I post and you can mod me or not," fair enough, so be it.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
but because I want that author to have a realistic idea of how relatively popular those views are in this space
In other words, you are trying to build consensus?
There's no rule about how you can/should vote (we wouldn't really have a way to enforce it anyway), but admitting that you do this certainly affects how I view your participation here.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
You said not to use Reddit drama phrases, then continued doing so, presumably to be antagonistic. I asked you to stop.
No, I quoted the phrases you used to explain why your post was unacceptable.
I believe this was straightforward to you and you are being intentionally difficult and disingenuous. The only reason I have continued to reply to you this long is because in my capacity as a mod, I try to make sure everyone understands why they are being modded. I think you understand perfectly well why you were modded, and you're attempting some kind of rhetorical jujutsu here that isn't going to work.
You are not required to reply to me at all. You are only required to post in accordance with the rules.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
This comment is low effort and contributes nothing, and you have a pattern of posting low effort sneers. Knock it off or you won't be posting.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
We’re still waiting for one of your high-effort “Inferential Distance” posts to produce a single new insight or argument that hasn’t already been repeated by you in tons of smaller comments over the years. This was literally just a long-winded (and full of misspelled words and poor grammar) restatement of the exact same argument you’ve made 10,000 times.
Yeah dude, do you get tired of @SecureSignals constantly reiterating the same talking points over and over 10,000 times? Or do you eagerly wait for his next epistle on why you should hate the Jews?
This is not a mod warning, because you're allowed to criticize people and tell them you don't like their posts, but it's borderline, because if all you have to say is "I don't like you and I don't like your posts," maybe you should just skip them instead of writing a tirade. You get a pass because at least you picked at a few specific things to refute. But I also noted the "I’m not saying you’re as dumb as a mere beast, Hlynka" apophasis.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
After your last warning, posting this appears to be a particularly obnoxious way to flounce.
Banned, permanent unless the other mods dissent.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
All he did was verbalize a reasonable request.
You think asking a female classmate "Hey, wanna be my fuck buddy?" is a reasonable request?
If he’d made a physical move, it would have amounted to the same thing, except it might have worked.
I'm not sure what you mean by "physical move" here. The only thing I can think of is pretty uncharitable - surely, you're not suggesting he should have just grabbed her?
You serve him the ‘freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences’ hogwash. “This is sad”, indeed.
You know, sometimes that's actually true. If I approach a woman and say "Hi, wanna fuck?" I am not breaking any laws, but I am certainly committing an egregious faux pas and should expect consequences for that.
People decided to punish him. Should he be punished for such a crime?
Yes. Not literally, since it's not literally a crime. But yes, if you fuck up socially, you get punished socially.
Do you think it should be socially acceptable for men to just straight up ask women for sex without fear of women finding that creepy?
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Northern VA is chocked full of branch covidians
You know better. If you don't want people calling you a Rethuglican or a Magtard, you don't get to do this.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
I don't lying to my face.
Don't accuse people of lying unless you can prove they are lying. (Hint: unless you can read minds, you probably can't.)
@token_progressive may be demonstrating exactly what @hanikrummihundursvin is talking about (and man, it is not often that I agree with him...), that he is a fish who doesn't recognize what water is, but that indicates a difference in perception, not dishonesty.
Talking about how we genuinely see things differently, even if you literally can't believe that someone else sees things the way they say they do, is what the Motte is for. Calling people liars because they see things differently than you and you don't believe it is not.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Because there's a greater proportion of rootless cosmopolitans among MPs than there are amongst party members, and rootless cosmopolitans can't sense the metaphysical catastrophe that a reverse-colonialism Sunak premiership would represent.
Please explain to a yank what "rootless cosmopolitans" means in this context.
Because usually that term is used as a euphemism for "Jews," and if that's what you mean, you should say "Jews," not use euphemisms. We're not on reddit anymore, and the advantage of that is that you don't have to use euphemisms, and the disadvantage of that is that you don't get to use euphemisms.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I look forward to being educated about this "rootless cosmopolitan" faction of the UK Parliament.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
2mo ago
Calling someone a partisan is okay (most people here are partisans in one way or another), but accusing people of TDS (another way of saying "You aren't rational, all your arguments are coming from blind partisan hatred") is not.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
You're missing the actual idol of atheism, which is fentalyl floyd. Create a caricature of floyd sitting atop a pile of illegal drugs and guns, and they'd melt down instantly.
This is a particularly pathetic example of weakmanning, and just a crappy post in general.
Improve your contributions, this place isn't just for unzipping and pissing fire.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic, testing the boundaries of what we'll put up with here, or making a serious point. But taken at face value, literally calling for genocide is culture warring in its purest form, and if this is some sort of Swiftian proposal, you're not clever enough by half and you need to speak more plainly.
More options
Context Copy link