Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
10mo ago
I didn't warn you, but I'm still allowed to express my opinion, which is that your complaint is silly and wasn't much more than "Here is a thing I don't like."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
If you need a timeout until after election day, we can oblige.
Stop doing this.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3mo ago
He's been warned to stop deleting posts or he'll be banned.
And you've been warned to stop goading mods and making things up. The last few times we've let pass, but the ankle-biting will stop. Now.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11mo ago
Emphasis on fair. I see the attempts at equivalences. I don't find them convincing. He's certainly being accused of hypocrisy, but nothing he's done is akin to what David Gerard is accused of doing.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
Well, first of all, interestingly enough, no one reported @Rov_Scam, while multiple people (not Rov himself) reported the responses.
If someone had reported him... I wouldn't have modded it. But if you feel super strongly about it, report him and I will let some other mod determine how to handle it.
The most objectionable thing he said was "perma-DST people and noon is noon people are equally moronic," which, yeah, taken literally, is calling certain people who believe certain things morons, and if you are a "perma-DST person" with a thin skin, you could complain that he called you a moron. Could he have phrased it better? Maybe. But I don't think his intent was to say "You (individual person) are a moron" and we see people arguing, essentially, "A is stupid/People who believe A are stupid" all the time, and generally (unless it's really egregious or obvious consensus-building) we will let it go. Do you really want us to apply the standard you are suggesting every time?
It's very weird to me that an argument over DST is causing this much gnashing of teeth (reminds me of the Calendar Riots) and it's hard not to view this entire brouhaha as "ideologically motivated" as one deleted post said (apologies to the poster who apparently was not trying to start a fight).
My subjective opinion is that @Rov_Scam made a somewhat dismissive comment about the controversy, and people with surprisingly big feelings about it (and grudges) took offense and then went on the offense, with namecalling and belligerence. I disagree with you that Rov was being way more of a dick. But that is my opinion.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
The mods had a little discussion about this. Your post isn't against the rules on content - "I don't want more Indians here" is an allowable opinion - but it is veering close to consensus building. (You cannot speak for how most people on the Motte feel, let alone presume to speak for the entire country.) And we have noticed that your two posts so far seem to be harping on your dislike of Indians. I'm pretty certain this is an alt you are using to grind this particular axe.
Contribute something other than how much you don't like Indians if you want to keep posting with this account.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I feel like one of us must be WILDLY failing the ideological Turing test, for you to call this a 'zombie idiot' view.
It's you. I know lots of progressives. Exactly zero of them believe that literally no minorities would ever commit crimes if not for oppression, or that crime doesn't exist.
I'm not going to debate progressive criminal theory because I don't subscribe to it, but I'm pretty sure even AOC would not say there would be zero crime if the economy were better. If you cannot steelman their perspective in a way they themselves would agree is what they believe (not "this is what your beliefs lead to" but "this is what you literally believe") then you are weak manning, and the OP was being obnoxious about it and has a long history of being obnoxious.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11mo ago
If there is a fair criticism in there somewhere along the lines of "Who are you to be criticizing David Gerard when you do the same thing?" I haven't really seen it. All I am seeing it "Oh, nice story, by the way, fuck you for that time you pranked Libs of TikTok." I mean, speaking of who?whom?, you'd gushing all over this story except that you apparently hate Trace more than you hate David Gerard.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11d 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
4mo ago
Enough of this.
The fact that someone is a lefty feminist does not make them a troll.
If you have a specific, articulable reason to believe that @justawoman is a troll (meaning not "someone with opinions I don't like" but an actual sockpuppet, or someone roleplaying a lefty feminist for the lols), then tell us what it is when you report her.
Otherwise, you will stop calling people trolls just because you don't like their presence here and you will stop slinging shit at us because we won't ban the people whose presence you don't like here.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
Well, contrary to @Templexious's hastily deleted comment that "It's only ideological," I couldn't care less about DST and I have no reasons to feel anything about you or @Rov_Scam. What I care about is the tone of discourse. "Your argument is weak" is fine, flipping out and trying to start a fight is not. (@Rov_Scam also seems to be calling both arguments moronic, so who exactly are you defending?)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
"Directionally correct" is fine. "Expressed in an unfavorable" (meaning uncharitable and inflammatory and weakmanned) way is not. Just saying "Progressives believe all crime is caused by poverty and oppression" would be okay. (Though most progressives don't literally believe there would be zero criminals without poverty and oppression.) But the OP said a lot more than that.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
You're wrong. I don't generally hate everyone on the R side. Don't know what else to tell you, since you clearly prefer to construct an imaginary opponent who believes what you say they believe and not what they say they believe.
