Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
15hr ago
Maybe they have a great history (I have severe doubts on historical accuracy) but they’re frankly animals that need to be brought up into some sort of abject level of humanity. Even Chinese and China are … people. Iranian people seem to be just swell … but Iran isn’t, and hasn’t been.
"Iranians are animals, not people" is well beyond any defensible steelman. Do not post like this.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
15hr ago
What I mean and what Clemenceau meant (however priggish you may call him) is something closer to what you might call institutional depth and cultural continuity: the slow accumulation of norms, restraints, and social trust that make a society self regulating rather than dependent on raw dynamism (which is something that Americans seem to prize above all else, even when it's the wrong tool for the job, hammer and nail come to mind).
No, that's completely wrong. "Raw dynamism" is a very American cultural myth that Americans like to tell themselves, and it's kind of weird to see you repeating it just because it sounds like an "A-hyuck! A-hyuck!" cowboy stereotype.
America has a great deal of institutional depth and continuity. For all that we fancy ourselves to have reinvented ourselves from whole cloth in 1776, the "American project" very obviously was both something unique and designed, and something that drew on the entirety of English Common Law and Western civilization. The Founding Fathers didn't just pull the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution out of their asses; they had as much education and "civilization" as their European contemporaries did. That America was something relatively new and different at the time does not mean it was some strange savage MMORPG environment dropped onto North America.
America has institutional norms, restraints, and social trust. Arguably, those are being hollowed out right now. Arguably, so are Europe's. Arguably, a major reason for that is... well. People who do not share those institutional norms, restraints, and social trust.
I'm saying the political culture, the median and especially the current leadership of the country, trends in a direction that makes America an unreliable partner and that Europeans should act accordingly rather than sentimentally.
This may be true, but it's also both an observation very much of the moment (all governments change, and some governments change radically and catastrophically) and has nothing to do with whether or not America is "civilized."
The question on the table is simple: should Europe give America unconditional support in its Iran campaign, or should it use its leverage: basing rights, logistics, diplomatic cover, to extract concessions on Ukraine and tariffs?
Sure, that's a question Europe needs to answer, and I would expect Europe to weight European interests above American interests. But Europe has its own dysfunctions (which is a large part of the reason we're here) and is hardly in a position to be sniffing at Americans and how "unreliable" (or "uncivilized" forsooth) they are.
@Shakes is more interested in the "Europe versus America" question. I don't really care about that. I'm peering at your "civilization" quip and still trying to figure out what the hell you think you mean by it. You haven't described anything America doesn't have, just political decisions America is making that you don't like.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
15hr ago
We very rarely need "containment threads." We're not that large and there isn't that much activity.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
16hr ago
That's a nice free-form contentless rant, and like Dase I know you love sneering at Westerners, and Americans especially, as hard as we will allow, under the cope of speaking from a delusional sense of superiority. But do tell me: in what sense are Americans not (or ever) "civilized"? Non-rhetorically. Step up. What do those words mean?
Because under every definition with any non-rhetorical meaning, this is simply nonsense. It's a snarky pseudo-elite bon motte with no significance beyond the performative revulsion, the affected contempt.
What you actually mean by "civilized" is "has a culture I like and behaves in ways I approve of." And sure, everyone is entitled to like their own culture and think it is better than other cultures. You can disapprove of America and wish we were more like you all you want. But if you want to start trading cheap sneers about respective cultures and how "civilized" we are and aren't, you sure would not want us to take the mod guardrails off when talking about Pakistan, or Muslim culture writ large.
Whenever I see you toss these haughty sneers like you're an aristocrat curling your upper lip at the revolting peasants, I am just astounded at the sheer arrogance. Not offended, but genuinely astounded that you can be so lacking in perspective and awareness.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I might have let one "Epstein fury" go, but you did not disappoint and doubled down with another unhinged and evidence-free rant about how much you hate Da Joos.
We have a number of people here who hate Jews, and say so regularly. But we've been over this repeatedly. If hating Jews is Your Thing and what you really want to post about and insert into every possible conversation, you have to occasionally post about something else and act like a human being, not an SS-bot. You also need to actually put enough effort into your posts that your grievances have some coherence and sanity, a point, not just "Anything involving Israel is an LGBTQ mass immigration plot because Jooooooooos!"
