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"
2mo ago
There are a lot of specific claims that electoral corruption does not happen in American electoral politics, and there are plenty of historical findings to the contrary.
I'm not trying to wade into this particular fight, but since I have a followed it for its many years, I am confused by this statement. Are you saying that @ymeshkout claims as a general statement that electoral corruption does not happen in American electoral politics, that he has made specific claims about it not happening in particular instances, or that other people have claimed it doesn't happen? Because I am pretty sure the first is false and the last is irrelevant. Probably someone somewhere has at some point said "America never has electoral corruption," but hardly anyone (especially here on the Motte) would literally claim it's something that never, ever happens (whether or not they agree that the 2020 election was stolen).
While it is certainly flattering to conclude your doubters are hallucinating liars who make up their basis for distrusting you, you are not forced into that conclusion.
I think you're being uncharitable here too. While calling @HlynkaCG a "hallucinating liar" would be a bit harsh, he quoted something @HlynkaCG accused him of saying which he claims he did not. Either he did in fact say that (in which case @ymeskhout is either lying or suffering from faulty memory) or he didn't (in which case @HlynkaCG is either lying, misremembering, or mistaken).
If I seem like I am coming down on @ymeskhout's side here, it's because from personal experience I can't help sympathizing with someone who gets accused of saying things he didn't and then gets further attacked when he objects to this. FWIW I think both of you would do well to maybe speak a little more directly (and charitably) instead of using long circumlocutory paragraphs to say "You're a lying liar who lies" as verbosely as possible.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
7mo ago
This kind of low-effort, low-evidence, low-value snarling is something you've been warned about before. In fact you've been warned and banned repeatedly and you seem to be one of those people who is only here to post edgy snarls at your outgroup. Banned for another week; next time will probably be two weeks to permanent.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
But you will mod it as boo outgroup, correct?
Not necessarily. It depends.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
This is part of why I think this discussion is interesting, and want to see it happening despite amadans wishes.
This is not an accurate statement of my wishes. I did not shut down the discussion. You are the one who appeared to be trying to shut down the discussion.
You're also free to start a thread about the etymology and ethics of "whore."
What you're not free to do is try to derail the thread every time Aella comes up with a rant about how you don't understand why people are giving the whore attention.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
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.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
I don't agree. Some men may have the more nuanced take you are proposing, but even in this thread there are men expressing resentment that they're expected to "read the room" and not intentionally put women in an uncomfortable position. Multiple people have denied Watson had any reason at all to be unhappy or uncomfortable; she should have just said "no thanks" and thought nothing more about it. A more stoic mindset would certainly have produced that response, but there aren't many men who are that stoic about being put in uncomfortable situations either.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Consider this a moderation response not just to this post, but also this one and this one and this one and this one.
Basically, a whole string of bad posts, none of which are super terrible by themselves, just generally sneering and low effort inflammatory claims without evidence, but when you plop this many bad hot takes into the mod queue at once (note I am only linking to the ones that have actually been reported), it indicates someone coming in hot with an attitude that needs to be adjusted.
Don't post like this. Put some effort into your arguments. This is not the place for spewing your "bitches, amirite?" grievances.
Take two days off to chill out.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
No, I stated why I reprimanded you. The reprimand stands.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Really? I'd think the hot take would be that any critical studies curriculum is utter garbage would be the default anywhere that isn't a left wing echo chamber. But lets examine.
"African-American history" != "critical studies."
So yes. There is a mountain of evidence the median AA Studies course will teach, as truth, at least one unhinged conspiracy theory.
