Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
As someone who has studied the Middle East and Islam, and has a working knowledge of Arabic (don't ask me to recite the Quran or anything, I have zero interest in tajweed), I will pass on your offer. I know too much about Islam. (And the Quran is shitty Bible fanfiction, second only to the Book of Mormon in transparent and low-quality mimicry, inexplicably adored by people who turn off all literary faculties to convince themselves otherwise.)
and only going to get closer as time goes by
Bro, I'm far from the most Islamophobic person here, but this triumphal colonialist attitude of yours really makes me start sympathizing with the Retvrns.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Indeed. For anybody reading this, you are welcome to join and you will be treated like a full brother or sister no different from any other brother or sister.
This is not what African Muslim converts say about how Arabs treat them. And you yourself have posted repeatedly about how you consider yourself a higher class of being than the peasants ( but still Muslim!) who fetch and carry for you at home.
And of course, if there is one group that treats Arabs more brutally than the Israelis, it's other Arabs. Let's not even get into Shia versus Sunni.
Your own attitudes bely the pretty words about a universal Ummah. It's no more true than Christians saying " We are all brothers and sisters in Christ."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Several people (including myself) have disagreed with @erwgv3g34, but if you want to tell someone they are wrong, provide some arguments and substance.
"You're wrong and delusional and silly" is just being needlessly antagonistic. Do not post low-effort "Nuh-uhs" like this.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Congratulations. But set point theory is absolute garbage science, and taking science & dieting advice from Dread Jim is like taking dating advice from Dread Jim. I wonder what Jim thinks about all the obese female devotees of "set point theory" as the reason why they can't lose weight. CICO, as some people below have pointed out, is true but simplistic. You lose weight by creating a caloric deficit. You could lose weight by consuming fewer calories but all of it as pure sugar. That doesn't mean that would be a good or enduring way to lose weight. There is some fuzziness in the whole "caloric deficit" concept, because people do have different metabolisms, which mean two people eating the exact same calories and doing the exact same amount of exercise won't necessarily see the same changes; that is what people mistake as a "set point." No, that doesn't mean your body has a higher set point than the other person's, it means your body doesn't burn at the same rate as the other person. So yes, it is (unfairly) harder for some people to lose weight (and we know testosterone helps, which is why it's much harder for women to lose weight), but no, nobody has a "set point" of 300 pounds.
(The rant about how "Doctors are hiding the truth from you that they aren't allowed to Notice!" is typical Dread Jim histrionics. It's true some doctors are spineless about telling patients to lose weight. It's also true that losing weight long term is difficult, but the mechanism is well understood if not popular: people lose weight by exercising and restricting calories more than they like, they lose weight, and then they go back to their previous habits. This is the Eliezer Yudkowsky theory of Why The Laws Of Physics Do Not Apply To My Fat Ass.
I get that most people don't like exercise (I don't love it myself), but even a moderate amount of exercise will make you feel immensely better (I like having exercised). The improvement curve in early stages is enormous. Back when I was overweight, regular exercise among other things made my back pain disappear.
I'm ambivalent about low-carb and keto diets; I tend to think most of these diets with some elaborate theory of how the body processes certain types of calories are just calorie reduction smuggled as "only/don't eat these things."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
That won't do anything. As Amadan just wrote, there is no sidebar, there is only precedence. The rules are what the mods do, not what is written.
That is not what I wrote.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Retarded thoughtless ragebait slander.
Calm down.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
I doubt "Claude" hates Trump, in the sense that Anthropic has deliberately trained it with a bias towards anti-Trumpism. It probably has the Internet-average "opinion" of Trump.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Bub.
This is getting obnoxious. And yes, this is a mod warning, even though you will add it to your ledger of "The mods are persecuting me because I'm just too clever and edgy for them."
There is a certain category of user who continually wants to push boundaries, talk about things in a smarmy, antagonistic way, bring up topics in an edgy, circumlocutory fashion with plausible deniability, and then screech like a chimp kicked in the balls (not sure if being kicked in the balls actually affects chimps the same way, but I like the image so I'm going with it) when called on it and told to give it a rest, or at least tone it down. And they proceed to bring it up over and over, "calling out" the mods (or a mod) in every thread where they can possibly wedge it in because maybe if they keep grinding their axe often enough, everyone will take their side and throw rotten fruit at the mods and tell us to let them post as they please or something?
