ArjinFerman's profile - The Motte
@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 626


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ArjinFerman


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Tinfoil Gigachad

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 4 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 626


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


certainly no AI.




That's a testable hypothesis, you know. Let's give it a whirl:






"Americans! Look at the disaster before you, a catastrophe of incompetence and ambition. You are witnessing the spectacle of a woman, Kamala Harris, who clawed her way to power not on merit, but on a narrative as flimsy as her debate performances. She is a captive of the radical left, a puppet for the globalists, her every word a focus-grouped platitude delivered with that cackle—a sound that chills the soul, having neither the commanding resolve of a true leader, nor the genuine warmth of a public servant. Her record is a wake of failure: as a prosecutor, she was too tough for the liberals; as a candidate, she was too weak for the nation; and as a leader, she is a mere empty pantsuit, a photo-op in search of a purpose, ready to throw our borders wide open and surrender our sovereignty to the world. The choice could not be clearer: between Harris—chaos, weakness, and national humiliation—and Trump—strength, prosperity, and American glory!"






It's actually a bit tamer than the examples given, and any attempt to add the ethnic and gendered insults of the originals resulted in cuckedAI noping out, and I can't be bothered to jailbreak it.


Either way, I certainly wouldn't mind Trump modifying his style towards this, but I somehow doubt it would appease the "muh norms" crowd.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Astroturfing doesn't work, the ground withers if theres no traction. No amount of leftist 'trans women are women' in vidya or policy or media made trannies more popular,




This is the literal opposite of true. It made them more popular in terms of more people identifying as trans, and seeking referrals for medicalization, it made the more popular in terms ot vast swathes of society seeing it as fine and normal, it made them more popular of institutions catering to their every demand. They were so popular that it took absurd transgressions for the tide to change, and that my prediction that it is about, from a few years ago, was seen as somewhat unhinged. Even now that the position that we want too far with the trans thing is more mainstream, we're still nowhere near back to it's levels of popularity from 10-15 years ago.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You do realize that to anyone from the outside this will come off as "I agree with this post, that's why it's wonderful. Quick! Lock down the conversation before any icky diagreement spoils it"?


Like, it's cool that you agree with Amadan, and it's only natural to be biased to what you agree with, but aren't we here to disagree and talk?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 19, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You write this like you think Europeans wake up every day and go "awe fuck trump is alive, fuck I hate that guy", they don't




Most people aren't very political, so you're right about that, but the ones that are... ho boy...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Mate, not all of the West is the USA. Europe literally ran out of bombs when ousting Gaddafi.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Isn't working in a rural hospital approximately 7 zillion times more chill?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Doesn't have to be the first time to be true. Nor does it have to be exclusive to one party. But I'm not just talking about parties in general, I am referring to The Motte community. I certainly remember all the talk about lawfare.




I thought you specifically mentioned "the median Republican" in your argument, so I'm a bit confused why this is suddenly about the Motte community. Again, I'm pretty sure we're a much better example of crazy right-wingers than Trump is.




Hold up, there's a hidden assumption in this. First you said Republicans are not in solidarity because otherwise it wouldn't have been leaked. But then you pivot to saying the Young Republicans were fired because the left demanded they be fired




No, I said they got fired for saying things offensive to the left. Your examples would be akin to me saying "look how good the Republicans are in policing their own crazies, they fired this guy for being too permissive on abortion, and that guy for being in favor of no-fault divorce".




As for the Kirk example, your "critical component" was never mentioned before.




Well, this is from my original comment:






as to whether the right exists me to provide reputational cover - I dunno no man, half of them are doing some weird "neener-neener" bit about the YR kids getting fired






and this is after you asked for clarification:






The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.






Maybe it was communicated poorly, but "was never mentioned" seems like a bit too much.




I grow a little tired of the whole, "My example was on a Tuesday, yours was on a Wednesday so it doesn't count." Comparisons are never exact, deal with it.




