@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

5 percent I believe. I don't think you'd find 80 percent in an Indian slum.

I just looked at your comment history, and it's mostly just sneering and insults. I'm surprised you were never reported or warned before, but since this account was created a week ago, seemingly for the sole purpose of shitting on people, I'm gonna assume you're just another one of our alt-recycling trolls and bin this one.

I'm not disputing that Christianity greatly improved the lot of women (and the poor, and many other marginalized groups). I'm disputing that improvements in women's rights are uniquely Christian and that only Christian societies ever treated them as more than property.

Isn't it a stereotype that the hotter a woman is, the less effort she feels that she needs to put into sex?

Uh, I understood the stereotype is that the hotter she is, the less effort she needs to put into obtaining sex. Which is pretty obviously true. The stereotype that hot women neither enjoy nor actively participate in sex is a new one to me, unless you're just referring to the stereotype that women in general don't really enjoy sex and only perform it to the minimum degree necessary to secure a mate. Which, may be true for a lot of women, but (ahem) I have it on good authority, not all of them.

I cannot say I am a connoisseur of prostitutes but my understanding also is that men generally prefer hookers to at least pretend to be into it and are not going to enjoy the experience much if she just lies there with an "Are you done yet?" expression on her face.

The difference between sex with a lazy "starfish" woman and sex with an unconscious woman seems negligible.

Can't say I've done either, but damn, who are these guys finding? And obviously, the difference would still be pretty significant in terms of at least implied consent (which, evidently and depressingly, a lot of guys still seem to think is a quaint modern notion that we shouldn't care about that much).

How are "people who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property" and never push back against those who view men as instrumental goods/property while smearing any who do as "women-hater" not deserving of the title "Women Are Wonderful" simps?

I suppose such people exist, but I see people being accused of that with much greater frequency than the actual occurrence.

There are precious few (though admittedly not zero) women-haters here who "argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property".

If I had a nickel...

It wouldn't be a lot of nickels, but it would be more than one.

That the non-women-haters seem to only be concerned about the former and sometimes the latter--when women are being viewed instrumentally by society--demonstrates they don't view men as humans deserving rights and view women as inherently superior to men.

The concise response to this is "balderdash."

The less concise response is basically the same with more words: people (like me) who push back against those who view women as instrumental goods/property are not the "Women Are Wonderful" simps the latter like to characterize the former as, but merely arguing that we are all human beings and part of rising above our monkey natures (which should be our goal as a species with starfaring ambitions) requires not viewing every relationship as transactional and every other human being as an instrumental good. This includes treating women as Sex, and whatever bad thing you think women treat men as.

Really, the notion that rape is wrong is fairly peculiar historically.

I would argue that women have always thought it's wrong, so it seems more like the notion that women's feelings should be considered is peculiar historically. And I don't think it's that peculiar, or that Christians have been particularly better about not raping and treating lower class women as public goods. It is definitely not a uniquely Christian innovation that women have some say in who they marry; Christians are not the first people ever who recognized female agency and gave women rights.

Your reference to Jewish legal codes and Islam makes me think we're going to go down the same road we've gone before, where the worst and most uncharitable readings of what other religious books say should be taken literally, without context, and as exactly what all those people really believe and those with a more humanitarian reading aren't really following their religion, whereas Christianity (and the Old Testament in particular) should be not subjected to similar treatment.

I weary of the women-haters (I don't mean you, though you seem to be giving them too much credit) who argue that the natural (and implied: correct) state of man is to treat women as property and before our modern age, no man in any civilization ever gave a shit how females felt about their treatment.

I'm skeptical that Christianity (or Western civilization) is the sole difference, though I know this is a popular theory (with Christians). Yes, large parts of the third world are rapacious hellholes, but there are ancient and contemporary non-Christian societies that do not seem to have been such.

