@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

From an emotional point of view, I understand. It's easier to get angry at Welfare Mom than Global Lobbying Government Siphoning Industrial Complex. It's a lot more personal when you meet the parasites and see how they live their worthless lives.

From an economic point of view, though, it really does seem like Global Lobbying Government Siphoning Industrial Complex would like to distract us with ragebait about welfare moms.

Can we build a Golden Gate Bridge today? Can we still go to the Moon?

We have the money. We have the technology. In theory, we still have the know-how.

But we don't have the will. It's graft all the way down.

I think about Robert Moses sometimes (never miss an opportunity to boost Robert Caro). Motherfucker was a petty, vengeful, tyrannical and (in his own way) corrupt bastard. Anti-democratic and considered public monies his to spend and control. But he got shit done. Arguably in terrible ways sometimes. Lots of people have opinions about how New York could have been done better. But he got it done.

No one can get shit done today. After all the bluster and owning the wokes, do you think Trump is actually going to get anything done? Make America Great Again?

I think sometimes about movies like Independence Day or Armageddon. You've got a literal world -ending threat, so surely under those circumstances, we'd all get our shit together and act like competent adults... at least for a little while, right?

I don't believe that anymore. We'd be so cooked, as the kids say.

We probably are anyway.

Nothing you say is wrong on its face. Bill and Shelley are boomers milking the system in all the legal ways they were told they could. Oscar and his wife are a young dumb couple who, as you noted, are far from the worse Caleb has had on his show. They're only making the culture war rounds because they're illegals. They're also young enough that it's hard to declare they are going to be lifetime parasites--at least Oscar is working!

I can't get too worked up about them after watching all those bodycam and parole hearing videos I mentioned. The people who are really a "parasitical" class are not boomers crying that their health insurance is going up or a DREAMER couple who will probably declare bankruptcy. It's the people who will never be gainfully employed, will probably spend most of their lives on the street or in prison, and prey on society in much more literal ways than making your insurance premiums go up.

Insurance sucks and seems to be unfixable, yup. But how dare government workers collect pensions and how dare old people demand expensive medical care? These aren't the worst parasites out there.

Government has always been a cow to be milked, and under the old patronage systems the corruption was far worse. How many bailouts has the government shoveled money into to rescue failing businesses and failing industries? How much money did we spend on Afghanistan over 20+ years to achieve literally fuck-all in the end? We could also talk about Iraq, and Ukraine, and Israel, and Argentina, all can be plausibly defended as providing some value to American interests, but fuck that's a lot of money we're giving to non-Americans.

You may or may not have seen the latest trend in ragebait: all the (mostly black) people screaming on TikTok about how their EBT is about to get cut off if the government shutdown doesn't end. The comments are the usual: noticing how many expensive braids and fake nails and tattoos and the like these people wear, asking why Single Mom of 6 does not have a father in the picture, etc. Lots of nutpicking with juicy videos from welfare defenders openly telling poor people to steal from Walmart, single moms haughtily declaring they "don't want to work," etc. Numbers thrown around like $4000-$6000/month in welfare (which I seriously doubt).

These stories are understandably infuriating. They make for very easy ragebait to amp up working Americans who see a bunch of lazy, shiftless people getting fat on their tax dollars. I won't lie and say I would not enjoy seeing some of these "parasites" get made to work or go hungry as much as any Randian.

But ultimately I think you are being manipulated to hate the easily hateable. If you are really concerned about the government spigot and all the parasites bleeding the beast... well, like I said, there's much bigger bleeding to rage at.

If you really want me to.

I feel like I should say a few things, though. It's ironic you are at this point now. I just took you (manually) out of the new user filter since you've been around long enough that you're clearly a good faith contributor, but also clearly were never going to accumulate enough "karma" or however Zorba scores accounts to leave the filter on your own.

You do get reported a lot, but 100% of the reports have been people angry at you for being a leftist expressing leftist opinions. You have not a single warning on your record (so far). I can see how it's disheartening to get downvoted constantly. This place is no better than reddit, in that downvotes are supposed to be used only to express that a comment is "objectively" bad in the sense of contributing nothing to the conversation, but instead it is used as an agree/disagree button, just as half our members use reports as a "super angrily disagree" button.

Now, is "the time for talking over"?

I am kind of there myself. And this place frustrates the hell out of me. Proud and violent bigots and haters, accelerationists, and people who literally and explicitly wish me death.

