Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
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
6mo ago
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your posts on this topic.
"Some Jews happened to die during a war, and now anyone who might have somehow been involved with a Jew dying during the war is cause for cancelling elections. Holocaust grifters are pretending that Jews dying during a war is worse than anyone else dying during a war. Yeah, there were some resettlements and shootings, but that's just stuff that happens in war."
Well, gosh, yes, that would be pretty outrageous, wouldn't it?
Your responses are bad and disingenuous, and I have pointed out before that you don't engage in good faith or honestly, not because I disagree with your premises (which I do), but because you intentionally obfuscate and cloud the actual issue you are arguing.
Your core belief is that the Holocaust didn't happen, and if it did the Jews deserved it, and nothing exceptionally bad ever happens to Jews and if it does they deserve it. Of course if you presented it that bluntly, you'd turn off even a lot of the Jew-critical readers. So instead you post things like this, arguing as if people are (at the instigation of paranoid manipulative Jews) criticizing some guy who admires some other guy who might incidentally have been involved in a few Jews dying along with lots of other civilians during the war. But unless you can handwave away all Jew-slaughter as conveniently as you would like to, the charges against Antonescu are considerably more than "some shit happened during a war."
Now this is not an invitation to go through your entire Holocaust denial tap dance one more time to explain how being an anti-Semite is irrelevant and anyways anti-Semitism is good actually because Jews are bad. You single-issue posting about Da Joos is annoying; dropping the Joo-posts into every single thread that you can possible make about Jews is even more annoying. What grinds my gears personally is when you engage in this level of disingenuous, which offends me because I dislike sleazy argumentation. If you said "Antonescu wasn't responsible for any massacres because those didn't happen," I'd disagree but at least you'd be arguing honestly. Likewise if you said "Antonescu participated in the slaughter of Jews because they had it coming and he was doing a good thing." I am honestly not sure which of those two statements is closest to your actual belief, but "Antonescu dindu nuffin" is surely not something even you are niave enough to actually believe.
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
8mo ago
Everyone loves a nice hot dump on progressives. It's practically the easy-mode for scoring upvotes.
You still need to actually be making an argument or saying something factual and defensible. This post is just pure boo-lighting with a bunch of uncharitable straw men. Do you think any progressive would agree with your characterization of what they believe and what their real motives are? It's one thing to argue that "This is the end result of their policies," it's another to argue "Actually, progressives are all zombie idiots with a worldview that says crime doesn't exist and minorities only ever do bad things because they are oppressed."
If this was a one-off, I'd chide you for weakmanning and ask you to put more effort into your inveighing against progressives in the future. But this isn't a one-off. You have a long, bad history of this sort of post, and being told to stop it.
You actually have a couple of notes to the effect of "last warning, permaban next time." Somehow you skated in the past, and then you went and earned a couple of AAQCs.
You seem to be able to post interesting things when you aren't choking on bile about your outgroup. We would like you to focus on your strengths. By that I do not mean "entertaining rants about how your outgroup is pure stupid evil."
Banned for 2 weeks, and next time will be a permaban.
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
2mo ago
This is so low effort it's barely even a critique. Normally I'd leave it at that, but you've now been told about eight times to stop the low effort sneer-posting and that you were heading for a permaban. I dislike permabanning someone for a post that would normally be just a warning, even if it is like strike nine, but I think it's appropriate at this point for you to go away for a while. Thirty days, and don't come back unless you're going to stop doing this.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I can believe the writers thought the audience "didn't get the point" the first time and wanted to write a new movie with the "correct" message.
I think the more sinister conspiratorial nonsense - that the studios literally don't care about making a profit (!!) and deliberately did this as a "humiliation ritual" just to punish the audience, whom they hate - is ridiculous and a sign of how far down a rabbithole this sort of "THEY are out to get you" thinking can take you. Maybe there is a screenwriter somewhere chortling as xe/xir thinks "This will show those white incel losers!" but I am pretty sure there is no studio that will deliberately put out a money-loser because all the money-men are on board with a "punish incels" program.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11mo ago
Naked culture warring with inflammatory assertions backed by your feels.
