Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6hr ago
You and @TowardsPanna - stop this. Engage in the question, not in petty bickering with each other.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
When you are at the "Sure, whatever bro" stage of responding, it's best just not to respond. The reason low effort posts like this are discouraged is you're basically saying "I don't want to argue any more and don't have a meaningful rebuttal but I still want to express my disdain for you."
Don't "Nuh uh" people.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
This is a rather low-effort post. Are you referring to someone in particular? Are you subtweeting something? Is this a reference we are supposed to recognize? Or did you just come across a random person who has a random set of beliefs, which we are supposed to find interesting... why?
"Likes both Hitler and Netanyahu" is odd enough to be worth contrasting, I suppose, but not in such a vague way that it just reads like a drunken shitpost.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Your mod record shows otherwise. You have no purpose in this engagement except to be obnoxious.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
This is teetering right on the edge of a ban, but you're usually a decent poster when you aren't giving way to the impulse to post low-effort shitposts like this. A mix of AAQCs and a long record of warnings and tempbans means you are getting cut some slack, but if you abuse it again there will be a longer ban.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I explained my thinking adequately, and if I felt a need for deeper interrogation it wouldn't come from an anklebiter who's just trying to provoke. Now cease your anklebiting.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Gonna be honest - I am approving this post despite severe misgivings.
- You are obviously a sockpuppet (account created today).
- The thesis of this post is essentially "We should ban all political parties outside the centrist Overton window in order to protect democracy." Almost certainly bait.
- The writing smells like AI. The style doesn't have obvious AI tells so possibly it's only AI-enhanced, but it still has the feel of something output by an LLM after careful prompting.
So why am I allowing a post that I am more than half-convinced is trolling?
- We don't want to summarily ban every new account, even though most of them nowadays are people spinning up backup alts.
- The post is interesting enough that I guess it's worth engaging on its merits, if anyone cares to.
- I am wary of becoming too paranoid about AI, because there will inevitably be false positives.
I am saying this so I can preregister my suspicions and see whether they are borne out, and also to give some transparency into why we let some posts get through and not others. (Quite often, someone appearing with a fresh-rolled account and a manifesto does not get out of the filter.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you sincerely believed the OP was literally claiming that it's bad to celebrate any deaths ever and was being hypocritical because "his side" celebrated killing the Ayatollah, nor that you believed he was motte-and-baileying from "Don't celebrate the deaths of anyone ever" to "Don't celebrate political assassinations (of my side)."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
I do not think you are being ingenuous.
Here's why:
The leftists completely lost me once they started celebrating the deaths of people they don’t like
You would have us believe that what you thought he meant was "Leftists (specifically) began celebrating the deaths of any people they don't like-even criminals, pedophiles, war criminals, enemy militants, etc." And that he was arguing that this was different from non-leftists, who don't do that.
In other words, it was a new and specifically leftist thing to, say, cheer for the death of a Hitler or a Saddam or a Ted Bundy, or an Ayatollah.
He didn't mean that. You know he didn't mean that. You are pretending to believe he meant that. You do not believe he meant that.
What he meant, whether or not he expressed it inelegantly, and whether or not you agree with him, is that leftists begin celebrating the deaths of political opponents.
In other words, you are pretending to believe he meant "people they don't like" in its most literal and absolute sense.
I do not believe you actually believed that or were misunderstanding his point, which was talking about cases like celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk or attempted assassinations of Republican politicians.
There is probably a name for this specific rhetorical gambit, where someone says something imprecisely and their interlocutor interprets it in the most dumbass literal fashion possible and pretends to believe that is how they meant it and play gotcha, but it's very tiresome.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
I try not to get hung up on debates over whether or not "atheism is a religion." I agree that literally atheism is simply a lack of belief, but in practice most atheists do have a set of beliefs or models of the universe that could be fairly said to constitute a belief system.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
The majority of everyone from the political center rightward was celebrating the repeated assassinations of Iranian leadership a month ago too, so I don't think the other camp gets to claim the moral high ground here.
Oh, come on. The equivalent would be celebrating an assassination/attempt on a Democrat, not an assassination of the leadership of a country we're at war with, and time was when even leftists would have celebrated the death of the Ayatollah, or at least wouldn't have been too upset about it.
