Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I see. That's a more depressing prediction, though perhaps more realistic.
I don't see dateless men being a significant factor in that, though. I don't actually believe incels are a factor at all, other than online.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I do not believe for a second this is your first rodeo. But in any case, I cannot make you heed my warning. The course from here is up to you.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I see this online a lot lately: supposedly all these "tfw no girlfriend" guys are going to rise up. "You are in danger!"
No. These guys are, frankly ,not the warfighting kind. They'll jack off to porn and seethe and imagine burning it all down (and you'll get the occasional Elliott Rodgers) but there's no movement of dateless men ready to "do something" and even a more political Andrew Tate probably couldn't move them to that kind of action.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Everyone has the relationship they deserve.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Okay, look buddy -
You spinning up a new alt every few weeks to whine about your lack of sexual success is not strictly against the rules, though you're bordering on single-issue posting and we dislike alt-churning, which means the next time you create a new account to repeat the cycle we may not let it out of the new user filter.
This top level itself did not violate any rules though it did incur the displeasure of many people reporting it. There is a certain entertainment value in a good blackpill rant, but not everyone finds them entertaining, especially as the problem with blackpillers is that they take themselves very, very seriously and become increasingly irate when they realize other people do not.
Which is where you are now, heading in a predictable direction, which is getting belligerent and insulting towards everyone who argues with you and sounding like the penultimate act of The Feminist. You're filling the queue now because everyone from those politely disagreeing with you to those offering well-intentioned advice is getting snarled at or told they're lying about their own life experiences.
Knock it off. Take a breath. Touch grass. But mostly, accept that other people's perspectives may not match yours, and if you want to doompost, you still need to engage with civility and the same charity you would like to be extended to you.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I agree with you that some people pretend not to understand why other men would want a virgin (or as close to virgin as possible).
That said, the US is no longer governed by traditional Christian mores. You may bemoan that and seek smaller communities where the norms remain, but it shouldn't surprise you that a lot of people nowadays genuinely do find it strange to care so much about body counts.
I must say I myself find strange the new pagan-Western ritual of engaging in a series of pretend-marriages wherein you cohabitate, have sex, and mix finances with multiple partners before you finally vow lifetime partnership to whichever one you happen to be with when you realize the window for children is closing. And then have your first child in your mid-thirties.
FWIW, I actually agree with you that this is fucked up and in my personal life I prefer something much closer to traditional Christian ethics even though I am not Christian.
I do not miss that being the law or de facto law, though.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST I'M POINTING OUT A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THAT IS EFFECTING EVERYONE IN EVERY COUNTRY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND YOU THINK I'M PLACING BLAME ON ANY SPECIFIC GENDER, OR GROUP?
Going into a capslocking spiral does not make your point stronger. No, I do not think this is a systemic issue affecting everyone in the country simultaneously.
Identify the cohort of males who are carousing and stealing women's most fertile years and cull them. Just straight up kill 'em.
That's, uh, quite an immodest proposal. Besides vibes-based executions of anyone who seems a little too caddish, how do you propose implementing this as a practical matter?
Basically, remove the economic policies that keep women from enduring any significant difficulties, ever, from childhood on, so that women will actually need a man in their life for more than just happy fun sexy times.
It's hard not to see rants like this as "incel, bitter, and women-hating" when you insist that women are kept from "enduring any significant difficulties, ever, from childhood on" (do you actually... know any women? Would any of them agree with this characterization of their lives? Do you think they are all lying or delusional?) and that the solution is to make women need a man (you didn't even qualify that with "to raise a child" - I was accused of being unfair in characterizing your position as "force women to settle for someone and marry him whether she wants to or not" but that seems to be literally what you are advocating here).
Now you added a sort of "j/k... unless?" coda but if you didn't really mean a single thing you suggested, what do you actually suggest? If the situation is genuinely as dire as you claim, then we would be essentially facing doom without implementing the Dread Jim Protocols. Of course I do not think the situation is as dire as you claim.
all I'm asking from YOU is that you politely stand aside and don't raise a fuss if men start taking steps that will address the problem since you're clearly not interested in accepting any responsibility or otherwise intervening to help.