Clearly I should go find greener pastures more aligned with me, right?

There are none.

SlateStarCodex and adjacent spaces come closest, and even there you'll pretty much be booted for talking about the wrong things or having the wrong opinions.

I could go on X/Twitter, which is pretty much the Wild West right now. Except while it's true you can say almost anything there, that just means you'll draw a small crowd of people who agree with you and a lot of fire from people who hate you, and since it's far more public the doxxing potential is greater. There's no real upside because you aren't actually having interesting and thoughtful conversations, you're just dunking and point-scoring. It suits a certain personality type, I guess, but not me with my milquetoast centrism and lack of desire to throw people out of helicopters.

Anything "mainstream/normie"? Fuck no. All my hobby and social spaces have converged on acceptable and settled positions on everything from trans people to HBD to whether or not Trump is Literally Hitler to ... well, everything. I mostly don't talk in those spaces anymore, because I, with my center-left "let's just be civil and polite" GenX 'tude retains just enough skepticism and contrarianism that I have narrowly escaped being tagged as a Literal Nazi more than once, and I know if I bother to get into it, I will be banned. These spaces provide other needs for me and I don't want to lose them, so I keep my mouth shut. No point in losing years of history and access to resources that are somewhat important to me because I cleared my throat about the wrong subject.

This is what your side does. (I say "your" side, but I still consider myself liberal enough that it's kind of my side as well, except not really- they want to fucking kill me too, and now I feel kind of like a sleeper agent seething and blackpilling in their midst.)

So tell me, bud, where are the other places I could go to share opinions and maybe express skepticism about whether or not trans women are really truly heckin' 100% biological women, even though I by no means hate them or want them killed or put in camps or forcibly detransitioned? Where are the places where I can admit I think HBD is probably true even though I think individuals should still be judged on their own merits? Where can I say that I really dislike Trump, but also I don't think he's Hitler (and also the Democrats brought all this shit on themselves)? Where can I say Charlie Kirk was a prick but murdering him in front of his wife and children was an atrocity and if you're celebrating it you need to fix your goddamn soul? And so on and so on. In all your spaces, I'll just be called a collaborator, a bootlicker, a useful fool, a Nazi, and then banned.

Here, you suffer downvotes and unpopularity for taking a contrarian position but you still get treated politely. We still politely talk to each other (not willingly, not happily, many people would like to take the gloves and masks off completely, but we mods won't let them). Sure, half the people here are salivating for the Day of the Rope, which means its inherently unstable, but it is what it is.

I would be disappointed to see you pack up and go because righties are mean to you, as has happened to so many leftists before you. But I also understand it's just not fun being constantly dogpiled and downvoted, so I can't tell you you should keep hanging around somewhere that makes you miserable. I just want to point out that the greener pastures you are heading to are only greener for your orthodox and approved opinions.

I watch them and court appearances and parole hearings on YouTube.

It's... educational.

Do you think I was interested in going into "deeper discourse"? I don't care who you think is the wrongest wrong in wronglandia. It doesn't matter. Was I unclear?

I dunno what you're following, but you literally gave a list of what analysis and response you expected here, which me very uninterested in discussing the actual facts on the ground.

And was I wrong? No, I was not.

I don't know what fucking script you think I'm following, but no, there is no mechanism. No, I do not think Trump refraining from literal shitposting would make things better. You're right, the brakes are off and it's too late. Congratulations, you win. I am not arguing for pragmatism. I am describing what I see. I do not expect "Who started it and who was worse?" to be a relevant question in the future.

Or to put it another way for you or @Amadan or @ThomasdelVasto or anyone else interested, if the sort of argument Amadan describes seems bad, what would a better form of argument look like, in your view?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I have staked out my position before: we should not go accelerationist and try to purge each other.

My argument has clearly lost to the accelerationists on both sides who want to purge each other. I'm being descriptive here, not making any (useless) prescriptions.

Use-mention. You can say nigger if you are talking about the word. You cannot call people niggers.

"4chan rahowa" would be culture warring (if you're serious) or trolling (if you're not), and kiwifarms cowhunting is bringing Internet drama here.

I think we've seen a few brakes taken off, a few restraints both parties exercised (imperfectly) in the past, but the precedent of acceleration means everyone is going to have less and less restraint now. So when the Democrats accelerate, Republicans will be outraged, and Democrats will say "But Trump."

