@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

I will be here longer than you

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

I will be here longer than you

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

No, you and @remzem are both wrong. I know these people; they are not play acting. They may be wrong or foolish (though daily Trump makes me less certain of this), but they believe what they say.

I also don't know anyone who was laughing at people being locked up over Covid, but I observe people on this forum who'd cheer if Trump actually does all the worst things they claim he hasn't and won't do don't be silly.

I'm not going to ban you, but I think you're trolling and/or being very weird.

Yes, new alt, I assume they are calling someone either disingenuous or dishonest because those are the words they used.

This is unnecessary, low effort, and obnoxious.

It's not play acting. Many people really do believe Trump will try to deport his political enemies, to include US citizens and legal residents.

I am not sure whether this will happen; I do believe Trump would like to do that and would try if he thought he could get away with it. People like you who cheer for Trump "circumventing procedural nonsense" (i.e., ignoring laws and court rulings he doesn't like) show how it could happen. I think Scott's article "You Are Still Crying Wolf" was accurate for its time, but people are not crying wolf today.

People who are against CICO are not denying thermodynamics; we are disputing that this is in any way a practical guide to action.

I mean, the OP is denying thermodynamics.

You're right that CICO in itself is not a practical guide to action. It's a description of what's happening. A practical guide to action would be one that helps you burn more calories than you eat. There isn't a universal solution for that, though unless you have an extremely unusual metabolism, the low-hanging fruit of "eat less and exercise more" will work, and the reason it doesn't work for you is that you don't like to eat less and you don't like to exercise more. This is true of most people, and while entirely understandable, it does not actually debunk the reality of CICO.

You are either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?

This is throwing way too much heat. Even if you genuinely believe someone is being either disingenuous or dishonest, you are not allowed to just assume it and go on the attack like this.

Oh, he's still around.

Indeed - that's just one of our regular trolls. There are several who do things like this, with slightly different MOs. (It's possible, even likely, that some of them are the same person.)

I'm just trying to get something more out of you than "I believe this is the case" because I care about understanding how and why people think what they do.

I gave you my reasoning, which is based on my observation of behavior and statements over a period of time. When people post outrage about white womanhood being violated by alien brown hordes, but their every other post is about how white women are thots who are destroying Western civilization (and it'll be totally awesome when they get what's coming to them - which often enough includes "being raped by brown hordes"), I become skeptical that they are sincerely outraged on behalf of white womanhood. Or maybe they really do believe that white women being raped and abused is only bad if it's brown people doing it, which is no better IMO, and I also do not think is an example of "concentric circles of affinity." If I'm okay with you being raped and murdered by a neighbor because you're just a fellow citizen and not my family, but I'll cry crocodile tears about you being raped and murdered by a foreigner, maybe that means I really hate foreigners, but it certainly doesn't mean I feel any kinship for you.

And you know, you say you find mindreading and a belief that people don't mean what they say frustrating, and yet you started out by accusing me of believing:

How dare people have Ordo Amoris? Their care must reduce to one bit!

which I have trouble reading as a good faith interpretation of my initial post.

If you choose to extend more benefit of the doubt to the Kulaks of the world than I do, so be it.

This is pretty low effort and seems meant only to antagonize and not actually get at the other person's reasoning. Playing gotcha with "I asked you a yes or no question, and you gave me a couple of paragraphs of explanation but didn't say yes or no therefore you didn't answer my question" is obnoxious. If you genuinely believe you still do not have an answer:

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

>Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

Honestly it must be said that these rules are often honored more in the breach than in practice, but this one-liner just stands out as egregiously "ZING! I am not arguing to understand but to score points."

... How specific do you want me to be? I am genuinely not sure what you're grasping at here, other than that we disagree over what internally motivates this particular class of people. Neither of us are mindreaders, and I doubt asking Kulak would produce an answer both of us believe. Perhaps Kulak is not the best example to use, since he's quite extreme and performative anyway and it's hard to guess what he honestly believes (if anything) other than "violence is good." However, I already stated my reasoning above: the sort of people suddenly motivated by outrage at the Rotherham rape gangs were not outraged many years ago (when I first heard about them, and I'm not even British!) and the reaction I saw from people who want to burn the place down and lynch all the kebabis now was "Where are these sluts' fathers?"

