@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				
User ID: 297


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Amadan


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Letting the hate flow through me

				
				
				

				

					9 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 297


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Read some political biographies. There are politicians (and staffers to politicians) who do in fact have a comprehensive and wonkish understanding of policies and regulations. No, they aren't going to produce witty unrehearsed speeches about them like the dialog on West Wing and they probably aren't writing blogs. They are doing boring unglorious work in some DC office. But such policy nerds exist. If you had as much interest in housing policy as some people have in 4X games, you'd be writing posts about it.


We may not have that quality of posting here (though I have seen some really good posts about housing policy, for example) but it's simply not true that policy nerds don't exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is as bad as the OP. "My enemies are incapable of producing real arguments."


You're on a roll lately, and not in a good direction. That probably applies to the Motte in general, but if you cannot even conceive of having worthwhile discussions with people whose politics are different from yours, you are in the wrong place.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for November 7, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Everything you say is also true of novelists. As with musicians, a publisher traditionally was more likely to make money on someone they cultivated and deemed to a potential bestseller than just giving publishing contracts to everyone in the slush pile. And while I'm not sure AI poses an existential threat to publishing, it's certainly a hell of a nuisance, and it's overrunning some genres (most of those litrpg and harem fantasies and monster-fucker books were AI-written or AI-assisted) and it's probably just a matter of time before an AI writes a bestseller.


The AI art discussion is old news at this point, but commercial illustrators and graphic designers are definitely being impacted. "Good enough" is definitely good enough for most companies. Pretty much the only thing preventing unrestricted use of AI at this point is the outrage unleashed on any publisher or other company caught using it, and that's not going to hold back the future forever.


I don't know about "dystopian" but I do think artisanal human-made music, writing, and art will become something of a niche.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's no content here but culture warring and "boo leftists."


Even some rightists are noticing that the Motte is converging into a rightoid hivemind. Maybe that is inevitable, and posting rightist opinions is fine, but you're a newly-rolled account with a grand total of two comments that amount to nothing more than "Boo hiss leftoids." I don't even care which permabanned returnee you are. Write something more interesting.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"50% of the forum loves them and 50% hates their guts" is practically the definition of an interesting poster.




It's easy to be "interesting" (for some value of "interesting"). That's not the only criterion. The goal is not to be polarizing for its own sake. The guy going on about how having sex with your own prepubescent daughter should be legal was certainly interesting - and he wasn't even banned for expressing that opinion! He was banned for belligerently sneering at everyone who disagreed with him.




I don't expect that this suggestion will ever actually be implemented, but it is a possibility nonetheless.




I wouldn't be against it, per se, I just predict with high confidence that those who take advantage of the opportunity to return after a one-year ban will get banned again in short order.




Hlynka is the primary example of course, also fuckduck9000, AhhhTheFrench, AlexanderTurok.




As I told @The_Nybbler, fuckduck wasn't that interesting. AhhhTheFrench was a one-trick pony ("Hurr hurr religious people are so dumb!"). Hlynka and Turok I'll grant were interesting. However, see above. If you can convince Zorba to grant them an amnesty, I wouldn't oppose it, but I am also fairly certain they will not change their posting styles, which means in short order we'd be back to "Okay, are they so interesting that we let them keep just ignoring the rules?"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That doesn't answer a single thing I asked.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've already given you a warning for the OP. I'm not going to write a more effortful mod comment here about the direction this entire thread has gone. I already wrote many words to which you gleefully said "tldr lol." So: stop it. Stop doing the meme


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This comment is virtually devoid of substance, the very definition of "low effort." Make an actual point that doesn't waste our time reading it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is not a helpful contribution. Just because she's embarrassing herself and everyone is piling on does not mean it's open season to just throw rocks.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I only vaguely remember @fuckduck9000. The ban was a year ago and it was @naraburns who banned him and I'm not going to read the entire thread to see if I agree with your summary, since your summaries are almost always disingenuous.


