Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3hr ago
and IMO is why politics must be restricted to only men
I am always amused at the creative ways obsessives wedge their weird obsessions into every thread.
As for Fuentes- if there is ever someone about whom accusations of being a closet case were believable, it's him. But there is a certain category of straight dude who really, truly hates women and resents that he's sexually attracted to them (and really resents that he needs their permission to stick his dick in them).
Fuentes obviously possesses a seething hatred of women, not just a tradcon belief that they should stay in their assigned roles (and not vote), but he seems to be viscerally disgusted by females. That's either a guy frantically trying to compensate for his sublimated lust for dick, or a guy who has a pathological level of misogyny--either way, someone whose own desires repulse him.
The notion that Fuentes is actually keeping a secret harem is some serious copium.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
Yes, I am aware that crushedoranges was not literally threatening to shoot BC in the foot. If I said I would like to come to your house and punch you in the face as a "rhetorical flourish," you'd be the first to report it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
Yes, I know you're being sarcastic, but don't test "How close can I get to actually threatening people?"
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I can't believe I have to explain that I know Archie Bunker the character was not a boomer. Archie Bunker the character was entertainment for boomers. Hence his lines being things Boomers thought were funny.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
This is trolling and it's not even funny trolling.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Nowadays, saying "Some of my best friends are black" is kind of cringeworthy because it's such a boomer punchline, and it sounds like something Archie Bunker might have said. Of course some people who said that were just trying to deflect from their actually racist beliefs, but some genuinely did not think of themselves as racists and were trying to defend themselves with what seemed like a legitimate point - if I'm a racist, why are some of my best friends black?
Unfortunately, the progressive bailey today is that all white people are racist, anyone who claims not to be racist is in denial about their racism, and mentioning black friends is just proof of how racist you are (because if you weren't racist you'd know you're racist and that having black friends is no defense). It also condenses attitudes into a binary: you are racist or not-racist. (Or "anti-racist" as Ibrim X Kendi would say.) If you are not "anti-racist" then you are racist, no matter how non-racist you think you are and no matter how many black friends you have, and functionally there is no difference between you and Nick Fuentes.
A progressive generally will not actually put it like that, of course, but that is very much what I get from modern progressivism.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I've read a few PUA books and watched some passport bro videos as well as documentaries about those agencies that try to connect Western men with foreign brides (out of curiosity, no, really), and while the subtext that "You are relatively affluent and can pull a woman who'd be out of your league back home" is always there, nobody actually puts it as bluntly as "Get a concubine for a can of beans" and I honestly don't think most of these men are looking for that. They might or might not actually want a long-term relationship/wife, but they don't just want to find a pretty girl desperate enough to sleep with them for a meal. That's just sex tourism, and while the Venn diagram of "passport bros" and "sex tourists" certainly has some overlap, they are not the same.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I think not. It's more like challenging the assumptions most progressives have that (a) you cannot be even a little bit racist and still have affection and friendship for members of that race. The whole reason "Some of my best friends are black" became a boomer-cringe punchline is that it was actually true for a lot of people! They did have black friends, and yet they also had racist opinions about blacks in general.
Southerners would often argue that Southerners could be friends with individual blacks but disliked the black race, while Yankees claimed to love the black race but couldn't stand to be friends with blacks, and I think there is truth to that.
See also: "one of the good ones" and "a credit to your race." Obviously most black people are not going to think highly of someone saying, basically, "I think most of your people are trash, but you're okay." But it is in fact possible to believe [crime statistic] and even that this says something about bell curves and HBD, and still think individuals can be fine.
The progressive framing makes that distinction impossible: if you are concerned about [crime statistic] or you believe the Bell Curve is true, then you are a racist and cannot actually like black people, and no black person should trust you, period.
This has often struck me in stories from the way back, early pulp fiction, Victorian, and even medieval tales. You'd have Christians in existential war with Saracens and yet an individual Crusader might make friends with a Moor. They'd be brothers, despite the fact that their entire worldview said the other one was a servant of the Devil. Jews in early literature are often depicted terribly, and yet individual Jewish characters are represented as sympathetic and people who probably think Jews in general are jewy Joos would be their friends. (SS will now come along to rant about how inserting a sympathetic Jewish character in a book is part of the Joo-spiracy, Anthony Trollope was probably ZOGed....)
And pointing out "Black people are also concerned about [crime statistic]" breaks that frame that "Only racists who hate black people talk about that!" Yeah, a lot of black people are concerned about black criminality. They might not agree that this is because black people are congenitally criminal, they might disagree about the cause of the dysfunction in black society that produces these statistics, but it's not wrong to challenge the framing that it's inherently racist to look at facts.