No, you're asking me to stop arguing or opposing the measures you suggest. I will not be doing that.
If you suddenly start interfering with attempts to address the problem, you're really not on men's side anyway.
I'm not on your side. I do not accept that you are arguing on behalf of men.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
South Korea's problems are numerous, and the lack of desire of South Korean women to marry and have children is more that they perceive it as being a shit deal for them than that they are all sleeping around. (SK is still a pretty conservative country and most of them aren't.)
Most American women are also not just ordering up dick on Tinder.
When you say "We should change course," do you have any suggestions that aren't basically "Reduce female agency"? Because you seem to blame everything on women while rejecting any suggestion that unsuccessful men are to blame for their own lack of success .
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
You haven't actually rebutted anything, just repeated a claim that religious rhetoric implies something genocidal about Israelis.
American soldiers in WWII hated their enemies as much as any other soldiers do (read contemporaneous accounts of their attitude towards Germans and Japanese), but the political hatred of Nazis as an entity wasn't what it is now.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Easier said than done. The administration right now is putting most of its energy into dismantling the federal bureaucracy in a way that will be difficult for a future administration to undo, but successive administrations being able to reverse the policies of previous administrations is a feature, not a bug, of American politics.
Trump could certainly push for laws that will make immigration much harder, establish enforcement norms that will require effort (and perhaps public, politically unpalatable action) to reverse, and generally make it difficult (but not impossible) for the next administration to roll it back and open the gates again. But that is not where he's actually focusing his efforts.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Trump could EO himself a billion dollars and as long as he stops immigration, deports all the migrants here and stops all funding for the foreign wars / foreign aide I'd still vote for him.
Well, hell, I'd at least think about voting for him if I thought he could or would carry out some of his grand promises. Every politician promises he will deliver incredible things, and if you vote for him and say "I don't care if he steals a billion dollar as long as he does all the things he promised to do" you are being taken for a rube.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Unless you're arguing that Body count is a GOOD thing for a partner to have... best you can say is that this is a neutral issue that can probably be ignored.
No, I would put a high body count in the negative column, but most men won't consider it an automatic dealbreaker. If you get to know someone (amazing concept, that) you may find out if they've had a lot of sex because they consider it a fun thing to do while they are young and unattached, or desperately seeking an alpha and delusional about their own market value. Or just sluts who don't value monogamy.
I do not buy the "too many cocks inflicts psychic damage on females!" theory.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
What do you think the mechanism for that is?
Hint: your average woman on Tinder is getting easily 50x the attention that the average male is getting
Unsurprising. Tinder commodifies sex, and men mostly play a numbers game. (The average woman at a sock hop in the 50s or at your church social probably gets vastly more attention than the average male too.)
Of course.
But more and more women aren't settling for ANYONE.
Objective fact.
What now?
Accept that you have stiff competition, but it's not as hopeless as blackpillers would have you believe. Do not succumb to blackpill solutions like "Women are all hypergamous slutwhores and we should just make them marry mesomeone."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
The population-wide survey I posted in my OP shows that many Israelis desire genocide even in the most extreme conceptualization of killing every Gazan.
I think you'd find similar results in any survey of a country at war. "Should we exterminate every last man, woman and child?" A non-trivial fraction of the population will say "Yes." That survey is very strangely constructed, phrasing everything in Old Testament terms ("Should we treat them like the Ameleks?") which I think is a lot less straightforward than asking "Should we genocide Gaza?" I am sure you are aware that how you word a survey has a huge impact on the answers you get, such that you can ask questions that mean the same thing and get different answers.
Are there Israelis who'd be perfectly happy to kill every last Palestinian? No doubt. How are they different from Russians or Ukrainians or Somalis or Americans? You love finding these cherry-picked examples framed in careful and very specific ways, omitting crucial details or comparators, to imply Jews are uniquely evil and genocidal, but you haven't shown anything but that Israelis are reacting like most people would when they believe themselves to be literally under siege by people who, unambiguously, really do want to genocide them. (Does that mean I think Israelis would be justified in wiping out the Palestinians? No, but I think surveys showing a large number of them at this point are saying "Fuck it, why not?" are not saying anything special about Jews.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
You go much above that and it has a VERY noticeable impact on divorce rates which guys are aware of.
