@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

I used to think there were principled arguments against Israel and that it made sense to distinguish between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. I found it annoying when Jews would equate opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. It felt very manipulative, playing the "antisemitism" card when we're talking about objections to a nation's policies... And of course Israel is a country, countries are made of people and run by politicians, therefore Israel is often going to do things one can reasonably condemn.

I still believe there are a tiny number of people whose opposition to Israel is rooted in genuine principles. I think their arguments are mostly pretty unconvincing, but the New Historians, for example (a school of Israeli historians who are generally pretty critical of Israel and the Israeli narrative about its founding, but obviously don't literally want Israel to cease to exist... Benny Morris is the most notable one) are examples of "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites."

But mostly, especially since the latest Gaza War, I no longer take criticism of Israel at face value. Sure, a lot of stuff Israel does is fucked up, a lot of stuff the US does is fucked up, and I would like all countries in the world to do fewer fucked up things. Kumbaya.

But in most places, definitely including here on the Motte, you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews." It's just become very obvious that you don't have to scratch an anti-Zionist too deeply to find someone who hates Jews. It's true out in the public amongst the "Free Palestine" demonstrators, it's true here among the posters who suddenly have deep humanitarian concern for Palestinians and Iranians. Do they have similar concerns for, say, Ukrainians and Russians? Or the participants and victims in any other conflict anywhere else in the world? Of course not.

Since October 7, demonstrators attacking anything remotely connected with Israel, whether it's an Israeli-run bakery or just a synagogue (which can always be accused of being "Zionist" because the number of synagogues that aren't full of Israel supporters is infinitesimal) have pretty much given the game away. When you claim you don't hate Jews, you just hate like 90% of all Jews, well, that kinda looks like you hate Jews to me.

So, your lengthy defense of Israel isn't wrong, but it's beside the point. Almost nobody is actually criticizing Israel because they think the Israelis should negotiate differently or if they just did this or that they could have peace. There are no circumstances in which Israel will ever be "okay" with them. They just hate Jews. Simple as.

Given that the war was "announced" and the Ayatollah was killed at home within ten minutes, I'd say they were pretty similar levels of cold-bloodedly killing a man who was just going about his day because the shooter thought that the man was evil. This feels like a distinction without a difference.

Even if I agreed with you, I am still waiting for examples of anyone on the Motte who was celebrating either Kirk or the Ayatollah's murder. Until you show me an actual example of our supposed bias, you're constructing biases you think we have and imagining how we might mod hypothetical posts based on them.

In either case, it would be more about the tone than the sentiment. Someone is allowed to say "I think the Ayatollah/Charlie Kirk was a bad person who deserved to die." Someone could even make an effort post about how either bombing national leaders or shooting provocative public figures is a good thing. Simply posting "I hate Charlie Kirk and I'm glad someone shot that fucker" probably would get modded. But no one did that to my knowledge.

You're just making up nonexistent apples to compare with nonexistent oranges.

The most obvious would be various GrandBurdensomeCount personas, where his disdain is always treated as pathological or trolling.

He has been modded and banned, for exactly the same sort of rhetoric that got Dase banned.

If you hate white people or men you're a troll and will catch a ban

And I'm going to call you on this, as I have done before, and ask you to show me anything even close to an apples-to-apples comparison.

I actually don't remember anyone posting here on the Motte who clocked as "hating white people or men." There have been some very leftist people with woke ideas about feminism or DEI. Those ideas did not catch them bans.

Yes, posting that Venezuelans are subhumans who deserve to die would get modded. I know we have modded people for getting too inflammatory about Somalians.

As for the Ayatollah, I suppose cheering for his death is vaguely similar to cheering for Charlie Kirk's murder, but only vaguely. There is a difference between cold blooded public murder and targeted killings of leaders during a war and the discourse around the Ayatollah was mostly about whether the war was justified, not whether the Ayatollah was a bad man who deserved to die.

If someone posts about Europeans like Dase posted about Americans, they will at least get a warning, and if they have a record like Dase's they will get a ban, yes.

I'm not asking for names, but if your objection is "I have a list of names of users I think get away with saying things other users cannot, " yes, I am going to dismiss your objections. If your objection is "I think people are allowed to say things about some groups of people that they cannot say about other groups," I am going to dismiss your objections. We've heard it, we've heard it many times, and whenever I make the mistake of asking for specifics, specific is what I get - not any kind of systematic bias, but some thread or poster in particular that grinds the complainer's gears.

You've already made multiple, objectively false claims about past discourse here. When I asked you "Where are all the people who were dehumanizing Charlie Kirk on the Motte?" you tell me that's not the point. The point is you "perceive " something something. Well, okay then. What are we supposed to do about that?

We are obviously capable of entertaining the possibility that we are biased or make bad calls sometimes. But I would require a very high level of evidence to be convinced of the very broad accusation you are making. Otherwise, yes, I dismiss it as "I would like moderation to be fine-tuned to my precise preferences."