I'm not going to argue with you about whether you've provided a "mountain of evidence" about the "median" AA studies course, only say that your initial post did not even put this much effort into justifying your assertion, and you are like several posters who've been reprimanded recently for assuming that all you have to do is say "African-American" and the most low-effort weakman sneers will speak for themselves.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
Yes, I did. Now read and take heed of my warning.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
I think there is a degree of truth to that (certainly many people within the government disliked Trump and opposed him, passive-aggressively if not with outright insubordination), but I think this is dramatically overstated by his followers. Every president has had to contend with an entrenched bureaucracy that is willing to wait them out, in a system that's set up to make it hard for presidents to just sweep away all opposition to their agenda.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
1yr ago
The rules are in the sidebar, for crying out loud.
When I am clearing out the moderation queue, no, I have nothing better to do.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
He specifically said that calling Charles Clymer a he with no other mark of disrespect is against the rules. Soon that will extend to linking articles that talk about Charle's "deadname," because that's just how this sort of thing works, and because those are the social rules in the indie game dev scene Zorba is trying to gain status in.
I don't even remember who Charles Clymer is (just Googled, okay, some trans woman with a public facing job) or the thread you are evidently still butthurt about, but as for the bolded part, this is not modhatted, but for the record, if you used this line of attack in another thread, I probably would mod you for lack of charity. Not because it's Zorba, and certainly not because he asked me to, but when someone gives a reason for doing something (and agree or disagree, Zorba explained the reasons for saying "Don't be an asshole to trans people just because they disgust you"), do not drop your sneers about how the "real" reason they're doing it is because they're trying to curry favor with people who probably have no idea about the Motte. (If Zorba's concern was really looking good to woke developers, I doubt he'd want them to know anything about the Motte.)
If you think that's unlikely, a few years ago the mods were laughing at the idea of the current rules. And look where we are now.
Where are we now? What current rules are you talking about? There's one rule (singular) which to be frank, even the mods aren't entirely clear about but which almost never comes up except when someone is making a point of being an ass. I've never modded someone for referring to a trans woman as "he" and I wouldn't unless the poster was being an asshole about it.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
@hydroacetylene @IGI-111 @winedark
The OP's post is bad (11 reports so far, 1 AAQC) but I'm leaving it to the other mods to decide whether it breaks the rules. I don't think it does, because clearly stating "Our historical problems are for this reason" - even if "this reason" is "Da Joos" or "importing Africans to America" or "White Southerners" and why you think that - is allowed. You are allowed to criticize your outgroup, but it requires laying out a thesis, which can be debated (as is happening here).
"Black people are the worst" is just booing without offering much to debate.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
Fine, if you're sick of it, I'm not exactly having a good time, either. Have a nice rest of your holidays, and enjoy your new year.
Honestly, I wold prefer to, but I was already starting to write responses to your latest shots above. On the one hand, I do not want to be accused of "failure to engage." And to be fair, if it is any comfort to you, you have identified some areas of miscommunication where I will strive to be more precise in the future, if for no other reason than because I need to keep in mind any one-liner I type ever will at some point reappear in one of @gattsuru's "citing evidence for why this thing you said two years ago proves you don't actually mean what you say now" link roundups. But after all this back and forth, I see some of the contours of our disagreement, but I still do not see where you think I am being dishonest or "ignoring" things (as opposed to - quite possibly! - just being wrong in my assumptions), nor do I really understand what you want (other than, I guess, "Stop arguing and just admit I'm right and you're wrong").
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
((Also, I've literally mentioned Soros once in the entire existence of this site, and only in a quote of another poster here, and only to say it's not a great joke.))
Am I not allowed to use an example that you personally have not used? This is another thing you do a lot - I'll use a common public figure or trope and you object "I never mentioned George Soros." No, you didn't, but Soros-like social manipulation seems to be the sort of thing you are alleging.
What level of power do you think I'm claiming this broader movement has, that isn't present or supported by evidence? I gave a list of concrete facts; if you want me to show the links demonstrating them, I can.
A level of power that goes beyond cyclical swings in public mood and political temperature. That is, capable of doing what nybbler claims (no Republican President will ever be elected again) or of always getting their way regardless of who is in the White House and Congress. A level of power that is, figuratively speaking, going to stomp on your face forever.
