Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5hr ago
Allow me to express my skepticism that these miserable "incels" whining that they are incapable of attracting a woman without compulsion are in fact the productive members of society suffering for the benefit of others.
You also, as per usual, make unfounded assumptions about what I find normal and proper and would actually agree to, given a choice.
Be that as it may, let's say we agree to cut every form of charity and allow non producers to starve. That still doesn't put every female under your boot, especially not the desirable ones. They'll still mostly have jobs. So you need to go well beyond cutting off benefits for non producers.
The black pillers and Dread Jim fanboys do not have some clear eyed view of sexual relations and how civilization is supposed to work. Dread Jim doesn't even get Islamic society right when he's ranting about it, and they are about the closest to implementing his ideals in the modern world.
Yes, I am in fact horrified to notice some people are unironically endorsing rape and enslavement. Libertarian cavils about welfare notwithstanding.
Actually, horrified is too strong a word. It suggests I still have the capacity to be morally offended and shocked. I've known for quite a while there are people this base. I'm just disappointed at all the masks coming off as we gyre.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Are those truly the only two alternatives you can conceive of? You are literally incapable of envisioning, or observing, relationships between men and women that are not slavery?
That is indeed horrifying.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
You aren't citing redpill theory, which argues that we all act according to evolutionary imperatives to reproduce, which supposedly explains almost all male/female behavior. As reductive as it is, it does not posit that we are a loveless, hateful species unable to be happy with one another.
You are blackpilling. That's the "Females are hypergamous whores incapable of forming genuine emotional attachments to men because they hos" theory.
I can think of nothing more horrifying.
Indeed. If I believed your philosophy, I would see little reason to pursue a relationship at all.
If I were a woman in your world, I would expect death to be preferable to being forced to partner with men.
Now of course an outlook being bleak and nihilistic beyond words doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. But my empirical observation suggests you're wrong.
Certainly, you don't make a compelling case for any woman, or any man who doesn't absolutely despise women, to adopt your worldview and solutions.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11hr ago
Without @HereAndGone's snarkiness: why do so many of you salivate at the thought of women being forced to sexually service someone they don't want in order to eat? Yes, this was the norm in earlier ages. Those ages sucked a lot for almost everyone, given that the average person lived a precarious existence at best.
To desire a return to the sort of civilization in which you can get a woman because her survival literally depends on you does not seem to me like a normal, healthy thing to desire in a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation or enslavement a realistic possibility.
Even if this worked, would you not always be living with that gnawing awareness that she's only with you out of necessity? That you're literally just the next best thing to starvation?
It seems to me to not only be a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but one utterly lacking in self respect.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14hr ago
Your first post was a low-effort sneer (@gattsuru was at least pointing at something substantive, a specific grievance, you are just sneering). Your second post above is doubling down on the non-specific callouts of non-specific "respectability centrists" whom you are apparently accusing of being morally contemptible hypocrites who don't actually care about standards and decency. As an enforcer of standards and norms here, I am telling you this is a terrible post because all it does is spray piss on the floor. Apparently the eight people who have reported you so far agree.
So you're angry that Jay Jones won. That's fine. Who, exactly, do you think you are directing this venom at? Because just saying, as @gattsuru did, that it's radicalizing that Democrats elected him despite his abhorrent statements is fair commentary. But you seem to be angry and wanting to start a fight with people here.
I'm not going to say "Who?" because we don't actually encourage named call-outs just to start fights, but on the other hand, it's hard to see who you did have in mind. A couple of people have already asked if you mean them. I dunno, maybe you mean me too. Maybe my previous post unambiguously denouncing Charlie Kirk's murder wasn't enough for you. As I predicted to @gattsuru way back when, those of us on the moderate/left side are apparently responsible for denouncing unhinged leftists wherever and whenever they occur or we're assumed to sympathize with them. "Silence is violence"?
Or maybe you just mean anyone who votes Democrat or anyone who believes in norms and decency in politics. Because it's very reasonable and rational to track every terrible thing someone vaguely aligned with your opponent says or does and demand a repudiation or else claim they are responsible too. Just like they do on X, a very rational and reasonable place of respectable politics and decency.