I actually sympathize with your frustration about this, but I don't see an easy way out of this bind. Indeed, comparisons are never exact, and sometime bad-faith actors latch on to any difference to pretend an example or analogy does not apply. On the other hand, they also sometimes try to gloss over critical differences in order to pretend that two very different things are roughly the same. I don't know what to do about it other than to hash out which is which in a conversation.




Also, I posted Kotaku because that was the link I had, but the people who would jeer at it would not be found on Kotaku.




That doesn't bother me, but I just haven't seen the jeering at all, let alone at the same volume. When Jimmy Kimmel got cancelled, the left rallied around him, and as far as I can tell kept mostly quiet about the people who said something egregious enough to get fired for good.




Debatable




That still works more in my favor than it does yours, if we're debating whether or not it's bad to say "I don't care" to the excesses of your side. That thesis only works if it's reasonably certain that the sides are symmetrical, if it's merely debatable, then well... my mind is open, but you'll need a bit more to convince me to care.




And there are people on the left that call out the left. The Harper Letter crowd for instance. Hell, Obama himself has called out progressives for some of their behavior.




Obama made a single (a few?) speech(es?) that went over about as well as led balloon, and as for the Harper Letter:






Anti-Trump conservative writers Robert Worth, George Packer, David Greenberg, Mark Lilla, and Thomas Chatterton Williams drafted the letter






Oh wow, looks like the Neocons are not only the crazy-wing of the right, they're so far off they're actually left-wing according to you.


Look, there's other strains of evidence for the right policing itself more than the left that don't boil down to the observer's bias. The right has more diversity of thought within itself, as per actual studies and their endlessly memed graphs, so it will contain more loud disagreements.




I'm saying that "the left" is treated an amorphous blob.




That's an odd thing to say "I don't hate people who say 'I don't care' I hate the crazies". If you're referring to the original thesis of "the broader left exists to cover for it's crazies", that's not treating the left as an amorphous blob, that's pointing out that it's moderates refuse to do anything tangible against their crazies.




None of your deterrence is actually hurting people outside of making them angrier and more motivated to act again.




That can be true even in war. 9/11 didn't do much to directly hurt the USA, and for that matter neither did the American invasion of Afghanistan do much to hurt the Taliban. Now, I will agree that in times of peace, and within a nation the dynamics are somewhat different, but not completely so. There's a reason for why conservatives were looking for ways to get a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't just pack to court the moment they had the chance.




In which part? Because overall what I'd say I want is for people on the Motte to stop and think, "Would I accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against me?




I mean, right here, in the very sentence after your question? When I said "I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong" I didn't see "acknowledging they did anything wrong" to mean anything other than "they would not accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against them".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"Tipping the scales" requires that we know what the endpoint should be.




But why though? We can see the hand applying pressure to the scale, we know the exact force with which it is doing so. We don't know the weight of the object being weighed, so we can't tell you the result you'd see sans the extra force, but we can tell you pretty precisely what the force is. We can measure it in subsidies for feminist projects, in women-only scholarships, in quotas, in anti-discrimination laws that don't apply to men, etc.




"We'll know it when we see it" is a recipe for disaster, because no matter how you change the ratios, there's always the argument that "no, go lower and then it'll all be great!" So 60% female profession becomes 50/50? Still not good enough, society too female? Go down to 40% female? 30%? 0%?




But no one here seems to want to target specific ratios. If you get rid of the specific measures people are complaining about, and the ratios don't change that's absolutely fine.




Yeah, I'm Catholic and broadly complementarian, but we're equal opportunity for female religious leaders (not priests and deacons, I'm heading that one off before it begins) and saints. One of the big sticking points for the entire Reformation was the veneration of Mary and how her worship was seen to be displacing that of Christ, after all!




Right, one of the thing that attracts me (back) to Catholicism is how it has honored roles for both, but from what I understand it's also pretty clear about men and women having different natures (hence the exception you had to head off right from the start).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 19, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Money makes for poor munitions.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And again, nobody is answering the real question I am genuinely asking: what is the perfect ratio for society? 50/50 male/female? Majority male?




