@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

11 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

11 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

This is just sneering. Don't do this.

I am not sure what the point of this joke is, but it's juvenile at best and antagonistic at worse. Please make whatever point you are trying to make some other way (and more clearly).

What am I supposed to do about it? I do argue for free speech maximalism and fairness. It makes me as popular among my Blue tribe cohort as I am among the Reds here.

This appears to be an appeal to formal rule-based systems.

Yes. I still care about these things. If you're right it won't matter.

I really do read most of the conflict in that zone as motivated directly by the desire to control the specific territory, rather than a deep-seated racial animus (although that's certainly been building among the inhabitants of the region) or an inherent need to slay the nonbelievers.

It's kind of both.

Palestinians believe Israelis have no right to be there and the land is theirs. So yes, it is a desire to control the territory, and it's not as if they would spare the Muslim or Christian Israelis should they somehow gain the ability to sweep them into the sea.

But Muslims in general, well before the Zionists first arrived in the Holy Land, have always had a negative attitude towards Jews (yes, the Quran says they are "People of the Book" but the Quran also has lots of passages about how nicely you're supposed to treat your wives, and, well) and Islam is a militant religion that does not accept the presence of non-believers except in a barely-tolerated, clearly subordinate position.

Specifically political commentators, no, but traveling pundits/social media influencers like Charlie Kirk are a relatively new phenomenon. If you think of him as "celebrity who appears in public and tends to draw a lot of crazies," celebrities being attacked and/or murdered is not a new phenomenon.

Since this was decision by arbitration over violation of a union CBA, the question of whether saying something stupid and offensive qualifies as "gross misconduct" seems to depend on how their contract was written, not whether the average person thinks dancing in the blood of a murdered man is gross and unprofessional.

While we can all fill in the obvious shoe-on-the-other-foot hypotheticals, I would like to know if there are any comparable cases where a Post writer was fired for "gross misconduct" for social media posts.

It's still a stretch, though. The "anti-trans" legislation she pushes for is generally "Trans women cannot be housed in women's prisons, trans women cannot demand to be taken in at women's shelters, trans women should not compete with men in women's sports," etc. That's "anti-trans" in the sense that it denies trans people the right to have everything they want (being considered 100% the sex they say they are in every context), but it's phrased as if this "anti-trans" legislation is meant to literally cause them harm or deny them their civil rights, like people are trying to pass bills making it illegal to be trans. Rowling (and to my knowledge, all so-called TERF organizations) has never tried to deny trans people the right to call themselves trans and live as their self-identified gender.

Ah, my linguistics undergraduate degree is finally useful.

Almost all claims of "Such-and-such language has a hundred words for (culturally important concept)" are false/exaggerated. It's not specifically a progressive thing. More like "This makes for a nice anecdote" which gets blown up into a bit of a tall tale. In Eskimo languages, for example (and indeed in most languages concentrated in far northern climes) there are lots of phrases to describe various snow and ice conditions in useful ways, but they do not literally have a hundred different words for minute differences between types of snow.

You are missing the point. We don't tell you you can't say someone is a fool and instead you should say they are expressing views that some people might regard as foolish. We are saying that you cannot just equate "I think you're wrong" with "You're a fool." Some people are indeed fools, but the bar for calling people names that dismisses any need to actually engage with them is high, by design.

And of course most people know that 22-year-old Megan Fox in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen mogs all subsequent Megan Fox. But IMO, she is herself mogged by 19-to-20-year-old Megan Fox in the first live-action Transformers, who is in turn super mogged by 14-to-15-year-old Megan Fox in Holiday In The Sun. She's maybe slightly mogged by the slightly younger 14-to-15-year-old Olsen twins in the same movie, but the three of them are all super mogged by 13-to-14-year-old Emma Watson in Prisoner Of Azkaban. Is she mogged by her 11-to-12-year-old self in Chamber Of Secrets? Maybe, I would need to go refresh my memory to say, but I think I've dug myself deep enough at this point.

This is very much a you thing. I mean, yes, biology trumps culture so men will find young teen girls attractive, but usually it's young teen girls who are at least post-pubescent, which 11-year-old Emma Watson was not. If you find 11-year-old Emma Watson hotter than 19-year-old Megan Fox, you are certainly outside the norm.

There is nothing "broken" about a world that doesn't let you have everything you might like, regardless of consequences to others.

I know people who genuinely oppose data centers for real reasons. I think their reasons are mostly incorrect, and sometimes I argue with them, but they do really believe these things, they are not lying about their opposition, and they are not (all) degrowth luddites.

It's becoming entirely too popular hereabouts to just lead with "My position is right, and people opposed to my position are all bad faith liars who don't actually believe what they say they do, they are just NPCs who hate Western civilization and God and sunlight."

It's a very satisfying thing to believe. It makes it easy to caricature your enemies as unthinking orcs who can be dismissed as evil stupid liars. You don't have to steelman everybody, but when I can see with my own eyes that yes, people actually are angry about data centers for real reasons, I know you summarily categorizing them all as "barely sentient" is just venting anger at your outgroup. And when I note certain people taking a side that I think is mostly comprised of bad-faith liars, and I have to charitably assume some of them are sincere, I feel no guilt at all in telling you to do the same thing.

It's amusing that you project "anger" as hard as you can, when I am very rarely angry. Occasionally annoyed. Mostly tired.

they aren't the true objections

By your own admission, there are plenty of rational arguments. It should be obvious that some people actually believe those arguments.

You may believe that most people objecting to data centers are bad faith conflict theorists, and unlike you, I won't pretend I've surveyed them to have an educated guess how true that is, but since unlike you I am not a bad faith conflict theorist, I will continue to enforce the rules here, which are that if you want to assert your ideological opponents are 100% wrong, evil, and lying, bring evidence ("my seething hatred" is not evidence) or dial it down.

Anti-datacenter people are barely sentient.

Really? You can't conceive of a single rational argument people might have against data centers?

You have some feelings, evidently. I don't disagree with the direction of your argument. But this is pure flailing boo-outgroup and weakmanning. This kind of flaming verbal grenade doesn't invite discussion, it's just saying "I have an opinion and fuck you if your opinion is different." It's really hard to build any kind of discussion from that.

I don't disagree that there is a hereditary component and that genes affect behavior (and thus culture). I would argue that an African or Arab raised in a Western culture might still be comparatively low in intelligence, impulse control, etc., but would be much less likely to be an amoral barbarian incapable of understanding that rape is bad. We know that African Americans are more likely to be criminals, 13/52 and all that, for reasons HBDers recite endlessly, but the vast majority of African Americans do not act like those South African men.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

But half our bans are not bad.

All your bans were deserved.

Person who gets banned a lot thinks his bans are bad. Many such cases.

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.

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.

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.