(December 2020! Did you have 'riots invading Congress' or 'movement to pull a major party candidate from the ballot wins at a state supreme court' on your card back then?).
I admit the Colorado Supreme Court has inched me slightly further in your direction. Not so much the decision itself (which I find troubling, but not being a lawyer I cannot say whether their legal arguments are really that absurd) but the fact that basically all the Democrats I know think it's just great, for no other reason than "Removing Trump from the ballot, hell yeah."
Or, well... setting the standard you won't declare so high that "Obviously if I'm wrong, you'll never be able to collect, but anyway."
Look dude, this is the new "You are not oppressed," something you feel like you have to bring up every time you argue with me? I did not then and still do not understand why Dangerous-Salt went off on me or what my sin was. No, I do not think the standard has to be literally apocalypticaly high.
Bluntly, "Wokes Gone Wild" is neither a fair nor complete description of the claims I've made: the point of my posts are always more than just some rando on the outgroup trying something.
I begin to see one of our problems, at least. You tend to take me very literally when I'm using a flippant turn of phrase, while on the other hand when I am being very precise, you ignore it. Maybe the fault is mine for being poor at expressing myself, though somehow I don't think you literally thought I meant all your examples are just crazy college kids on campus. (That, by the way, was another flippant turn of phrase, not literal.)
Do you need more categorical claims, or do I need explain why these feed back into themselves?
I suppose the only way forward is to break apart this:
Positions held by large portions of the Republican electorate (and even a not-trivial number of progressives!) are, as matters of law and regulation, potential sources of serious liability for employers, even if discussed off-campus and after-hours. Courts and executive branches have routinely defied the clear text and obvious intent of the law to get their way and/or fuck over their political enemies; lower courts and state-wide politicians and the sitting President of the United States have taken to simply thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court. Federal investigators simply ignore due process protections for serious actions and happily bring down the hammer on even sympathetic cases for the Red Tribe, while lobbing softballs at life-threatening violations from the Blue and simply ignoring 'lesser' ones. Major Red Tribe political organizations have state attorney generals who campaign on destroying them and then tried it in court.
Broadly speaking, I see your point. In the fine details, I would nitpick each of those statements (to take one example, saying you think transwomen are men or homosexuality is a sin is certainly a cancellable/fireable offense in a troubling number of cases, but how true is "as matters of law and regulation" really? As opposed to almost every university and corporation being quislings cowed by HR Karens? Which I think is very bad! But not quite the same as "a matter of law"). To take another, courts and executive branches have been "routinely defying the clear text and obvious intent of the law" (at least according to their opponents) since before the ink on the Constitution was dry. Any specific examples you give, I might or might not agree with, but it would take more than a list of (actual legal cases, not "Wokes Gone Wild" or crazy college kids on campuses, mea culpa mea culpa mea maximum culpa for ever being flippant and cheeky) to convince me that this is categorically different today than 10, 50, 100, or 250 years ago.
I suspect we'll be stuck going back and forth on those. Until I fatigue and then you'll cite Dangerous-Salt again for my "failure to engage."
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
6mo ago
I would say dishonest, violent, radical, unconstitutional, and illegal rather than ungentlemanly.
Well, you can say that, but given that the South literally wanted it to be a capital crime to advocate for abolitionism, I do not believe that they really had much regard for Constitutionality. As for "violence," there was a contemporaneous cartoon about that.
It is the South withdrawing her consent to the Union, and each of her Free and Independent Sovereign States deciding to discard one Union and to form another.
