Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
17hr ago
I almost did, but it was more like a snotty conclusion to a crap post that by itself would just have been mildly obnoxious.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
18hr ago
You're allowed to echo Russian talking points, but you still need to engage civilly.
So please don't act like a leftist who is permanently obtuse.
You seem to lack a theory of mind
This is not civil. Stop it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
So the furor is literally because "white"? I thought it was because "cloud dancer" is Native American appropriation or something.
Next year: the year of Burnt Umber.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Yes, but were they involved beforehand or did they hear about Fulnecky's complaint afterwards? Or did she go to them when she got a zero?
There is the version where TPUSA put her up to it, the way a lot of organizations go looking for sympathetic cases and even stage them. There is the version where Fulnecky just wrote a Bible paper in her class, got a zero, and went looking for sympathy and found TPUSA. And there is the version where TPUSA put out some kind of mailer ("Are you a Christian student being persecuted by your woke professors?") and Fulnecky was inspired to see if she could provoke her instructor into "persecuting" her. I am inclined to think it's probably #2, and would be surprised if Fulnecky came up with #3 all on her own.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I already said the essay probably doesn't deserve a 0 (though it certainly deserves a D at best). I agree the instructor probably gave her a 0 out of pique/personal offense.
Does it meet the legal definition of "religious discrimination"? I doubt it, but determining Constitutionality is more complicated than "Does the instructor dislike Christians?" or "Did other students who wrote crappy essays get zeroes?" That said, you don't really care much what courts and the law says nowadays, do you?
Was it actually religious discrimination, in the sense that the instructor was motivated by animosity for the student's Christian beliefs, as opposed to just being outraged at the student's opinions? (Throwing words like "demonic" doesn't exactly help Fulnecky's case.) I am only slightly more sympathetic to Fulnecky than I would be to a student writing a creationist paper in a science class. Slightly more sympathetic because I actually believe in evolution and I don't believe in "multiple (sic) genders," but I am unmoved by Biblical arguments in either case.
That said, what should Fulnecky have done? Well, protesting low grades is a time-honored tradition, and nowadays every student thinks they should get an A and protests if they don't. If in fact zeroes are uncommon in this class, and especially if she was the only student to receive a zero, I'd definitely agree she was treated unfairly. Does that mean Christians are being persecuted in this class? Eh- did anyone else write such a stupid essay? Would someone writing a paper that says "Actually, there are only two genders and trans people are gross and delusional" without involving religious arguments get a better grade?
I don't really "object" to righties defending her, per se, but I think I made my position pretty clear. She wrote a bad, dumb essay. The instructor reacted badly and is probably a fool. In a sane and reasonable world (bitter laughter), they'd have had a private discussion, maybe involved the department chair, and agreed she deserved something more than a 0, or been given an opportunity to revise. Instead, we are in our world, so a stupid essay in a stupid class about a stupid subject with stupid people is a national news story.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
A lot of people seem to think this was a trap that the trans instructor stepped into. I'm skeptical of these sorts of political chess game theories. Unless evidence comes to light that Fulnecky was in fact conspiring with someone or put up to it by TPUSA or some other organization, it seems unlikely to me that she's smart or strategic enough to have planned this out. I think the more likely explanation is that she decided to tell this trans instructor what's what according to the Bible, was outraged at receiving a zero, and then someone suggested to her that she should file a complaint. It attracted buzz because of CW and here we are.
Righties have rallied around a dim but photogenic Bible Karen, and the trans instructor predictably threw a shitfit when challenged. Both sides following a very stupid and tiresome script. An early version of ChatGPT could have generated this plot.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
That depends on how much the essay is worth towards the overall grade. It looks like a fairly trivial assignment; if it's worth 25% of the overall grade, that must be a pretty worthless class (which is entirely possible).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Bluntly, it is a crap essay, poorly written and is nothing but her expressing her Biblical views. It is not college-level writing.
Did it deserve a 0? Probably not. It's... grammatical and uses complete sentences and is sorta on topic inasmuch as the student is "reacting" to the article as directed. But I think giving it a C would be extremely generous even by modern grade-inflationary standards.
I have no doubt the trans prof threw a fit upon reading it. But it's very unfortunate that righties have no better material to rally around. A smarter student could have written a critical essay that would have been harder to justify giving a 0, but Fulnecky frankly does not seem very bright in her interviews.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
If you send Zorba a modmail with your email address he can probably reset your password for you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I recall you being no longer filtered also. As far as I know, once you're unfiltered you should not go back into the filter.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
C'mon dude, this was obviously written by ChatGPT. Don't do this.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
You're still not comparing like things. The vast majority of civilian.deaths in Chicago are criminals engaged in violent activity. Do you think the average citizen of Chicago would agree "I'd feel safer in Ukraine"?