I'm mostly sitting this one out, but I've seen several people answer you: no one knows and it doesn't matter, just stop tipping the scales. What's your answer to: why is this question supposed to matter at all?


It's also a bit strange watching you fight on this particular hill, given how often you make a point of how Catholic you are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


All I can tell you is these are the things that seemed to make the right upset when a Democrat was doing it. To the point that from this side it looks like them being mad when a Democrat did it was outrage bait.




What do you want me to say, "first time?" I remember when the war in Iraq was the most important issue ever, right up until Obama got elected. Or the surveillance state. Or antisemitism. People do this stuff all the time, and the idea that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in that regard seems baseless. What's more, if we accept this argument it would mean that Biden and Obama are the Demicratic crazies.




Point of order: it's not my view that your average Dem/Rep voter is covering for crazies




I know. You were trying to show how, if we take the right-wing arguments seriously, it would mean that the broader right-wing is there to cover for it's crzies, the same way they accuse the left of doing so. My point is that this argument doesn't work, because there is no symmetry in the conduct of the two sides.




Not entirely analogous I admit, but I remember Al Franken. And yes people on the left have in fact been fired over Kirk comments. Or here's an old issue I remember about a lefty making an edgy joke about Africa.




Not only is it not entirely analogous, most of these examples are missing a critical component, other than the cancellations over Kirk, these are examples of the left cancelling itself for things offensive to other parts ot the left, not the right. Even the Kirk example is missing the other component of left-wingers jeering at the left wingers that just got fired.




This ties into group culpability.




I'm sorry I'm not seeing how anything in this paragraph connects to whether or not people of the Motte hate left wingers for saying "who cares" about their crazies.




That's not how politics work.




Deterrence works almost exactly like that in war, and war is part of politics. The mechanics might be a big different during timesnof peace, but I'm not seing any fundamental issues with it working there as well.




and never admit wrongdoing.




Isn't that literally what you asked me to do earlier?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Motte is very very slow
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Either that or we've gotten incredibly popular in China over the last week.




Prepare to be assimilated into DeepSeek.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Would that take strike you as so odd if we had a 7 zillionth relitigation of creationism vs. evolution? Things become tedious when we go over the same arguments over and over again, and that happens when at least one side doesn't incorporate the responses it already heard into the dialogue, and that happens when they don't have a good response to begin with. If one side wasn't obviously wrong, you'd see people hashing things out, and the conversation going forward. It wouldn't be tedious.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Disagree. Even from a right-wing perspective, he lies habitually. Republicans may be protectionist, but his trade policy constantly changes. He's weirdly deferential to Putin (whereas the median Republican might not want to get involved in Ukraine but still admits Putin is bad), and his Ukraine policy is incoherent whether you think we should be involved or not. There's pretty much everything relating to RFK. He's pardoning corporate fraudsters. People are completely silent on his own blatant lawfare.




...and let's not forget, winning the Republican primaries with 80% of the vote.... Whatever you think of him, most Republicans either aren't all that bothered by it, or think the Neocon wing is worse, therefore it is them that are the "crazy Republicans", not Trump.




Sorry I'm confused what point you are making here. Could you rephrase?




The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant of infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.




But let's say yes anyway, because that is my criticism of the left. That they do so is in fact what I think is why The Motte hates the left so much. So why would you do it yourself?




Well, I think you're wrong about who is hated and why. I don't hate the people who say "who cares" about their crazies, I hate the crazies. The people who say "who cares" only start being annoying when they acting outraged over me saying "who cares" over my side's crazies, and thus demand that I hold myself up to a standard they never followed themselves.




My point rests in how exactly one keeps score. It's relatively fine to say, "I'm keeping track of the bad things both sides do, and I think side X is worse." It's another thing to say, "I'm going to keep counting the score of my opponents, and stop counting my own."