You can object to assassinating Iranian leaders, and you can object to the celebration of it, but it's categorically different than assassinating members of your fellow countrymen in a rival political party.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
You aren't wrong, but as someone who was there (and is still bitter over it) and is still an atheist, I'd point out that you are speaking specifically of atheism as a movement - that "New Atheism" fell apart does not discredit atheism as a belief system. Not believing in any gods or metaphysical components of the universe does not require being wedded or opposed to SJ ideology.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
I don't have citations because I am not a link collector, but while @burkeboi's framing is a little uncharitable, it's not really far off. When it's pointed out that most black victims of violence are victims of other black people, the leftist response is that this happens within a system of institutionalized racial oppression that created the conditions in which black people are killing each other- so yes, it's white people's fault, and critical theorists frame that as some variation of "white cisheteropatriarchy."
Similarly, when the "Stop Asian Hate Campaign" revealed that most assaults on Asians were being committed by blacks, I definitely remember some critical theorists literally saying that this was white supremacy in action. Essentially the same argument as above, that if anyone is doing violence inside a white cisheteropatriarchy system, it's the fault of the white cisheteropatriarchy system, even if none of the participants are white.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
Trump being assassinated would be that, I think it's possible that even @Amadan would be ok with a low effort starter post if that happened.
Even for that we would prefer more than just someone rushing to be the first to post the news.
Total nuclear war? Sure, post your good-byes while you can.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
Sigh. Once again, I am going to remind people that this is not Twitter or Reddit. Obviously this is a big news story and people will want to discuss it, but take the time to at least wait for some information and provide some links and maybe say something more interesting than "Wow did you see the news?"
You do not win by being F1rsT!!!
Low effort. You have multiple warnings for low effort posts so I'm tempted to give you a timeout just to make the message stick, but since the thread is off and running, fine, you got your little firsty in.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
I think that this is what MLK argued for -- let everyone compete on equal footing, and let the outcome be what it may.
I have to correct you here- MLK was very much in favor of Affirmative Action and reparations. Yes, his ultimate goal was a "colorblind" world, but he was not in favor of institutional colorblindness until the scales were balanced. He wrote about this quite extensively.
A lot of people today, even conservatives, like to throw their arms around the shoulders of MLK's ghost and claim ideological kinship with him, but the fact is, if MLK were alive today, he'd be very much a SJ. Perhaps a more intellectual one than Ibram X Kendi, but I doubt he'd accept HBD as an explanation for why blacks aren't achieving equal outcomes.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
Yes, and you've got an actual piece of research saying that 10% of the promiscuous men are accounting for 60% of the sexual encounters women have.
The reason people keep questioning your numbers is that the math doesn't math. At least not without some creative explanation of what "the sexual encounters women have" means.
So let's say we've got a group of 100 sexually active men and 100 sexually active women and assume we have normalized all other factors (they are all in the same age range, social class, all straight, etc.) so we have a hypothetical dating pool of 200 people.
According to your interpretation of the research, 10 of those men are fucking 60 of the women. Or they are fucking almost all the women, who are also giving sloppy seconds to some of the other 90 men. And the other 40 women are, what, being shared by the 90 lesser men? Do you see how this doesn't add up? Do you really think the 10% most attractive/desirable men routinely have harems? Sure, a young guy with options probably sleeps around, and so do women with options, but... most people neither want to be part of a harem nor necessarily be permanently spinning plates.
The research shows the most desirable men sleep around a lot more than the less desirable men, which is hardly a new phenomenon. And it shows women, given options, are pickier than when they didn't have options. It does not show that the most desirable men are hoarding all the women.
Likewise your figure that "80% of men are unacceptable to women" does not fit real-world observations. Are 80% of adult men today incels? Really? Are 80% of young men not dating or having sex at all?
If you give a woman a lineup of 100 male profiles, and she only checks 20 of them as attractive enough to date, it does not follow that the other 80 men will never find a woman.
You point to real problems but you abuse statistics to make an exaggerated point.
I think ironically you also ignore a factor that would also explain a lot of male datelessness: a lot of women are just... not desirable nowadays. Obesity is a big part of it. Outside of danker corners of the Internet, there isn't a lot of straightforward discussion about the fact that a lot of women are fat nowadays and most men don't want fat women. Then add the shrill brand of feminism that even among straight girls (whether or not they call themselves "bi") sneers at the idea of pleasing men in any way, and it's not surprising that the dating landscape has narrowed for men. And in ways they find socially unacceptable to state out loud.
"I'd rather jerk it to AI porn than settle for a septum-pierced landwhale who hates me" is also a problem, but it's not actually a problem of female pickiness!
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
I think you are being slightly unfair to the authors of the paper. You say they are arguing that "men ought to be marginalized for everyone's good," but what they are really saying is two things:
- Free mate choice and sexual equality leads to women being more selective, and thus less likely to find an "acceptable" man to pair with. (The same thing you have been arguing, essentially.)
- The solution is to make it more attractive for single women to have children.
