Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
I'd argue that rape "in the modern sense" has been illegal for centuries. As with abolition, the criminalization of marital rape simply expanded the category of people to whom legal protections against criminal assault applied. (Wives were in a sense considered property of their husbands- much as it used to be legal to beat your children.) You can still read people arguing that marriage implies permanent unconditional consent and therefore marital rape doesn't/shouldn't exist.
Which is why I find @RandomRanger's argument that Africans are not human beings like us unconvincing; low IQ people have problems modeling other people's minds, showing empathy, or thinking about consequences, but it's also downstream of culture. Many Muslim immigrants are not particularly low IQ, but it's their culture that tells them women are property and caring how a woman feels about being raped is like caring how a chicken feels about being eaten. The ancients likewise considered rape a property crime, not because they couldn't understand that women had feelings and didn't like being raped, but because that just wasn't part of their moral framework.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9hr ago
The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865.
Rape was not legal in the West before slavery was abolished. Slaves just didn't count as "people" and so you were allowed to do many things to slaves that were crimes if done to non-slaves.
Rape was illegal long before 1865. The abolition of slavery did not (finally) criminalize rape; it just added former slaves to the category of people to whom legal protections (theoretically) apply.
I really dislike this disingenuous form of argumentation.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
And your takeway from that is that when you meet a black, white or Asian person or Jew, the way you treat them should not be based on how they behave, how they present themselves, how they treat you, but purely based on their ethnicity, because you believe everyone else is doing that to you?
What would your end goal be, assuming we all adopt this approach?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
A lot of people seem to have the idea that mods are bots and we are not supposed to express personal opinions, or respond to bitching at all except with a customer service voice. While we strive for civility, most accusations of being uncivil boil down to "You told someone who's being a jerk to stop being a jerk." When someone who's already been extended more grace than he deserves several times over is told he lacks self awareness, that is not incivility.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
But half our bans are not bad.
All your bans were deserved.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Person who gets banned a lot thinks his bans are bad. Many such cases.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Of course everyone is a member of a group. Most people are not like you, acting as if their ethnic membership is their only relevant trait.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
You were banned for being antagonistic and obnoxious, not because of the side you were arguing or for lack of citations.
The claim that you have been banned for what you are arguing might be something you genuinely believe (lots of people come in with a hot take, call people who disagree with them names, and then insist they were banned for their hot take and not for their name-calling), but it is not true.
Your lack of self awareness is unfortunate.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I agree that it would be a bitter pill to swallow. I don't blame the OP for being upset at this reality, if it is reality and if he has become convinced of it.
But I guess I just don't see the point of "Life is unfair!" posts. The Motte is mostly for discussing ideas and testing hypotheses. The OP doesn't really present anything to debate. Maybe he's hoping someone will talk him out of the HBD conclusion? (In this place, not likely.) Otherwise, a vent about existential angst is at best more appropriate for Wellness Wednesday or Small Scale Questions.
If you accept HBD but reject inidvidualism, you wind up where our enthusiastic ethnonationalists are. "Tribal and clannish" is just signaling you want war.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Every time you post, you repeat this lament. At this point, I am not sure you're not a troll.
But taking you at face value: what do you want? What are you asking here? What do you want people to say?
Either HBD is true or it's not. If it is true, then it doesn't matter whether it's "fair" in some cosmic sense. Of course it's not. No one is promised fairness. It's not fair some people are born into loving families in first world countries and other people are abandoned at birth in a slum. You are dealt the hand you're dealt. What other justice is there but "treat people as individuals"?
You can advocate for fair treatment. You can advocate for help to redress historical injustice. You can argue against the premise. But shaking your fist at reality because reality is unfair seems... really pointless.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
We are not allowing AI-generated drive-bys from first time posters.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
It seems like you keep circling around the same points you won't quite touch. Let me ask this:
What does "winning" mean for the US?
Because I don't think anyone ever claimed Iran could militarily defeat the US. And everyone knows that the US could, if it were willing to expend unlimited monies and go scorched earth, end the regime and even occupy the country. We could turn Iran into a parking lot. We could turn Iran into a colony. That we have the military power to do this has never been in doubt. What has been, and is, in doubt is whether we have the money and the political will to... do anything other than lob some missiles at them and declare "mission accomplished."
You say Iran does not "meaningfully" control the Strait of Hormuz. No, they don't. It's true, ships can sail through it and probably emerge unscathed. And yet, it's still considered dangerous, because Iran is still shooting at them, and strangely, commercial vessels are not comforted by being told "They'll probably miss you."
If we were "winning" the way you say we are, I would expect us to be in complete, undisputed, absolute control of the Straits. As in, zero Iranian missiles. No ships being threatened. None. Nada. Iran incapable of posing a threat to so much as a dingy, either because they literally no longer have the capacity to threaten, or know that firing one shot will bring consequences they are unwilling to bear.
That's not where we are. Why not? What have we accomplished? I want to know what my ROI is as an American taxpayer who's paying this bill. What have we won? Killing a lot of Iranians and making them spend a generation rebuilding does nothing for me as an American. I actually... don't care a lot about Israel, so Iran being less likely to attack Israel (note: less, not "will never happen again") is also not something I am invested in. Iran less likely to build nuclear weapons is some small benefit, but I remain unconvinced by your confident assurances that in 10 years Iran will not be building nuclear weapons. Iran not sponsoring terrorism anymore? Zero Islamic jihadist organizations being funded by Iran? That seems... very optimistic.
So tell me what we won. Kicking over a country like it's an anthill is a very expensive "victory" if you use a fleet of backhoes to do it and the ants are just going to keep stinging you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Your ban was not for the topic you wanted to talk about.
You have banned me too much under the wildcard rule which really just means per your discretion you don't like my posts.
You have no idea how many people I'd be banning if I banned people because I don't like their posts.
I think it's impossible to become a true forum regular while also being one of the types of posters you mention
We have many forum regulars who are those types of posters.
And that huge ban would obviously not be given to a regular
We have given permabans to people who've been here for years.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Even themotte has to crack down on holocaust denial, HBD and other topics from time to time.
Sigh. You're baiting me, aren't you?
No, we've never "cracked down" on topics *. We've cracked down on obsessive single-issue posters and people turning their hobby horses into culture-warring and consensus-building. We've never forbidden Holocaust denial or HBD posting or even pedo-posting from the guys who want to abolish the age of consent.
- (Once, many years ago on the old subreddit, before my time, the mods put a temporary moratorium on HBD posting because it was close to turning into open calls for race war.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
It was the "((they))" that looked like Joo-posting. Multiple parentheses are an online "Jew" tag, and "Jews responsible for all the liberal degenerate things I hate" is not an uncommon mind virus here, but other than generic "Jews=Hollywood" I was struggling to see the connection.
Protections from rape don't apply in their worldview because they are from cultures where rape of their own women is more of a property crime (offense against the woman's father/husband) than a personal violation. Women behaving in their culture the way British women do (i.e., walking around freely not under the obvious protection of a man) are also viewed as fair game.
More options
Context Copy link