There is a quite a lot to scrutinize here - firstly, the fact that is is an article from the "Institute for Family Studies." The numbers themselves come from the CDC, but even the IFS doesn't quite say what you say it does. There is not a strict correlation between high body count and divorce rate, the biggest jump is not at 5+, and they sort of mention but mostly brush past confounders like "People with few sexual partners are more likely to be religious and thus more likely to be opposed to divorce."
I also question how you conclude that "most guys are aware of" these alleged facts? I think most guys have an intuitive feeling that women with a lot of sexual partners make them feel less secure ("she's going to be comparing me with every other man she's slept with") but not that it automatically makes them less committed to the partner they eventually choose.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I think a sex worker will ALMOST CERTAINLY have a body count greater than 5, so it'd be redundant to include.
But you put it in the "not a dealbreaker" column. I assume you were also including women with OnlyFans who might not actually have had a lot of sex.
And for drug use... depends on the drug, doesn't it?
Sure, but my point is you seem to be eliding a lot of nuance. For some guys, weed will be a dealbreaker, and I would hope any reasonable person would consider meth or heroin a dealbreaker.
I'm surrounded by men who are great catches by all appearances, and THEY LITERALLY ALL HAVE THE PRECISE, EXACT SAME COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRYING TO FIND A PARTNER IN THE CURRENT SEXUAL MARKETPLACE.
EVERY ONE. I've got multiple friends whose women divorced them for seemingly no decent reason in the past 4 years. They are even MORE scarred and they're still scared of the dating scene they've been out of for a while.
Okay, I believe you, but your bubble is evidently very different than mine (and I'm not in some trad red bubble - far from it), and I am unconvinced that yours is more representative.
Guys who are CURRENTLY single are having a nightmarish time finding a partner.
This I believe, but I don't believe it's because women in general are nightmares and mostly unmarriageable. I believe it's because dating norms and Tinderification have made dating a nightmare. That and norms you and I would probably agree are detrimental, like feminist hazard zones and the much-discussed choosiness of 80% of women wanting the top 5% of men (which is also a consequence of Tinderification). That said, I remain skeptical of the blackpill take that always circles around to "Actually, the solution is we should somehow contrive to force women to settle for... me." (Should I settle for a woman I'm not really into? Heavens no!)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Don't you think we could create a similar list of "minimum requirements for a marriageable single male" that would likewise exclude the vast majority of single men? While your criteria vaguely gesture at a general problem that seems true (a lot of women on the market will be excluded by a man with reasonable filters), your crunching the numbers to conclude it's something like 1-in-10 odds of finding an acceptable woman seem similar to Newsweek's infamous 1986 article "Too Late for Prince Charming", publishing a marriage study allegedly concluding that college-educated women over 40 were more likely to be killed in a terrorist attack than to get married. This study was later found to have distorted or misestimated a lot of numbers for the sake of producing a sensational punchline. Many, many more women over 40 than that study would have estimated did in fact wind up married.
I think we could quibble a lot over your criteria. You think most men would be bothered more by a woman with a body count > 5 than a sex worker? Or would find drug use more acceptable than student loan debt?
It's easy to ask ChatGPT to crunch some artificially-generated numbers to produce a blackpill. But sometimes "lived experience" is actually more convincing than dubious statistics, so I'd like to ask if 90% of the single men you know are incapable of finding a decent woman? Because that is not my experience. I know a few guys who seem to struggle, but it's nothing like "90% can't find a woman who isn't an obese single mother with BPD"...
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
Drones and pager bombs probably cause less collateral damage than traditional military strikes when you're waging urban warfare.
I am again struck by the very particular nature of these objections, as compared to the tactics of, say, Hamas and Hezballah, neither of which have a reputation for observing rules of war.