From the last few years of Motte and Twitter discourse, I think the answer you will get is obvious:

His supporters don't care. He fights, he makes libs cry, and traditional, "respectable" conservatives are now seen as cucks who conserved nothing and are committed only to losing politely. MAGA cares absolutely nothing about propriety or decorum, because that's a chump's game, and any discussion that veers in the direction of "What happens when the other side does this?" will get a hundred stories about how the other side is worse anyway, the other side has been defecting forever, and only after we crush them and make them lick the soles of our boots might they learn to behave and restore a kind of equilibrium.

I don't think the analysis is correct, but I can see the crude, vitalist appeal of President Shitpoaster. What I think will actually happen is one of two things: (1) The darker suspicions of Trump's foes are true, and MAGA really does think it's going to remain in power permanently, one way or the other. (2) The Democrats will return to power eventually, this will be remembered, and yes, it will be tit-for-tat and we spiral into ever-worse decay.

Either way, I foresee no positive endgame.

This is some JB-style made-up evpsych, along with JB-style "I am a very manly and interesting thinker." Come on, if you are going to argue something as dubious as "Women shouldn't be in stressful intellectual fields because they're dull and it also turns their kids autistic," you need to point at something more rigorous than monkey studies and oxytocin.

The bailey of your argument is far too narrow to support that motte.

How many women in a profession is "too many"?

I doubt you can develop a hard and fast rule unless you say "literally any." The thesis seems to be that at some point you reach a critical mass that is "too many." If you don't want to absolutely exclude women but you also believe there shouldn't be so many that they change norms, then you'll have to have some pretty vigorous gatekeeping and resistance to change, which presents its own problems. But the fact that she doesn't have a solution doesn't mean she isn't pointing at a real problem.

If the answer is "compete on meritocracy" then let Mrs. Andrews show that she is better than the men she beat out for the job. That there is no man at all in the entire USA better qualified or better at the job than she is.

How does this follow? Advocates of meritocracy don't usually claim that any given system is going to be a perfect meritocracy. Andrews can believe she is good enough without necessarily believing she's better than literally every other man in the country.

I do wish there was more respect given to honour, but men have cast that aside just as fast as women did. See how "honour culture" is not a compliment, but has connotations of inequality and fast resort to violence instead of negotiation. Conflict versus mistake, if you will.

Honor culture rapidly devolves to "might makes right." Achieving a culture that respects some concept of "honor" but doesn't just use that as an excuse for "do violence to anyone who offends you" is not a problem I think any society has solved.

I think you're both being unfairly piled on, and also kind of missing the point and being a little disingenuous about it (hence the pile-on).

Helen Andrews, from what I can tell, is not arguing that there should be zero women in "male" professions and that all women in such fields should step aside and let a man take her place, let alone is she going full Serena Joy. She is arguing that "feminization" (changing the norms in a field to cater to women's preference) is harmful and contributing to the "wokening" of these fields. This can be true without taking the position "Therefore we should exclude women from these fields."

I understand that you don't like femaleness being associated with lack of rationality, objectivity, or vigorous discourse, but this is hardly a novel argument. Even the most hardcore gender essentialists don't usually claim that no woman can be smart and rational and meritorious, able to hold her own in a male field. Helen Andrews certainly does not seem to be claiming that. If you resent the implication that there are probably relatively few women who should be considered qualified- well, you can't have it both ways and argue as you do against the encroachment of gender ideology (that says gender is a social construct and a man can be a woman) but also object to any implication that sex differences might be disadvantageous.

Hlynka and I are very different (he used to like me; now he thinks I'm a chump and a boot). More significantly, while he's sort of on the right, he's very much an actual Red Triber, which is almost the opposite of "bourgeois right."

Again I don't know who that is so it's not only literally a worthless comparison but does the opposite of "Wow is this place so opposed to disagreement that they just accuse everyone of being a secret bad faith troll?"

No, it's not. And we are quite aware that taking a position that's unpopular here (like "Republicans have a Nazi problem") is going to get you downvoted and reported a lot. I have, ironically, pointed out to the other mods in your defense that we have some right-leaning regulars whose argumentation isn't much better than yours.

