@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
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm sure Iranians (and everyone else) have said "Death to Pikachu" or "Death to my mother-in-law" at some point.


This argument is disingenuous and seems a lot like the whole "River to the Sea" debate, where whether it's actually an expression of violent intent depends on whether you hate Jews or not. As I already pointed out, not every single person who chants "Death to " literally wants to see an entire country exterminated, but you are well aware that Iranians chanting "Death to " in the streets mean what they say, even if they think it's figurative because they aren't actually in a position to inflict death.


Netanyahu's "Amalek" reference is in fact pretty loaded and I'm sure he knew what he was saying (and that he could waffle on whether he really has genocidal intent). That said, a politician using loaded rhetoric isn't the same as thousands of people chanting something in unison. If thousands of Israelis start chanting "Iran is Amalek," yes, I would assume that the general sentiment is that they would like to see Iran literally wiped off the map and that a not-insignificant fraction of them really and truly want and expect to do that. There are no doubt a non-zero number of Israelis who really mean it literally, and if I were Iranian, I probably would not be very charitable about interpreting an Israeli's use of that word.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Treason would be literally aiding and abetting the enemy, which despite many people's attempts to claim it is so during every conflict, does not include "Speaking out against the war."


Also, you need a declared war for there to be treason.


Taking your point more figuratively, you're just arguing that we should all get on board because Trump made it a fait accompli. But Trump has a short attention span and no conviction. Opponents of the war have every reason to believe he'll TACO if popularity drops. If you believe the war is a bad idea to begin with, 'leaving it half done ' isn't a compelling argument to keep going.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We spent 20 years in Afghanistan with literally nothing to show for it but lost blood and treasure. That makes "We can't stop now, we'll have accomplished nothing" a much weaker argument.


I don't object, per se, to acting against Iran. Contra our Jew-haters, it's in our interests as much as Israel's to put an end to the regime.


But I have no confidence in Trump's vision or plan. I expect we'll bomb them for a while, Trump will declare victory and stop, and Iran will still be Iran, just shaken, somewhat weakened, and still hankering for revenge.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe you underestimate how many pseudo-comminist leftists there were and are. (Again, to be fair, I heard "chickens coming home to roost" from Anericans.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Counter-reality check: I speak Arabic (poorly) and listen to what they actually say and mean.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The phrase is often taken out of context by neocon Americans to show that Iran is hellbent on America's destruction, and thus to justify their highly violent efforts to destroy Iran in turn.




I'm sure hardly anyone in Iran actually believes they are going to be able to literally destroy America (except in the sense that God will eventually do that for them, which no doubt a few true believers do sincerely believe). That they don't literally mean "We will kill 300 million Americans bwahahaha!" does not mean their sentiment is not very real, and sincerely intended against whatever Americans or American proxies they can get their hands on.


Likewise, we are not going to "destroy Iran." We might destroy their government. We are not going to nuke their cities and raze their crops and exterminate civilians wholesale (which their government would certainly do to us if they had the capability).




I think it actually is meaningful to point out the translation issue




Reality check: Iranians say مرگ بر آمریک. The literal translation is "Death to America." The Arabic الموت لأمريكا likewise translates literally as "Death to America." There is no "translation issue" and while yes, it might have some more general "You suck!" meaning in the minds of some of the chanters who arguably don't literally want every last American dead, it's still pretty unambiguous in its meaning. There is no idomatic usage in either Persian or Arabic where you say "Death to you" and aren't literally (if not sincerely) wishing death upon you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess I will believe you when you say that Europeans cheering for 9/11 meant nothing personal to Americans, but it certainly felt personal to us. (In fairness, I don't remember a lot of Europeans openly celebrating, but there certainly were a lot of Europeans saying, in so many words, that we had it coming, and the real tragedy would be if we retaliated against poor innocent Muslims in any way.)


If a major terrorist attack happened in your country, and Americans were all "Haha that's what you get for importing infinity Muslims, face meet leopards!" (and I have no doubt you'd see Americans saying that), I suspect you would take it very personally and would not be convinced by arguments that it was an abstraction, that Americans didn't really wish death to Europeans.


There is of course a more sophisticated discussion about empire and "chickens coming home to roost" (another popular phrase of the time), and just as with Hamas and October 7, reasonable people can talk about what led to this without it being black and white and "They just hate us because they are made of pure concentrated evil." But it is kind of unreasonable to say "You had it coming" (and that "Death to you!" doesn't literally mean "Death to you!") and expect people to believe that it's not personal and they should understand it as an abstract political statement because a few deaths are just a statistic, and you're just celebrating the fat kid standing up to the bully.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As a friendless virgin I have no experience with such situations, but that's what I imagine.






But I am imagining that, in a perfect romance, even in such a banal conversation, you are thankful to have an excuse to bask in the presence and attention of your romantic partner (as long as the venting doesn't last overly long).