But let's look at @fuckduck9000's "valuable contributions": he had eight warnings and/or tempbans before he got permabanned. All of them were basically for petty shit-stirring and condescension, often by starting a "call-out" thread obviously intended to start a fight. He had zero AAQCs, and my recollection of him was basically just another sneering culture warrior (which fits your defense of him, he usually sneered at the people you like to sneer at) but he never did so in an interesting or effortful way.


So your example of someone who was a loss to the forum was an uninteresting, unmemorable snarler who was given many, many chances to improve. Try again.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay buddy - you and @ABigGuy4U - I am calling your bluff. Who are the people we have permabanned who actually made the forum worse for their absence?


The only one I can think of is @HlynkaCG and he is extremely debatable - for every Hlynka-stan who misses him, there is someone who was screaming at us to ban him for years. And I've already written several times about how we did everything we could, short of just literally saying "The rules don't apply to Hlynka," to avoid having to permaban him.


Every other permaban I can think of might have been in some cases an "interesting" person, but they were interesting in the sense that they wrote high-effort screeds spitting high-effort venom, and the people upset that we banned them approved of the direction they were spitting.


Go on, tell me who on this list was a valuable contributor who you think should be granted amnesty?


We do not casually permaban people, and we let even the most belligerent and obnoxious people, if there is even a shred of redeeming quality in their posts, have multiple chances before we pull the trigger.


I personally don't find @BurdensomeCount's contributions very interesting, though I will say his trolling has gotten less blatant. I just skimmed the OP because it was the usual uninteresting BC sneering. He mostly gets away with it because he's toned down the celebratory triumphalism about enjoying the fruits of immigrating to the UK which he looks forward to being conquered by his people who will punish the white supremacist natives in good time. It was those kinds of posts that got him banned before.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I haven't seen anyone accusing you of hating men.


So trans people being offended are just crazy and can be ignored. Okay. But women being offended must be taken very seriously. What about Jews, blacks, and leftists? Just trying to figure out if there is any actual underlying principle to what you think should be modded other than "That which offends me personally is bad and that which doesn't offend me personally is fine."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I modded her for sarcasm. That doesn't give you a pass to be just as sarcastic and patronizing back.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, anything to say about the Joo-posters, the racists, the tranny-haters?


If a Jew started posting like you do with mockery and derision calling people Nazis (including some posters who can actually fairly be called Nazis), would you consider that appropriate for the Motte? If a trans person served some contempt back at you when you are expressing what you think of trans women, would you be cool with that?


These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Inflammatory is perception so I can't say it's not inflammatory, I can say people who think it's inflammatory are wrong.




Yes, inflammatory is perception. My perception, as the mod who makes these decisions, is that claiming an election was "obviously fraud" is inflammatory. An example of an "inflammatory" statement is a highly-charged partisan statement that the other party is certainly not going to agree with, which claiming that an election was "obviously fraud" obviously is.


I am not making a judgment as to whether or not what you said was true. Maybe the election was fraudulent. Maybe it wasn't. You're free to argue that.


You are not prohibited from making inflammatory statements, like claiming that an election was fraud, or even "obviously" fraud.


What you are prohibited from doing is making an assertion like that and not providing sufficient evidence or reasoning to back up the assertion.


Assumptions that "this couldn't possibly happen because it doesn't fit my model of how the world works" are not sufficient evidence or reasoning, though the expanded version you posted above would probably have been sufficient to avoid being dinged for a bald inflammatory assertion. "I think this election was obviously fraud because here's why I cannot believe it could have been otherwise" is still inflammatory, but it is backed by why you believe that. "I think this election was obviously fraud because duh!" is not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you even realize that the fact I am wasting time responding to your three (3!) responses to my one post is a gesture of respect that I fully realize will be both unappreciated and is largely undeserved? Yet here I am. Maybe it will be instructional to others who have similar complaints, if not you.