Most importantly, you have to not be tiresomely, repetitively, and egregiously obnoxious about it. Someone coming in here with some 4chanism like "Epstein fury" is "shitlib"/"magtard"/"5 Guys-tier" low-quality chud discourse that we generally mod on general principal because no one is here for that.
You have been pushing boundaries for a while now. I gave you a break last time, because of your mixed record of shitty posts and (undeserved, IMO) AAQCs. At least one other mod wanted to give you a lengthy ban.
You were told you were getting a break last time and you were told to chill out, and rather than wiping the spittle off your chin, you just could not let go. Such is the nature of unhealthy rage. Since you don't learn, I note that leniency was in fact unwarranted. 30 days ban, and if you come back with more of the same, there won't be any more breaks.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I'm sure Iranians (and everyone else) have said "Death to Pikachu" or "Death to my mother-in-law" at some point.
This argument is disingenuous and seems a lot like the whole "River to the Sea" debate, where whether it's actually an expression of violent intent depends on whether you hate Jews or not. As I already pointed out, not every single person who chants "Death to " literally wants to see an entire country exterminated, but you are well aware that Iranians chanting "Death to " in the streets mean what they say, even if they think it's figurative because they aren't actually in a position to inflict death.
Netanyahu's "Amalek" reference is in fact pretty loaded and I'm sure he knew what he was saying (and that he could waffle on whether he really has genocidal intent). That said, a politician using loaded rhetoric isn't the same as thousands of people chanting something in unison. If thousands of Israelis start chanting "Iran is Amalek," yes, I would assume that the general sentiment is that they would like to see Iran literally wiped off the map and that a not-insignificant fraction of them really and truly want and expect to do that. There are no doubt a non-zero number of Israelis who really mean it literally, and if I were Iranian, I probably would not be very charitable about interpreting an Israeli's use of that word.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Treason would be literally aiding and abetting the enemy, which despite many people's attempts to claim it is so during every conflict, does not include "Speaking out against the war."
Also, you need a declared war for there to be treason.
Taking your point more figuratively, you're just arguing that we should all get on board because Trump made it a fait accompli. But Trump has a short attention span and no conviction. Opponents of the war have every reason to believe he'll TACO if popularity drops. If you believe the war is a bad idea to begin with, 'leaving it half done ' isn't a compelling argument to keep going.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
We spent 20 years in Afghanistan with literally nothing to show for it but lost blood and treasure. That makes "We can't stop now, we'll have accomplished nothing" a much weaker argument.
I don't object, per se, to acting against Iran. Contra our Jew-haters, it's in our interests as much as Israel's to put an end to the regime.
But I have no confidence in Trump's vision or plan. I expect we'll bomb them for a while, Trump will declare victory and stop, and Iran will still be Iran, just shaken, somewhat weakened, and still hankering for revenge.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Maybe you underestimate how many pseudo-comminist leftists there were and are. (Again, to be fair, I heard "chickens coming home to roost" from Anericans.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Counter-reality check: I speak Arabic (poorly) and listen to what they actually say and mean.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
The phrase is often taken out of context by neocon Americans to show that Iran is hellbent on America's destruction, and thus to justify their highly violent efforts to destroy Iran in turn.
I'm sure hardly anyone in Iran actually believes they are going to be able to literally destroy America (except in the sense that God will eventually do that for them, which no doubt a few true believers do sincerely believe). That they don't literally mean "We will kill 300 million Americans bwahahaha!" does not mean their sentiment is not very real, and sincerely intended against whatever Americans or American proxies they can get their hands on.
Likewise, we are not going to "destroy Iran." We might destroy their government. We are not going to nuke their cities and raze their crops and exterminate civilians wholesale (which their government would certainly do to us if they had the capability).
I think it actually is meaningful to point out the translation issue
Reality check: Iranians say مرگ بر آمریک. The literal translation is "Death to America." The Arabic الموت لأمريكا likewise translates literally as "Death to America." There is no "translation issue" and while yes, it might have some more general "You suck!" meaning in the minds of some of the chanters who arguably don't literally want every last American dead, it's still pretty unambiguous in its meaning. There is no idomatic usage in either Persian or Arabic where you say "Death to you" and aren't literally (if not sincerely) wishing death upon you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
I guess I will believe you when you say that Europeans cheering for 9/11 meant nothing personal to Americans, but it certainly felt personal to us. (In fairness, I don't remember a lot of Europeans openly celebrating, but there certainly were a lot of Europeans saying, in so many words, that we had it coming, and the real tragedy would be if we retaliated against poor innocent Muslims in any way.)