Look man, real life is neither grim redpill/blackpill despair nor a "perfect romance" where you are basking in each other's attention and affection. A functional and good relationship is one where you actually like each other and genuinely care about how your partner feels. Not one where you are playing roles from a romance anime, or just extracting money and sex from each other.




Absolutely. My coworkers would say "good morning", and I would reply "hello".




You do you, but to feel like you're engaging in intolerable social deception by saying "Good morning" is... weird.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you're not trolling, I can only wish you a better life and say it doesn't have to be like that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Some people are naive, but having experienced functional relationships that teach you that they don't have to be miserable, cynical transactionalism is not naivety.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are only two kinds of objects in a relationship, a sex object or a resource object




Goddamn, some people are miserable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You literally just said that you don't care how her day was. Asking about how her day was is untruthfully implying that you do care.




I "don't care" in the sense that I don't care to hear the details or whether she had an argument with a coworker or it was unusually busy or the ventilation wasn't working so it was uncomfortable or the craziest thing happened at lunch or blah blah blah. That's stuff I listen to out of politeness. I don't literally "not care" whether she had a good day or a bad day.




She can vent to you on her own initiative, without forcing you to make untruthful implications about your own interest level.




Well, if I just silently glower when I come home and invite no dialog, she probably will not. Or I suppose I could say "I don't care how your day was, but you may tell me if you wish."


Jesus, dude.




Saying "good morning" to a person is an abbreviated wish that the person has a good morning, and therefore falsely implies that you hope that the person has a good morning. A much more neutral greeting with no misleading implications is "hello".




I mean, I probably do wish that someone has a good morning, because why wouldn't I, unless I have some personal animosity for this person?


You don't say "Good morning" because you think it's falsely implying you give a shit?


Jesus, dude.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But it's not untruthfulness! I don't say "Hey, I really want to know about your day" or "I am really interested in what you did at work." I am just asking how her day was because it gives her an opportunity to talk (or vent) and I can show that even if I don't care about the details, I do care about her, and I want to know if she had a good day or a bad day. (And maybe, occasionally, something important really did happen.)


Do you literally not care about your partner at all? Maybe more men than I thought really do think of their women as sex appliances who annoyingly make mouth-noises at them sometimes.


On a more abstract level, your comic is inane. If my coworker says "Good morning," that is a social nicety. Social niceties are how people coexist in a crowded and complex society where a little pleasantness makes life more bearable. If someone (my wife, or a coworker, or a checkout clerk) asks "How was your day?" do I really think she cares deeply about how my day was and wants a detailed account of it? No, she is just being nice. Getting mad about that is like being mad when people say "Have a nice day" because you aren't, or "God bless you" when you sneeze because you're an atheist.


Goddamn, some people are miserable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The point isn't that anyone is assuming the story(ies) are made up. The point is that bullet point at the top that people love to ignore:




Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.




In this case, there weren't even links. But if you cite a story about an insane black man setting a random passenger on fire on public transit, and your point is "Leftists have made it legal for insane black men to set people on fire," then yes, at the very least you need to post a link to the story so people can at least see if you might be leaving something out, and more importantly, "Here is a bad thing that happened and it's proof that my outgroup is very very bad, they literally made it legal to set people on fire!" is a crappy argument meant only to flash a boo light.


We all know (I am comfortable saying that despite it being "consensus building" because I do not believe anyone does not know) that people who want setting people on fire to literally be legal is a lizardman constant. "People want crime to be legal in Minnesota as long as it's for a leftist cause" is not how anyone, even on the left, would describe their position. ("They're lying!" you say, or "Their position is disingenuous and does not deserve charity." Too bad, that's not how things work here, you don't get to just assert that your enemies are all evil liars acting out of pure malice, whose stated motives do not even need to be considered.)


A more contextualized and steel-manned argument would be something like "Because of soft-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to deal with mentally ill homeless people, and racial sensitivity, it is now common for black criminals to get away with repeat offenses, even violent murders." Or "Leftists have institutional control and have repeatedly shown that they will apply the law in an unprincipled biased manner." That's at least a start at describing what you think is happening in a manner that sounds sane and would require your opponents to make a counter-argument that is more substantial than "No, I am not a crazy evil person who wants it to be legal for black men to set people on fire."


If you can't even be bothered to put in the minimal effort to assume that a non-batshit-insane counterargument exists (as the OP did not), then your post is bad and it's just outrage porn.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sometimes I wonder what kind of women people are dating. They describe sex vampires who only want your money, and then are bitter because asking "How was your day?" is some kind of malicious kafka-trap.


A normal person asking how your day was is... asking how your day was. If she is your girlfriend/wife, it is generally because she cares about how your day was (or at least is willing to engage in a minimal level of concern to show affection and empathy). That's how things work in normal relationships. Do I actually care about how her day was? Eh, not unless something notable happened. But I will still ask because women like it when you do that. And they do the same thing.


