Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
The only valid presumption to be made by anyone who has watched the murder in question is that every single person there outside of the victim is a subhuman. Maybe they were born that way, maybe they were radicalized by media, or maybe it's a combination of both! But the display speaks for itself.
Does it? This is a pretty poor argument for such a broad generalization- yes, yes, I'm sure you only meant those exact people on that particular train.
This whole thread is full of people who really, really want to trot out their favorite race-war talking points. Some are doing so more or less calmly if unkindly, some are just throwing heat and flashing gang signs and boo lights. This response falls into the latter category. Knock it off.
What if it did? Is this a question? A hope? An accusation? It looks to me like bait. Knock it off.
You are both making shitty arguments, and between @Skibboleth's low-effort dismissiveness, your stooping to personal attacks, and the crappy quality of this thread in general, I am exercising great restraint in not handing out bans even to people who really probably need at least a day or two to go sit in a corner and take deep breaths. So this is your opportunity to back off and take deep breaths voluntarily.
At a certain point in every fundamental disagreement, one person will say "I think X is true" and the other person will say "I think X is not true," and both parties have a choice of either pressing their point, with arguments and reasons, or saying "Nuh uh, you're wrong."
If you reach the latter stage, just stop. You do not win Motte Points for having the Official Last Word. If someone asserts something you think is incorrect and you can't be bothered to continue arguing why he's wrong, the correct follow-up is not "Reality says you're wrong."
These highly emotive threads are producing highly emotional arguments and the quality of argumentation is in inverse proportion to its heat.
This is so low-effort it provides no argument, just a hiss. Other people are making actual arguments, including the one you are hissing in the direction of.
gobbledegook languages
Your posting is just the usual garden-variety xenophobia and racism, which is not in itself against the rules, but your sneering is getting over the top and bordering on pure culture warring, and given your history, I'm warning you now to dial it down because I can see you getting amped up and a ban is next.
Please don't just post "I agree" posts.
This would be a fully generalizable argument that all group hatreds are justifiable and deserved reactions. The specific word choices you use make it obvious which group(s) you are referring to, but that does not make such reactions rational or earned. Jim, no doubt, did not "wake up one day and for no reason at all" decide to hate women and minorities. He will of course say it's because they oppress him, because giving them rights has made his life worse, because they are wicked and inferior and the world would be better if they didn't exist. But of course groups who hate all white people or men or Christians on general principle will likewise tell a story of being oppressed by their existence and gradually beginning to hate them through exposure, not "we just woke up one day and for no reason at all decided we hate you."
Okay? No idea who created those cards or what their criteria were.
There are dozens of us. Dozens.
This entire thread is going nowhere good. I think we all understood him to be saying "I want to tell you to FOAD in a way the rules won't allow me to say," and we'd prefer people did not play those sorts of word games. We'd also prefer people did not try to egg each other on to see if you can get someone to cross the line. So everyone chill, now.
Kulak is more of a grifter than Jim. It cannot be denied that Jim is consistent and has written his views for a very long time. Kulak only recently took on his revolutionary genocidal catgirl persona, and I think it's very questionable whether he's actually got skin in the game or is just engagement-farming for Twitter bucks.
Nobody is evil in their own mind. Of course Jim has rationalizations for why beating and raping women is good and why genocide is virtuous. You only buy these rationalizations if you agree with him in the first place. The same is true for people like KulakRevolt, agitating daily for race war and genocide, and our resident Jew-haters. No one says "Yeah, I just hate these people and want to kill them." They construct elaborate rationalizations for why the people they hate deserve it and they are acting morally --in self defense, even.
He's still around but he lost a lot of his audience when Blogger kicked him off, and Rabid Puppies was pretty much his 15 minutes of fame in the outside world.
Watching Ken White/Popehat's descent into TDS has been sad, but his complete derangement on this topic is really extremely disappointing to me, as someone who once admired him for his free speech stance. White used to be a very strong and principled First Amendment warrior and frequently mocked the UK's much weaker free speech protections. Now he's saying this is "within shouting distance of prosecution" (another way to say "not prosecutable") and heavily implying that even though he's well aware this would not fly in US courts, he thinks it should.
This post is very bare in substance. You haven't done much more than link a fringe blogger and write a summary of his latest post. Dread Jim is very much a Culture War figure, but you're not offering anything in the way of opinion or commentary of your own, just "Hey, look at what this guy said." What do you want to conclude from this? What sort of discussion were you aiming for?
Many of the controversial positions that are now considered inside the Overton window of The Motte, such as HBD and the disaster of the sexual revolution, were first popularized through his blog.
I think you are giving him too much credit. I'd consider Vox Day more influential than Jim, and neither of them are really well-known outside the highly politicized Very Online. I am skeptical that Jim was the first to "popularize" HBD or criticism of the sexual revolution.
Fine, here's your warning: be less belligerent.
If it were a ban, you'd be banned.
If you want to push it I can mod hat it, or you can just take the warning for what it was.
Okay buddy, this is obviously personal to you, but you need to chill out.
Even if @self_made_human were violating professional ethics with flippant shit-posting on a message board (I doubt it, but I'm not a doctor), "follow the ethical guidelines of your profession" is not a Motte requirement. If his comments cause you to lose respect for him personally, or for the medical profession in general, you are entitled to your feelings. But whatever you want here, you're not going to get it, and going off on people because you're offended is definitely not going to get what you want.
When I fetched up in SSC's comments section, my previous-favorite blog had been Shakesville, and the political issue I had been most concerned with was a tossup between the burgeoning threat of Rape Culture and the idea that another fucking Bush was being nominated for the presidency.
Damn, Shakesville, that brings back memories. You must have been even leftier than me at that point, because even though I was more liberal then than I am now, I always thought the Shakesville crew was insane.
This is really more appropriate for the Wellness or Small Questions thread.
Again you subtly reword the parameters of the scenario. No, what I described is realistic. What you describe intentionally exaggerates or omits.
You said that it's a straw-man to characterize the operation as them walking to their deaths like sheep through an assembly line. But that is not a straw-man. that is the actual claim made by mainstream historians with cases of resistance being the rare exception and not the rule. The alleged operation fundamentally relied on the cooperation of the victims. Whether or not they actually believed they were taking a shower is immaterial to the fact that they cooperated in the way you implied was silly to believe... and yes it is silly to believe they would do that- they wouldn't and they didn't.
What I am specifically claiming is that it's silly to believe millions of Jews walked docilely into gas chambers because they thought they were just taking a shower.
I do believe they were herded into gas chambers and probably more or less knew what was going on. No doubt the guards tried to hide what was going to happen as much as they could, and some of the victims might have believed a story about showers. That they did not put up more resistance is not a difficult question to answer. They were weak, they were terrified, they had their families with them and men with guns ready to shoot them. In a movie or a comic book, someone decides they've got nothing to lose and goes down fighting, and sparks a mass uprising. In reality, people do usually go to their deaths without much resistance, especially if they have a single thread of hope, some faint chance of convincing themselves they might survive. In reality, maybe one guy does try to go down fighting and promptly gets shot, thus demonstrating to everyone else how effective that is.
You are simply insisting there was no gas, there was no genocide, there was no plan to kill Jews, and as usual, duck all the other questions that are inconveniently unanswerable.

Because the alternative is a ban.
More options
Context Copy link