If a major terrorist attack happened in your country, and Americans were all "Haha that's what you get for importing infinity Muslims, face meet leopards!" (and I have no doubt you'd see Americans saying that), I suspect you would take it very personally and would not be convinced by arguments that it was an abstraction, that Americans didn't really wish death to Europeans.
There is of course a more sophisticated discussion about empire and "chickens coming home to roost" (another popular phrase of the time), and just as with Hamas and October 7, reasonable people can talk about what led to this without it being black and white and "They just hate us because they are made of pure concentrated evil." But it is kind of unreasonable to say "You had it coming" (and that "Death to you!" doesn't literally mean "Death to you!") and expect people to believe that it's not personal and they should understand it as an abstract political statement because a few deaths are just a statistic, and you're just celebrating the fat kid standing up to the bully.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
As a friendless virgin I have no experience with such situations, but that's what I imagine.
But I am imagining that, in a perfect romance, even in such a banal conversation, you are thankful to have an excuse to bask in the presence and attention of your romantic partner (as long as the venting doesn't last overly long).
Look man, real life is neither grim redpill/blackpill despair nor a "perfect romance" where you are basking in each other's attention and affection. A functional and good relationship is one where you actually like each other and genuinely care about how your partner feels. Not one where you are playing roles from a romance anime, or just extracting money and sex from each other.
Absolutely. My coworkers would say "good morning", and I would reply "hello".
You do you, but to feel like you're engaging in intolerable social deception by saying "Good morning" is... weird.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
If you're not trolling, I can only wish you a better life and say it doesn't have to be like that.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Some people are naive, but having experienced functional relationships that teach you that they don't have to be miserable, cynical transactionalism is not naivety.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
There are only two kinds of objects in a relationship, a sex object or a resource object
Goddamn, some people are miserable.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
You literally just said that you don't care how her day was. Asking about how her day was is untruthfully implying that you do care.
I "don't care" in the sense that I don't care to hear the details or whether she had an argument with a coworker or it was unusually busy or the ventilation wasn't working so it was uncomfortable or the craziest thing happened at lunch or blah blah blah. That's stuff I listen to out of politeness. I don't literally "not care" whether she had a good day or a bad day.
She can vent to you on her own initiative, without forcing you to make untruthful implications about your own interest level.
Well, if I just silently glower when I come home and invite no dialog, she probably will not. Or I suppose I could say "I don't care how your day was, but you may tell me if you wish."
Jesus, dude.
Saying "good morning" to a person is an abbreviated wish that the person has a good morning, and therefore falsely implies that you hope that the person has a good morning. A much more neutral greeting with no misleading implications is "hello".
I mean, I probably do wish that someone has a good morning, because why wouldn't I, unless I have some personal animosity for this person?
You don't say "Good morning" because you think it's falsely implying you give a shit?
Jesus, dude.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
But it's not untruthfulness! I don't say "Hey, I really want to know about your day" or "I am really interested in what you did at work." I am just asking how her day was because it gives her an opportunity to talk (or vent) and I can show that even if I don't care about the details, I do care about her, and I want to know if she had a good day or a bad day. (And maybe, occasionally, something important really did happen.)
Do you literally not care about your partner at all? Maybe more men than I thought really do think of their women as sex appliances who annoyingly make mouth-noises at them sometimes.
On a more abstract level, your comic is inane. If my coworker says "Good morning," that is a social nicety. Social niceties are how people coexist in a crowded and complex society where a little pleasantness makes life more bearable. If someone (my wife, or a coworker, or a checkout clerk) asks "How was your day?" do I really think she cares deeply about how my day was and wants a detailed account of it? No, she is just being nice. Getting mad about that is like being mad when people say "Have a nice day" because you aren't, or "God bless you" when you sneeze because you're an atheist.
Goddamn, some people are miserable.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
The point isn't that anyone is assuming the story(ies) are made up. The point is that bullet point at the top that people love to ignore:
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In this case, there weren't even links. But if you cite a story about an insane black man setting a random passenger on fire on public transit, and your point is "Leftists have made it legal for insane black men to set people on fire," then yes, at the very least you need to post a link to the story so people can at least see if you might be leaving something out, and more importantly, "Here is a bad thing that happened and it's proof that my outgroup is very very bad, they literally made it legal to set people on fire!" is a crappy argument meant only to flash a boo light.