I understand you want "Should states have the right to secede?" to be completely orthogonal to "Should states have the right to maintain slavery?" but every objection to federalism and "sovereignty" was about slavery. In the abstract, sure, there are many interesting arguments to be had about whether the Constitution itself was a betrayal of the original Articles of Confederation. But while I used to buy "states rights" as a legitimate (if misguided) defense for the South, once you start reading history, you realize that the only states rights they really cared enough about to secede over were slavery. Note that one of their core objections was that Northern states would not enforce laws like the Fugitive Slave Act within Northern territories.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
I have read books (yes, actual full-length books) about it. I have watched documentaries and interviews. I've lived under jewish cultural norms and experienced personally how they influence discourse and national politics where I live. I've also read reports where jewish eyewitnesses directly lied about jews being murdered in a concentration camp.
Well then you have as much knowledge ("knowledge") as I do. We've both read things. We've both observed things. We've both watched films and heard eyewitness accounts. We've both drawn conclusions - different ones. Obviously, one or both of us can be wrong, but until you show me your independent research, your basis for believing what you do is no stronger or more credible than mine. You might be more well-read than me specifically about the Holocaust, and Jews (I'm sure @SecureSignals is), but you know that in itself is not a rhetorical trump.
The fact you said you believed in it the same way you belief in the JFK assassination, the moon landings and 9/11. I concluded you didn't know much about any of these events but just generally believed in them with ambivalence towards details and alternative narratives. I thought that because that's how I feel about those events. And the fact your disagreement with me included little but thinly veiled insults.
If I say I "believe" that we landed on the moon, do you understand me to be saying that I have read history and watched footage and concluded it was real, or do you understand me to be saying that someone just told me people landed on the moon and I accepted it as an article of faith? Do you think I believe the Holocaust happened because some Jews told me it did and I never bothered to look at any evidence, even when I first became aware that there are revisionist historians who claim it's a hoax?
Calling someone hateful whilst trying to lump them in with low status groups and calling them conspiracy theorists is antagonistic. Please follow the rules. I've not said anything that would equally impugn your motives beyond what your opening post said about 'deniers'.
If you think I am not following the rules, report me (again). Yes, for all your disclaimers that you don't "feel" anything towards Jews, your... animation on the topic (every. single. thread) sure looks like some kind of feeling, and while you may not personally hate every Jew you meet or wish them harm, I think claiming that as an ethnic group, they are your enemies but you don't hate them is just redefining hate as something else. Like, you'd actually have to be trying to murder someone to hate them?
I agree. But the way you disagreed was only possible because you already believed in the Holocaust.
Okay, how would I disagree with you in a way that isn't "drinking the Kool-aid"? Am I supposed to pretend that my priors are not already heavily weighted towards "the Holocaust happened"?
On top of that, you did not engage with the argument I made, you just tried to associate holocaust critique with conspiracy theories.
Only half true. I did engage with your argument, but yes, I consider Holocaust critique akin to other conspiracy theories like faked moon landings and a missile hitting the Pentagon and JFK being killed by the CIA, etc. You may find that unfair and offensive because you think the Holocaust is different from those other conspiracies. Why should I view it differently beyond the fact that that's the one conspiracy you think is real (and therefore not a "conspiracy")? You don't get to privilege your personal beliefs as worthy of greater respect and consideration. If someone came here arguing for a flat Earth, they'd be allowed to do so, and personal insults would not be allowed, but other posters would not be required to pretend they don't think it's a stupid theory. Hey, maybe they'd have a really good argument that would convince someone! Maybe you can persuade me that I've been drinking Kool-aid and the Holocaust didn't happen. But until you achieve that, I am required to let you say your piece and not call you names, I am not required to "not associate your beliefs with low status."
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
I guess that's a difference between us then. I try to not hold strong opinions on things I don't know a lot about in general.
You clearly have strong opinions about Jews. What are your credentials in that area?
What makes you think I don't know a lot about the Holocaust in general? What would qualify me as "knowing a lot"? I have read books (yes, actual full-length books) about it. I have watched documentaries and interviews. I have personally spoken to Holocaust survivors and WWII vets who were there. I have not personally traveled to Germany, I have not gone to any national archives to do independent research of my own, but on what basis do you claim to be more knowledgeable than me?
