@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Enjoying my short-lived victory

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

				
User ID: 297


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Amadan


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Enjoying my short-lived victory

				
				
				

				

					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 New Old Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"What I believe" is not "Just accepted conventional wisdom."


Who is "we"?


You can argue these points. You cannot just assert them in an effort to claim rhetorical territory.


You get plenty of slack for your Joo-posting, but the rules against consensus building and rallying for a cause still apply.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A couple months ago, you got dinged for posting a low-effort sneer.


This one is... well, you used a lot more words this time, but it's basically the same post.


I don't know why Aella is your trigger, but whatever, clearly you really don't like her. You are certainly free to criticize her and her polling methodology. But "I think she's a stupid whore, why are you simps talking about her?" is just telling people you don't like the topic of conversation and you want them to stop.


Instead, try just not reading threads that are of no interest to you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel some sympathy for OP that he's so clueless and has had so little experience or advice that he thought "Hi, we've had some positive interactions in class so... wanna fuck?" would be an acceptable approach.


But my sympathy is limited - unless he's literally impaired (i.e., autism spectrum, and even then, most folks on the spectrum are able to learn some baseline rules, particularly when it comes to asking people for sex), this was just unbelievably stupid.


I've seen a number of posters suggest that he was done in by bad/disingenuous feminist dating advice, implying that women will tell men "Yes, we like to fuck just as much as you do!" and that means you can approach a woman for sex the same way you wish a woman would approach you for sex. But I don't recall ever seeing dating advice, even from feminists, suggesting that any woman wants a proposition like "How about being my no-strings-attached fuck buddy?" That's a relationship that usually develops from mutual attraction and having hung out together enough that clearly there are some sparks, but neither one (claims) to want a "relationship."


(Do I think "FWB" is generally a stable kind of relationship? No, and I believe that very few women really want to be someone's FWB, it's something they settle for while trying to secure a real commitment.)


So this poor guy wasn't ill-intentioned, but he made an absolutely horrible social blunder, one that anyone, man or woman, could have told him was a blunder, and unfortunately he's suffering the effects people usually do when committing a massive faux pas. It sounds like the consequences for him are that she's told all her friends (and realistically, would you expect her not to?) and he's probably sunk what dating prospects he had at that school. This is sad, but unless this becomes a story of him being charged with actual sexual harassment and academically punished (which I'll grant is certainly within the realm of possibility), I don't think he's suffering more than you'd expect. He fucked up, and fucking up has consequences.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Uncharitably, this is just "Bitches be lyin'" written as a more tactful and polished effortpost.


More charitably, you are probably touching on some actual insight but casting it in an uncharitable light (as much as you tell yourself you are trying to be charitable - you don't want to believe women are all lying about being harassed, after all.)


(1) There probably is a lot of redaction in their own recollections going on here. Everyone is guilty of this, not just women. How many people have you known who will tell an exaggerated version of an incident you were witness to and are quite sure didn't actually go down the way they said it did? Are you quite confident that everything you remember, especially unpleasant incidents (like your confrontation with the black guy on the bus) happened exactly the way you remember it? That no one else might reasonably have a different version based on what they saw? And have you never been tempted, even a little, to throw an extra detail or two into a story which then became cemented in your mind as the true narrative?


Probably some of these women's "harassment" experiences were like that - a guy brushed against her, and she shuddered and in her mind, the dude was trying to grope her. Someone looked at her funny and she remembers it as being oggled. She got an uncomfortable vibe on a bus, even though no one actually said or did anything to her, and she felt unsafe which in her mind became "I was harassed."


That probably does explain some of it, but I doubt very much that every one of these women is just outright making things up to hide their true feelings ("Eww, people who take public transit are gross!")