You've been warned repeatedly about this, and you've made it clear that this what you're here for. Your last ban came with a note to permaban you next time, but that was ten months ago and you've earned an AAQC since then (in which you showed you are capable of dialing down the heat and engaging in good faith), which suggests you've made some effort to improve your behavior. So I'm just giving you another two-week ban which will hopefully serve as another course-correction.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
21d ago
"What I believe" is not "Just accepted conventional wisdom."
Who is "we"?
You can argue these points. You cannot just assert them in an effort to claim rhetorical territory.
You get plenty of slack for your Joo-posting, but the rules against consensus building and rallying for a cause still apply.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
Trans men are women who identify as male: the opposite of trans women.
The term you are looking for is "trans-identified male." Trans people consider "TIM" and "TIF" to be transphobic, so it probably serves the purpose you want, though it was coined by TERFs, so maybe it doesn't.
(From a moderator point of view, I would not mod TIM or TIF, but if you start calling people trannies or ranting at length about how you think they are all disgusting perverts, you're going to run afoul of the rules, because we do allow trans people to participate here and you're expected to be civil to them too, even if you really don't want to be.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
@The_Nybbler is not being accurate; the proximate cause of Trace creating the Schism was people literally suggesting they wanted to kill him and everyone on his side. It wasn't about "advocating for lethal self-defense." Trace undoubtedly disagrees with most rightists about exactly when lethal self defense is justified (such as in the Rittenhouse case), but he didn't leave the forum because of people advocating for lethal self-defense. He initially created the Schism (while still remaining on the Motte) because of accelerationist fedposting, and he left the Motte for good because of rightists still holding a grudge against him years later and being extremely petty about it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
Sometimes (often) someone really wants to post about how much they despise blacks/Arabs/Indians/Jews/women/gays whoever.
We have spent a lot of time trying to enforce the rules in a way that suits the community's desire for maximal freedom of expression without descending into unfiltered sneering, snarling, race-baiting, and lazy booing of whichever group someone happens to hate.
You can talk about how blacks commit statistically more crimes, per crime statistics, and you can talk about the prevalence of Indian scam rings, and you can even bring HBD into it to propose your theory of why this is genetic. You can argue that immigration is bad and you can say you want zero immigrants and 100% racially pure ethnostates. Those sorts of arguments are allowed and have been made.
"Arabs, blacks or are (sic) lazier and more violent" is not an argument. It's just a rank assertion about your outgroup.
"No immigration of such should be permitted."
Fine. Your opinion, you can say this.
"Indians lie and cheat more than whites. It's that simple."
This is just more lazy boo-outgrouping. Do Indians lie and cheat more than whites? Do they really? As a percentage of the total population of liars and cheaters? As a part of Indian culture? As a genetic predisposition? I mean, you could conceivably gesture in the direction of some kind of argument, but you don't even try, you just drop a bunch of "brown people bad" turds on the floor.
People with views very like yours, and probably even stronger than yours, are regular posters here and have figured out that we give plenty of latitude for culture warring about your least favorite ethnic groups and "race realism" HBD posting so long as you can be civil and minimally inflammatory about it, and by that we mean not presuming that you're in a white nationalist clubhouse and if any Arabs, blacks, or Indians happened to be sitting next to you you could just pop off about what a bunch of lazy criminal liars they all are.
All of that throat-clearing is because I know people will whine that we're silencing "badthink" or trying to enforce some kind of consensus on not hurting feelings, despite the plentiful, years-long evidence to the contrary. In the vain hopes that explaining why we act on posts such as this will prove educational and illustrative to other posters who want to assert similar sentiments but in a less shitty way.
Factoring into this also is that your record, in particular, is one of the worst on the Motte. I count eight warnings and three tempbans, all for this sort of casual slinging of lazy insults at whichever group gripes your goiters at the moment.
