Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
10hr ago
Dunno that "everyone" hates neocons, and even if there aren't any here, this is definitely an attempt to build consensus.
I should ban you for the trolling and personal attacks, but you're kind of amusing. The trolling isn't that amusing, though, so that was your one freebie.
Remember, while you feast on the schadenfreude and disrespect, the schadenfreude and disrespect is also feasting on you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
Here's my take:
I don't think people should write posts using LLMs, and my inclination is to warn/ban anyone who does it.
The problem is that I have to be pretty damn sure because it's easy to register false positives. Already people tend to assume any long wall of text was probably written by an AI. So given a choice between being trolled by AI posts or overzealously banning anything that smells at all like AI, I'm going to mostly let it go.
Of course when you admit using AI it presents a problem, because we appreciate the honesty but don't want you to keep doing it.
There is also a gray area where people are using AI to "help" them write posts. We obviously cannot ban anything touched even a little by AI, but how much is too much? @self_made_human uses AI to draft some of his posts. I dislike this, but....shrug
Personally I like AI, but not for writing anything I care about. Your words here should be your own...unpolished, half thought out and all.
That's my opinion but we haven't really settled on an official mod position other than pure AI posts where you just paste the output of an LLM are right out.
Your record as a troll means I'm less likely to look on this charitably, but other mods seem disinclined to mod it and honestly I was only suspicious, not certain. So you get a pass this time, but do not treat this as an invitation to keep testing how much you can get away with.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
I agree with @07nk. Shakespeare is meant to be performed, not read, and reading a play is almost always an inferior experience. Sure, some people do enjoy reading his plays because most of them have some banger lines, but the drama, the humor, the intensity, is all in the performance. It's why there are so many "interpretations" of Shakespeare using the same lines but completely different sets and costuming and you can still deliver a compelling experience even if they don't look like Elizabethans.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
23hr ago
Well, I wasn't posting as a mod, so I appreciate the sentiment but you're allowed to dislike my posts.
I thought my thesis was clear enough, but evidently not.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Oh boy, literature sniping, my favorite kind of geek-out.
So, what is art? You're right to observe that "If I like it it's good" is a shallow way to judge artistic quality. Clearly the purpose of art is not merely to entertain and enthrall.
On the other hand, "To increase collective well-being?" Shades of Fredric Wertham–all that is not wholesome, morally fortifying, and artistically meritorious should be thrown out! Art can be just a thing to entertain.
Art, in my opinion, is all the things people look to it for: entertainment, escapism, a display of talent and craft, a few moments of amusement, but also meaning, reflection, new lenses through which to see the world, education, enlightenment.
No book or other work of art, of course, is going to be all of those things. Some will be none of those things.
I am one of those people who thinks there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" writing and that there are, if not completely objective, then at least generally agreed-upon rubrics by which you can judge it. It's more than style (19th century classics would be considered "badly written" by modern stylistic standards) but it's also more than theme or symbolism or capturing some essential essentialness of the human experience or your place in the world or the current zeitgeist or whatever.
I'm going to take the very unchallenging centrist view that you can like high literature and comic books at the same time. You can enjoy both experimental postmodernism and Extruded Fantasy Product like Brandon Sanderson.
If you are incapable of critically examining what you consume (at least to the degree that you recognize, "Yeah, this is kind of crap, but it's fun") then you probably aren't getting much out of anything you consume but whatever time it takes you to consume it. But that doesn't mean reading things just to be entertained is bad in and of itself.
Of the works you mention, I have yet to tackle Infinite Jest (I read DFW's debut novel, The Broom of the System, and was so thoroughly unimpressed I've been putting off tackling IJ). I have read Thomas Pynchon, and while I still love The Crying of Lot 49, it's not a coincidence that that's one of his shortest novels. Gravity's Rainbow was an ordeal to get through, and I only finished it out of sheer determination. Like several other commenters, I would not categorize either Slaughterhouse-Five or Catch-22 as post-modern. Satirical and cynical, certainly, but post-modernism is not just irony and counter-culturalism.
I think, therefore, that you are completely wrong about post-modern not being "real" or there not being anything "there" (at least two of your books aren't post-modern at all, and they definitely do have clear themes and plots). Post-modernism is also not just a "stylistic" exercise. Post-modernist books are generally characterized by being "experimental" and defying the conventions of traditional novels–hence, non-linear storytelling, unreliable narrators, metatextual references, disregard for conventional plot and characterization, etc. But there are always ideas there, and I would argue most of those books do have a cohesive (if meandering and self-indulgent) narrative.