(2) You may indeed be a perceptive person who pays attention to your surroundings, but "I watch what goes on on my buses and I've never seen any women get harassed" is still quite a failure of reasoning. I don't regularly ride public transit, but I have done so many times in my life. I can think of maybe one or two times I saw something I'd consider harassment (and it was very minor, like a whistle or a couple of lewd comments). Most people, most days, on most buses, don't harass people. But if you assume some people on some days will, a woman who rides the bus multiple times has pretty good odds of eventually having it happen to her, even if it's not on a bus you happen to be on. Or you might not notice it, because you didn't see the guy who was giving creepy stares to the woman across the aisle from him, or the guy who sat down next a woman and gave off creep vibes so she moved seats. (And you'd of course question why she thought he gave off "creep vibes" because women lie and make things up so she had no rational reason to think that, right?) So congratulations, you have never personally witnessed a literal sexual assault or a guy committing what you consider harassment. At the same time, you clearly have witnessed a lot of antisocial behavior. Is it possible women experience (and are subject to) antisocial behavior on a level and at a frequency you are not, and that you might not notice all the things that happen that aren't "He literally put hands on her or yelled things about what he wanted to do to her ass"?


Also, would it surprise you if I told you I have never gotten in a fight with a black guy on a bus? Maybe I think you are making that up because it fits your narrative about black people. I have ridden the bus with black people quite often and never seen anyone start a fight.


(3) Yes, a lot of it is probably "vibes." Women know the kind of people who ride buses are also the kind of people likely to harass them or at least make them feel uncomfortable. There is probably a degree of exaggeration or remembering things that maybe didn't quite happen exactly as they tell it to justify the fact that they don't want to ride public transit with creepy gross guys who might harass them, but because of leftist ideology they can't state it in a such a racist/classist way.


So, you aren't 100% wrong here, but you're still reaching for a justification to believe bitches be lyin'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Trans men are women who identify as male: the opposite of trans women.


The term you are looking for is "trans-identified male." Trans people consider "TIM" and "TIF" to be transphobic, so it probably serves the purpose you want, though it was coined by TERFs, so maybe it doesn't.


(From a moderator point of view, I would not mod TIM or TIF, but if you start calling people trannies or ranting at length about how you think they are all disgusting perverts, you're going to run afoul of the rules, because we do allow trans people to participate here and you're expected to be civil to them too, even if you really don't want to be.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
@The_Nybbler is not being accurate; the proximate cause of Trace creating the Schism was people literally suggesting they wanted to kill him and everyone on his side. It wasn't about "advocating for lethal self-defense." Trace undoubtedly disagrees with most rightists about exactly when lethal self defense is justified (such as in the Rittenhouse case), but he didn't leave the forum because of people advocating for lethal self-defense. He initially created the Schism (while still remaining on the Motte) because of accelerationist fedposting, and he left the Motte for good because of rightists still holding a grudge against him years later and being extremely petty about it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 16, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sometimes (often) someone really wants to post about how much they despise blacks/Arabs/Indians/Jews/women/gays whoever.


We have spent a lot of time trying to enforce the rules in a way that suits the community's desire for maximal freedom of expression without descending into unfiltered sneering, snarling, race-baiting, and lazy booing of whichever group someone happens to hate.


You can talk about how blacks commit statistically more crimes, per crime statistics, and you can talk about the prevalence of Indian scam rings, and you can even bring HBD into it to propose your theory of why this is genetic. You can argue that immigration is bad and you can say you want zero immigrants and 100% racially pure ethnostates. Those sorts of arguments are allowed and have been made.


"Arabs, blacks or are (sic) lazier and more violent" is not an argument. It's just a rank assertion about your outgroup.


"No immigration of such should be permitted."


Fine. Your opinion, you can say this.


"Indians lie and cheat more than whites. It's that simple."


This is just more lazy boo-outgrouping. Do Indians lie and cheat more than whites? Do they really? As a percentage of the total population of liars and cheaters? As a part of Indian culture? As a genetic predisposition? I mean, you could conceivably gesture in the direction of some kind of argument, but you don't even try, you just drop a bunch of "brown people bad" turds on the floor.


