Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
28d ago
Do you think Ignatiev's ideology is that "all white people are awful?" I don't think that's his ideology. I think he's hostile to White Identity.
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
It's so telling that you are so charitable to Ignatiev when I have never spoken rhetoric nearly as inflammatory as Ignatiev in his statements on the White race.
I think Ignatiev distinguishes between white identity and the white race. Whether you or I find that distinction meaningful is irrelevant to understanding what his meaning is. Lots of non-Jewish white people in the woke movement say exactly the same thing. I have, in fact, heard some white people unironically say the white race should be allowed to go extinct (and a few loons even suggesting more direct and immediate measures), but they are pretty far out on the fringes and not what most of these people mean.
But you still interpret his philosophy openly calling for the end of the white race with so much more charity than my cultural criticism of Jewish behavior in American society.
I'm "charitable" in the sense we are supposed to be charitable to views we disagree with here on the Motte, which means not straw manning, eliding context, or characterizing someone as saying something they didn't say. I don't think Ignatiev is calling for the end of the white race, in the sense that white people will no longer exist. And I think you know this and you are being dishonest in claiming you believe that's what he's saying.
When it comes to Jews, it's not possible to simply oppose them politically and culturally. You have to be an exterminationist if you oppose Jews politically.
If all you said was "Jews have disproportionate power in politics," I wouldn't disagree with you factually, though I'd still want to know what specific remedies you advocate and why you think it is specifically a problem. But come now, SS, you tactically hide your power level but your agenda is not merely JAQing about why so many Jews.
If you are constantly talking about how one particular ethnic group is a threat, how their values are hostile to ours, and how almost every member of that group is driven to behave in a certain fashion, yes, it leads me to strongly suspect that your actual agenda is exterminationist, because if you really believe all the things you say about Jews, it would be irrational not to be.
If you want us to believe that Jews are parasites undermining our civilization and we cannot peacefully coexist with them, but you don't want them dead, you just want to... you know, raise awareness, well, you're either treating your audience like chumps or you're unwilling to follow your own logic to its logical conclusion, and I don't believe for a second it's the latter.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
28d ago
Okay, sure. This conversation is still very strange to me, it's like reddit-tier grasp of nuance. I am not defending the statements, just saying he said A, not B. "Oh, so you're saying A is fine!" No, that is not what I said.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
28d ago
I forgot BigLoom's comment was filtered, so you aren't the only one who thought I was modding BurdensomeCount. I have fixed it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
... I'm not even sure who this is directed at, but since you just came off a ban for this kind of thing, now you're banned for another three days. Knock it off.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
Sometimes whichever mod approves his first few posts doesn't immediately spot the pattern. That said, you only see the ones that do get through.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
It's amazing to me how often a conversation like this happens.
"Well, what he said was bad, but he wasn't actually calling for genocide." "So you think what he said wasn't bad. I guess you are pro-genocide."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
Well, the problem is for SS, all Jews (modulo some tiny fringe who agree with him that yes indeed, we Jews are awful!) are evil.
It's rough! Ignatiev's beliefs are awful. But not Jewishly awful. Still, SS is more sympathetic than Ignatiev.
Eh. They both basically want to eliminate their outgroup. I suspect Ignatiev's agenda is probably not literally exterminationist, so fwiw I find him more sympathetic, but that's like choosing which woman on The View is more intelligent.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
They are talking about eliminating males in a real sense.
Yes, but what they are talking about is folly, and impossible. They think they can literally transform males into something else. But they aren't talking about killing people. As with "whiteness," I don't have to agree with their construction to point out that they are not literally talking about eliminating people.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
I don't think "anti whiteness" is the same as "anti white," at least not the way you mean it.
I also don't believe you were not implying he only cares about Jews when you intentionally isolated his statement about anti-Semitism from his opposition to bigotry in general.
That context is significant, and you know you were trying to frame his words to mean somethingother than his intent.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
He vocally supported ending the white race, while at the same time declaring anti-Semitism a Crime against Humanity. That was my statement, and your context does not refute that in any way.
You only mention him objecting to anti-Semitism, as usual implying that Jews only care about Jews and are enemies of everyone else. The context makes it clear you're being disingenuous:
Finally, at least one Crimson headline writer and one cartoonist have suggested that I am anti-Semitic. I regard anti-Semitism, like all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry, as a crime against humanity
As for "vocally support ending the white race," when academics and activists talk about "ending whiteness" they are not talking about literally genociding white people. Their argument is that "whiteness" is an arbitrary social construct. Of course most of us consider this a stupid argument, much like the claims that "male" and "female" are arbitrary social constructs. But just as people who want to "end masculinity" and "end the gender binary" are not talking about literally exterminating males, you know perfectly well what Ignatiev actually meant.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
Ya know, I really don't want to go back and forth forever, but I am just going to say, you're wrong here. You are wrong to tell people to knock it off (that's the mods' job, if you think someone is acting out, report the post) and I am "upset" with you because in my judgment, you're the one in the wrong each time and you need to have the last word, which means you pour unnecessary flames on. I understand you don't see it that way. If you want to ask another mod to weigh in, go for it. But seriously, don't keep getting into these spats with people and taking the attitude you are taking because even if you are convinced you are posting with great righteousness and truth, that is not in fact how it looks from the outside.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
I accept the backhanded compliment, but this is how I have been modding for years, so this is probably as good as it gets.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
Well, that's unfortunate, but since when you're not trying to stick fingers in eyes you seem to write pretty well, I hope you will change your mind.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
the chink virus
You've been warned about this before. Racial slurs are allowed if there is actually a point you're trying to make with them, but just dropping them as edgy emphasis to see how many jammies you can rustle is not.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
Whether or not he mischaracterized you in your opinion, there are less antagonistic ways to engage with someone who you believe has misunderstood you.