I'm bemused that you praise Blood Meridian (which is also one of my favorite books), as many people consider Cormac McCarthy very much a post-modernist writer, and if anyone can be accused of writing in an abstruse way as a "stylistic exercise," it's him. (He demonstrates both how you can break punctuation and sentence structure rules, and why they exist.)
The fact that what you love, someone else will hate, and what you find deep and meaningful, someone else will find cheap trash, is why it's very hard to arrive at any real consensus on artistic "quality." I've dunked on Brandon Sanderson plenty, but I have read a lot of his books, and I have seen people say that they got a lot of value out of his handling of various kinds of mental illness, etc. (To which I want to say, "read something better," but there I go again.) I both love and hate Cormac McCarthy and Thomas Pynchon (I'm 50/50 for any given book), and there are people who are fierce devotees and people who think they're both just orthographical prestidigitators.
The vast majority of writing is crap. This has always been the case, we just didn't have so much writing produced at such scale. People will argue that the likes of Charles Dickens and Herman Melville and Leo Tolstoy and Jane Austen and Victor Hugo and Miguel de Cervantes are only well-regarded today because they had comparatively less competition; this is true, but they also had a comparatively much smaller audience. They are admired today because in one way or another they captured something about their time and place and wrote about human lives we still find interesting and relatable today even if we are far removed from those eras.
But! All of them (except maybe Tolstoy, who was rich and also batshit crazy) were also writing for money! They were very much writing to their markets (Cervantes wrote the sequel to book one of Don Quixote because a rival was plagiarizing him!) And a lot of people dunk on all of them for being pedestrian or prosaic or culture-bound or just boring and consider them to have been the Brandon Sandersons of their day. (They had plenty of critics in their own time.)
I remember reading an interview once with Piers Anthony, the original Dirty Old Man of SF&F, who was once an enormously prolific bestseller before kind of falling out of favor with the fandom. He genuinely considers himself to be a Great Author who will someday be recognized alongside the likes of Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy. While it's hard to imagine the author of The Color of Her Panties being so remembered, who can say? It may well be that Brandon Sanderson is remembered as the great American fantasy writer of the 21st century. I think there is something to be said for telling literature snobs to get their heads out of their asses. At the same time, there is something to be said for telling Millenials whose literary horizons never expanded beyond Harry Potter and Twilight to Read Another Fucking Book. (But you could say the same thing to a lot of hippies and neckbeards who never read anything but Tolkien and Heinlein.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
@JeSuisCharlie isn't just accusing us of being biased towards each other, though. He's accusing us of giving special protection to Indians because of you.
Presumably the only reason we haven't banned the Joo-posters is that none of the mods are Jewish (afaik).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
So, your theory of mind is that I go extra-hard on anti-Indian comments because I am (kinda sorta in a distant online way) friends with @self_made_human?
Why do you think I don't go hard on anti-MAGA posts since I'm about equally friendly with @FCfromSSC, then?
I don't know how to penetrate such obtuseness. I'm just going to keep pointing out that you're wrong, and if you want to advocate for changes in moderation, telling us we're doing things we aren't is a demonstrably unsuccessful strategy.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
You said this in modmail, and repeating it doesn't make it true. @KMC has been modded for saying similar things about "Negroes." People absolutely report posts that tee off on Trump voters, blacks, and other groups.
I can't even fathom your theory of mind that says we give special protection to Indians.
At this point, you're a broken wrong record.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Judging by the reports, this is not going over well. It does kind of read like a bit of trolling and dunking on your outgroup.
First of all, as much as I appreciate the (no doubt totally sincere and not at all tongue-in-cheek) flattery, I do not "rage" and I am not sure why you are they/theming me. My pronouns are "He" and "Go away."
More seriously, we have seen some of the rage-quitters and "I can't even" flouncers you mention, but really, not that many. And not all of them have been outraged leftists. For the most part, the leftists who can't stand to share space with HBDers and misogynists have already left. We do have a couple of very persistent mentally ill obsessives who keep screeching at us in filtered comments you never see, but again... not all of those are leftists.
Unfortunately, I do think evaporative cooling is leaving us with fewer and fewer posters who aren't one-note culture warriors, and very heavily skewed towards the right. I wish there was a way to recruit more people of diverse viewpoints, but even the SSC/LessWrong forums now think the Motte is a hive of scum and villainy because of who we don't ban. There really is a longer point to be made here, about how rightists have become the more ideologically "tolerant" faction. Not to say I don't get the sense that a lot of rightists are very eager to put leftists (and moderates) up against the wall - but they will at least talk to the other side while it's mostly liberals who now act like even engaging in dialog with a MAGA is starting down the dangerous path of seeing them as human beings.
