Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
7mo ago
Yes? Adding it as a comment to more of a roundup thread is less risky than a top-level thread, I received a 7-day ban for my last one.
No, it's not. Do you think you're invisible if you don't post a top-level thread?
I'm not going to ban you for this comment, but it's borderline and adds to our stack of evidence that all you ever post about is Jews, and that even when you pretend you're posting about something else, it will always turn out to be about Jews, and when you respond to someone else in another thread, you will make it about Jews. So yes, if you continue to do this, you will eat another ban.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
Come on, dude. It's a slur everywhere. Nobody uses it except to be insulting. (No, don't point to the handful of trans people who use it to refer to themselves. You also can't call black people "niggers" here just because some black people use it amongst themselves.)
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
No, I literally cannot imagine a scenario where a pregnant woman successfully forces a teenaged male off a bike he doesn't want to be removed from
That's not the scenario I am imagining.
The scenario I am imagining is she says "Get off that bike!" and swipes her card, and the kid, not wanting to get into a shoving match with a pregnant lady or have her scream that he's sitting on a bike that she just paid for, gets off and loudly protests, as she pulls the bike out and the other kids start filming. They're all shouting at her, she freaks out, and we get the story we have now.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
9mo ago
This is a crappy post that reminds me of this guy. While I banned @Astranagant for personal antagonism (and to be clear, this was a continuation of a pattern, not just for insulting you), you don't seem to have much to say here beyond cackling triumphantly at "effete liberal Europoors."
We are frequently accused of not modding people for posting low-effort culture war sneering if they use enough words. Well, you used a lot of words, but this is just low-effort culture war sneering.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
An mtf tranny
Don't do this. Directly using slurs (as in "use," not "mention") is a direct violation of several of our rules.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
I think your entire premise is wrong. People don't generally assume that someone who is unsuccessful with romantic relationships is lacking in moral virtue. That might be the case, but there are many other explanations: he's terrible at dating, he has unrealistic standards, he just doesn't put himself out there enough, he has some baggage that becomes evident once a woman shows interest (not necessarily the same as "lacking in moral virtue"), or he has so convinced himself that he's undateable (because he's short) that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, there are men (and women) who try and try and fail and never find love. That's very sad. But it's never because of any one thing (like height).
When he is in fact a short but fit engineer, or a corporate lawyer, or a programmer for Google, he's then roundly criticized for being misogynistic or lacking in moral virtue.
Look dude, ima be honest. You've been banging this "Short men can't land anyone but a morbidly obese hag" drum for a while now, to the point that you've actually been warned about giving it a rest. It's tiresome, and when you refuse every bit of advice that's been given to you, starting a top-level thread to pose it as a "general question" about why short men who can't get dates are treated so unfairly, it's no less tiresome.
This post is... okay, I guess. If it were anyone else posting it, it would be fine. But seeing your name, I immediately knew what the post would be about before reading it. So seriously, give it a rest. Yes, consider this an invocation of the single-issue posting rule.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
The idea that any reasonable person is even entertaining the idea that these children had the right to effectively assault this woman
I don't see that at all, either an "effective" assault or anyone defending assault. But it's possible she will come forward and say this version of events is a lie, in which case we're back to she-said/they-said.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
/lukeskywalker quote
Somehow I doubt that,
Well, I can't do anything about you insisting I'm lying about what I believe.
given their story, as they tell it, has some pretty conspicuous and fantastical gaps
I'm open to being persuaded on this, but I don't see conspicuous and fantastical gaps.
you're willing to overlook
Implies I am just willfully cherrypicking which facts I believe. Again, I cannot persuade you of my ingenuousness, but there really isn't much point in engaging if your go-to move in any disagreement is "You're lying, you don't actually believe that."
and/or create your own implausible account
Okay, you find my account implausible. I don't.
which is definitely not the story they are telling.
Clarify this for me. You seem to be claiming that they are claiming that she physically lifted/moved/forced a kid off his bike and manhandled it out of his possession with brute force.
In the above link (which is their version of events), the only statement I find resembling this is:
She then pushed her way onto the bike and attempted to remove it from the docking station and take it.
I suppose you could read that as "She physically forced a resisting teenager off the bike" (which I agree would be very implausible). Which do you think is more likely: that that is indeed what they meant, that she used her Pregnant Lady Strength to bully them, or that they meant she was pushing the kid on the bike and he got off rather than escalating? Note that this does not make that version of events true, but it does not seem implausible to me.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3mo ago
I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. I'd even go so far as to agree with you if you speculated that she probably feels more loyalty to Somalia than the US and does not, in her heart of hearts, really feel an allegiance to the Constitution. But that would be speculation; neither of us really knows.
That said, this is appears to be an attempt by her enemies to willfully read the worst possible interpretation/translation into her words. Even if "Somalian first, Muslim second" really is an accurate translation of her words, that isn't the "gotcha" admission that she doesn't consider herself American or loyal to America that it's being represented as. I am sure I've heard similar statements of ethnic solidarity from other politicians.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4mo ago
Man, the OP has generated some of the worst discussion here in recent memory.
