Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
26d ago
The far-right prefers option 1
Can I just register my annoyance with this kind of boo-light? Yes, I am just as annoyed by "radical feminists" and "extreme leftists," which 9 times out of 10 is used to refer to normie feminists and center-libs.
In fact pretty much all religious people (if they follow a religion that makes any pretense of traditionality) would prefer people not have premarital sex. Even liberal denominations in theory advocate against it, though you won't hear a peep of actual condemnation from the pulpit nowadays.
Conservatives generally would prefer people not have premarital sex, but if they do, they would prefer the babies that result not be aborted. I wouldn't say they glamorize single motherhood, but if you want babies not to be aborted, it is both ineffective and cruel to say "You're not allowed to abort, but we will not lift a finger to help you and your child because poverty is what you deserve."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
Every society everywhere on Earth for all history up to the 20th century exerted sufficient intrasocietal controls on male avarice and female caprice or else it collapsed.
You know, I see this argument quite often: "Every society ever did things in the traditional (read: my preferred) way, because the Ancient Wisdom of Our Ancestors told us this was how things should be. Societies that failed to do this collapsed!"
Can you actually point to any societies that collapsed as a result of, say, not exerting "sufficient intrasocietal controls on male avarice and female caprice"?
Most "collapsing societies" either did so over a long period of stagnation (Rome, several Chinese dynasties, the Soviet Union) or they did so very abruptly as a result of war or invasion. I can't think of any that did so because they were too libertine and failed to control their menfolk and womenfolk.
This is a just so story.
Your other arguments, about "deep biotruths," are likewise just so stories. Now it is possible (and likely, to my mind) that our current social mores are detrimental to human happiness, that the much-discussed imbalance in sexual relationships in the modern world is harmful to society and putting additional stresses on it (though if we do "collapse," I maintain that "women being whores and alpha-widows and a few chads forcing other men into inceldom" will be like reason #57 on the list), and you can certainly make a good argument that, as you say, "sex doesn't mean anything, it can be just for fun" is not true and not a good principle to encourage.
But whenever I see someone pull out the "Societies collapse if they don't control their females!" argument, I never see any actual evidence of this, just vague handwaving (and the waving is never in the direction of actual societies that do "control" their females - I mean, most Muslim societies are not collapsing right now, but they are not exactly what I'd consider a healthy model in any way, least of all in their sexual relations). Reminds me very much of KulakRevolt's current schtick where he argues that the deep wisdom of his ancestors tells him that worshipping Odin was the best way to ensure the survival of his race and Christianity is a destructive pussification cult. It's entertaining to read, but does anyone not just looking for a reason to dump on Christians (and pussy concepts like mercy and forgiveness and coexistence) actually take it seriously or think it's based on research or even actual inductive reasoning? So it is with arguments about how the Sexual Revolution was a revolt against "deep biotruth" and/or the ancient knowledge of our ancestors (who believed in humors, nature gods, ghosts, aether, a four or five element model of the universe, and so on-this is not a flippant reference to superstition, but pointing out that they made up just so stories to justify their own preferences and to explain things they didn't actually have the ability to investigate or test).
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
14d ago
I don't think there are many commonly used modern definition of feminism that directly involves policing other women's choices regarding their own appearances
The term is "internalized misogyny" or "the Patriarchy." It's very common, though it's never framed (overtly) as being the women's fault. But the implication is often that they are defecting, selling out for male approval.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
I understand that 'more abortions for black women(and this is South Carolina)' is your #1 priority
Don't attribute motives to people they have not stated.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
Isn't one of America's political platforms to go to war with Iran?
Can you point to the platform of any party or politician that says "Go to war with Iran"?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
18d ago
That was part of the religious rules, yes. Before the modern concept of martial "rape", a man was entitled to take his marital rights from his wife. Consent didn't enter into it; she gave consent when she agreed to marry him, and such was irrevocable.