People with views very like yours, and probably even stronger than yours, are regular posters here and have figured out that we give plenty of latitude for culture warring about your least favorite ethnic groups and "race realism" HBD posting so long as you can be civil and minimally inflammatory about it, and by that we mean not presuming that you're in a white nationalist clubhouse and if any Arabs, blacks, or Indians happened to be sitting next to you you could just pop off about what a bunch of lazy criminal liars they all are.


All of that throat-clearing is because I know people will whine that we're silencing "badthink" or trying to enforce some kind of consensus on not hurting feelings, despite the plentiful, years-long evidence to the contrary. In the vain hopes that explaining why we act on posts such as this will prove educational and illustrative to other posters who want to assert similar sentiments but in a less shitty way.


Factoring into this also is that your record, in particular, is one of the worst on the Motte. I count eight warnings and three tempbans, all for this sort of casual slinging of lazy insults at whichever group gripes your goiters at the moment.


You're just a shitty, low-effort poster who contributes nothing of value. I can't honestly remember you ever posting anything interesting, insightful, or getting even a single AAQC nomination, or really, anything that wasn't... stuff like this, although usually not as bad, hence your longevity here despite being a constant low-level stink and not much more.


Because your last ban was for a week and you were told then we would start escalating, I am banning you for a month, and not permabanning you, despite my near-certainty that that's in the future.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is a distilled snarl at everyone you hate, conveying no argument or information or anything to engage with. It's just a free-form stream of invective and buzzwords cribbed from your favorite alt-right shitposters, and it's pure culture warring.


It's been a while since your last ban, but when you get wound up, you really get wound up. Banned for three days.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Go to Google.com and type "attempted assassination of Donald" or "of Trum" and look at the predictions.




Also, I did this just to indulge you (I assume "Trum" was a typo, or is that supposed to be some new meme I am not familiar with?), and the top results were the latest AP, CNN, ABC, and Fox News stories, followed by links from the FBI and Wikipedia. What new Dem Orwellian nefariousness am I supposed to be seeing, exactly?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Speak plainly and drop the sneering sarcasm.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But it's not necessary here, and it's never used in a non-derogatory sense. So don't use it here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, I read the rest of your post.


You did not link any of the things you cited to "the trains." Moreover, you can argue that individual trans people and groups are doing what you claim. If you want to say "the trains" are doing it, you need a lot more evidence. Same as with any other group that people are fond of broadly accusing of all sorts of nefarious activities and ideologies.


Also, you still may not assert that it's "almost literally insane" to think otherwise. Whether you intended it as hyperbole or not, it is the kind of consensus building language we explicitly discourage.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
@cjet79's reason was good enough (it's perfectly obvious this was a trollish shit-stirrer asking questions in bad faith), but in addition, @bigtittygothgf is a ban evader, so the ban has been made permanent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All right, 1-day ban it is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				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 March 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Be less antagonistic, and get a sense of humor.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The post in which he announced The Schism points to a Rittenhouse thread (NOT a boogaloo thread, though he has on other occasions referenced those)




Really. Let's take a look.




    

  1. Why are you building this?

    
While /r/TheMotte is and will always be intended as a neutral meeting ground for divergent perspectives, it's developed a strong consensus on a wide range of issues. I—like, I suspect, many of you—identify strongly with this comment on political affiliation from /u/cincilator. /u/RulerFrank expanded on a similar point the other day.
I'm not here to raise the tired debate of whether or how right-wing /r/themotte is. Instead, I'll simply say that a large chunk of the prevailing culture here is overtly hostile towards my strongly-felt values, as illustrated most eloquently by this comment.
    2. 





"This comment" being (sorry FC):




I wrote a long reply to this, and given my heart rate and breathing by the end of it, it's probably for the best that I accidentally deleted it before I could post. I was literally seething.