I'm just going to tag this response as one of the worst offenders because you're the most blatant about it without actually being willing to speak plainly.
If you want to say "All our problems are because black people are stupid criminals," you need to say that (and then be able to defend it, because just saying that is clearly a sweeping generalization, so get your arguments properly formed rather than just taking the opportunity to vent your hatred of black people).
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
11mo ago
True enough. But "A homeless black guy harassed me, this is why I wish we could go all Turner Diaries" is the direction I see.
Outrage at being bullied and essentially rendered helpless by a criminal psychopath in public is understandable, but all the stuff about "large, high-testosterone, social and biological inferiors" is just racial seething.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
But it's not necessary here, and it's never used in a non-derogatory sense. So don't use it here.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
Yes, I read the rest of your post.
You did not link any of the things you cited to "the trains." Moreover, you can argue that individual trans people and groups are doing what you claim. If you want to say "the trains" are doing it, you need a lot more evidence. Same as with any other group that people are fond of broadly accusing of all sorts of nefarious activities and ideologies.
Also, you still may not assert that it's "almost literally insane" to think otherwise. Whether you intended it as hyperbole or not, it is the kind of consensus building language we explicitly discourage.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
22d ago
Speak plainly and drop the sneering sarcasm.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
I'm not sure if you're being ironic, testing the boundaries of what we'll put up with here, or making a serious point. But taken at face value, literally calling for genocide is culture warring in its purest form, and if this is some sort of Swiftian proposal, you're not clever enough by half and you need to speak more plainly.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
I want to make sure I understand this, but first I’d ask you to stop using Reddit drama language like “the trains”.
... Are you trying to be funny? I quoted you (hence the quote marks), because I told you in my initial warning to stop doing that.
Are you disputing that these things are happening at all?
No, I am not. I spelled out the problems with your post clearly and explicitly. That you are pretending that we're disagreeing about "ground realities" like whether or not trans people exist, combined with whatever you are doing above, suggests to me that you are not engaging in good faith. You've been warned several times in the past for low-effort comments like this, and every time you have pushed back insisting that everything you said was right and reasonable. This is of course not an uncommon reaction, but your reaction in particular is really doing you no favors. You are not going to gain any traction by saying things and then claiming you didn't say them or that you actually said something different.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3mo ago
I think many Trump supporters really do see themselves as the underdogs being picked on by Chads and Stacies, and that is a common perception even here: many, many posts are devoted to how the "Elites" (whether that means liberals, Democrats, Jews, the media, all of the above, whoever) are the popular kids picking on the losers.
However, this is blatantly at odds with the original core appeal of Trump, which is that he was a champion of normal, well-adjusted, classic and confident America, here to take the country back from the freaks and faggots and pencil-necks who have essentially usurped control through subterfuge and used that power to resentfully force their unpopular obsessions on the mass of normal popular people.
Thank you for an example of an acceptable use of slurs, since recently a number of people have been claiming not to understand when they can and cannot use words like "faggot." If you were directly calling Democrats, or the "Elite," or whoever, "faggots," I would mod that as being inflammatory and boo outgroup. It would be little more than namecalling: "My enemies are faggots." Not because we don't allow people to use "faggot" or other slurs, but because we don't allow namecalling and unnecessary antagonism. However, using it to represent what other (hypothetical) people think isn't going to get a warning for using "no-no words."
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
5mo ago
What I would like is for you to stop jousting with old posts. I've already expressed to @FCfromSSC that I regret having taken the tone I did in that post you're still beefing about. If you're genuinely wondering (as opposed to just seeing if you can bait me) whether I still stand by something I said years ago, ask me directly (and be clear what it is you think I believe since your interpretation of what I believe is often inaccurate).
But I am not going to tell you to stop being petty and trying to dredge up old fights. That's your prerogative.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
2mo ago
This post has gotten a bunch of reports, and while Susan Wojcicicki is a public figure and we usually relax the rules about being unnecessarily antagonistic to public figures, it seems to me that if you want to dance on someone's grave (in this case, a dumb rich college kid who ODed) you should justify it with a better reason than "She's one of my tribal enemies so Ha! Ha! (insert Simpsons gif)." The OP was about fentanyl and drug policy in general: your response is just culture warring.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
3mo ago
You are answering only those parts of @raggedy_anthem's post which you want to address, and ignoring the actual salient points. Which is, ironically, the same thing you do every time someone engages with you on your Holocaust revisionism: answer the points you have ready pat answers for, and ignore the points that you can't actually refute.
You are not being threatened with moderation because this is your pet topic, or because we hate Holocaust deniers, or because we're coopted by Jews, or because you answered someone else who (indirectly) brought it up. That is not the problem, since you have indeed cut back on the manifesto-posting after the last time we told you to give it a rest.
