Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
I cannot and will not give you a precise guideline as to when I or another mod will step in because people are going at each other. First, because that gets pretty close to "Tell me how I can attack someone I don't like without being modded," which we get sometimes. Second, because you are right that moderation cannot be 100% consistent all the time. I try to be consistent and principled but I'm sure looking at every single time one poster criticized another, you could find discrepancies regarding when I did or did not put on the mod hat.
General rule of thumb: if someone is grinding your gears and your post is all about how they grind your gears, it's probably not a necessary contribution. And if two people are in a slapfight because they annoy one another, we are likely to step in and say "Knock it off," and no, I'm not going to try to measure which of them typed more mean words.
A few things:
First, this "affirmative action for minority posters" thing is taking on the character of a Motte urban legend. Being a lefty or Jewish or black or a woman doesn't give you extra latitude to break the rules. We are sometimes slower to act on people who are being reported a lot for having unpopular views, because frankly there is hardly any active poster here (with only a few exceptions) who, if everything they said was getting reported, wouldn't end up having some comments cross the line and the mods getting a sense that this person is a Problem.
Second, @HereAndGone2 has been modded and temp banned, many times, and she is aware that her previous record does not get erased when she creates a new account.
Third, yes, I scolded her and @TitaniumButterfly both because they were both getting unnecessarily personal. I am telling you the same thing. The fact that some poster really grinds your gears does not mean you should take the opportunity to write screeds about how much they annoy you.
I don’t mean to be a jerk
Well, it's hard to think of a more polite way to describe what you're doing here. While your numbers and anecdotes keep changing, you still have not provided any credible evidence for all US bases in the Middle East being glassed (even if your definition of "glassed" turns out to be "took some damage"), an aircraft carrier being totaled, and the IAF being wiped out.
You claimed the following:
Burgerland and Israel got their assess kicked
The “laundry fire” on the Gerald R. Ford was so bad that there are now serious concerns the ship will never sail again.
Basically every American base in the Middle East has been glassed.
The final kicker was when most of IAF got unexpectedly blown up on the runway a few days ago.
You are now claiming that a base "has been hit by so many missiles it's basically rubble."
Even assuming that last claim is true (notwithstanding your refusal to provide evidence beyond vibes for anything you have claimed), you are absolutely motte-and-baileying. One wrecked base (which probably does not exist) turning into "all American bases in the Middle East glassed, the IAF destroyed, the Gerald Ford totaled" is not "slightly hyperbolic."
You might disagree on the degree.
Yes.
The degree of difference between "The US and Israeli militaries have taken more damage than is being reported" and "The US and Israeli militaries have been all but wiped out" is.... significant.
Aircraft carriers totaled, the entire IAF destroyed on the runway, multiple US military bases "glassed" (was this meant to imply that Iran literally nuked them, or was it just hyperbole?)... that is rather different than "Some missiles did more damage than they are admitting."
You claimed the first, then fell back to the latter when pressed.
Rarely has a more textbook case of Motte-and-Bailey been displayed here on the Motte.
Those claims are rather different from your OP.
If you genuinely believe what you are saying, no, the rules don't require you to cite sources for your belief that the moon is made of cheese, or lizard people are running the world (though it is reasonable for people to ask for sources). However, I remain skeptical that you were being sincere in your claims that US military bases have been glassed and the IAF has been destroyed on the runway.
Okay, if you're genuinely claiming that every American base in the Middle East has been "glassed" and most of the IAF has been destroyed, do you have some evidence? Those are extraordinary claims.
Speak plainly. Whatever you're doing here, the humor (if that's what it is) is not landing and posting ridiculous statements to see who bites looks like trolling.
I'm not thrilled by the exchange between @HereAndGone2 and @TitaniumButterfly. Y'all are both being petty ***** who make me want to say "Get a room."
But you, in the short time since you created this alt, have made it clear you created it just to harass people you don't like, no doubt from lingering grudges established with previous alts.
We don't generally slap down new accounts when they appear, but when it's trivially obvious that it's someone spinning up an alt to unleash their id, we are not actually obliged to put up with you.
Go away.
You're just making that up.
You just got off a short ban and you can't stop this low effort sneering at everyone who argues with you. Your discourse in general is obnoxious and you've already been given a pretty long leash for an obvious ban-evading alt (pretty sure I recognize your previous incarnation), but our patience is running thin. Well, my patience is running thin anyway. Take another three days off- if you want to accuse someone of "making things up" your argument needs to be more than "Nuh uh!"