You're just a shitty, low-effort poster who contributes nothing of value. I can't honestly remember you ever posting anything interesting, insightful, or getting even a single AAQC nomination, or really, anything that wasn't... stuff like this, although usually not as bad, hence your longevity here despite being a constant low-level stink and not much more.
Because your last ban was for a week and you were told then we would start escalating, I am banning you for a month, and not permabanning you, despite my near-certainty that that's in the future.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
10mo ago
This is a distilled snarl at everyone you hate, conveying no argument or information or anything to engage with. It's just a free-form stream of invective and buzzwords cribbed from your favorite alt-right shitposters, and it's pure culture warring.
It's been a while since your last ban, but when you get wound up, you really get wound up. Banned for three days.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
11mo ago
Go to Google.com and type "attempted assassination of Donald" or "of Trum" and look at the predictions.
Also, I did this just to indulge you (I assume "Trum" was a typo, or is that supposed to be some new meme I am not familiar with?), and the top results were the latest AP, CNN, ABC, and Fox News stories, followed by links from the FBI and Wikipedia. What new Dem Orwellian nefariousness am I supposed to be seeing, exactly?
11 reports so far. 2 of them "Quality Contributions" from the usual "AAQC anything that drops a hot steaming turd on the floor" reporters. (To be fair, a couple of negative reports from people who negatively report everything they don't like, as well.)
So just to peel back the curtain a bit, there was a lot of mod discussion about your earlier post, and several of us (including me) thought it really didn't warrant a ban. We didn't roll it back (as we did last time) because it was just one day. However, I predicted you'd come back super angry and spoiling for a fight, and here we are.
I think you're actually hoping you eat another ban, because you really like to feel persecuted. But despite your repeated claims that the mod team (and me specifically) are out to get you, this is not true.
The points you make here are valid, including that it's okay to say "I believe there are no viable political solutions or legal solutions left." You can even talk about the potential/likelihood/sad inevitability of political violence. We're not going to ease up on modding anything that even smells like fedposting, but yes, I think you got an unnecessary timeout (even if you did, as is your wont, come back shrieking like the child who screams bloody murder because he got a tap). And for that reason, I'm going to let this:
(Drooling Retard Edition with words, words, words fo the slow kids in the back who have hammers they can't be trusted with)
go.
This time.
But to be clear, this is unacceptable and if I didn't think you'd already kind of gotten a ban you didn't deserve, I'd ban you for this. You do not get to call us drooling retards no matter how indignant you are.
Anyway, since you've blocked me, you won't read this, which doesn't mean it won't apply in the future. So be it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3mo ago
Be less antagonistic, and get a sense of humor.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
The post in which he announced The Schism points to a Rittenhouse thread (NOT a boogaloo thread, though he has on other occasions referenced those)
Really. Let's take a look.
- Why are you building this?
While /r/TheMotte is and will always be intended as a neutral meeting ground for divergent perspectives, it's developed a strong consensus on a wide range of issues. I—like, I suspect, many of you—identify strongly with this comment on political affiliation from /u/cincilator. /u/RulerFrank expanded on a similar point the other day. I'm not here to raise the tired debate of whether or how right-wing /r/themotte is. Instead, I'll simply say that a large chunk of the prevailing culture here is overtly hostile towards my strongly-felt values, as illustrated most eloquently by this comment.
"This comment" being (sorry FC):
I wrote a long reply to this, and given my heart rate and breathing by the end of it, it's probably for the best that I accidentally deleted it before I could post. I was literally seething.
I think I understand where you're coming from pretty well, but I likewise find your views profoundly repugnant, to a degree that charity becomes difficult. Specifically, the appeal to statistics is a complete non-starter for me. The attacker is the one choosing to roll the dice, and the defender is the one being forced to live with the consequences. Even if the chances of death are fairly low, the person who gets a bad roll is still absolutely fucked, and even the people who get a good roll are still significantly worse off than they should be... and for what? So that people who deliberately chose to force the roll can rest assured that they will never have to deal with the consequences? And don't appeal to the police and the legal process. I've been watching the police stand down for these rioters for half a decade. I've been watching the few who do get arrested plea-bargain for probation, or be simply released with no charges. I've been watching their victims suck it up with no recourse, or attempt to defend themselves and then get hit with the full force of the criminal justice system.