The Motte regularly disheartens me and there still isn't any other place like it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Your account is newly registered, which means your posts are filtered until a mod manually approves them. Mods, however, can see your posts and sometimes one of us will respond to a post without noticing that it's still filtered and thus invisible to other posters.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
You added a number of qualifiers and dropped others to elide context, as is your wont. We can all see what I have actually written in the quoted post and throughout this thread. Stop this.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
Amadan's claim that nearly all criticism of Zionism is derived from a pre-existing hatred of Jews for no reason.
I've refuted this several times. At this point it's fair to say you are just lying about what I said.
It didn't happen though. How could I think it was a good thing and it didn't happen?
Because Holocaust deniers (most of them, with the possible exception of the really low information ones) don't actually think it didn't happen.
Maybe you do really believe there were never gas chambers, and that the numbers are inflated, and there are discrepancies in the accounts of what happened in this camp or that camp. There are always question marks and inaccuracies in the historical record and "Holocaust deniers" excel at cataloging these to argue that the whole thing is a hoax. Like 9/11 truthers, like every other conspiracy theorist, it's not that there aren't questions, and things the public believes because they've become widespread knowledge that aren't actually true, or were taken from one particular account (soap made of Jews, for example, or human skin lampshades). So there are always things you can JAQ about.
But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened, and the strategy of the Holocaust denier is to try to convince people that actually the whole thing was fake because record books at Dachau don't match what someone said in an interview, or what have you. The reality of course is that they know the effort was made to exterminate Jews and they think it was a good thing, but they also know that the public is extremely unsympathetic to this and that Jews benefit from the widespread guilt generated by the Holocaust. So it's a political strategy to try to erode belief that the Holocaust happened, not a historical investigation.
This is why every time we talk about the Holocaust, you immediately jump to the specific things you have canned spiels about, like showerheads in Auschwitz and whether Hitler ever signed an order saying "Kill all the Jews." And try as hard as you can to avoid the obvious glaring holes in the narrative, like where did all those Jews go and how are thousands of people, from Nazis to Jews to German civilians to Allied soldiers, lying about what they saw?
If you were actually interested in historical truth it would be pretty interesting to hear you out, but I can't take any of your arguments seriously because to the degree you might have some interesting research about specifics, I know it's always in service of a very specific agenda and that you selectively omit or fabricate details according to whether the narrative serves that agenda.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I think I've demonstrated the point, you were unable to identify anyone who engages in criticism of Jewish culture and identity to the extent that thousands of renowned Jews have engaged in criticism of White culture and identity throughout all our cultural institutions- without the baggage of being accused of Jew Hater by the Jewish NGOs that make this sort of determination
No, you've just gone in circles.
"People hate Jews because of their behavior." "What behavior?" "Jewish behavior." "What is Jewish behavior?" "The ADL, AIPAC, Israel, etc." "Okay, but that's like hating white people because of some white guys you don't like." "See, I can't even identify and criticize Jews without you saying I hate Jews."
This post is the closest you've gotten to specifically identifying "Jewish behavior" and you're still talking about NGOs and leftist college professors. Even if I agree that this "behavior" is more common among Jews, it's definitely not just a Jewish thing, and does not address my question of why you should apply this animosity to Joel Finkelstein the grocer.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I'll accept Patrick Buchanan, though I don't know what he really thinks of Jews personally, and my understanding is he mostly thinks they're going to go to hell for not being Christian. I don't know of any prominent "antisemite but doesn't actually hate Jewish people" public figures, partly because they are usually like you: they'll deny hating anyone but talk very vaguely about why Jews deserve to be hated. I made my best attempt at describing a hypothetical antisemite who doesn't "hate" Jews, and if you don't think the George Wallace comparison fits, I don't know what example you are looking for.
If you want an example of someone who is "critical of Jews but not a Jew hater" then tell me why they are "critical of Jews." That's what I'm asking you for. As I understand it, you think Jews are antiwhite parasites or something. Does this stem from their religion? Their culture? Their biology?
You complain that antisemitism is just a slur to destroy people who know "the truth" but you won't explain what this great truth is. "Jews bad" is the best I can get, and yet I am not supposed to conclude 'Okay, so you hate Jews."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I suppose it's possible to be an antisemite in the sense that you think Jewish culture is adversarial, or Judaism is false (and/or going to send you to hell) while simultaneously believing individual Jews can be good people even if they practice Jewishness. So in that sense, "Jew-hater" is a subset of "antisemite" (though a very large subset, almost but not quite isomorphic). I don't know where you are in the Venn diagram since you pointedly refuse to clarify your views, but antisemite, definitely, and hates Jews, well, sure seems like it.