You seem to either object to my being uncharitable to people who want a race war, or you are striving to match me to that ingroup/outgroup empathy map that supposedly shows liberals care more about immigrants than they do about their own families. If I am misunderstanding you, I'm afraid you will need to clarify.

Pretty accurate, yes.

By observing what they say about, and how they treat, their supposed "ingroup" in every other situation.

Yeah, that's my point. If anyone else was drugging and raping teenage girls (including teenage white girls), Kulak wouldn't care. He just wants to see bloodshed. Also, his recent Braveheart Viking Hells Angel Paganism schtick and telling all his right-wing r3tvrn Christian followers that their religion is fake, gay and Jewish, is almost as hilarious to me as the people who still think he's an OF girl.

My objection is that I think people like Kulak who engage in performative outrage about Rotherham do not actually care about the victims and are not advocating race war because white girls were victimized. They are not motivated by empathy at any level.

There certainly are some people who care, and there are probably some people who care only because they were white girls raped by Muslims (and yes, I am judgmental and critical of them too). But the strain of race warrior who wants Rotherham to be a causus belli against the coloreds otherwise have nothing but contempt for the sort of girls victimized in Rotherham, white or not.

Well I believe that you don't give people enough credit because they're part of your outgroup

Fair. People who hype genocidal warfare are indeed part of my outgroup.

and that your standards of what people are allowed caring about without being hypocritical

I do not think you understand what my standards of what people are "allowed" to care about are.

The idea that people feeling empathy for the plight of people who look like and feel like them is bad, empty or without meaning

This not what I believe.

I think you give too much credit. I don't believe people like that feel ordo amoris for anyone at all. It's not about concentric circles of affinity, it's about identifying an enemy and manufacturing a grievance. I might believe some people feel some faint amount of "ordo amoris" for distant white girls because they happen to be white, even if they otherwise hold them in contempt, but not when every other message is about how they're dirt. Oh, now you care because a Muslim touched them? No heat graph meme argument is going to make that convincing.

The Rotherham girls are not his ingroup just because they're white. He constantly talks about what he thinks should happen to white people who are also not in his ingroup.

His feigned outrage over "European maidens" being besmirched by Muslims is because Muslims are doing the besmirching, not because he actually cares about victimized white girls. If it were Irish grooming gangs responsible, he might contrive some anti-Irish reason to wash the streets in blood (he's certainly flexible like that), but more likely he'd just find something despicable brown people are doing elsewhere.

I think he was actually closer to the mark there. You can see the hypocrisy when someone like KulakRevolt, for example, is calling for all of England to be burned down over the Rotherham gangs, as if he doesn't hold promiscuous fatherless girls from the lower classes in utter contempt himself. When all your grievances are formulated around tribal affiliations, you can argue that it's okay when we do it and bad when they do it, but you can't argue that you genuinely care about young girls being mistreated, and that sort of gives the game away when you're trying to convince people they should be outraged at rape and grooming when your actual objective is to stir hatred against your alien outgroup.

I second the suggestions below for Daniel Abraham's Dagger and the Coin series. (Daniel Abraham is one half of James S. A. Corey, the partnership that wrote The Expanse.)

In addition, you cannot go wrong with Adrian Tchaikovsky. The man is enormously prolific (like, Stephen King or Brandon Sanderson level prolific), but a much better writer than Sanderson, and he writes science fiction and fantasy equally well. His Shadows of the Apt series is ten books long, but I also love his Final Architects and Children of Ruin space operas.