The problem is that, precisely as @raggedy_anthem described, you are not engaging in good faith. What that means is, for example, multiple people have walked through your claims that there is "no written evidence of an intent to exterminate Jews" or "the numbers don't add up," etc. etc. And while I'm sure you will disagree about whether your claims were effectively refuted, you cannot claim that people haven't given you very solid (and cited) responses, which at least deserve to be acknowledged and answered in turn.
Instead, what you do is disappear after someone does this. And then return, a week or two weeks later, making exactly the same claims as if no one ever responded to them before.
Understandably, the last person to go point by point with you probably doesn't feel like doing it again, only to be ghosted and ignored again and then see you weeble-wobble your way back into the same talking points after short-term memory of the discussion has faded. Other people see you do this, and also feel like it's not worth the trouble: you will just stick to your talking points, disappear when effectively challenged, and then come back with the same talking points. Repeating the cycle over and over again until you are effectively in command of the field because only the occasional newcomer encountering you for the first time wants to bother. Occasionally someone will be frustrated at this tactic and call you a liar and then we have to mod them because calling you a liar (even when you are being transparently dishonest) is not allowed.
This is not how debate is supposed to work here. We don't have rules requiring you to keep responding when someone challenges you. You don't have to answer anyone. We don't have rules requiring you to admit when you've been refuted. We don't have rules forbidding you from making the same argument you've made in the past, or requiring you to acknowledge that someone else made a counterargument you never answered. In other words, what you're doing, while obviously a very bad faith debating tactic, is as one mod put it, "finding a bespoke way of arguing like an asshole in a way that's hard to mod without singling him out."
What we would like you to do is actually engage in good faith. I don't think you can or will do that, so that puts us in the position where we can either let you keep exploiting our charity, or decide we've had enough. If your response continues to be "Well, I'm going to post what I post and you can mod me or not," fair enough, so be it.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
8mo ago
but because I want that author to have a realistic idea of how relatively popular those views are in this space
In other words, you are trying to build consensus?
There's no rule about how you can/should vote (we wouldn't really have a way to enforce it anyway), but admitting that you do this certainly affects how I view your participation here.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
You said not to use Reddit drama phrases, then continued doing so, presumably to be antagonistic. I asked you to stop.
No, I quoted the phrases you used to explain why your post was unacceptable.
I believe this was straightforward to you and you are being intentionally difficult and disingenuous. The only reason I have continued to reply to you this long is because in my capacity as a mod, I try to make sure everyone understands why they are being modded. I think you understand perfectly well why you were modded, and you're attempting some kind of rhetorical jujutsu here that isn't going to work.
You are not required to reply to me at all. You are only required to post in accordance with the rules.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
This comment is low effort and contributes nothing, and you have a pattern of posting low effort sneers. Knock it off or you won't be posting.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10mo ago
We’re still waiting for one of your high-effort “Inferential Distance” posts to produce a single new insight or argument that hasn’t already been repeated by you in tons of smaller comments over the years. This was literally just a long-winded (and full of misspelled words and poor grammar) restatement of the exact same argument you’ve made 10,000 times.
Yeah dude, do you get tired of @SecureSignals constantly reiterating the same talking points over and over 10,000 times? Or do you eagerly wait for his next epistle on why you should hate the Jews?
This is not a mod warning, because you're allowed to criticize people and tell them you don't like their posts, but it's borderline, because if all you have to say is "I don't like you and I don't like your posts," maybe you should just skip them instead of writing a tirade. You get a pass because at least you picked at a few specific things to refute. But I also noted the "I’m not saying you’re as dumb as a mere beast, Hlynka" apophasis.
Update on the Black Teens Versus Pregnant Nurse story.
This twitter thread seems like a reasonable summary. I know it's not entirely unbiased, but absent additional contradictory evidence, the story seems to basically check out like this:
Kids had checked out the ebikes for a ride, and docked them before the 45-minute "free" period ended, planning to undock them to resume riding. (This is apparently a pretty common practice?)
They're sitting on the bikes chilling, when Comrie, the pregnant nurse, approaches and asks to have one of the bikes.
The teens say no, unmoved by her appeals for consideration for her pregnancy.
She scans (checks out) a bike one of the kids is sitting on, and tries to take it.
The kerfluffle we saw on video ensues. The kids apparently filmed it with a legitimate fear that she would turn it into "gang of teens harasses pregnant white lady."
So basically, no one looks like an entirely innocent victim here. The kids were just hanging out in preparation to check out the bikes again, but since they were docked, you don't really get to "call dibs" on a bike you are not currently renting. Technically Comrie was entitled to take an available bike; the kids shouldn't have been squatting on them. They were also kind of jerks for not showing a little compassion for an obviously pregnant woman (their version is that if they'd given up the bike, one of them would have had to find some other way to get back to the Bronx).
That said, deciding "Screw you, I'm taking your bike anyway, get off" wasn't great behavior on her part, even if legally justified. I cut her more slack because apparently she just got off a 12-hour shift, and she was pregnant.
However, even if the teens were perhaps being inconsiderate and less than gentlemanly, the narrative that's basically portrayed them as ganging up on her and trying to steal her bike appears to be inaccurate.
More options
Context Copy link