What do you propose?

Is this not the fundamental nature of all objections?

To moderation? No, half of it is "People are allowed to say things I don't like" and half of it is "You won't allow me to say anything I like."

I am sure you do feel like your objections are legitimate and completely unlike the objections of everyone else we have to brush off because we won't moderate to their precise specifications (i.e., "allow speech I like and disallow speech I don't like").

Your objection seems to be that people are allowed to say things you don't like.

We give a lot of leeway, but not infinite leeway. People can say they don't like Jews or they think ZOG rules the world. People can be dismissive about someone being killed.

"Lol glad he's dead" would probably have gotten a ban,. but expressing an opinion like "This is not a big deal" would not.

We try to be consistent and principled. We don't claim to be perfect.

Modhat posts often get reported by people who disagree with the moderation.

Always amusing when some posters are accusing us of allowing Joo-posting because we're a bunch of antisemites, and other posters are accusing us of protecting Jews because we're a bunch of Zionists.

You're simply wrong. There are no groups that this rule does not apply to. People are allowed to say they don't like Jews or blacks or MAGA white guys. They are not allowed to just insult people for being Jewish or black or a MAGA white guy. Do we always catch every single instance and enforce it uniformly? No, we're not AIs.

As for Charlie Kirk, your recollection does not match mine at all. Maybe someone here on the Motte said his murder was "no big deal" but I would bet more people by far on the Motte are sympathetic to Kirk than not. Even I, one of our resident "center-leftists" who had no particular fondness for him, was unambiguous about condemning his murder. Bluntly, if you are claiming one or two people said something dismissive, I'll take your word for it, though I don't remember it, but if you are claiming this was a widespread sentiment on the Motte, I think you are making things up.

You read the above and your conclusion is that we just made up a new rule: "You cannot insult Indians"?

Buddha wept.

No. The rule is "You may not direct generalized insults at broad groups of people." Whether or not those groups are represented here on the Motte.

We/I did not "move any lines" or retroactively enforce some new rule against KMC. He's been warned about this before.

Believe it or not, "Americans" is also a category of people you aren't allowed to just say "You're a bunch of demons" about. Criticize American culture, foreign policy, and whatever else you hate about America and Americans, sure. But when you want to criticize a group you have to ground it in specific behaviors and traits, not just label everyone in the group as crazystupidevil. (Yes, I'm sure you don't literally think every single American is crazystupidevil , but that's beside the point.)

You've gotten a lot of slack because you've been around a while and as unwilling as you are to claim "emiitus" status, we do weigh positive contributions against negative ones. But something has happened to you, and lately your contributions are far more negative than positive,.and you repeatedly curl your lip and bark angrily when told to chill.

I'm giving you 90 days in liueu of a permaban. Being perfectly honest, I personally don't care whether or not you come back. I got @KMC snapping at me for "driving off the regulars," but the problem is, some regulars have never contributed anything but shit. And others stop contributing anything good. Emeritus status only goes so far.

You're getting a lot of reports and more than one mod wants to ban you. Largely because you have a long and shitty record. Mostly, though not entirely, because of this particular hobby horse.

On the one hand, "Only white people should be considered Americans and birthright citizenship should be ended" is an opinion, and we don't prohibit people from expressing opinions. Even disagreeable opinions, even opinions that offend lots of people, even opinions that would strip a lot of people of their currently extant rights. So, you're allowed to express that opinion.

On the other hand, we do have other rules about civility, about contentless sneering at your outgroup, about making generalizations about groups. When you have an opinion like "Indians can't be Americans and don't deserve to live here" or "Jews are evil alien parasites" or "Women are NPCs" or "Blacks are incapable of civilization" and so on (note: these are examples; I am not ascribing all of those opinions to you), your sincerely-held opinion does run up against some of those other rules, and that's where people start complaining about how our rules demand you use "too many words" or dance around "the truth." Because yeah, you are allowed to believe things about non-whites, about people with non-white ancestry, about who should be a citizen. You are not allowed to just say "these people" like they are not citizens, or talk about sending them all "back where they came from" unless you are willing to put in a lot more effort actually describing a colorable position (even if it's literally race war, in which case, say so, and yes, you still have to be polite about advocating for a race war!). Because "these people" are also posters here and are entitled to the same civility as everyone else. That's the same reason I can have an opinion about certain people deserving a kick in the teeth, but I can't just express it like that. Because it would be antagonistic and rude.

Capisce?

So, every time you feel an urge to go off on your "Man born in a barn" metaphor sneering at people with funny furrin' names, pretend you are saying it directly to such a person's face in an environment where civility is expected. Because you are.

If you can't do that, next time I will ban you, and nothing of value will be lost.