I don't know exactly how Fuentes genuinely feels about blacks. From what I've seen of his speeches, it's something like "Blacks are mostly low-IQ animals and they need to be controlled, but some of them are okay." Which is racist by any reasonable definition. But he's still perturbing Morgan's assumptions by saying (a) no, I don't hate every single black person, and (b) black people can also recognize and be concerned about uncomfortable truths.
I don't like Fuentes (having watched a few of his videos- ye gods is he an annoying, insufferable, smug little prick who looks and sounds like someone who spent his high school career getting swirlies in the boy's bathroom), but I think he understands what he's doing better than you do. I can even somewhat agree with the framing he is trying to break, as I personally believe [crime statistic], Bell Curve, etc., are real things, and yet also we should not be hateful and oppressive to black people as a class. I am pretty sure my conclusions are more charitable and my solutions more generous than what Fuentes would propose, but it's really telling to me that the people who truly, viscerally hate black people and Jews also hate someone as overtly, proudly racist and anti-semitic as Fuentes and even accuse him of being "controlled opposition" because ... he's not racist and anti-semitic enough.
If you're waiting around for a mainstream character who's openly calling for holy war and genocide, well, KulakRevolt is auditioning hard for that role, but I don't see him getting much traction.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Context and wording matter, but WhiningCoil has definitely been modded in the past for comments like that (and got really angry about it). A borderline comment might or might not have been modded that day.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Who have you banned for saying naughty things about blacks, immigrants, women or progressives on par with hanikrummihundursvin? I don't think faceh or sloot have been banned for ranting about women being the mental equivalent of children (afaict this ban was for being a generic asshole). You'll say whiningcoil is on the edge, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't eaten a 90 day ban and has plenty to say about immigrants wrecking his town.
This is exactly the sort of pedantic argumentation I hate. I know for a fact I have personally warned and/or banned people for making posts about blacks and women and liberals and Democrats that crossed the line.
You, trying to play "Why did you ban Jimmy and not Johnny" for the zillionth time, want to litigate each and every case where we as mods decided that this post about Jews was acceptable but that post was not. You are being willfully obtuse. You know, because we have reiterated it many, many times, that you can make just about any argument if you can "color within the lines." Yes, that means what "crosses the line" is somewhat subjective. Does that bother you? Tough, it's how it's been for years. Do you think I or another mod made an error of judgment in an individual case? Maybe, it's possible! But I am not going to put much weight on your opinion, or anyone's opinion, who's just making bad and disingenuous arguments because they have general dissatisfaction that we mod people they think shouldn't be modded and don't mod people they think should be modded.
...and how many places can hanikrummihundursvin calmly and civilly argue that he hates the subhuman subcontinental filth and Jewish parasites that are holding down the proud Aryan race?
hanikrummihundursvin is not the only one who regularly posts about how much he hates the subhuman subcontinental filth and Jewish parasites that are holding down the proud Aryan race. And they usually don't get banned, because usually they can phrase it in a way that conforms to our rules. This is not Hanik's first, second, or twentieth time expressing how much he hates Jews, but sometimes he loses control, and he gets banned.
You're proud that the speech you like is allowed here while being verboten on reddit, even as you ban the speech you dislike and put boundaries on what the deplorables are allowed to say.
This is a lie, and I resent you lying about my motives and my actions. If I were banning speech I dislike, a lot more people would be banned. If I were putting boundaries only on the "deplorables," I wouldn't ban anyone expressing sentiments I broadly agree with (I assure you, I have).
But there's more to the story than libruls are thin-skinned snowflakes who can't handle disagreement
This is not what I said. In a hypothetical Motte where the majority is liberal but with a zealous commitment to letting anyone argue anything as long as they do so civilly (gods, I wish such a place existed), someone who came in politely arguing that actually, blacks really are lower in IQ and higher in criminality and women really shouldn't be allowed to vote would probably get dogpiled relentlessly until he snapped. I do not think lefties are particularly more thin-skinned than righties -- though I do think in the current political climate, liberals are a lot more comfortable in a controlled speech environment and become a lot more uncomfortable in an environment like this one where speech is not controlled they way they're used to.
We've done this a couple times, and usually your argument is just repeating that you're wrong, Chrispratt.
Yes. You are wrong.
Do you think you're going to change my mind just by repeating that you think I'm wrong, or do you feel the need to defend your record to the audience?
No, I do not think I am going to change your mind.
"Why do you argue with ankle-biters?" is a question I often ask myself. Sometimes I even promise myself I am going to stop. Still working on it. That I still suffer from "People are wrong on the Internet!" syndrome is probably why I am still here.
In that case, why say progressive at all?
I don't know - you guys said it, I didn't.
Now, there's tacit acknowledgement even from the mods that this is true and the party line has shifted to liberals are just too thin-skinned to deal with how wrong they are.