People are allowed to post pro-Israel diatribes and they are allowed to post anti-Israel diatribes, so long as they follow the rules, though in my opinion, the OP was not really a diatribe so much as honestly asking for opinions.
Unlike you, @FiveHourMarathon does not have a history of bad faith posting. You do have a history of antagonistic call-outs and you've been told repeatedly to stop doing this. Banned for five days this time.
Disagree there. I like Dungeon Crawler Carl for what it is–very entertaining pop culture trash, which I say lovingly. It is reminiscent of the old pulps (love me some Howard and Lovecraft, but elegant wordsmiths or deep miners of the human condition, they were not). But DCC is exactly the kind of story an LLM can or soon will be able to churn out– some metaplot and a bunch of recurring characters distinct enough to kind of care when they die, plowing through absurd bullshit choose-your-own-adventure scenarios and RNG-table boss battles rife with gross-out humor. There is no genius there except in the marketing and not much originality. I'd say Dinniman is a moderately better writer than the vast majority of writers on RoyalRoad or any LLM, but most of the former could already be replaced by the latter.
Can't comment on Ulysses as I haven't read it, but what else I have read of James Joyce was not particularly to my taste but clearly the product of a human mind that is not (yet) replicable by an LLM.
The difference is simple: I am not lying. And much as you like to characterize so much as a raised eyebrow from me as a "crashout," it's not so.
"You thought it'd be me" is projection. Despite your long history of trying to provoke me, I have been very even-handed and even generous with you. I used to try to point out that there was no need for your hostility, but that proved to be futile because you like hostility.
Had you a modicum of self-awareness, you would reconsider your engagement strategy and reevaluate your assumptions. I state this as an idle observation, not with any expectation or optimism.
There were a lot of hot takes flying around when that incident happened, and most of them seemed to me to be entirely tribal- people deciding on the narrative based on, as I said, who they hated most. I tend to be a "wait and see" type of person because the quantity and quality of detail was lacking, making it very much a "choose your own narrative" scissors incident.
I might still self-identity as a liberal, but anyone who's been around here for a while would know better than to casually ascribe the most bad faith "woke" perspective to me. So it still surprises (and annoys) me when that's what people do.
You are not a mind reader and you're wrong. Given that I am calling @ArjinFermin a liar, you may believe it's open season to call "liar" but I can at least point to my post and say "the words you wrote are not the words I wrote." Generally calling people liar has a high burden of proof (Ie you must be able to demonstrate a provable lie. Charitably, @ArjinFerman might actually believe I meant what he claimed, but I do not believe this for reasons I explained in my other post). And indeed, another mod may disagree with my reasoning and tell me my own post was inappropriate - I admit having my words twisted and malinterpreted sometimes tests my equinamitiy.
If you jumped into a thread between other people to do this, I'd give you a ban, but I realize that would be inappropriate here, and I would not feel good about asking another mod to do it. Instead I will merely observe that this is the latest in your growing record of low effort antagonistic snarls, and warn you to stop doing this.
I do not buy your lack of comprehension.
If you had questions about what I meant or wanted to know what I meant, you could have asked me directly. Instead you constructed an uncharitable and inaccurate interpretation of my words and asserted them as fact. You do this because you are not interested in truth seeking or understanding, but "getting" people you dislike (me, in this case). You like to claim people said or believe things that fit your conception of them, in which you can comfortably slot them as "Enemy who has bad opinions" because that does not require honesty, civility, or respect, which are not things you value.
To be absolutely clear and direct, I did not say, did not mean, and do not believe " if you think the "Braveheart" narrative is likely to be true, and remain unmoved by official government statements, it's because you hate brown people."
You will stop asserting this.
I do not appreciate your dishonesty. That is not what I said, and it is not what I implied.
There's a strong form and a weak form of your argument.
The strong form is "Literally nobody is choosing to have children because the world sucks; they're lying and just don't want to have kids." I.e, your headline.
I think this presumes too much.
The weak form of your argument is that people who say they don't want to have children because the world sucks blah blah blah may or may not actually want to have children (or at least would consider it) but have been persuaded not to and climate change is as convenient an excuse as any. But they really do believe that adding more kids to the population is both a burden to the planet and cruel to the children. I've met some of these people. Do I think a different life path might have led them to choose parenthood? Well, yes, but you could say a different life path could have led anybody to anything.