You are here.
There is also a category of user who is too autistic to realize that talking about their weird gooner fetishes isn't funny or fun and doesn't understand why we'd say "Not here."
It is not because the mods are prudes, or humorless (well, I am, but not all the mods are), or trying to BAN MY VIEWS THE MODS CAN'T HANDLE.
It's because we want people to be reasonable and civilized and not shit up the place, particularly by trying to see exactly where the line is between "I can get away with this" and "Too much."
You are here.
Now, FWIW, I kind of disagree with@netstack's original formulation: I would not say categorically that all "sex and sexuality" topics are inherently CW. I can imagine sexuality-related content that would be funny and light-hearted enough to be Friday Fun Thread material. The problem is that what was posted in that thread was not. (And this is not an invitation to test what you can get away with.)
As myself, @netstack, and @naraburns have explained to you and others repeatedly, a lot of modding comes down to "I know it when I see it," along with community sentiment, when it comes to deciding what does and doesn't fly. This means that yes, it's subjective, sometimes what passes one mod will not pass another, and we are not going to give you a long TOS contract spelling out what you can and cannot get away with and then gnash our teeth and say "Curses, foiled by your brilliant legalism!" when you figure out a way to post something that we did not explicitly prohibit.
So no, "boner jokes" are not prohibited in the Friday Fun Thread, but it is context-dependent (a boner joke that winds up being CW-bait or "joking about boners with minors," for example, would definitely not be appropriate material).
I'm not going to ban you, even though you have multiple "Ban this guy next time" warnings, because banning people for complaining about the moderation is a bad look and people without familiarity with your oeuvre (and past history under other alts) might think we're just being sensitive to criticism. But I am telling you that open and reasonable discussions about moderation are 100% allowed, even if accompanied by harsh criticism. You can take it up with us in public or private when offered in good faith. We do our best to clarify our thinking and our moderation decisions, and if you really want to know if a given post will be okay or not, you can ask us. But every CW thread is not an opportunity for you to complain about that one time a mod did something you're still chafing about.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I wasn't sure what you meant by "going far harder on those topics than anyone here" - going harder than SS would mean actually saying the quiet part out loud. I guess I can wade into the cesspool of marginal subs and see how much wrongthink is really being tolerated. I doubt Zorba will be moved to take use back to reddit, though.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
No topics are banned. You're not being persecuted.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Are there really? Reddit is actually letting people post that they want to kill da Joos now? I wasn't aware of that, but if that's so and you can post that trans women are men, then maybe we could make the transition. I am skeptical, though, especially since even a temporary liberalizing could easily be reversed.
Ah, the Vox Day argument. Good times, good times.
Yes, you do. You are literally arguing in this thread that this should be allowed.
Maybe you would prefer they not be monsters to their wives, but you are arguing that beating and raping them should be legal. Incidentally, beating your wife has been illegal, if not very well enforced, for most of American history. So while "Holding her down and penetrating her against her will" might not have technically been illegal in the golden days before the 1970s when all marriages were happy and fruitful, "Beating her until she stops resisting you" actually was. And "Threatening to beat her if she didn't submit" would probably also have been technically illegal, if again, rarely enforced.
If you don't think the government should interfere at all, then where exactly is the line between "wife" and "property with which I can dispose of as I see fit"? Either you have to go all-in and say "Yes, I believe it should be legal to beat my wife senseless if she won't stop resisting me (or for any other reason, only God gets to judge)" or you have to acknowledge there are limits to what a man is permitted to do to his wife.
How about children? You're very keen on the laws that existed before the 1970s. I assume you also believe the government should not get involved if a man wants to beat his children.
You're very fixed on Christian marriage traditions. You can argue that America is a Christian nation, which it is, culturally, but civil and criminal laws are not church laws and never have been. Do you think people who do not take Christian wedding vows should not be treated as legally married? Or should Christian laws apply even to women who never swore to "obey" their husbands?
More options
Context Copy link