This is the second time in as many days I've told you to reduce the heat when you're arguing with someone. A pattern of unnecessary pettiness has an unfortunately predictable trajectory which I hope you will endeavor to alter.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
30d ago
You're being antagonistic and obnoxious. Stop it.
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
1mo ago
When the stats are lining up with the anecdotes are lining up with the personal observations, and EVERY SINGLE person on the other side says "No, can't be true, I know a guy that is doing fine" while offering zero verifiable evidence...
It's not "I know a guy," it's "most guys I know are not experiencing this."
Offer me an alternative hypothesis.
Marriage rates have been falling because younger generations don't value marriage as much, and more and more people live in "situationships" without ever getting married. There is certainly an argument to be made (and frequently is made) that this is bad for society and does not promote stable families, but falling marriage rates do not in themselves indicate that "no one is finding a partner." They indicate people are not marrying their partners, and that most people are having many more relationships of shorter duration.
Anyway, here's an extremely recent article from The Economist bemoaning the fact that despite the fact women are now outperforming men in EVERY school subject, but can't seem to keep up in Math, so OBVIOUSLY we need to close that gap.
Okay, so women get unfair perks in the name of ending sexism. We talk about that a lot here. I don't see that having a lot to do with whether or not men can get a date.
That's just objectively true if we restrict our examination to dating apps
Dating apps are hellish, as I said. There probably is something commodifying and unhealthy about treating a potential relationship the same way you treat looking for an appliance on Amazon. If you were proposing we ban dating apps, I'd have qualms about the legality and the implementation, but I'd probably approve in principle. But I have it on good authority it is actually still possible to meet a fellow human being in real life.
What now? Shall we try even harder to give them MORE choice?
Or just let the status quo continue?
You tell me.
I've already told you. Why don't you tell me, in unambiguous language without waffling. Do you want to go full Dread Jim (literally make women property)? Do you want to retvrn to traditional (pre-Enlightenment) Church rules? You've thrown together a lot of correlations to fit your narrative, but you don't seem willing to commit to a solution. If you think women just shouldn't be allowed to choose, say so. If you think fathers should decide who their daughters marry, say so. If you think something vaguer like "Women should be persuaded to be less picky and settle for an 80% guy instead of demanding 100% of what they want" - okay, that probably is not a bad idea. How do you propose getting there? (And would it apply to men also having to settle for women who might not check all their boxes?)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Every word of this is cope.
Shall we go back and forth going "nuh uh"? I think every word of your response is wrong and frankly ridiculous. Peasants were not living in some proto-libertarian utopia. But yes, you can absolutely aspire to peasantry and a cottagecore lifestyle if that is what you are into, and while no one can completely escape the jurisdiction of a state (sorry, other people exist), plenty of people do in fact live off the grid to varying degrees. No, they don't all wind up "dead, destitute, or in prison." You don't hear about many of them because most people don't want to do that, and those who do are mostly mentally ill, pathologically antisocial, or Ted Kazinski types. (Ted didn't wind up the way he did because he just wanted to live in a cabin in the woods.)
I do not believe you would literally prefer to be a medieval peasant, because if you did, you wouldn't be here on the Internet. (No, that doesn't just mean "Of course we have the advantage of technology and comforts," it means you prefer the technological lifestyle.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Everyone knows the real agenda here is that you don't want anyone getting abortion pills period.
Avoid consensus-building phrases like "everyone knows," as well as presuming you know the other person's motives. You are probably correct that @hydroacetylene does not want anyone getting abortion pills, but you need to actually engage with him ("Are you saying...?" or "I think your actual agenda is...") rather than simply asserting it in this antagonistic fashion. This is a pattern you're unfortunately engaging in a lot. I hate to see it, because here you are a leftie on a mostly anti-left forum (you aren't wrong about that, though you are wrong about "far right"), and you are of course being heavily downvoted and reported for having unpopular opinions. The usual failure mode from here is you get more and more frustrated and antagonized by everyone telling you off, and eventually the warnings accumulate and you get banned. I realize this is a hard pattern to break out of, and maybe it's not entirely fair, but I will tell you that rightie posters that start taking the same attitude you do to all comers who argue with them also wind up getting banned because they just can't stay calm and gracious enough while arguing with people whose opinions they clearly do not respect.
Yes, if Israel just let its neighbors invade them and did not respond to Iran's funding of Hezballah, Hamas, and the Houthis, surely Iran would realize that peaceful coexistence with Jews is the way forward.
More options
Context Copy link