At first glance, it's easy to see why this is setting you off, but if you read the paper carefully, they kind of admit the other part of your argument: "... because the only other alternative would be changing society in ways feminists won't approve of."
The authors maintain a dry and and academic tone throughout. It's not unlikely they are, in fact, pro-feminist and agree that yes, any other solution would be unthinkable. But it's also possible to read them as saying, "Well, we know no one will accept any other proposals, so let's just point out the only thing that's left."
Are they knowingly winking so they can get the paper published and not wreck their careers, or are they drolly accepting the thesis, as you assume? Who knows? But it seems they are at least aware of the contradictions.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
Ah yes. Well, blocking worked differently there. We allow people to block mods, for example (though I think @ZorbaTHut should change that so mod-hatted messages can't be blocked) because mods can still warn and ban posters who block them. (And if you block me, and I warn you, and you don't heed the warning, we will not distinguish between "couldn't read it because I blocked you" and "chose to ignore you.")
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
Only mods can see that, which I think is a good thing.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
No, there's no rule against blocking people. You can block anyone you want to. (Some people even block mods. This does not prevent you from being modded.) If you use it to taunt the people you've blocked, you might be modded for antagonism.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8d ago
It's an interesting sort of prudishness to find support for something like the Holocaust as acceptable, every slur imaginable is allowed, but a little bit of swearing could be beyond the pale if it's found to be "rude".
It's not the swearing. Generally, you can swear all you want, though a post that seems to be full of swearing used as punctuation just to be edgy might be modded for being low-effort and trollish.
And slurs are allowed in that you can use the words, but you cannot call people slurs.
What you can't do is engage in personal attacks.
You also cannot make general statements about your outgroup, and generally we will also mod calls for violence.
The Joo-posters are always walking a fine line, because "Here is why the Holocaust is a lie" is an argument you are allowed to make. "Here is why Jews have too much political power" is an argument you are allowed to make. "Here is why we should kill the Jews" (the argument they really want to make) is not an argument you are allowed to make.
Is "I am politically working towards the goal that you and your entire people are subhumans who will be subjected to cruel torture and genocide" a polite statement?
No, which is why they aren't allowed to explicitly advocate for that. Steelmanning the Joo-posters and white nationalists, I am sure many of them would say they don't want to subject their enemies to torture and genocide, they just want to send them somewhere else. (You know, like the Nazis just wanted to send the Jews "somewhere else.") It's almost plausible in some cases. And you can make an arguable case for peaceful separation; that's @Hoffmeister's thing, and while I think his project is both infeasible and immoral, I believe he's sincere about it.
I think most people in general society would agree that genocide and murder is worse than just beating someone up and calling them a few swears while doing it, but hey maybe the normies just don't understand what being polite actually means.
Obviously, literal genocide and murder is worse than "beating someone up and calling them a few swears."
But the actual comparison here is "using words" versus "actual physical violence."
You're using the "words are violence" framing here, which is absolutely toxic to the very idea that we can have heated discourse and free speech.
Which is worse: me saying "I think your kind should all be murdered" or you physically assaulting me for saying that?
I would argue that while my words are insulting and inflammatory (and in certain circumstances, but certainly not an internet forum argument, could even be considered threatening) and your anger is understandable, you are not justified in physically assaulting me for saying mean words.
As if this place isn't mostly like 7-8 people who are that active
We have more than that, but sure, what's your point? We're a bunch of losers who don't matter, but you hang around here because you need to argue with the losers who don't matter or they might commit genocide?
Yeah, it's already severely conformist with how aggressive people are (refer back to how it's circlejerked so hard that calls for violence against someone are seen as more polite than a little swearing) but I'll admit I've seen worse among some of the online tankie groups.
Who has called for violence against the OP?
I think it depends on how much you believe people are able to empathize with a mindset different from their own.
An atheist steeped in Christianity because he has an intellectual understanding of it but never believed probably will, as you say, only read it as a description of how Christians think. But an atheist who used to be Christian, especially an atheist who used to be devoutly Christian, will actually remember how it was to think that way. While obviously he's not going to read Lewis as a "direct moral lesson" since he no longer considers turning away from God to be something that requires redemption and forgiveness, he still knows what it is like to feel that way.
I think the same is probably true of atheists who become converts. Your Christian who used to be an atheist knows how an atheist deals with the unfairness of the world and what an atheist thinks about the Problem of Evil and what an atheist thinks is the reason to do good and not evil. And so will probably understand and even feel the satisfaction of Pratchett's lessons even if he thinks Pratchett got it wrong by excluding God.
More options
Context Copy link