Every time you DreadJimmers bring this up, I wonder what your model of a marital relationship is like. It's obviously not one where you and your wife actually love one another. So if your wife is not in the mood, or she's injured or sick, or you've just had a raging fight, or you're drunk and stinking and gross her out, you believe in the Good Old Days she'd just have to spread 'em anyway, no recourse, and if she resists, you could beat her until she stops resisting, and that is the past you want to return to?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5d ago
Then you are poor at evaluating evidence or unable to look past your biases. I assert confidently and objectively that you are wrong.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
It's about as close as you can get, and still, no.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5d ago
We almost never warn people for reports, even reports we think are stupid and frivolous (which is about 80% of them). The only exceptions are when someone is just spamming the queue, or being really obnoxious (like using the report field to abuse the mods, or insult the poster in a way they know would not be allowed as a public post)
I think the people who use the report button in such a way should be warned or otherwise influenced to stop their behavior.
Buddy, I don't think you do. I specifically remember some of your reports which were based on nothing more than you not liking what was said.
Though I would not think it only happens regarding any specific subject, I would not be surprised that it happens a lot on certain topics over others.
If you mean you think peoplecoughJews are "shamelessly" reporting people for anti-Semitism, the reports on Joo-posting are no greater than on any other heated topic, and I'd say Jew-haters and incels are actually much more prone to mash the report and downvote buttons.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Okay, you're repeating the pattern that got you a warning and then a timeout just days ago, and once again you are filling the queue with reports from people annoyed by your behavior, and with good reason.
This kind of argumentation where you just drop low-effort snarky bird-flipping comments needs to stop. I'm warning you again; next we start applying longer bans.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
15d ago
Okay, that's enough 4chan-level shitty comments out of you, dipping into personal antagonism.
A lot of users are eagerly anticipating your banning. I try to factor in your unpopularity for just running against popular sentiment when you get reported constantly, but the fact is, your reports are increasingly for low-effort shitty comments and you seem to be trying to do a speed run on how many digs you can get in before you're banned. You actually occasionally have some interesting things to say, but it's mostly buried beneath snark and disdain.
You've gotten a lot of warnings and no bans yet. Here's your first one-day ban. I am disappointed that once again a left-leaning poster cannot control himself enough to avoid getting banned, but that seems to be the path you are on. Change my mind.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
25d ago
The far-right (which includes most people on this website) views single mothers negatively, while the mainstream conservative view is very different.
This is wrong. The far right (especially the areligious far right) is much more negative about single mothers, but mainstream conservatives have never approved of single motherhood. They just consider it better than abortion.
Mainstream conservatives and the far-right agree that the welfare state serves to subsidize single motherhood, but only the latter thinks it's a bad thing.
This is wrong. Mainstream conservatives also think the welfare state subsidizing single motherhood is a bad thing.
I think in general you have an extremely reductionist view of rightists, such that you cannot actually distinguish between "mainstream conservatives" and "the far right." The fault line there is not how much they disapprove of abortion or single mothers.
Well, 8 reports so far and a very strong consensus that this post was bad. OTOH, writing meta-fiction isn't really against the rules (though in the future, I think aspiring short story writers should just start a new thread) and while arguably this was all very boo-outgroup, it does seem to be making a point, which is well within bounds, even if you took a wordy and elliptical path to get there.
I don't know what to do with you, buddy. I'm dropping a mod note here so people know we have taken note, but I am not rapping you for this post. My opinion is that it's not ... technically against the rules, though I definitely would put a foot down if you keep doing this. You've already been warned several times recently for snark and low-effort mockery. This was at least high-effort mockery. (I think. It doesn't look like AI generation, but I wouldn't stake too much on that.) I've asked you a couple times now to please straighten up and engage respectfully, even with people you think are terrible. This post doesn't add to your infractions per se, but it does add to our overall impression of you as someone who is here to rattle cages. I would prefer you stake out a position as a leftie who can actually debate civilly, as opposed to a leftie who can't restrain his contempt and will eventually end up banned.
Anyway, this is my personal opinion. But if another mod disagrees, I am not going to object if they think this post merits an official warning or a ban.
(FWIW, a couple of people have suggested this is Impassionata. I don't think so - Impassionata burns out like jet fuel, he wouldn't be able to hold it in this long.)