I'm not super animated that to the point of asserting that they are in fact a hateful person and then try to implicitly lump them in with low status people.
Always this rhetorical gimmick: "You have a consistent position you express frequently: wow, why do you care so much? You're super animated!"
I could as easily ask the same: why are you "so animated" about Jews that you have to comment every time Jews or the Holocaust are mentioned? (And you do.) Yet when I observe this and conclude that you clearly feel some animus towards Jews, that's being "uncharitable."
As for low status, if your goal is for anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers not to be viewed as low status... well, sorry, you can fight history, but I'm on history's side here.
Considering I just wrote an entire post describing why I consider 4 more plausible than 6, this is just asinine
You use lots of insulting, derogatory language, with insults unconnected to what you are replying to. I am much more civil to you, yet if I use even mild sarcasm, you complain about my words and then report me for "antagonism." So to address the specific claim here: no, it is not "asinine" for me to dismiss your "Kool-aid" sneer just because you made an argument for 4 million dead Jews instead of 6 million. If I am unconvinced by your argument that the 6 million figure is wrong, that is not "drinking Kool-aid," metaphorically speaking. And I have in fact already admitted that I don't find it implausible that the 6 million figure is not entirely accurate - I think it was in the millions, and if I were really "super animated" about it, maybe I'd care enough to do the research and see if I agree with you that it was really 4 million. But for reasons we have already discussed, I don't think that's really an important distinction, because while you may think knocking down the 6 million figure would unravel the entire "Holocaust narrative," I don't.
Yes, extremely so. You misrepresent my positions as well as asserting that I "hate" when I don't.
So how would you describe your feeling towards Jews? Contempt? Dislike? Fear? Someone always talking about how Jews are inimical and an existential threat to one's race and culture denying that he feels any "hate" towards them sounds like the white nationalists who insist they don't dislike black people even though they think we should put them in Bantustans. I mean sure, they probably don't personally hate every black person they meet and have an utopian ideal of blacks and whites living peacefully in segregated ethnostates, but (a) I strongly suspect that's just a mask for most of them, and (b) even for the sincere ones, assuming some level of animosity is a motivator is not unreasonable. You want to go on and on about Jews but complain that I am being uncharitable in accusing you of hating Jews. So fine, I'll ask you directly to explain your position and your sentiments clearly, then, if you would like to disabuse me of my misapprehensions, but I suspect that like @SecureSignals, you will dodge the question.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
What advantage did you gain by playing along with my ruse in exactly the way I would expect you to respond if you hadn't seen through it?
I am not "playing for advantage," I'm answering questions straightforwardly. Thank you for reminding me once again why I should simply say "Good day sir" more often.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
If your enemies tell you that you should do something for your own good that straightforwardly helps them and harms you, that's probably motivated reasoning or concern trolling. Some of the biggest proponents of getting rid of grudges are the people who are targets of grudges, who should be ignored for this reason. Someone who you have a grudge against probably isn't very interested in your mental health overall; why should you listen to them on the one subject where they have something to gain?
This is 100% the argument that every group that feels it's been aggrieved (including by you) uses. You're essentially arguing that we should never let go of grudges and always pursue retribution (reparations, anyone?).
Unprincipled conflict theory is at least as bad as naive mistake theory.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
Dude, when you rage at me for being mildly "sassy" and accuse me of abusing my power against anyone who shows sass to me (even though you are doing it right here), I don't know what kind of dialog you are looking for. Addressing what you say doesn't mean I am obligated to agree with you, nor does it mean I'm "rejecting anything you say regardless of what it is."
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
No. If I see Gdanning actually breaking any rules, I will mod him, but "Makes bad arguments that piss me off" is not against the rules.
In tone, perhaps. @johnfabian is obviously allowing himself to become frustrated.
In substance, though, SecureSignals' debating tactics are similar to those of Ken Ham and Duane Gish.
More options
Context Copy link