I think I understand where you're coming from pretty well, but I likewise find your views profoundly repugnant, to a degree that charity becomes difficult. Specifically, the appeal to statistics is a complete non-starter for me. The attacker is the one choosing to roll the dice, and the defender is the one being forced to live with the consequences. Even if the chances of death are fairly low, the person who gets a bad roll is still absolutely fucked, and even the people who get a good roll are still significantly worse off than they should be... and for what? So that people who deliberately chose to force the roll can rest assured that they will never have to deal with the consequences? And don't appeal to the police and the legal process. I've been watching the police stand down for these rioters for half a decade. I've been watching the few who do get arrested plea-bargain for probation, or be simply released with no charges. I've been watching their victims suck it up with no recourse, or attempt to defend themselves and then get hit with the full force of the criminal justice system.






You appear to want a system where the overall danger is as low as possible. I want a system where the danger is apportioned to the people who volunteer to experience it. I have axiomatic faith that my system will result in lower overall danger as well, given the incentives, and seeing people arguing for the welfare of violent criminals over that of their victims- and I see no other way to interpret your argument- prompts instant volcanic rage. Especially since this violence is so culturally and politically partisan in nature.






...I'm not sure where to go with the conversation at this point. I do not think I share a common understanding of peace and justice with you. I don't want to live in the same country as people like you. I don't want people like you to rule people like me anywhere, ever. Preventing such an outcome seems like a moral imperative.






...And this is the result given that I know in my bones that you are a deeply, uncommonly decent and good person, at least in the abstract. This is mistake theory breaking down in the best possible scenario.






I'll leave it there. Stay safe and be well.




That was in response to a Rittenhouse thread, but it was the "I don't want to live in the same country as people like you" post.


TW, referring to that post immediately after linking to it, said:




More alarming for me is the feeling that there's a sharp uptick in what I'd describe as radicalization here: people proposing, and cheering, violent conflict against their enemies in a number of ways, including groups that viewed widely include my loved ones. It's hard to look at people the same way after that sort of line has been crossed, you know?




I'd rather not get into another back-and-forth like I had with Steve and Arjin below, in which we're both dissecting what other people actually meant when they posted something four years ago, but it is plainly obvious to me that TW created the Schism because in his own words, he felt that too many people (including FC) were expressing a desire for violent conflict, including against his ingroup.


This is not me saying Trace was right, or that FC meant to do violence to him, or that I agree with him about Rittenhouse, or any of the other things I have already rebutted. It is me saying you are wrong that Trace's problem was "people advocating for lethal self-defense." That's an extremely disingenuous way to frame a post about a specific case, and how he responded to others' reaction to it, as Trace creating the Schism and leaving the Motte because he had an ideological opposition to any use of lethal force in self-defense.


Also: your "gay furry" crack is in fact a cheap shot. Yes, everyone knows he is a gay furry. He says he's a gay furry. He's not ashamed of it. But calling him a gay furry every time you to refer to why you don't respect him is not just a "by the way, he's a gay furry." Come on. If you want to keep highlighting how contemptible he is because you consider him a sexual deviant, do that, but don't keep calling him a gay furry and then deny why you're doing it. Why don't you ever refer to him as an "ex-Mormon" or "military veteran," which he also is? Not the same valence.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That's just TDS with extra steps.




How much can I dislike Trump without it being TDS?


I don't care or expect you to agree with my criticisms of him, but if anyone who thinks he's a con, a huckster, and yes, corrupt enough to become dictator if handed the opportunity has irrational TDS, fine- I can only ask if you have BDS or ODS or CLDS?




I can't convince you to believe the things I believe, I guess, but I think it's your attitude that's wrong with America today, not Trump's.




I've actually believed in America my entire life. Not without cynicism and skepticism, and I'm not going to give you my credentials to prove myself to an Internet rando (and get doxxed), but I've taken an oath more than once and meant it, and much of my disgust over the Discourse today is that I don't think you guys (and by that I mean partisans on the right and left) do.