You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on. Maybe you should work on that? I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater".




I literally made the point you are claiming I did not get.


"He-man, woman hater" was, in fact, sarcasm.




I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady.




No one has ever asked you to take anything like a lady. You are being asked to follow the rules that apply to men, women, and Martians here on the Motte.




So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".




Many people post things that are arguably not worth engaging in because they are so risible. I often feel this way, and I'm pretty sure everyone feels this way at times. And the rules remain: if you cannot engage without mockery, you should not engage. When someone posts something utterly retarded, sometimes I cannot resist the temptation to respond, and sometimes it's really, really hard not to respond with the derision I think their retardation deserves. But whether as a mod or a non-mod, I am required to stifle the derision, and you are required to do likewise.




Do I? I'm starting to wonder. Was that remark about hoping for an economic crash so women (and it wasn't specifying any particular set of women, rather all women which would include the likes of me) will be forced to choose between destitution (yes, that was the exact word) or 'making concessions to good men' - was that remark 'ha ha only joking', in which case it too should have earned the sarcasm penalty, or was it meant in all seriousness?




First of all, making a joke is not the same as sarcasm. The rule is not "You may not be funny."


And the "avoid sarcasm" rule is not even an absolute prohibition on sarcasm, it is an injunction against using sarcasm in place of plain and respectful speaking when responding to someone else. Stop trying to be a pedant just to rules-lawyer things to suit you. Those are the worst sorts of complaints to mods.


As for whether the poster was serious about wanting women to be forced to suck dick for food (that's my paraphrasing; see, that's an example of mildly sarcastic humor), I don't know, why don't you ask him? But here's my question for you: why does it offend you so much? I mean, beyond the obvious: yes, you're a woman and obviously the suggestion that you should be forced to trade sexual favors for survival is likely to offend you. Do you think you (or women as a class) are the only ones entitled to not be offended by someone's outrageous suggestions? When our Joo-posters go off about Jews, and their physical weakness and cowardice, their nefarious schemes to destroy Western civilization, their hatred of the white race, their sleaziness and bad faith dealings and genetic predisposition to start conflicts with everyone around them (this is not hyperbole, these are all things people have actually said on the Motte), do you want the mods to step in and say "Hey, you're not allowed to offend Jews like that?" I do not recall you ever objecting to those posts. When people talk about how ugly and psychopathic and perverted and delusional trans people are, do you think a trans person would be entitled to complain about being offended? When our white nationalists and just garden variety racists propose that black people need to be controlled and "husbanded" like livestock, or that we should not tolerate coexisting with them, would it be okay for a black poster to be as mocking and sarcastic as he wants to be in response? Or would you say "Hey, you need to engage with the argument even if you don't like it, you aren't allowed to just go off on someone because he offended you?" Or would you just say nothing because you don't actually care when someone who isn't you is offended?




Because we've lived the days of "sex for meat" and that's the damn reason feminism came into being in the first place. Hoping to exploit the misery of others is not what I thought The Motte was about.




Hey, I'd like to think so too. If you haven't noticed, a lot of people here do in fact want to exploit the misery of others. I think this is bad and those people are bad people. What's your point? The mods should start forbidding meanbad opinions? You seem to want an axial shift in how moderation works here, and while that might be worth discussing, it's hard to take the proposal seriously when, again, you only seem to notice when it applies to you personally.




How about if someone cheered on the idea of AI putting all the guys on here out of work, so that they will have to bend the knee to employers and scrabble for former white collar jobs with the cheap imported labour, which drives down salaries and workplace conidiations? Suppose I reacted to someone talking about their fears for their late career with "serves you right, you had it too good all along, now you will have to agree with whatever an employer demands of you if you want any kind of job"?




People have said more or less this, in different ways. Depending on how you say it: "Hah hah, you deserved it!" is definitely going to get modded. "Well, I think is a good thing actually and too bad that you're the one suffering for it but" is in fact allowed, even if the person suffering for it usually does angrily report the post.