Speaking for myself only, I am not a Virginia voter. Jay Jones seems like a disgusting person to me, and I also think Mamdani winning in New York is bad but neither am I a New York voter. If someone ever asked me "Hey @Amadan what do you think of that shit Jay Jones said?" I would have said "Utterly terrible and if I were a Virginia voter I wouldn't vote for him." But no one did because why should they? If my reputation on the forum is not sufficient to make people believe that I do not in fact endorse or sympathize with people cheering for political violence despite my many, many posts to the contrary, I don't know what to tell you. (Well, I do, but nothing I can type as a mod.)
Of course my response here is not a personal defense. I'm charitably assuming you didn't mean me, though honestly I don't care who you meant. What I do care about is that you are angry-posting and looking for a fight with any targets who present themselves and just vaguely gesturing at a group of people you want to spit on. As much as I also dislike @gattsuru's tactic of linking to months- or years-old threads to start fights over them again, at least he points to a specific thing to take issue with. You just seem to be angry and hoping someone will step up to fight you.
Stop it. Stop this snide, sneering, passive-aggressive baiting.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I understood it had something to do with being a shill, but $7000 seemed to be referring to something specific. Clearly I was not the only one who thought I was missing some context. Asking you what you're talking about, or to just explain the meme, is not a hostile act.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
10% may be an overstatement, but I agree that even 1% is unacceptable. But my point was that "schizo mode" (like if you literally see references to mermaids) is pretty obvious. "Abraham Lincoln was married to Susan Elizabeth Fancher" is not an obvious hallucination if you don't actually know his wife's name.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
The main thing that is improving them is agentic AI - i.e., they can now actually do web searches and other external reference lookups, rather than just making up whatever isn't in their training data.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
This reminds me of Vox Day's Encyclopedia Galactica project, or the even more retarded Conservapedia.
Wikipedia and crowd-sourced intelligence in general has its obvious failure modes, yet Wikipedia remains an extremely valuable source for.... most things that aren't heavily politicized. Even the latter will usually have articles that are factually correct if also heavily factually curated.
The problem with AI-generated "slop" is not the "schizo" hallucinations that you see. It's the very reasonable and plausible hallucinations that you don't see. It's the "deceptive fluency" of an LLM that is usually right but, when it's wrong, will be confidently and convincingly wrong in a way that someone who doesn't know better can't obviously spot.
With Wikipedia, if I read an article on Abraham Lincoln, I am pretty confident the dates will be correct and the life and political events will be real and sourced. Sure, sometimes there are errors and there are occasional trolls and saboteurs (I once found an article on a species of water snake that said their chief diet was mermaids), and if you are a Confederate apologist you will probably be annoyed at the glazing, but you still won't find anything that would be contradicted by an actual biography.
Whereas with an AI-generated bio of Lincoln, I would expect that it's 90% real and accurate but randomly contaminated with mermaids.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
I'm fine with addressing both, but most people only want to address the thing that makes them angry in the moment.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
Indeed, let us then abnegate all prior agreements we no longer consider binding on us because we don't like the costs. This will be very reformative and beneficial.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
Indeed, people who say X doesn't matter would be making a poor argument.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
That's a fully generalizable statement. People can argue any benefit you receive is because of some form of upstream corruption. The point is not to whatabout the point about union corruption and whether or not any pension would meet your standards for legitimacy. The point is you can't just abdicate on legal obligations because you don't like how they were created.
Or rather, you can, but you will sometimes be the whom and not the who.
But I'm taking to the wind. We're now burning down anything and everything if it hurts people we don't like. This will end well.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
You shouldn't have joined a corrupt union. The payment is not somehow cleansed of its corruption by the fact that it goes to you and not the union.
You didn't answer my question about whether any union would meet your criteria for being non-corrupt. And do you expect everyone who joins the union to do an investigation of its corruption and come to the same conclusions as you? Should we just take it as given that you think no one with a union pension should be able to collect on that pension because they're guilty of complicity in "union corruption"?