We all know (I am comfortable saying that despite it being "consensus building" because I do not believe anyone does not know) that people who want setting people on fire to literally be legal is a lizardman constant. "People want crime to be legal in Minnesota as long as it's for a leftist cause" is not how anyone, even on the left, would describe their position. ("They're lying!" you say, or "Their position is disingenuous and does not deserve charity." Too bad, that's not how things work here, you don't get to just assert that your enemies are all evil liars acting out of pure malice, whose stated motives do not even need to be considered.)
A more contextualized and steel-manned argument would be something like "Because of soft-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to deal with mentally ill homeless people, and racial sensitivity, it is now common for black criminals to get away with repeat offenses, even violent murders." Or "Leftists have institutional control and have repeatedly shown that they will apply the law in an unprincipled biased manner." That's at least a start at describing what you think is happening in a manner that sounds sane and would require your opponents to make a counter-argument that is more substantial than "No, I am not a crazy evil person who wants it to be legal for black men to set people on fire."
If you can't even be bothered to put in the minimal effort to assume that a non-batshit-insane counterargument exists (as the OP did not), then your post is bad and it's just outrage porn.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Sometimes I wonder what kind of women people are dating. They describe sex vampires who only want your money, and then are bitter because asking "How was your day?" is some kind of malicious kafka-trap.
A normal person asking how your day was is... asking how your day was. If she is your girlfriend/wife, it is generally because she cares about how your day was (or at least is willing to engage in a minimal level of concern to show affection and empathy). That's how things work in normal relationships. Do I actually care about how her day was? Eh, not unless something notable happened. But I will still ask because women like it when you do that. And they do the same thing.
If your partner is just a "sex object," of course you aren't going to ask how her day has been because you don't care. That's not actually a partner.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
What does that even mean? She asks how your day was every day? And you interpret this as a hostile interrogation?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I don't know if you are accurately reporting any of these stories. I am vaguely familiar with several of them, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being deliberately deceptive (though @Rov_Scam has already pointed out how at least one is misrepresented: "vandal gets standard deal to pay reparations in lieu of criminal sentencing" is not the same as "vandal gets off scott free").
The problem here is you have strung together a bunch of very boo, very outgroup anecdotes, without links or evidence, to claim that "Crime is legal in the state of Minnesota as long as you do it to support a left-wing cause." That's an obviously inflammatory statement with no value except to boo your outgroup who is very very bad and lawless and just the worst, boo! Booooooo! Boo Amirite guys?
You are certainly allowed to make this argument, or arguments like it: that DAs engage in selective prosecution, that leftists get away with things that rightists can't, that we live in an unequal fractured society, that BLM riots were treated differently than the Jan. 6 protesters. Etcetera etcetera etfuckingcetera. Well-trodden ground. Several regulars have pretty much staked this out as their beat.
You still have to actually put in the effort to link, substantiate, and post something more probative than "Crime is legal in Minnesota because leftists suck, here are some unsourced anecdotes I'll just assume we can all take at face value."
This is a very low quality post that typically results in low quality threads about how much people hate their enemies.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
No, "Someone makes inflammatory claims, no one contradicts him, so they must be true" is not how it works.
You're contradicting yourself and backtracking on every point that you initially used as evidence that America lacks civilization. I will just repeat: America didn't spring out of a vacuum. We had institutional depth from the beginning (albeit many new institutions had to be invented) because even the earliest colonists were not tribes wandering into the New World across the Bering Sea.
I sincerely doubt this. Maybe not about Europe resisting right-wing Trump-like movements, but that's not the only kind of change we observe.
Trump is not the first, nor the worst, challenge American norms and institutions have faced. The Civil War was not even the first time the government faced a severe challenge to its credibility and stability (nor was it the last). I have argued with other Motters because I think the probability of Trump actually destroying the Republic is low, but non-zero, and my lowball estimate is higher than they think is realistic. But it's not the first time there has been a non-zero chance of the American experiment ending.
Europe has not exactly been a continuous steady state of reliable governance for the past two and half centuries either.
More options
Context Copy link