You can make a point about high crime rates without juicing numbers dishonestly. In this case, "civilian" and "combatant" is exploiting a gap where you are comparing gang activity and warfare. Is it more dangerous to be a gangbanger in Chicago or a soldier in Ukraine? Is it more dangerous to be a non-combatant (not involved in drugs or warfare) in Chicago or in Ukraine?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
If you're going to claim a city is more dangerous than a war zone, you have to include the people actually killed in the war - including the combatants. This isn't just cherry-picking, it's lying with statistics.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
There are too many variables to make any absolute rules. How stable is your job? How much of an emergency fund do you have built up? How long do you expect to stay in the house? The calculations if you think being laid off is not entirely implausible and you intend to upsize to a larger house in the future are entirely different than if you're near retirement and expect this to be your "forever home." Do you have kids? Do you have a spouse contributing to the mortgage? If you are worried about risk, then the big questions are "What could happen to reduce my income, and how would I pay my mortgage if that happens?"
A 15-year mortgage is usually tougher to swing unless you're buying way less house than you can afford. A lot of people will tell you take the 30-year mortgage and make extra payments. If you can keep that up, the net result is like taking a 15-year-mortgage but with the flexibility to make lower payments if you run into financial difficulty. The downside is that you're still paying a higher interest rate, so it's not as economical as if you'd taken the 15-year mortgage.
28% of your gross income on a 30-year-mortgage seems a little high, but is probably okay if you feel your income is secure and you can swing it even if you start putting kids through college or something. 25% of your net is pretty conservative, but if I could have bought a house with 25% of my net with a 15-year-mortgage I'd have grabbed it. Unfortunately, in my area houses like that are probably either major fixer-uppers or in terrible neighborhoods.
The big mistake most people make with buying a house is either taking a mortgage they are one or two missed paychecks away from going into default on, or buying on the assumption that it will appreciate and they can easily sell it if they suddenly need to downsize. Winding up underwater when you badly need to sell (as happened to many people in 2008) is a bad place to be.
Big problem with the housing market right now is that lots of people are sitting on their 2-3% mortgages from pre-2020 (which are unlikely to happen again in our lifetime), so people who want to move can't afford to.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
Stop this tedious whining.
If all you believe is "My outgroup sucks," then this isn't the place for that. Trade barbs on reddit or Twitter.
You can absolutely say what you believe about Republicans or Democrats or Trump or whoever. But if the content of your post is 100% culture warring, nothing more than ranting about the evils of your ideological opponents, you are not saying anything meaningful or worthwhile.
We know some people just want to come here to vent and to rage. (And sometimes to troll.) We don't care.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
This got reported as low-effort and it really is, but I'm not going to mod it. It's just a dumb, low-effort argument.
Our ancestors were probably sadists and fools to the same degree we are. But they didn't burn heretics out of some deep wisdom. "Our ancestors burnt people who disgust me, we should do that again." Well, the reason they burned heretics is that killing people who were disgusting, disturbing, inconvenient, or a burden was how they did things in a society that would also have burnt half the people on this board.
I am always bemused by r3tVrn-posters who would not have survived a hot second in the societies they idolize.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
We know the state and its partisans are hypocrites. We try not to be hypocritical here.
It's still not clear to me what you and Whining want. To be allowed to openly talk about people who should be killed? To talk about when it's time to take up arms against the state?
This is a non-hypothetical question: how do you think our moderation policies are wrong, and how do you think we should correct them? Because from my POV (and as I mentioned above, our "moderation policies" are literally plural, as the mods try to be consistent but obviously we have a lot of latitude to use our judgment case by case), we are just trying to enforce rules like "Don't make death threats" and "Don't talk about doing obviously illegal shit." But we didn't tell anyone they can't talk about resisting the state or non-compliance.
Whining is the one who came in indignant because @self_made_human moderated @remzem for a shitty post. smh's reasoning was not even that remzem was advocating violence! He got modded for boo outgrouping. (The fact that @remzem has a long history of shitty edgelord posts worked against him.) So it looks kind of like Whining got triggered by a post that expressed sentiments he agreed with and thinks he might get modded for, and what do you want us to do about it?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
Generally speaking we won't mod people for celebrating someone's death ( though it is in poor taste), but wishing for someone's death is more likely to get modded.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
So look, if you want to argue that we are in need of a revolution, you can make the argument. But Thomas Paine you are not. "I hate my enemies and want them dead" is not an argument.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
So, full disclosure, I found @remzem's post obnoxious and performative, but I would not have modded him for it, even though it did get several reports. @self_made_human decided otherwise, and while I would have decided differently, I don't think he's necessarily wrong. (Yes, this does in fact mean how you do or do not get modded sometimes depends on which mod decides to take action.)
I will attempt to answer your questions directly.