@SecureSignals is many things, but "third worldist," probably not. To figure out why he cares about Cuba and what his position is, you need to ask how Jews are involved.

That said, namecalling and telling people they are full of shit is over the line.

I think a couple of you have misunderstood: the OP himself did not get reported! (Actually he got quite a few AAQCs.) It's the arguments downthread that are getting reported- and it's both pro- and anti-lockdown posters reporting each other.

General comment on this thread, not a warning for any individual in particular:

Rarely do I see so many reports on posts that are almost entirely "This guy's opinion makes me mad."

The thread is interesting and obviously evokes lots of feelings. What depresses me about it is not any of the discourse about Covid and vaccinations and lockdowns. It's the constant reminder that on a forum where people supposedly value free speech, the average poster still just wants everyone they disagree with to be shut up.

Contemplate that while whining about vaccinations and lockdowns.

As soon as someone says "I have to write ten paragraphs to..." I dismiss them as someone disinterested in factuality.

Both of you stop this petty "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!" exchange.

I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite.

As often happens in discussions that get heated and personal, you are veering into unnecessary antagonism.

"Your argument is hypocritical, here's why" is much less antagonistic than "You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite."

Strive to be less antagonistic, even if the other person is aggravating you.

If you don't like the rules you can raise it with us and we'll discuss it (but this particular rule has been discussed repeatedly and we are very unlikely to change our minds). Telling someone else to set themselves up for a ban is definitely not going to move the needle.

Okay, this is just linkspam.

Yeah, some of it is kind of interesting. Like a listicle or a "You won't believe..." TikTok or YouTube thumbnail is interesting.

We have rules against low-effort posts that are just collections of culture war fodder. No, we are not going to bring back the link roundup. That is not what this place is for.

Don't do this again.

Superb execution of Poe's Law.

When people write screeds like this about feminism, in my mind I always wonder "Which kind of feminism"? Because nowadays, "feminism" means pretty much whatever the person using the word wants it to mean, whether that is "Women should be able to vote" or "Evil civilization-hating penis-removing witches."

It's not just that there have been many different waves and schools of feminist thought, it's that it literally has become such a generic term that essentially anything other than a neolithic model of gender relations can be called "feminist." That's not even an exaggeration when we have people here on the Motte who literally believe that women should be property and it's those fucking bitch feminists who are the reason they aren't.

This is my personal opinion, not a mod note, but "feminism is a mind virus," "feminism is objectively false," "feminism is cancer," etc. reads as very boo-outgroup to me when you don't even specify what you mean by it. Generally I assume you more or less mean modern progressive feminism, 3rd wave or whatever, sex positivity and equal rights etc. etc. And before you think I'm white knighting or some shit, I think I have made it clear enough in the past that I largely agree with the criticisms of modern feminism. But I don't think someone who believes "Women should be allowed to vote" or "It should be illegal to beat your wife" is the same as someone who's pushing whatever specific progressive feminist thing is enraging you.

No, because the consequences of getting it wrong are very different.

So I have made an argument similar to this (but notably, not the same) and gotten heat for it, so allow me to say that I agree with those who are pointing out that truth should not depend on the social consequences. If something is true, even if that truth is hard, uncomfortable, and leads to unfortunate implications, that doesn't make it not true and you cannot demand people pretend that it is.

What you can demand is that we be very sure of it, and that we exercise extreme caution when deciding what to do about it. Which would be the steelman of what what you seem to be saying. What I was accused of was defending the "Noble Lie" (i.e., "We all collectively understand this is true but we must pretend we don't know it"). Which is not something I defend.

Where I differ from you is that you seem pretty set on "It would be so bad if this was true, that we must demand absolute 100% certainty, on the level of knowing that gravity exists, before we acknowledge it."

I don't agree that recognizing that there are racial differences in IQ and behavior would inevitably lead to racial oppression. I do agree that would be a risk. What I think it would lead to is some really hard choices and a lot of people unable to accept public policy that stops trying to "correct" a situation that is essentially not correctable. I don't know that we as a society could come to some sort of stable equilibrium where everyone is treated with dignity (and as an individual, not a demographic median!).

Nonetheless, I think we do still kind of need to know and face the truth.

While I am somewhat more sympathetic to trans people than @FtttG, I agree with him that I see trans people use this "Why do you want to know what's in our pants? Ewwwww!" framing all the time, and it is really annoying and disingenuous.

No one on the gender critical side "wants to know what's in your pants." Most gender critical people don't think trans women belong in women's spaces whether or not the trans woman has a penis. While some (particularly in the radical feminist fringe) might have a particular horror of penises, it's not just the penis that makes the man, so to speak.

You can disagree with gender criticals and their desire to exclude trans women from women's spaces, but I think @FtttG is justified in being annoyed when you try to reduce it to a cheap accusation of being some kind of pervert obsessed with genitals.