Cut them off or reduce them very significantly.
Okay. I say that glibly: at one time I would have been willing to take a personal hit in the form of reduced or no Social Security for myself if it would "fix" SS. Now I am too jaded to believe that's being anything other than a chump. But sure, at some point transfer payments are definitely going to have to be cut/reduced, and I bitterly hope it's not until after I'm dead.
Or maybe we should look at transfer payments.
Or we could look at both and not just go for your low-hanging emotionally satisfying culture war targets.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
If that obligation was obtained corruptly, I think they are.
If I join a union that negotiated a pension for me, let's say I agree with you for the sake of argument that the union used "corrupt" tactics to get that pension. Does that make me a parasite because I shouldn't have joined a union, or I should refuse the pension? As as a follow-up question, is there any union or pension scheme that @The_Nybbler does not think is "corrupt"?
Transfer payments are huge. Trying to point to some bigger but much more nebulous problem looks like a distraction to prevent doing anything about transfer payments.
Did I say don't do anything about transfer payments? So what do you want to do about transfer payments?
Maybe we should also look at what the biggest problems are and consider how to allocate efforts accordingly.
"Bigger but more nebulous problems" are indeed harder to "do" something about than raging at welfare moms on TikTok. I don't fault people for taking the ragebait and going for the low-hanging fruit per se. You don't want to fix transfer payments because you have a rational economic plan to do so and you want to make things better for anyone else. You want to fix transfer payments so you can laugh as Laquisha is kicked onto the street. And I'm not even completely faulting you for that! I have not become as blackpilled as you, though my heart is increasingly bitter, but I have started to accept that schadenfreude is one of the few satisfactions left to us.
But don't lie to yourself about your motives. Tell me you want to fix some other stuff that doesn't warm your culture warring heart and maybe I'll believe there is some principle involved.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
Is a "distraction" a thing @The_Nybbler does not care about, as opposed to things @The_Nybbler does care about?
I can be angry at single welfare moms while also noticing how much money we sunk into Afghanistan and the billions we're sending to Argentina. Our transfer payments, as you point out, are mostly to old people, and if you want to cut them to the point they are no longer our greatest federal expenditure, you won't just be booting single moms off the rolls.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
Okay, fair, forgot about the guy who didn't have time to actually do anything.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
That you find their parasitism morally acceptable doesn't make it not-parasitism.
People collecting pensions they were promised as part of their work agreement is not parasitism. If you think workers should not receive pensions, you can advocate for ending pensions (and indeed, that is happening, and will probably happen even in the few places where pensions still exist, like government employment). You can complain about unions and their tactics, but the individuals who expect to collect on the benefits they were promised are not being parasites for expecting a legal obligation to be fulfilled.
As for old people demanding expensive medical care, we have discussed before the diminishing returns of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep Grandma alive for another month, and those are legitimate ethical debates, but an old person who wants health care and reasonably expects to receive it even if it is more expensive (because they are old) is not parasitism unless you're prepared to advocate for the ice floe health care plan.
But this includes the people in the videos you were complaining were just ragebait!
If you actually read my post, instead of just rushing to chew on my heel as usual, you'd have seen I admitted I also feel the rage and find these people infuriating. My point is not "A worse than B, therefore you should not be angry at B." My point is if you're concerned about the broad dysfunction of society and how to fix it, A is actually more impactful than B and you should consider that B might be an emotive distraction. By all means, let's squash the parasites as well, but let's be clear about motives.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
I'm not saying that Trump is committing the first serious norm violations in our country's history. He isn't. We have been steadily eroding those norms for a century.
A century?
People accused George Washington of abusing presidential power.
There has not been a president in history who was not at some point accused of exceeding his authority and violating the Constitution. Granted, some of these accusations were more bad faith and politically motivated than others, but still- I'm not even disagreeing with @FCfromSSC at this point that the Constitution is literal paper, but "norms" have always been a nebulous fuzzy thing manipulated by the politicians of every era. Just as the Supreme Court has always been in a sort of "dialog"/adversarial relationship with Congress and the Executive branch, making rulings as much to uphold their own legitimacy as to interpret the Constitution in some theoretically "objective" way.