You might check out Flames of Mira by Clay Harmon, but he's only up to two books. Ember Blade by Chris Wooding is also very good (and long), though much more traditional fantasy. Dreams and Shadows and Queen of the Dark Things by C. Robert Cargill if you like Dresden-style urban fantasy. Rob J. Hayes's The War Eternal starts out looking like it's going to be YA, but it really is not (and features the protagonist as a much older narrator looking back on what an idiot she was). Evan Winter's Rage of Dragons is also a good series but it is an unfinished trilogy at present. Both of the latter have very flawed protagonists in fucked-up societies, but I would not quite call them grimdark.

I don't know when any atomwaffenfront have marched in the US, but we've certainly had brownshirts, Klansmen, groypers, and whoever else is the rightist equivalent of "Globalize the Intifada" keffiya-wearers and tankies in Mao t-shirts, and Democratic boomers don't really march with them either.

You're just describing a difference in medium and frequency of the message. Republican activist groups with piles of money certainly exist, albeit not so much in academia. That you think LibsOfTikTok, TPUSA, and Project Veritas style "owning" is more credible and genuine just means they are on your side and leftist activists are not. Why is writing checks for ActBlue more unserious than buying TrumpCoins? Why is George Soros an archvillain but the Koch brothers were a cringeworthy leftist bogeyman and Elon Musk is just a buddy of the President? (If George Soros was handing out checks to people who showed up to vote in a state election, I cannot imagine your reaction being anything other than apoplectic.)

I don't see many people suddenly having their minds changed for them- I see a lot of leftists taking seriously trendy new ideas like men becoming women, but as I said, this seems no different than MAGAs who are all-in on Trump doing things they'd have considered abhorrent and un-American a few years ago (and some of whom were even Never Trumpers!).

They are the same picture.

Probably some people have forgotten when COVID was a racist conspiracy theory, just like some people have forgotten when they thought the vaccines were awesome and avoiding unnecessary public contact seemed reasonable. In general, though, I don't believe people actually download new updates and wipe the old ones. To the degree that some people are that, shall we say, malleable, I very much do not believe it's a left or right thing. Some people blow with the wind.

This was an entertaining polemic, but you know, I could say the same thing about most broad political alliances, including those on the right. Now and then some Republicans will notice the cracks between atheist libertarians who want to legalize weed and don't have a problem with gay marriage but really hate taxes and foreigners, traditional American family values patriots, Jewish neocons who are pro-Israel and American empire, and the evangelical contingent who mostly want to ban abortion. But all will rally (somewhat uneasily) under the banner of a Reagan or (now) a Trump, and some will forget that five minutes ago family values and the Constitution were very important to them, and they'll all pretend they don't know the Andrew Tates and Repeal the 19th weirdos, let alone the ethnats. I know this is your conviction, that lefties are uniquely programmed and NPCed and just take marching orders from Leftism Central, but this is actually how all political machines work. The vast majority of all movements are divided into a tiny handful of True Believers, an even tinier handful of actual movers and shakers, and the vast herd who just sort of gets caught up in whatever tugs hardest on their sentiments.

I'll once again bang my "Read American history" drum. Machine politics in the 19th century were really something else (and yet also, extremely familiar). The Whigs (a coalition that really had nothing in common beyond hating Andrew Jackson, and eventually fell apart because you can only keep slaveowners and abolitionists together in one party for so long) are an illustrative lesson in political movements that incoherent if you stop to think about them for five minutes and yet persisted long enough to elect several presidents.

Your story about "Daily Kos grandmas" who literally don't remember what they used to believe in is of course nonsense (just like all those Never Trumpers who are now MAGAs do, in fact, remember what they used to believe in). People remember, they just rationalize it or else they develop coping mechanisms for the cognitive dissonance.

Watching @SecureSignals and @DaseindustriesLtd exchange vituperative personal attacks about who's the more disreputable ethno-nationalist is kind of an entertaining trainwreck, but nonetheless it is a trainwreck, collecting reports on both sides. Stop it, both of you. Dase, if you block someone, just block them, and refrain from goading finger-waggling about it.