Win or lose Trump is doing glorious things and awakening a spirit that wants to build America and make it great again.




Dude, I'm sure you really believe that and having read your posts over the last few months, there isn't much else I can say that would be charitable, but I will say that if Trump becomes president I will genuinely wish for him to prove you right and me wrong.




You will never do anything glorious.




Maybe not. And what is your glory? Chanting "MAGA" at doubters?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Uncharitable I'll give you (I said as much) but if you feel I booed Trump very slightly more than I booed Kamala, well, too bad. Sometimes both sides really do suck.


I am not ashamed of this comment, merely disgruntled that I am unable to achieve perfect indifference to outcomes. I would not mod it if it came from someone else. We are obligated to be even handed and civil, not pretend to be objective on all political matters.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, under this theory, if I repeatedly use my public platform to say "@MaiqTheTrue is murdering children in his basement," and I continue making this claim for years, even knowing that some of my followers are now harassing you (and the Sandy Hook parents weren't just having mean things said about them on the Internet, they were being followed and harassed and physically threatened in meat-space), you can hold me responsible. There is a difference between having total control over your followers and knowing what your followers are doing and not only saying nothing to discourage them, but continuing to do what you know is encouraging them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Oh man, it is unironically charming and hilarious reading @SecureSignals giving a postmodernist DR read on superhero comics with all the zeal and complete lack of familiarity with the actual mythos of the wokes and anti-wokes currently going on about Star Wars on Twitter.


So is the theory here that the very concept of a "superhero" is crypto-Jewish? Because:




After all, someone ignorant would perceive Captain America as an Ayran hero. But when I watch this scene from Captain America (2011) I perceive something very different from the rest of the laity. I perceive the significance of the Jewish immigrant-inventor, Abraham Erskine, injecting Steve Rogers with the Serum that empowers him to fight the Nazis. The meaning of the myth does not point to a Jewish attempt to assimilate to Protestant values, it portrays a Jewish self-conceived role of transformation of American values. In the case of Captain America, the Jewish Immigrant lectures the audience before literally injecting the Aryan with a serum to transform him into the "Superior Man" so he goes to fight other White people. The Jewish writers are metaphorically depicting Culture War with Gentiles through these symbols.




Most superheroes have some kind of origin story. They came from another planet. They got irradiated. They were injected with a super-serum. They have mutant genes. They found a magic ring. They had a spell cast on them. They were possessed. Their father is a demon or a god or an alien or a vampire or...


Certainly, you can map some kind of crypto-Jewish symbolism into any of those stories, but this is doing exactly what po-mos do, which is starting with a thesis and then bending the story to fit it.


The "Jewish" origins of Superman are hardly a new revelation (Siegal and Shuster pretty explicitly imagined Superman as a kind of power fantasy who could, among other things, fight Nazis and punch Hitler just like Captain America - obviously any superhero who fights Nazis must be sending coded Jew-signals, even if they were written at the height of World War II when, you know, America was fighting Nazis!)


You're making way too much of Elliot S. Maggin's comment. He was a Superman writer, but his internal "head canon" is not official DC canon. Superman, like all properties, has been through literally hundreds of writers. If the "Jewishness" of his origins taints him even in the hands of non-Jewish writers, then so are all characters stuck being representative of whatever their original creator imagined, despite the huge number of variant and conflicting reimaginings that superheroes in particular go through.


You wrote this long rant about how Superman is symbolic of Jews pretending to assimilate while they actually envision themselves as the secret master race, completely oblivious to the long Superman/Batman discourse in fandom on this very subject (minus the Jewish nonsense) - tldr is that most fans consider Clark Kent to be the real man, with Superman being a costume he puts on, whereas Bruce Wayne is just a mask worn by Batman. (Though I am sure you can make either one fit your Secret Joos thesis.)


And yeah, I know superheroes weren't really the point of your post, but they're more interesting than white nationalists eating each other alive on Twitter playing "find the Jew."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.