I think it's simpler to just say that some large fraction of men would jump at the opportunity to have sex with an unconscious woman if there were no consequences. This is the nature of men. We have known this since the beginning of time. Most adults understand this already. The vast majority of men know this, because some part of them has the same urge, or if not, they are familiar with the corrupting force of male sexuality in general, and this particular manifestation is hardly a surprise. Women largely know this force, too, because they have been told of it, or because they have been targeted by it, though they sometimes pretend not to know.

Have we really known this? What large fraction?

It would be uncharitable to say you are typical-minding here, and I am not trying to establish myself as some kind of saint by saying "What the fuck?" but really... what the fuck? To me, having sex with an unconscious woman would have pretty much zero appeal no matter how hot she is, and I have a hard time believing I'm some weird undersexed outlier. It's not even just about it being rape (which it obviously is), but it would also be like fucking a RealDoll, which I know some men do also but I have always thought has to be the absolute last refuge of the desperate and pathetic.

Obviously there are men who get off on it (I know there are men who will stick their dicks in anything warm), but I'm unconvinced, even if this guy found 72 of them, that they aren't akin to rapists and pedophiles... sure, we all know these urges exist in the male population, and they aren't super-rare, but neither are they... normal.

It's harder for me to say why women aren't eager to bring this up as ammunition in the gender wars. Doesn't this vindicate the radical feminists?

It only vindicates them if you agree with them that this is in fact the natural state of men and we'd all do it if given the chance and that every husband secretly hates his wife. That's certainly a view unironically held in parallel, horseshoe-like, by a certain strain of radical feminists and ultra-misogynists, but the problem is that they are largely wrong about men being amoral rapacious monsters barely(unfairly) held in check by society.

And perhaps it's simply that there is nothing to fight about. There is no toxoplasma, no scissor statement

Well, yeah. I doubt even our he-man woman-haters will be able to muster much of a "This wasn't actually bad" argument. How do you defend it? She was unconscious so she didn't really suffer? She's female and therefore should be available for any use to which her husband sees fit? You have to go pretty far out there to defend the indefensible. Some things don't engender disagreement even between liberals and conservatives.

And the other half is wanting a weak, pliable and easily manipulated barely-not-a-child. Which is why I think men who do it are disreputable if not contemptible, and I feel not a lot of sympathy for the poor guy who thinks it's unjust that it's illegal to fuck a 15-year-old.

Plus, while our alt-friend claims to have married the one teenager he ever fucked, most dudes carrying this flag are not looking to do that. They just want to bang teenagers.

Fuck you, friend

You know this is not acceptable. No matter how provoked, we are never going to let that slide.

and I say that with all compassion and love

Nice try.

1 day ban because you really have been minding yourself since coming back, but you need to know that your previous record does not get erased just because you started a new account. Do not make us start escalating again because you can't control your temper when someone pushes your very well known and obvious buttons.

This looks very much like an inflammatory claim posted for maximum heat and zero information.

You may have some strong feelings about government monopoly on force, but if the Australian government is sending men to tie up citizens and rape their wives, kids and pets to death and then drag them off to blacksites to perform medical experiments on them for the rest of their days, or if that is the intention behind gun control laws, then you need to provide some evidence.

You now have a very mixed record of AAQCs and low-effort trolling, with the trolling being more recent. It is not amusing.

I'm gonna head you off right now- you're starting to get pissy because people aren't being nice to you. If they were actually insulting you, I'd warn them too, but they are mostly just telling you that your self-assessment doesn't carry much weight. This thread is becoming unproductive, but you're driving it with your ego, and you need to stop. You started a thread asking a question, people are giving you answers. If you don't like the answers, you can disregard them, but don't get into a slinging match.

You chose a very bad example and a very bad tactic. You're wrong that my post was out of bounds or that I would mod someone else for it, and you're wrong about moderation in general. This doesn't make you unique and I don't expect you to be satisfied with my response. I responded to an inaccurate statement with as much of an expectation as I usually do that it will be received gracefully.

Look man, you're following a trajectory similar to most anti-right posters who take on the Motte contrarian role: you are fighting uphill and getting downvoted constantly so you become increasingly snide and condescending until we have to ban you because your entire identity is wrapped around baiting and taunting. I warn and ban righties who can't stop being smarmy condescending assholes, and I will do the same to you, and it is never about your politics. So please knock it off.