ETA: ninjaed by @naraburns. I agree with him also.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6d ago
How curious. I've mentioned many times that people have a habit of reporting posts just because they don't like the argument being made or the person making it, and that we (mods) wish people would not use the report button for that purpose. If you think it only happens when people are going on about Jews, you are deeply mistaken and have not been paying attention.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6d ago
Lots of people don't like anti-Semitism. Lots of people report posts they don't like. But you knew that.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Okay, since you're doubling down on being obnoxious and openly admitting to ban evasion (not that I was in any doubt), bye.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
25d ago
But your entire premise is wrong. The "far right" and mainstream conservatives both prefer people not to have premarital sex. (Okay, non-religious rightists only disapprove of women having premarital sex.) I don't think you are actually distinguishing between them, as evidenced by the fact that you label "most people on this website" far right. I realize to leftists, "far right" is anyone who votes Republican, but it's still a nonsense categorization.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
27d ago
I modded him for wordily telling you to fuck off. I'm telling you to let mods handle it and do not respond in kind.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
There was nothing wrong with my reply.
I'm telling you there is something wrong with your replies throughout this thread.
You can reject that or ignore me. I'm just informing you of the situation and what the consequences will be if this continues.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16d ago
Okay, initially I wrote a rather harsher response, because the combination of projection ("You are being snide! You are responding with Nuh-uhs!") and the old "emotional investment" gambit (a low class tactic usually seen in forums where going to straight to ad hominems is the norm - "Huh huh you are arguing with me, you must be emotional about this! Like a woman!") annoyed me. However, from your lengthier reply I think you are arguing in good faith and deserve a kinder response. So, just to make a few points in order:
-
If you are referring to Revolutionary France, that was more than 200 years ago. 200 years was your criteria, hence my confusion.
-
A common tactic I see, usually from Christians, is to accuse atheism of being responsible for the mass atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, when the defining feature of communist dictatorships was communism. State enforced prohibitions or control of religion are just one aspect of communism. It's not the atheism that is their ideological driving force, it's the Marxism. (Indeed, I would argue China never really became "atheist" in a real sense. They just replaced Confucianism with Maoism.)
-
I still disagree about Rome and the Weimar Republic, and I think you haven't really brought much evidence to bear that "control of women" was the defining or even most significant failure leading to their collapse. Even you back down a bit from that proposition, merely citing it as a contributing factor.
-
Yes, I am kind of personally invested in my society not collapsing, but I don't think I am just ignoring evidence that it is. I just think we are on a long slow decline for a lot of reasons, not a rapid collapse that is happening because of modern hypergamy and male avarice.
To address your broader meta point: no, I am not going to accuse you of being personally misogynistic. But anyone proposing something like "Women must be controlled or their sexuality will destroy society" has to grapple with the essential misogyny of that position. You can bite the bullet and say "Yes, for the good of the species, women must be treated as property." You can propose social guardrails (like Christianity) that hopefully will constrain them in a less brutal fashion. You can argue against the premise (I am far from sold on it). Or you can go full blackpill and say "Who cares what women feel, they aren't even people." (Not hyperbole, that is more or less the position we have actually seen a handful of people take here over the years.) But a lot of this talk about how women being able to choose and the feminization of society seems to just complete lack any empathy at all for the position of a (female) person being told to accept a society where she has little or no say in who gets to fuck her and when and whether she will be impregnated. That's stating it in its bluntest terms, but it's hard to dismiss the hysteria of of women wearing Handmaid's Tale cosplay at protests when they can actually see men who really are proposing what they fear. For those who are honest and say "Yes chad" to that, okay, points for being forthright about it, but you don't get to sneer at feminist arguments anymore, because they are actually right about your intentions.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
27d ago
Given that your OP was pretty heated and begging for heat in return , I still dinged @Chrisprattalpharaptr for taking the bait. Now you're egging him on. You wrote a nice spicy hot take; do not try to turn this whole thread into mutual raspberries.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
No, it isn't. Iran's political platform is explicitly and publicly stated by their political leadership and their supporters. We have some hawks who will not miss a chance for an opportunistic war. You are constructing a false equivalency. Iran and the US are not the same in their terminal goals towards one another.
That's somewhat fair, though I'd point out that SJWs and feminists don't have a history of actually committing genocide against their outgroup.
More options
Context Copy link