I mean, the George Wallace comparison was already made. Lots of people who think blacks are inferior human beings or want segregation don't think of themselves as hating blacks or being racist.
So, I gave you a detailed and sincere answer. Now answer my question: what is "Jewish behavior"? I don't mean the head of the ADL or Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean some average Jewish person of no importance or influence. What about their "Jewish behavior" makes them worthy of being hated?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I spoke of people who hate Jews as the reason they complain about Israel. You were the first in this thread to use "Jew-hater" (technically "Joo hater" is what you came in with). Is there a meaningful difference? Seems like you'll complain whichever label I use.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
No, it's an inquisition.
No, it's not. You aren't being tried, you aren't being punished.
You want me to qualify my criticisms in a way that gives deference to Jews, touts Jewish friends
I want and expect no such thing.
I am being direct and calling a spade a spade, and you're registering indignation because you want to hate Jews but not be accused of being a Jew-hater. If you really didn't care and found the label both "retarded" and a pointless game, you'd shrug it off and not care, rather than arguing at length about how unfair it is to say you hate Jews. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do the Nazi cosplay (SS) while feigning indignation when people notice and name the signal you are flashing. You want to talk about how Jews are behind every bad thing in the world but not be accused of something so base, so declasse, as hating Jews. You want to deny the Holocaust happened while also explaining why the Holocaust was completely justified.
I keep pointing this out because you like weaseling around in plausible deniability and rhetorical evasion and ambiguity, because that is your game. It's a game you play because sanding off the sharp edges of your ideology for public consumption gives it a more palatable feel for your audience, and you don't like it when a sharp light is shined on it.
Also, completing editing a post after someone has responded to you to make it look like they didn't respond to what you wrote is a very sleazy tactic.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
Do you think Greenblatt hates whites? If you had a conversation with him, you'd probably find it annoying if he denied believing things you think he obviously believes because it would be unpalatable for public goyim consumption.
Do I think you literally want to kill every Jew you meet? No, I assume you are probably not a psychopath.
I'm not demanding anything. I don't expect you to be honest and direct because the ducking, evading, and ghosting is part of your game.
What I'm saying is "Jew-hater" is a fair accusation, whether or not you own it, and so it rings hollow when you complain about it.
It has nothing to do with the "substance" of your criticisms. I am perfectly capable of engaging in criticism of the ADL or AIPAC or US foreign policy or Israel's conduct. I am not surprised you feel vindicated by "the state of the world," because your believe in ZOG is such a totalizing ideology that there is practically nothing that can happen in the world that you won't ascribe to it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I have said before I think Israel should be pressured to rein in the West Bank settlers and stop victimizing Palestinians there. However, even if Israel pulled out of the West Bank right now and ceded all of it to the Palestinians, I do not think this would lead to a viable Palestinian state. A viable Palestinian state requires a Palestinian population that wants a viable state more than they want to destroy Israel.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
No, both the "you are an X hater" are only slurs
No, it's not. A slur is an insulting label that can't be assigned a truth value but is simply a boo-light.
You either hate Jews or you don't. If you don't hate Jews, if you are capable of being friends with Jews, you do not wish harm on individual Jews, you just think Jewish culture is hostile to you or Judaism is a wicked religion or whatever, you could say that. You won't say that because you do hate Jews. You hate Jews for being Jewish, which you have constructed as some nebulous pattern of behaviors that applies to 99% of them, or even if it doesn't, accrues guilt to the rest for not denouncing their fellow Jews and refusing to be Jewish.
This "I refuse to play your game" speech is just evasion. You won't honestly and forthrightly state "Yes, I hate Jews" (which you are allowed to do, it's not like you'd be banned for it) because you know that hating an entire ethnicity for being that ethnicity is something even people generally disposed to agree with you about "Jewish influence" would balk at.
You accuse me of uncharitably projecting motives onto you, but the thing is, you make it as obvious as you possibly can (right down to your SS username) what you really think of Jews and what you'd like to do to Jews, while playing a game of denial. "Yes, Jews are my enemies and Jewish behavior is why everyone should hate Jews but how dare you accuse me of hating Jews!"
When someone calls you out on it or tries to get you to actually be honest instead of playing your constant game of ducking and weaving, evading, ghosting, and describing the Holocaust in a Schroedinger state (it both didn't happen and the Jews totally had it coming) you fan yourself in indignation that you would be accused of a "slur" like Jew-hater.
Well, not to keep getting post-modern, but who defines what is and isn't post-modern? Like I said, I think Cormac McCarthy is very much a post-modern writer, but there are critics who disagree.
Catch-22 didn't seem post-modern to me. But it has been a long time since I read it.
More options
Context Copy link