You appear to want a system where the overall danger is as low as possible. I want a system where the danger is apportioned to the people who volunteer to experience it. I have axiomatic faith that my system will result in lower overall danger as well, given the incentives, and seeing people arguing for the welfare of violent criminals over that of their victims- and I see no other way to interpret your argument- prompts instant volcanic rage. Especially since this violence is so culturally and politically partisan in nature.
...I'm not sure where to go with the conversation at this point. I do not think I share a common understanding of peace and justice with you. I don't want to live in the same country as people like you. I don't want people like you to rule people like me anywhere, ever. Preventing such an outcome seems like a moral imperative.
...And this is the result given that I know in my bones that you are a deeply, uncommonly decent and good person, at least in the abstract. This is mistake theory breaking down in the best possible scenario.
I'll leave it there. Stay safe and be well.
That was in response to a Rittenhouse thread, but it was the "I don't want to live in the same country as people like you" post.
TW, referring to that post immediately after linking to it, said:
More alarming for me is the feeling that there's a sharp uptick in what I'd describe as radicalization here: people proposing, and cheering, violent conflict against their enemies in a number of ways, including groups that viewed widely include my loved ones. It's hard to look at people the same way after that sort of line has been crossed, you know?
I'd rather not get into another back-and-forth like I had with Steve and Arjin below, in which we're both dissecting what other people actually meant when they posted something four years ago, but it is plainly obvious to me that TW created the Schism because in his own words, he felt that too many people (including FC) were expressing a desire for violent conflict, including against his ingroup.
This is not me saying Trace was right, or that FC meant to do violence to him, or that I agree with him about Rittenhouse, or any of the other things I have already rebutted. It is me saying you are wrong that Trace's problem was "people advocating for lethal self-defense." That's an extremely disingenuous way to frame a post about a specific case, and how he responded to others' reaction to it, as Trace creating the Schism and leaving the Motte because he had an ideological opposition to any use of lethal force in self-defense.
Also: your "gay furry" crack is in fact a cheap shot. Yes, everyone knows he is a gay furry. He says he's a gay furry. He's not ashamed of it. But calling him a gay furry every time you to refer to why you don't respect him is not just a "by the way, he's a gay furry." Come on. If you want to keep highlighting how contemptible he is because you consider him a sexual deviant, do that, but don't keep calling him a gay furry and then deny why you're doing it. Why don't you ever refer to him as an "ex-Mormon" or "military veteran," which he also is? Not the same valence.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
That's just TDS with extra steps.
How much can I dislike Trump without it being TDS?
I don't care or expect you to agree with my criticisms of him, but if anyone who thinks he's a con, a huckster, and yes, corrupt enough to become dictator if handed the opportunity has irrational TDS, fine- I can only ask if you have BDS or ODS or CLDS?
I can't convince you to believe the things I believe, I guess, but I think it's your attitude that's wrong with America today, not Trump's.
I've actually believed in America my entire life. Not without cynicism and skepticism, and I'm not going to give you my credentials to prove myself to an Internet rando (and get doxxed), but I've taken an oath more than once and meant it, and much of my disgust over the Discourse today is that I don't think you guys (and by that I mean partisans on the right and left) do.
Win or lose Trump is doing glorious things and awakening a spirit that wants to build America and make it great again.
Dude, I'm sure you really believe that and having read your posts over the last few months, there isn't much else I can say that would be charitable, but I will say that if Trump becomes president I will genuinely wish for him to prove you right and me wrong.
You will never do anything glorious.
Maybe not. And what is your glory? Chanting "MAGA" at doubters?
Uncharitable I'll give you (I said as much) but if you feel I booed Trump very slightly more than I booed Kamala, well, too bad. Sometimes both sides really do suck.