If it were DeSantis vs. Harris, my post would not be "both sides suck because they aren't serious." I'd be unhappy about the unserious, woke, midwit Harris vs. a right wing candidate who will enact other policies I don't like.
I don't hate Desantis. Really, I don't hate Trump, at least not in a personal way. I hate very few people. Even the people who make it clear how much they'd like to poke me in the eye with a sharp stick.
Conflict theory has its uses and I understand why people find it comforting and affirming, but it often fails as an accurate model of your opponents.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
Do you even read before you start banging your keyboard? No. I have voted for Republicans in the past (not often, but occasionally) and I just said I could be persuaded to vote for DeSantis. (In a DeSantis vs. Newsom match, for example, or DeSantis vs. Harris, I might hold my nose and vote for DeSantis.) I wrote a lengthy post about how I am not "voting blue no matter who."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I have a memory that goes back more than one election cycle.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
Sure, I hate them too. All of them. I blame your Republicans more for where we are now, but I've got plenty of hate to go around.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I'd say that if you think that "throwing all their money into a bonfire and basking at the flames as it all burns" is not only a reasonable standard, but apparently the bare minimum, for the claim "they are not primarily motivated by profit", I think you are the one being hyperbolic and irrational, which makes your claims of projection extra-ironic.
Obviously I do not think anyone literally burns money (I dunno, is making cigars out of $100 bills still a thing)? I do think your claim amounts to people willing to knowingly and intentionally waste millions of dollars in their industry making a shit product just to piss off people they don't like. Your evidence that this is a common practice - standard procedure in Hollywood even - is some actors and writers saying snarky things when told their product is shit.
Is there any field where you hold yourself to this standard? To me it looks like the same type of argument as "trans women aren't winning at every competition, so it's not a problem they're competing with women" that Darwin used on you once.
I can't help you when you make wild and ridiculous leaps of logic like this. Can you show me one unambiguous example of what you are claiming? That is, a major production that was made (by the admission of someone big enough to be credibly responsible) for the purposes of saying fuck you to the fans and without any consideration for being monetarily successful?
This claim is trotted out regularly as if it's evidence in itself, but it has literally no backing.
I cannot prove what is in the hearts of Hollywood producers. Neither can you. So we can both only guess, and my claim is based on what motivates most normal human beings (especially amoral and greedy ones); your claim is based on assuming that they are alien-like caricatures.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
Cool, so tell me how would the world look different if you were wrong about this?
If I were wrong about this, we'd see nothing but woke replacements and writers and directors being overt about their intentions, no retrenchments or cancellations by studios when a property fails to earn, and massively budgeted productions like "Captain America: Gay As You Want To Be." I am saying you are not wrong that wokeness is a pervasive influence in Hollywood; I am saying you are hyperbolic and irrational about the degree to which every single person top-down prioritizes petty vengeance against their ideological enemies over profits or even production quality. I suspect this is projection, because it's what a lot of the people being so shrill about this would do if they were in charge: fuck money, let's rub the hottest culture war we can in our enemies' faces. It's not a rational way to view the world, but it's emotionally satisfying.
When you get to the level of big Hollywood moneymaking, you care more about money than whether you pissed off some incels on Twitter.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
10d 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
10d 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
4mo ago
Link what, exactly? @FCfromSSC's now-infamous "I don't want to live with you people" post, or Trace's post announcing he was creating the Schism, or rightists being petty, or what?
If you really want me to do that, and can explain why, I will consider digging for them, but frankly I don't believe you actually doubt any of these things happened. You remember them as well as I do. Your peremptory "Link it" demand appears be an attempt at a "gotcha" because I have called you out in the past for making things up. So before you convince me to jump through your hoops and look for years-old posts, please be specific and tell me exactly what it is that you think I am being untruthful about, and what exactly you think I am misrepresenting.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
Have you lived recent American history?
Indeed I have, and I'm older than you.
The administrative state is not, formally, a branch outside the Executive.
No, but we have laws (which the other two formal branches have a say in) which the Executive can't just override. Just as every military officer, in theory, serves at the pleasure of the President, his ability to unilaterally dismiss officers has been constrained by law (since around 1950, IIRC). The civil service works for the President, but he can't just order them to ignore laws imposed on them by Congress and Supreme Court rulings, or fire people because they aren't personally loyal to him.
I am not against the president "reigning in" a bureaucratic state out of control and probably agree with you about some of the ways federal agencies have inappropriately balked his intentions in the past (so I understand, if not agree, with why he's acting the way he is now). But either we actually have laws and a Constitution, or else stop talking about laws and civil society and admit you just want to be the boot.
Bruh. Starting a thread because you're offended that you see women going braless?
This isn't a warning, but really, put a little more effort into "kids on my lawn" posts.
More options
Context Copy link