If your partner is just a "sex object," of course you aren't going to ask how her day has been because you don't care. That's not actually a partner.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What does that even mean? She asks how your day was every day? And you interpret this as a hostile interrogation?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know if you are accurately reporting any of these stories. I am vaguely familiar with several of them, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being deliberately deceptive (though @Rov_Scam has already pointed out how at least one is misrepresented: "vandal gets standard deal to pay reparations in lieu of criminal sentencing" is not the same as "vandal gets off scott free").


The problem here is you have strung together a bunch of very boo, very outgroup anecdotes, without links or evidence, to claim that "Crime is legal in the state of Minnesota as long as you do it to support a left-wing cause." That's an obviously inflammatory statement with no value except to boo your outgroup who is very very bad and lawless and just the worst, boo! Booooooo! Boo Amirite guys?


You are certainly allowed to make this argument, or arguments like it: that DAs engage in selective prosecution, that leftists get away with things that rightists can't, that we live in an unequal fractured society, that BLM riots were treated differently than the Jan. 6 protesters. Etcetera etcetera etfuckingcetera. Well-trodden ground. Several regulars have pretty much staked this out as their beat.


You still have to actually put in the effort to link, substantiate, and post something more probative than "Crime is legal in Minnesota because leftists suck, here are some unsourced anecdotes I'll just assume we can all take at face value."


This is a very low quality post that typically results in low quality threads about how much people hate their enemies.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, "Someone makes inflammatory claims, no one contradicts him, so they must be true" is not how it works.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I have experienced "shit tests" and annoying interrogations from women, but "How was your day?" isn't one of them.


"What is your plan for the day?" is the dangerous one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Tchaikovsky churns out novels at Brandon Sanderson speed. He's a better writer than Sanderson, but it is starting to show.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I tried the first Murderbot book and didn't much like it. It was very, uh, without being too uncharitable or invoking a @WhiningCoil rant, "female coded." The whole "found family" thing and the fact that progressives can read whatever gender politics they want into an asexual combat droid who presents as gruff and hard and just cannot with these stupid humans but actually has a soft gooey core is why they consider it leftist.


These people need to read them some Ursula Le Guin.


But Children of Time is one of my favorite modern SF books, so we're gonna fight.


Okay, not really. But - I will concede that Adrian Tchaikovsky is probably left-leaning. He cultivates a fairly inoffensive and apolitical social media presence, though what hints he has dropped indicate that he's generally on the progressive spectrum. His books are mostly not didactic or obvious in their politics, but again, tend to be vaguely progressive in their sentiments.


However, while I agree that the "solution" in Children of Time, forced genetic behavioral modification, was kind of horrific, it also made sense from the spiders' POV, and the humans were mostly villains escaping from an authoritarian system. I didn't read this as Tchaikovsky saying something about humanity's true inherent nature, but rather it was about these particular humans presenting an existential threat to the spiders, and the spiders coming up with a solution that wasn't "One of us must exterminate the other." It was actually a rather clever and very sf-ish solution.


I don't see this as particularly "progressive" coded, unless anything that doesn't end in military conflict is "progressive." I don't see overcoming disgust as inherently progressive coded. Maybe you think becoming comfortable with sentient spiders was supposed to be a metaphor for becoming comfortable with gays and trans, or with Muslim immigrants? I certainly didn't read it that way.


Also, spiders are fucking cool.


The rest of the series is also pretty good, though not as good as the first book.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Not every communist government has created famines, either. You can debate the relative badness of fascism versus communism if that scratches it for you, but objectively they have both always been pretty bad wherever they have been implemented. "His brutal police state only killed a few thousand people and was good for the economy" is not a ringing endorsement just because Stalin was worse.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Calling Singapore and Saudi Arabia "fascist" is a stretch, and Chile and Spain during their fascist eras were at least as bad as living under communism. As for Saudi Arabia, it's a pretty chill place to live if you are a Muslim man with no significant dissident tendencies, but otherwise not a great argument for your case either even if we label it "fascist."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Every fascist government we've seen has been in the habit of authoritarian suppression and mass murder. While I agree that in theory there is nothing inherently "evil" about fascism, it only seems to appeal to people who want to be authoritarian mass murderers. "Nothing wrong with being fascists" sounds a little like "True communism has never been tried" to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My politics on this has evolved over time; at one point they were admirable titans of industry




You're gilding the past a bit. JP Morgan and Cornelius Vanderbilt and Andrew Carnegie and the like are remembered with a sort of fond awe because they left a lot of money to charitable endeavors and endowments, but the term "robber baron" came about for a reason. They weren't "luminous beings," they were far less constrained than rich people are today (Elon Musk could probably have you whacked if he really wanted to but not without risk; robber barons were nearly as powerful as medieval aristocracy) and the ratio of those who felt some sense of social responsibility versus amoral sociopaths was probably no different than now. Do you think there were no 19th century "pedo island" equivalents? Tales of nobles engaged in depravities with the local peasantry go back centuries.