I am not ashamed of this comment, merely disgruntled that I am unable to achieve perfect indifference to outcomes. I would not mod it if it came from someone else. We are obligated to be even handed and civil, not pretend to be objective on all political matters.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
If you're going to say that there are (at least) two primary motivations, I don't think you should get to act like people claiming one of the has greater primacy than the other are being ridiculous.
I think money is the greater motivator, and when I say status, I mean the status that comes from producing a moneymaker and award winner. If you think the "status" they seek is the status of winning the approval of their woke friends who think it's great that they produced a massively expensive disaster just to raised a middle finger to their enemies, yes, I will act like the people claiming that are being ridiculous.
I'd expect far more people figuratively flying out office windows, if that was the case.
A lot of actors, directors, and producers have had their careers crippled with a massive failure. Comebacks happen, but so does being consigned to the wilderness of low budget direct-to-video releases.
Is it ok if I just read the ones explicitly advertised as "this movie wasn't made for chuds like you!" as it? (Not sure if Joker 2 would qualify, since I checked out from Hollyeood a while ago).
Yes, but an actor or writer throwing a fit on Twitter over criticism and saying things like that is not the same as explicitly advertising a movie as "Not for you."
A lot of people point at things like Amandla Stenberg saying "White people crying was the goal." Obviously a bad look and a shitty thing to say, and Amandla Stenberg probably would be happy to burn millions of dollars of (someone else's) money to make white people cry. But she's just an actress whose career will probably last five minutes after Star Wars, and she was being snarky on the Daily Show. She is not a studio spokeswoman and I am very confident that the producers of The Acolyte did not have "Make white people cry (and lose money)" as their goal.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
There is absolutely no way Hollywood looks the way it looks like right now, if their primary motivation is profit.
Their primary motivation is profit and status, and for the money people behind the scenes, it's profit. They care a lot less about culture war than you do.
Hollywood looks the way it does because Hollywood has always been full of both "creatives" and studio execs who are actually very bad at their jobs and make bombs regularly. (And, in fairness, sometimes they just genuinely mistime or miscalculate the appeal of a film.) It's a very Current Year thing for you to read every box office failure as an intentional devious scheme by the studios to set money on fire just because they hate you.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
21d ago
At this point it just signals your support for Israel. It is more dignified to just post the 🇮🇱 emoji.
Dude, you and your fellow Jew-posters turn everything into a story about Da Joos, ask anyone who questions you as to their Jewish affiliations, and are quick to post the most thinly-sourced claims about Jewish direction as proven fact while sneeringly dismissing anything contrary to that narrative no matter how well reasoned or documented.
Look in a mirror. You are the very reverse image of the pro-Israel partisan who deflects every criticism of Israel with bad faith accusations of anti-semitism. (An accusation that, frankly, seems less often bad faith than merely overly broad nowadays.)
Someone whose posts are full of thinly-veiled 1488 content is not in a position to snarkily comment on other people's lack of dignity and imply they are just 🇮🇱 wavers.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
The one that comes to mind is the one we have already discussed several times (and I hate feeling like I am repeatedly calling him out), but FCfromSSC's post about not wanting to share a country with him. You may consider Trace to have been inaccurate (or even disingenuous) in claiming FC was saying he wanted to kill him (there was extensive discussion about this later, and someone even directly asked FC if he really wanted to murder people in their homes, to which FC firmly said no), but that was the discourse at the time. (FC was the most notable, but there was a regular drumbeat of other rightist posters edging up to and occasionally crossing the line into fedposting - we still see it occasionally here.) This was certainly the sort of thing Trace said was the reason he created the Schism - that he no longer wanted to share a forum with accelerationists who implied they wanted him dead.
If I have to I will find the link, but I don't bookmark things and it seems like a demand I waste my time for your entertainment, as I told @SteveAgain, when I have a hard time believing anyone who's been around for a while doesn't remember it.
If you need a timeout until after election day, we can oblige.
Stop doing this.
More options
Context Copy link