Are you allowed to discuss resisting the state? Yes, you can discuss it. People discuss that all the time here! (And that's why I personally thought @remzem's post was borderline but within bounds.)
Talking specifically about people you think should be killed is not within bounds. Talking about plans to do violence is not within bounds (and would be pretty fucking stupid if you're serious).
No, we are not saying it would be "rude" to talk about not walking into ovens (really, though? Come on.) Or that you can't talk openly about "non-compliance."
But what is it, exactly, that you want to say that you think you are not allowed to say? That you hate Jay Jones and hope someone shoots him? Well, you can say you hate him, but no, you can't openly wish death on him. (Yes, his texts would have gotten him banned on the Motte.) If you want to be more indirect about it ("I really think some of our state leadership should water the tree of liberty"), we are not stupid and we're still going to tell you to knock off the fedposting. Both because, yes, it's easy for you to whine about what you're not allowed to say when you're not the one who would get visited by the FBI, and because as several others have pointed out, most people here are not really interested in reading dick-fondling threads about what people will do to their enemies when the Boogooloo happens. If that's what you're into, there are guys on Twitter whose entire niche is jerking themselves off over such fantasies, including our own Motte alum Kulak. If you want Kulak-posting, go give him a follow.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
"how feminized this place is" - LOL. @remzem, Internet Tough Guy never impresses anyone. Do you think anyone actually believes you're the very model of a modern masculinity?
The "ruling" is that fedposting is against the rules because it could get Zorba in legal trouble, and actually advocating violence is against the rules because it's rude. We have all these feminized rules about being civil and shit.
Can you discuss what you'd do "hypothetically" in the event of the Happening? Depends. Advice about how to stock up on ammo and form your own militia - probably okay. Talking about how you're going to murder all the people you hate? Not okay.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
13d ago
The Motte equivalent of Artembares is someone who decides we suck and leaves (and then goes to whine about us on reddit). We can't actually keep people here who decide they don't want to play anymore.
Or if you want to compare Artembares to the guy who lashes out and gets banned - yes, he is being agentic and he's quite entitled to decide he doesn't want to follow the rules. And we're entitled to ban him.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
13d ago
Mainstream Christians also discuss Biblical justifications for beating their kids or putting homosexuals to death.
You do a lot of ducking and weaving and selectively answering specific points for which you have a canned response and ignoring the rest, which is typical of all our irrational Jew-haters.
You are very intent on trying to convince me that some very narrow interpretations of selected texts are what "Jews" really believe despite the fact that very few Jews would agree with you. You'd actually be on firmer footing going after Muslims – most Westernized Muslims don't believe in the atrocious treatments recommended in some of their texts for unbelievers, but we know many Muslims from Muslim countries do. But your obsession is Jews.
Presumably you have met Jews who do in fact demonstrate compassion and love to Christians. Surely you have met non-evil, non-slimy Jews. Or maybe you haven't. Maybe every Jew you ever met tried to swindle you or stuff you in a locker, and you're a real-life victim of Chinese cardiologists. But I doubt this. So I will try again by asking you directly – is your thesis:
(A) Any Jew showing kindness to gentiles is a bad Jew who is not following his own religion correctly?
or
(B) Any Jew showing kindness to gentiles is just pretending, in order to deceive gentiles as to their true intentions?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
13d ago
But surely you can see my point here, that refusing to play isn't inherently more agentic than choosing to play
Nor is choosing to play inherently more agentic than refusing to play. You can choose not to play. And if that means breaking commitments or you choose not to play because it was too hard, perhaps that speaks poorly of your character. But--
Agreeing to make some other kid "king" is not a commitment as binding and serious as joining a sports team or signing up for calculus or agreeing to start a workout program. The scenario you (Herodotus) present is that some kids made Cyrus king for a day, one kid got sick of it, and you argue that he was wrong to get tired of the game. He should have continued bowing and scraping until Cyrus said the game was over, dammit! Again, I think "running to daddy" was the weak part, not when he got tired of calling Cyrus king. But Cyrus responded to some kid not respecting his "authority" by getting the other kids to gang up on him and beat him, and you (Herodotus) praise him for this!
You are presenting one principle ("You should choose your commitments and stick to them") but supporting it with an entirely different argument ("You must be obedient and you may not change your mind").
I honestly find your entire argument rather baffling. "You gotta serve somebody" is a truism that sounds profound on the surface, but essentially you're saying "Choose your master and obey him." Herodotus presents this as an anecdote about how awesome and naturally kingly young Cyrus was. Not being enamored of kings, or the concept of any man being "born to rule" (and others born to bend the knee), I don't know what to make of your ode to submission except that I reject the premise. We all serve someone, willingly or not. We don't have to make a virtue of it.
We generally do not let new users post self-promotional links as their first post. If you would like people to read your blog, please establish yourself in the community first.
More options
Context Copy link