Which mods have acknowledged this?
Jiro saying 'Yeah, no' because he was butthurt about Jews being called parasites.
I've called @Jiro out on his hypocrisy before because yes, he's definitely someone who believes you should be able to say any terrible thing about any group except his own. But -
But yes, I'm pretty sure he could get away with hating on American blacks or illegal immigrants or Islamists or progressives or plenty of other groups for a lot longer than he could get away with hating on Jews.
This is just wrong and tells me you're either being disingenuous or you just don't pay attention.
You (the mod team and userbase more broadly, not you specifically) pride yourselves on being free speech absolutists and sneer at [insert lesser forum here.]
No we don't. This is, again, flatly wrong. If we were free speech absolutists, we wouldn't ban people for calling brown people locusts and Jews parasites.
I just think it's hypocritical to claim to be advocates of free speech when the only difference between you and reddit is where you've drawn the line in the sand, and that line is largely a product of the views of your userbase
Bullshit.
Is it hard being a liberal ( or "progressive") here? Yes. But someone coming in saying Black Lives Matter and Trans Rights Are Human Rights would be allowed to argue for those positions. If ( when) they get banned, it wouldn't be for having unacceptable views but because it's dispiriting having an entire forum dogpile you and they tend to break and lash out. I admit we don't have a good solution for that. BUT - it must be said, one reason they break so readily is that they are just not used to people being allowed to dogpile them, instead of the other way around.
How many places on reddit or elsewhere can I very calmly and civilly argue for why I don't think trans women are women, or HBD may be real? Let alone the latitude we give to the likes of SS's performative Holocaust denial?
Yes, we do in fact allow more free speech than almost anywhere else that isn't "full of autistic 20 page screeds." No, we are not in fact free speech "absolutists." Yes, the community here has suffered evaporative cooling and a hardening of consensus viewpoints.
But your criticisms are off base and mostly just wrong when not outright disingenuous.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Can you name a single progressive here?
He said "progressive/liberal." "Progressive" is kind of a dirty word hereabouts, basically interchangeable with "woke," but do you not consider yourself a liberal?
On the flip side, there's nothing in the post being modded that would deserve a ban on any other topic.
Really? So you think he could have said something similar about another group and not been modded? Why do you think that? Or are you agreeing with Hanik that the mods are ZOG collaborators? That would be a twist.
There's no objective rule here (however much the mods may protest to the contrary), just an arbitrary line in the sand that the local userbase happens to draw further to the right than reddit does.
We aspire to consistency and objectivity and freely admit that we can achieve neither. But we generally can point to the rule that was broken and for all the times I have asked someone taking a bite out of our ankles to point to this mythical other foot on which can be found an equivalent shoe, it never ever happens. "You modded a Joo-poster for crossing a line, but you totally wouldn't do that on any other subject!" Okay, show me. Show me where someone else posted something equivalent and wasn't modded. Maybe it's happened, we do miss things. But every time I have made this request, what I get is a post that isn't equivalent and a 20-post-deep argument about why it's not. I mean, do I need to point out that in your link, @naraburns was not speaking as a mod? I am the one who posted a mod comment in that thread, and that was because @magicalkittycat was kind of pattern-matching as a Darwin-troll… it wasn't about his freedom to say what he thinks of Republicans.
To be clear, I think they're doing a good job. But the hypocrisy and chest-thumping around free speech is profoundly irritating.
"You're doing a good job and you also suck" is such a special snipe.
Thumps chest
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
To that extent, like jews being parasites that weaken it, and browns being locust that devour it
I might let "browns being locusts" pass since DWHD did say "don't hold back," but for everyone else in the thread- no, that doesn't mean you can just let loose with your unfiltered hot takes about Indians. You, however, decided it was also an opportunity to dump on your other obsession, as if suddenly the rules about broad generalizations about your outgroup were suspended. They are not. You've been warned and banned many, many times for this. You're just a hate-poster who barely controls yourself most of the time until you can't hold back any more, and you do... this.
Your last ban was 90 days. This one will also be 90 days. Next time is probably permanent.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I don’t think I am outsourcing my thinking or perspective to AI
If it's obvious to people reading your post that you used AI, then yes, you are.
I have no doubt there are other people using AI to help or generate their posts, but if you edit it enough that we can't tell, it might as well be yours. If we can tell, though, then I put you in the same category as a bot. There's a difference between using it as a spelling and grammar checker and using it to generate entire lines (like the telltale "It's not X-emdash-it's Y").
@cjet79 already decided not to ban you and remove your post. I might have decided differently.
I don't have to imagine, I see the mod queue. And I would never want to be a woman on modern dating apps. (For that matter, neither would I want to be a man on modern dating apps.)
More options
Context Copy link