Your question is disingenuously framed and not to be taken seriously.

Okay, so how about if someone posts videos of "look at group X doing all this loud, aggressive, crazy stuff!"

You retort "This is nutpicking, this is boo outgroup, why didn't you post videos of group Y and group Z as well if you're not trying to pick out that subset group X?"

No, I retort "Is this a representative sample or did you go looking for videos of group X because you wanted to make a point about group X?"

Why are Karens screaming at ICE more representative than all the Karens getting screamed at by younger women for voting for Trump?

But what if they can't find videos of group Y and group Z doing the same things, because groups Y and Z don't do that thing?

That might be evidence that group Y and group Z are also not doing those things much. In the case of the crazy woke agitators, though, I'd be astonished if you couldn't find more than enough Millenials and Gen-Zers to fill your feed.

That selective edit is interesting. Here is the full context:

You know man, you get reported a lot and even the other mods have a hard time with you because a lot of people think you are and always have been a bad faith borderline troll who just says things to get under people's skin, without regard to truth or accuracy. And I have always leaned towards leniency, maybe because I'm a quokka and too willing to assume people actually believe the things they are saying and are sincere in their argumentation, even if they're really annoying. But I have frequently argued against banning you because it's too easy to find things you say that are moddable when most of the forum is trying to get you banned.

When you pull a stunt like that, literally chopping a piece out of a sentence to imply I said something quite different than what I did, it's hardly worth addressing the rest, but yes, I stand by everything I said in that post, and I have applied the same judgment to others. When you are arguing with someone, you are allowed to criticize, even harshly, the things they actually say.

Very bad form, and the way you slipped it in with the other quotes makes it clear that was calculated and intentional.

I'm about the same age as you. I'm going to say that growing up in a country that had the Magdalene Laundries, you probably have seen a much more massive change than I have. That said, how many GenX women in Ireland are going viral like this?

I certainly see many of my generation going woke (especially women) but I see much greater numbers of Millenials, who are the ones I mostly see going diehard woke (along with Gen-Zers, but I'm still not really sure what to make of them yet). Clinton's and Harris's margins over Trump were very slim with GenX women compared to younger generations.

I am not arguing that wokeism "isn't a thing" or that we aren't seeing more radical polarization. Why do you think I have been so gloomy lately about that very thing? I was being very specific about the sort of nutpicking in the OP, who seems to be trying to make a very broad generalization about, specifically, older women. Do I think people protesting Trump or ICE are "a few kids on college campuses"? No. Do I think a few viral Karens, including Renee Goode et al, are? Statistically, yes.

I think we should be skeptical of "pattern-matching" a handful of tragi-comic figures who happen to look like your most mockable archetypal nemeses to some general demographic trend.

Between this post and this one, I think it's obvious you are trolling and you've been given enough charity.

One week ban. Future bans will escalate sharply.

ETA Permabanned after threatening to troll harder if he was banned.

Okay, so you think that indeed, GenX liberal women are going crazy en mass and I am doing "It's a few kids on college campuses" when I question whether a few viral videos is evidence of this?

but that's not really enforced here

Yes it is. We just don't always agree with you what constitutes an attack. Many people are maximally sensitive to anything said to them, and want maximum charity when interpreting anything said by them.

Your link doesn't work. I'm unfiltering this, but I'll be honest, "Read this attached document before responding" is rather demanding for someone who just created a new account to post a manifesto.

Do you think it can also be the case that people show videos of the kind of people they hate to argue that the kind of people they hate are all like this?

It's rape, but I have to have evidence it happened other than victim testimony. If the accused denies the victim's testimony, and there's no other evidence of rape, then they cancel out and I wouldn't convict.

That's the law, in the US.

You thought I liked little kids

I did not think or say that.

but really I'm just anti-feminist.

Obviously, but a very particular type of anti-feminist.