There was never a period in American history when the political class was treating the Constitution as a rulebook that could not be deviated from to their own advantage. Some individuals treated it so- even some presidents! But they were not the norm.
To the degree I have been in more-or-less continuous disagreement with FC and other "America is dead" drumbeaters over the years, it's not with the facts before us today but rather whether these facts actually represent a meaningful difference from the past.
Where my own thinking has changed is that I think we may be the generation that sees the bill come due, the inherent instability in the system reach the breaking point, the ruin in the nation exhausted.
At this point, my optimistic hope is that the nation outlives me. Just need to eke out another few decades.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
From an emotional point of view, I understand. It's easier to get angry at Welfare Mom than Global Lobbying Government Siphoning Industrial Complex. It's a lot more personal when you meet the parasites and see how they live their worthless lives.
From an economic point of view, though, it really does seem like Global Lobbying Government Siphoning Industrial Complex would like to distract us with ragebait about welfare moms.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
Can we build a Golden Gate Bridge today? Can we still go to the Moon?
We have the money. We have the technology. In theory, we still have the know-how.
But we don't have the will. It's graft all the way down.
I think about Robert Moses sometimes (never miss an opportunity to boost Robert Caro). Motherfucker was a petty, vengeful, tyrannical and (in his own way) corrupt bastard. Anti-democratic and considered public monies his to spend and control. But he got shit done. Arguably in terrible ways sometimes. Lots of people have opinions about how New York could have been done better. But he got it done.
No one can get shit done today. After all the bluster and owning the wokes, do you think Trump is actually going to get anything done? Make America Great Again?
I think sometimes about movies like Independence Day or Armageddon. You've got a literal world -ending threat, so surely under those circumstances, we'd all get our shit together and act like competent adults... at least for a little while, right?
I don't believe that anymore. We'd be so cooked, as the kids say.
We probably are anyway.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
Nothing you say is wrong on its face. Bill and Shelley are boomers milking the system in all the legal ways they were told they could. Oscar and his wife are a young dumb couple who, as you noted, are far from the worse Caleb has had on his show. They're only making the culture war rounds because they're illegals. They're also young enough that it's hard to declare they are going to be lifetime parasites--at least Oscar is working!
I can't get too worked up about them after watching all those bodycam and parole hearing videos I mentioned. The people who are really a "parasitical" class are not boomers crying that their health insurance is going up or a DREAMER couple who will probably declare bankruptcy. It's the people who will never be gainfully employed, will probably spend most of their lives on the street or in prison, and prey on society in much more literal ways than making your insurance premiums go up.
Insurance sucks and seems to be unfixable, yup. But how dare government workers collect pensions and how dare old people demand expensive medical care? These aren't the worst parasites out there.
Government has always been a cow to be milked, and under the old patronage systems the corruption was far worse. How many bailouts has the government shoveled money into to rescue failing businesses and failing industries? How much money did we spend on Afghanistan over 20+ years to achieve literally fuck-all in the end? We could also talk about Iraq, and Ukraine, and Israel, and Argentina, all can be plausibly defended as providing some value to American interests, but fuck that's a lot of money we're giving to non-Americans.
You may or may not have seen the latest trend in ragebait: all the (mostly black) people screaming on TikTok about how their EBT is about to get cut off if the government shutdown doesn't end. The comments are the usual: noticing how many expensive braids and fake nails and tattoos and the like these people wear, asking why Single Mom of 6 does not have a father in the picture, etc. Lots of nutpicking with juicy videos from welfare defenders openly telling poor people to steal from Walmart, single moms haughtily declaring they "don't want to work," etc. Numbers thrown around like $4000-$6000/month in welfare (which I seriously doubt).
These stories are understandably infuriating. They make for very easy ragebait to amp up working Americans who see a bunch of lazy, shiftless people getting fat on their tax dollars. I won't lie and say I would not enjoy seeing some of these "parasites" get made to work or go hungry as much as any Randian.