You are probably correct that essentially* no one is choosing not to have children solely because of climate change. But I think there are many, many people who are anxious, uncertain about the future, genuinely do think the world is a pretty shitty place, and are at best ambivalent about having children. These people could probably be persuaded to have kids eventually, but they've fallen into a doomer mindset and now are self-justifying their decision.
* "Essentially" because when you're talking about the entire population of the planet, or even of the USA, "zero" is much too strong an assertion. Somewhere, there probably is someone who really would start pumping out kids if AI produced a miracle solution to climate change tomorrow.
If the mod feels the need to chime in, maybe they should chime in with links to some of those instead of demanding another poster do it.
We will demand posters follow the rules.
Alternatively, DM me to discuss rates since apparently you are dissatisfied with the level of effort being made by volunteers.
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery.
Your hot take is not hot or unique, but it is sneering and low effort. We're here to discuss culture war, not wage it.
I don’t think it’s good to require every posts to be 15 paragraphs of citations.
We have never required 15 paragraphs of citations. Or even one paragraph of citations. Or even much more than a fig leaf of effort.
If you get my point, you will stop posting like this.
As much as it might pain you to here, having had worked entitles you to nothing but becoming dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind. None of us are "entitled" to anything, it's all what we can earn and what others give us.
Our civilization is much more built on those who are dust than those who sit on boats with OAPs.
Every civilization has made various provisions for the no-longer-working elderly. Some took the attitude you do, that once they can no longer work, they serve no purpose and should just die. Those civilizations were not nice, and are now dust in the wind, and that's a good thing.
my comment is that while it feel like that pension and that savings account is a sure thing for some current 65 year old, it's really not. It's really a gift from the young people who give it present value.
It's not a gift. It's an inter-generational agreement: "We will take care of our old, and in turn our young will take care of us." You can of course argue that you want to change or abolish that agreement. Maybe you are confident your children will take care of you, or maybe you're content to walk out onto an ice floe when you are too old to work. But the reason we don't typically decide "Appropriate all savings, abolish all pensions, nullify all previous agreements" is that this leads to extremely unstable, low-trust societies in which everyone maximizes their own immediate benefit because they expect the young to take everything from them at the first opportunity. If I know young people are going to try to take everything from me when I can no longer defend it, I am not going to think about how to make young people's lives better to appease them, I'm going to think about how I can protect myself and keep them powerless. Rather the opposite of what you want.
It's really a gift from the young people who give it present value. We can take part or all of that gift away like a toy from a toddler if the 65 year old acts too entitled over it. It's a privilege, not a right. That is my point.
So the degree to which old people should be allowed to keep anything is the degree to which they flatter and appease you?
You said old people who have saved money they earned while working should be "cleared out." You can rationalize it however you like with a retooled version of the Privilege argument, but your definition of "taking" from you appears to be "having things you want." You're essentially making the same argument that reparations people do, that white people have all this Stuff they don't deserve because of historical inequities blah blah blah and therefore they deserve to have it taken from them and redistributed.
Telling people "You owe me" does not make them sympathetic to your suffering. And it's honestly hard to take your "suffering" seriously when you simultaneously claim to be in the top 5% income bracket yet unable to afford a family. I am not sure if you're sincere or just a high-effort troll. You're approaching the @KulakRevolt level of cartoonish edgelordy ragebait. You are not presenting serious arguments, just an inchoate spew of resentments.
The information shows up as the first search result. You say "For whatever reason" it shows up now, but what is your theory here- the Google AI somehow knew that you, specifically, were looking for wrongthink and tried to foil your attempts, but then elected not to do that for anyone else? I'd be curious to know exactly what your query was. You searched for something like "black guy who drove a car into a parade" and the AI summary posted text saying this never happened and only white people have ever driven cars into crowds? How very odd.
- Prev
- Next

I didn't mod you because I disagreed with you. You have a history of low effort sarcasm and you got reported for that, and I still doubt you literally believe the things you said in your initial post, because that is a pattern with you. Everything that followed has been without my mod hat. Whether you now admit that your OP was ridiculous hyperbole, or you are going to stick to the "Iran has wrecked the US and Israeli militaries and this is being hidden from the people" narrative.
More options
Context Copy link