Hoping for bad things to happen to those you disagree with is fine and will not get me into trouble, just so long as I avoid sarcasm, see Amadan's mod decision.




You are misunderstanding the difference between "fine" in the sense of conforming to rules and "fine" in the sense of moral judgment. Do I think it's "fine" to hope for bad things to happen to those you disagree with? No. See above. I think that is a base and vile impulse (not that I haven't felt it myself) and should be discouraged, but that's between you and your conscience and/or your priest/therapist/AI waifu/whoever.


Are people allowed, here on the Motte, to express the hope that bad things will happen to other people? Well, we moderate on tone, not on substance. If you can write an effortpost sans sarcasm on the topic, yes, though you might be narrowly navigating between the Scylla and Charybdis of boo outgrouping and inflammatory claims without evidence. Many Joo-posters crash here, trying to express that Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them without actually saying "Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them." And likewise, as I told you, some of our incel-posters have gotten rapped for not being able to prevent their seething contempt for women from bleeding onto the screen.


But hey, if that's the direction you want to go, some of our more artful accelerationists and doomers mostly get away with it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Say you are looking forward to women being forced into destitution: a-okay to say.




If you are making a serious point and not just sarcastically mocking women, yes. People have in fact been modded in the past when their incel-posting was basically just "bitches be crazy." On the other hand, people have been allowed to post all sorts of outside-the-Overton-window stuff without being modded if they are able to do so while following our discourse norms.


You know this. You know what the Motte is all about. You are not some naïf wandering in here and shocked to discover we have Holocaust deniers and white nationalists and yes, unironic anti-female emancipationists. Why do you pretend you don't understand how things work here?


You know I have modded people for being obnoxious and sarcastic while venting their spleen about how much contempt they hold women in. You've also seen me just today arguing with the incel-posters, as a non-mod, so your "interesting view of life" crack is petty and disingenuous. What view of life is it you are accusing me of holding, exactly? What exactly are you pleading for? A rule that people aren't allow to say hurtful things about women (but everyone else is fair game)?




Quote historical real actual content of the same kind: how dare you be sarcastic!




Look up at the top of the page. There's a rule that's been there forever:




Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.




Now, if you want to argue that we don't always mod every single instance of sarcasm or mockery, and indeed that I have a sarcastic bone or two in my body, you're not wrong! But your post was just a long screed of pure unfiltered sarcasm and mockery. If you had really wanted to make that same point seriously, you could have. "Hey, look, your ideas are not new and they look pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms, don't they?" That would have been fine. But no, you were clearly upset at all the he-man woman-haters going on about how women and their ladybrains don't belong in the workforce, and so you worked up this (admittedly effortful, and even kind of funny) little polemic to mock them with.


And my warning was barely a slap on the wrist! A "okay, hah hah, now please don't do this." But like all the humorless scolds who think everything is funny when they do it and nothing is funny when it's done to them, here you are once more taking grave offense like I personally singled you out with my biased woman-hating agenda. You could take the rap and move on, but no, you obviously wanted more attention, so here it is. That's my explanation of why you got modded while the people posting things that outraged you did not. That's my "view of life." Happy to straighten that out for you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, I'm mostly going to let this go as a joke, but you know this is bad argumentation ("Look at the crazy sexist things men in the early 20th century believed har har har!") and pouring on sarcasm thick enough to spread on toast doesn't help.


You find the he-man women-haters club frustrating and annoying? Yeah, I get that. We still don't encourage this kind of water balloon-throwing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not bitter, dude, at least not in that way. You're very un-calm for someone accusing others of being excersized.


I think you should review where rationalists are at nowadays. You're lumping a lot of people with views from mildly positive to actively hostile towards every position you named. I could just as easily say that there is no meaningful difference between Catholics and Mormons. And indeed, to someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity this would be true. But of course to someone who actually takes the time to examine what they believe, it is obviously not true. They share lineage, obviously. Hence my description of "intersecting Venn diagrams that have moved apart."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


by implying that, metaphorically, she is the tail and Catholic priests are the trunk of Christianity.