But ultimately I think you are being manipulated to hate the easily hateable. If you are really concerned about the government spigot and all the parasites bleeding the beast... well, like I said, there's much bigger bleeding to rage at.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
If you really want me to.
I feel like I should say a few things, though. It's ironic you are at this point now. I just took you (manually) out of the new user filter since you've been around long enough that you're clearly a good faith contributor, but also clearly were never going to accumulate enough "karma" or however Zorba scores accounts to leave the filter on your own.
You do get reported a lot, but 100% of the reports have been people angry at you for being a leftist expressing leftist opinions. You have not a single warning on your record (so far). I can see how it's disheartening to get downvoted constantly. This place is no better than reddit, in that downvotes are supposed to be used only to express that a comment is "objectively" bad in the sense of contributing nothing to the conversation, but instead it is used as an agree/disagree button, just as half our members use reports as a "super angrily disagree" button.
Now, is "the time for talking over"?
I am kind of there myself. And this place frustrates the hell out of me. Proud and violent bigots and haters, accelerationists, and people who literally and explicitly wish me death.
Clearly I should go find greener pastures more aligned with me, right?
There are none.
SlateStarCodex and adjacent spaces come closest, and even there you'll pretty much be booted for talking about the wrong things or having the wrong opinions.
I could go on X/Twitter, which is pretty much the Wild West right now. Except while it's true you can say almost anything there, that just means you'll draw a small crowd of people who agree with you and a lot of fire from people who hate you, and since it's far more public the doxxing potential is greater. There's no real upside because you aren't actually having interesting and thoughtful conversations, you're just dunking and point-scoring. It suits a certain personality type, I guess, but not me with my milquetoast centrism and lack of desire to throw people out of helicopters.
Anything "mainstream/normie"? Fuck no. All my hobby and social spaces have converged on acceptable and settled positions on everything from trans people to HBD to whether or not Trump is Literally Hitler to ... well, everything. I mostly don't talk in those spaces anymore, because I, with my center-left "let's just be civil and polite" GenX 'tude retains just enough skepticism and contrarianism that I have narrowly escaped being tagged as a Literal Nazi more than once, and I know if I bother to get into it, I will be banned. These spaces provide other needs for me and I don't want to lose them, so I keep my mouth shut. No point in losing years of history and access to resources that are somewhat important to me because I cleared my throat about the wrong subject.
This is what your side does. (I say "your" side, but I still consider myself liberal enough that it's kind of my side as well, except not really- they want to fucking kill me too, and now I feel kind of like a sleeper agent seething and blackpilling in their midst.)
So tell me, bud, where are the other places I could go to share opinions and maybe express skepticism about whether or not trans women are really truly heckin' 100% biological women, even though I by no means hate them or want them killed or put in camps or forcibly detransitioned? Where are the places where I can admit I think HBD is probably true even though I think individuals should still be judged on their own merits? Where can I say that I really dislike Trump, but also I don't think he's Hitler (and also the Democrats brought all this shit on themselves)? Where can I say Charlie Kirk was a prick but murdering him in front of his wife and children was an atrocity and if you're celebrating it you need to fix your goddamn soul? And so on and so on. In all your spaces, I'll just be called a collaborator, a bootlicker, a useful fool, a Nazi, and then banned.
Here, you suffer downvotes and unpopularity for taking a contrarian position but you still get treated politely. We still politely talk to each other (not willingly, not happily, many people would like to take the gloves and masks off completely, but we mods won't let them). Sure, half the people here are salivating for the Day of the Rope, which means its inherently unstable, but it is what it is.
I would be disappointed to see you pack up and go because righties are mean to you, as has happened to so many leftists before you. But I also understand it's just not fun being constantly dogpiled and downvoted, so I can't tell you you should keep hanging around somewhere that makes you miserable. I just want to point out that the greener pastures you are heading to are only greener for your orthodox and approved opinions.
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.
I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.
More options
Context Copy link