(Why is it that Israel has to fight opponents who have blended civilians and non-uniformed combatants? Oh wait...)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
My man, you don't assassinate armed forces like that with pagers/drones
Why not?
No, really, ELI5 why using pagers and drones makes a country worthy of nuclear annihilation.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
If you want to meaningfully criticize someone's argument you should put a minimal amount of effort into being both substantial and civil. This isn't it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1mo ago
I'd be surprised if you've literally never written up some paean about something, but do you genuinely not understand why zero out of three of the highest-profile examples coming up dry might point a direction?
Dude, my effortposts are mostly about Hugo drama. FYI Impassionata's latest alt came by the other day to scream at me (personally!) about letting fascists run amok, and obviously I'm a fascist simp as evidenced by my failure to blah blah blah. (You didn't get a chance to see it, which I guess you can therefore also dismiss as unevidenced and therefore non-credible.) Amazing how the one thing I've never been wrong about, all these years, is how both sides reliably accuse me of the same thing.
No, I say it's covering your ass because when someone tried to point out people who did, here, this didn't change the slightest bit of your position.
Fine, I should not have said "no one." But no, I don't think AaahtheFrench and Impassionata "count" in any serious way. But I will stipulate there is a lizardman's constant for any proposition here on the Motte.
Because they're a subreddit that was formed around and because of supposed adherence to this principle, and its importance to appeal to Blues. Because they are not selected from Blues in some way that should make them atypically willing to overlook violent rhetoric. Because I keep asking you for examples of better Blue groups and organizations, and you haven't presented any. Because I've been looking for a near-decade for better Blues groups and organizations, and haven't found any.
I think you are overstating the significance of TheSchism, but as for "better Blue groups and organizations," what are your criteria? Public disavowals of political violence? The Democratic Party (including Biden himself) quickly condemned the Butler shooting. So did most major newspapers and churches (including the woke ones). The GOP quickly accused Biden of inciting it. You mentioned the attempted Kavanaugh assassination (didn't make much of a splash because the guy got arrested before anything happened) and Tesla vandalism, and I'll say fine, how many Red organizations jump up to condemn attempted assassinations, vandalism, and arson directed against Blues? Some, but often with the same defectors or mealy-mouthing we see when reversed. Is your thesis, or is it not, that Blues basically have defected from a norm against political violence and Reds have not?
((and, indeed, instead find Blues that spontaneously turn out to not; both "my father-in-law jokes or 'jokes' about throwing molotov cocktails at houses with Trump signs" and "the minecraft mod guy I worked with is really proud of punching Brendan Eich and wishes he did it more" are not hypotheticals.))
Okay, they're assholes. I've got some anecdotes about Red family members and coworkers too.
Yes, and I'm trying to get an answer out of why you think it's wrong, and if those reasons are supported.
I think it's wrong because I do not think the majority of Americans, of whatever political stripe, support or endorse political violence. I do not think you or FC have made a convincing case that Blues have shown stronger defection tendencies than Reds on this. The most proximal comparison seems to be responses to Jan. 6 vs responses to BLM, which are usually argued on the basis of which one was worse rather than who was more consistent about condemning it. Blues, unsurprisingly, think Jan. 6 was much worse, Reds think BLM was much worse - personally I agree that the BLM riots and other follow-on effects were objectively much, much worse, but crucially, neither side thinks they are actually defending political violence because Reds mostly claim Jan. 6 was a nothingburger and Blues mostly claim the riots were "mostly peaceful protests". I think both sides are wrong, and in this case Blues are more wrong, but it still doesn't make the case you are arguing.
Did I miss something? Netstack said this was the first time Trace got modded, it was his last set of posts here, and I defended Trace in most of his last thread, where the facts demanded it. Was there something earlier?
No, this is totally my bad. I misremembered him telling you off when it was WhiningCoil. My apologies for that one. (I think I remember you getting into it with him on Twitter recently, which probably helped derail my memory.)
The large proportion of men whom I am concerned about not having a stake in our civilization are mostly not incels.
More options
Context Copy link