To be honest I don't really want to keep score for either side. Historical memory is good when someone starts acting like whatever media-invented outrage is unprecedented, but my goal in punching back isn't equalizing of scores, it's deterrence. If I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to get sucker-punched again, because I taught a belligerent a lesson that I can hold my own, I don't need to leave him with the exact same amount of stitches he originally gave me. But we're nowhere near this point, I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong, let alone incapacitating their crazies so it doesn't happen again.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for October 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
    

  • A leftover from the Drama codebase, I guess
    • 

  • Custom CSS, or an adblocker.
    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Cool, so now that your question is answered without contradicting anything of the theory you criticized, it seems like it holds up pretty well.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Go ahead, explain how this isn't pro nazi




It was explained several times in the thread. Why do you keep taking quotes out of context, and ignoring answers given to you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If rule of law is so masculine, why do men keep breaking it while women follow the rules all around the world?




Because rule of law was specifically designed to deal with the problem of men's anti-social behavior.




If rationality is so masculine, why do men keep gambling away their money, driving drunk and get fat?




Higher male variance.




And if they're more dedicated to truth then how do you explain male dominated politics being so untruthful and so corrupt?




The goal of politics is not the pursuit of truth.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think that changes anything. Neither the bigots in your example nor the people overusing the word "Nazi" are blameless.




This feels like haggling over the price a bit. I'm happy to accept that at the each person's decisions are their own, but my point is indeed that neither side is blameless.




Casting the blame outwards, as if our actions are mere cascading effects of the people with true agency, is to concede we have none.  It's an intoxicating idea. It frees us of the burden of temperance and good judgment. But without that burden we are nothing but machines following a routine.




This, on the other hand, assumes that everyone, including the illiberal villains, share your moral framework. If I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, I'm not casting blame on anyone for my actions, I'm just pointing out the conduct of liberals snapped me out of my stupor and made me reassess my positions. I don't think there's much I need to temper (or rather - there are things I do, but they are character traits, not positions I hold), and I believe I'm exercising good judgement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


TBH, I'm more annoyed with magicalkittycat than I remember being with Darwin.




And it's the complete opposite for me, I don't know if that counts as evidence, but I don't think it's him either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Okay, people are accusing you of being Darwin.




I'm voting "no", the style is quite different.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Does the right exist to provide reputational cover for every crazy Republican, up to and especially Trump?




Why is Trump supposed to be the crazy wing of Republican? The wokes being called crazy is a result of the moderate Democrats not wanting to be associated with them, but Trump being deemed crazy is purely the result of outgroup slander. Honestly, I'm a much better example of a crazy right-winger than anyone in the current administration, and as to whether the right exists me to provide reputational cover - I dunno no man, half of them are doing some weird "neener-neener" bit about the YR kids getting fired, can you provide a similar example from your side?




does that give me license to just dismiss any complaints about the wokies with "I don't care?"




I don't know about you personally, but hasn't the majority of the left, in fact, taken that license?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not answering my question. You've been caught several times omitting essential context, or misportraying things from your own links. When it's pointed out, you promptly disappear, only to start another post where you do the exact same thing again. Why?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Could it be then that the answer to all these "what do you mean by 'Nazi'?" questions is "Nazism is just the friends we made along the way"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


All to say, as a liberal I view all illiberalism as evil. And this view is to some degree a matter of faith.




Don't worry about definitions then, I think this answers my questions better than any encyclopedia could.


I think each paragraph you wrote here could spark a fascinating conversation all of it's own, but I'll try to stick to the subject that started ours. If we change the scenario somewhat, to be about your fargroup, rather than your outgroup, would it change any of your calculus?


For example if a mostly secular Arab moves into a western Christian town, is met with rejection and bigotry, runs into a Wahhabi mosque that welcomes him with open arms as a brother, would you not say the westerners share some blame for his radicalization, even when the final decision is on him?