Well, that would be flattering to Catholics, certainly, but yes, I see little difference in how closely they hew to reality, however much more erudite in theological matters the seminary graduates may be.


What I meant by "I was there" was not some metaphysical experience of the birth of wokeness, but that I actually witnessed the birth of both new atheism and rationalism, and I am saying they were intersecting Venn diagrams that became increasingly separated. Now if you want to argue that everything is "the toe of the same elephant" as poisonous fruits of the Enlightenment, well, okay, but you might as well say Nazis and Socialists and Libertarians and Evangelicals are all the same thing. Maybe that is what you actually believe.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I want incels who can't get laid to suck it up (or improve their situation), yes.


Their "awful solution" is that women should be forced to have sex with them or starve. You are arguing that if I reject that awful solution, I am endorsing male slavery. How did you get there?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Have you seen the meme that goes:


Man: "The average women is 5'4."
Woman: "But I'm 5'8" though."


You're doing the meme.




Certainly I have not reduced it to that. You can just not enslave the men. In fact, even if you enslave some women you haven't stopped enslaving the men.




Great, we both agree you shouldn't enslave people. Why did it take you so long to get there?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You're getting increasingly lazy in your argumentation. It's not "Just worlding" to notice the correlation between NEET gooners and incels. Is every single incel a non producer? No, but the flattering cope that by and large they are producers unfairly providing for whores who won't give them nooky doesn't correlate to any honest observation.


As for enslavement, what I notice is that you have reduced the argument to "Failure to enslave and rape women means enslavement of men." I'm not sure that is the position you intended to back into. I'm also not sure it's not. But it's certainly a Kulak-based take. Fascinating.


Let's say you're right and I'm failing to be horrified by enslavement of men because I don't notice it. (I reject your flawed logic, but let's suppose it holds, for the sake of argumen.) Are you claiming that believing women should be enslaved and raped is more moral because you admit noticing that's what you're endorsing?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I get that you have very strong feelings about this, but that’s just, like, your opinion, man




No, not really. I'm not sure why some people think implying "strong feelings" about a statement of fact is an effective retort. It's a gambit obviously deployed in bad faith. It's a rhetorical tactic akin to saying "You're being emotional." You should know better.


No, I don't have strong feelings about this. I just know I'm right and you're wrong because I was there. I don't have an emotional investment in rationalism.


And my Sunday school teacher did indeed scare me at the time, me being eight years old and all, but I merely relayed that anecdote by way of saying "Yes, this is a real thing actual Christians believe." Obviously, even if I still were a Christian, I would no longer be traumatized by what a dumb volunteer church lady said when I was eight.


But I would (and am) aware that for all your magesterial apologetics, there is no meaningful difference between her and your priests.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A reminder that this is not a rationalist forum. As for new atheism and rationalism being the same thing: no, they definitely are not. There is definitely some overlap, but new atheism spawned Atheism+ and was a driver of SJW/wokeness, which rationalism has always been ambivalent-to-hostile towards.


As for not knowing Christianity, I kind of agree with you that a lot of people don't actually understand Christianity at all, but at the same time, there are many, many "Christian" doctrines, and even the Christians here on the Motte have a habit of expressing their own interpretation in a doctrinaire fashion as obviously the correct and orthodox form of Christianity, from which any deviation is a misunderstanding at best, heresy at worst.


As for blaspheming against the holy spirit, you know, that is a pretty hard one to get around if you actually believe in taking the Bible literally. As a kid, I once made a Halloween joke about the holy spirit being like a ghost in a sheet or something, and the Sunday school teacher very seriously read me the verse about mocking the holy spirit being an unforgivable sin. Imagine telling an eight-year-old that he's just irreversibly damned himself to hell with a joke!