That said, your argumentation is pretty bad. If you have a thesis about fascism and the right, you are entitled to present and argue it. By all means. And props for persistence in what you know to be a hostile environment. But the fact that you sort of just keep repeating your talking points, including in replies, and that a lot of your responses seem oblivious to the point of willful obtuseness (e.g., I flatly do not believe that you really believed all the people responding to you with variations on the yeschad.jpg meme were literally saying "Yes, I am a Nazi") definitely looks like either someone here to ragebait or, well, putting it kindly, an autist who doesn't quite understand how his arguments come across.

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt. We're aware that leftists have a tendency to flame out because of the unrelenting hostility they attract. You haven't really posted anything that in itself is an egregious violation of the rules, but the overall impression is of someone here to rattle cages (which is you're being pattern-matched to Darwin, or to your buddy Impassionata who's capering about in rdrama about this thread).

I don't know what advice to give you, other than that if you are really here to engage, try to give people the same benefit of the doubt you would like them to give you. For example, people are telling you why they "don't care" about the Nazi/fascism accusations against the right. Rather than sneering back "Oh, I guess you're a Nazi then?", are you even able to read their responses and understand what they are saying? You don't have to agree with them (I do not agree with them; I'm still old-fashioned enough to think Nazis are bad and Hitler jokes make you at best a choad), but are you able to understand their perspective? Are you trying to understand their perspective?

Well, that's my effort for the day. Probably wasted words. Whatever. Carry on.

Eh, maybe. Could explain why he's counting coup over on rdrama right now. His last few alts have been much more obvious.

Pathetic and annoying people.

I don't even know what a "SRDine" is, but you are as misguided and just objectively wrong as your rdrama buddy. Now behave- if you only came here to troll, you can go back to rdrama and do your monkeydance for seal claps there.

and here he stands accused by Amadanb (whose hatred of me is personal, deep, and only going to be made worse as it's clear just how wrong the SFBA Rationalist Cultists were about the fascism):

Ye gods, the man is obsessed with me.

But no, I doubt MKC is Impassionata. Impassionata is worse than Darwin at concealing himself.

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but there's no context in which you get a pass for "fuck yous."

You generate a lot of AAQCs, and then every now and then you lose your shit and have to get a timeout. Banned for two days.

Thank you for your honesty. Now, moderator, ban thyself.

Without entering into the discussion proper, I will just note (because it came up in another thread) that there is a thin but meaningful difference between calling an argument bullshit/stupid/retarded and calling a poster that. So no, even if Nara wasn't a mod, I wouldn't mod someone for saying "This line is bullshit." I would mod someone for saying "You're full of a shit."

"Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me."

It caused a bit of controversy at the time.

"The idea that these lyrics could be deemed objectionable is extremely hurtful to me, and misleading. The song in fact is about the pain of prejudice and hate and is a way to draw attention to social and political problems. I am the voice of the accused and the attacked. I am the voice of everyone. I am the skinhead, I am the Jew, I am the black man, I am the white man. I am not the one who was attacking. It is about the injustices to young people and how the system can wrongfully accuse them. I am angry and outraged that I could be so misinterpreted."

— Michael Jackson

Okay, people are accusing you of being Darwin. Right now I am not convinced one way or the other; you definitely post in certain ways that are very similar, but your style isn't quite the same. However, playing "Spot the Darwin alt" is almost as annoying as playing "Spot the JB alt," so I am asking you point blank, and consider this an official mod question:

Are you Darwin aka @guesswho? Is this a new alt you are using?

Note that creating new alts (given that the previous account was not banned) is not outright prohibited, though it is strongly discouraged. However, doing so just because you wanted to ditch your old reputation is not an adequate justification. If you have some reason why you wanted to create a new account to reengage, you need to discuss it with the mod team. Right now, it looks like if you are Darwin, it's to "get one over" on the Motte, not have to face the ignominious way in which you slunk off last time, and start playing your old games anew.

So if you are Darwin, you need to come clean. You will not be banned, but you will be expected to stop this masquerade.

If you are not Darwin, then you need to slow your roll and understand why people are pattern-matching you to a notorious shit-stirring troll known for making bad faith arguments and starting thread after thread on the same topic just to rile people up.

If you deny being Darwin but you are, then if we decide you were lying, you will be banned immediately. Also you should feel a deep sense of guilt, shame, and personal inadequacy.

Stop, you'll hurt my feelings.

Didn't you flounce already to "show me"? Why did you create a new account? Your old account wasn't banned. Do you think coming back with a new account means it doesn't count as flouncing? Now you're in the new user filter again. See what a kindly mod I am, unfiltering you just so you can bitch at me?