@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
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's nothing confusing about it. Unlike you, I am not confused about your past statements. You attack Jews regularly. You have made it very clear that you do not like Jews. You do not like the Jewish religion and you do not like the Jewish people. You criticize Israel in an unprincipled manner, by which I mean you criticize Israel in a way that only applies to Israel (unlike leftist critics who criticize Israel because they have a general oppressed/oppressor model, or sometimes a general antipathy for all things Western, with which they associate Israel), because it is by proxy attacking Jews. I'm not going to pretend we're talking about the finer points of rabbinical Judaism or Samaritans or Karaites. Nor am I "upset" about this, any more than I was "upset" about your specious analysis of Orthodox Judaism.


I am calling it out, however, because it's annoying. (I suppose in that sense, "annoyed" is kind of like being "upset"). I am not going to argue about the history because as much as I find the history of the region quite interesting and endlessly convoluted (having read a number of books by Israeli histories, of both the Zionist and New Historian school, by Palestinian historians, largely of the Edward Said school, and by Western historians both from a pro- and anti-Israel perspective), I know when I engage with you, I am not engaging with someone interested in history, in justice, or in discerning truth and nuance, I'm engaging with someone whose core motivation is animus towards Jews, and thus everything you write on the subject is an argument-as-soldier. I can't change your mind, and you're allowed to hate Jews. But I'm not indulging the pretense that this is a discussion about international law or concern for Palestinians.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, first of all, I am not Irish. I have some Irish ancestry. I also have English, Scandinavian, German, Jewish, and (according to a DNA test) North African ancestry. As I've said before, I am Jewish enough for the Nazis to have classified me as such in that thing that you say totally didn't happen but was good, but I am not Jewish enough to actually care about Jewish religion or culture or Israel per se. Sorry if that makes it harder to pin me down on my ethnic biases.


Now, the rest of your argument was entirely beside the point because you don't care about the West Bank any more than you care about Gaza. You care about Jews. That is the beginning and the end of it, that is your entire logos on the matter. Your sympathy for Palestinians is an affectation. If a portal to hell opened up and demons invaded Israel, you'd write verbose apologetics for the infernal cause. Absent Jews, obviously you'd be as anti-demon as you are anti-Muslim, but Jews therefore...


I do not believe Iranians or Palestinians are demons, of course. I actually have sympathy for Palestinians and the impossible position they are in, largely because of their leadership (but, it must be pointed out, because of what most of the Palestinian population believes). But to take your straws in order:


The West Bank settlers are awful, I think Israel should put an end to their activities, and other countries should rightfully pressure Israel to do this. That said, even under what passes for "international law," that land basically belongs to whoever can hold it, and "neighboring country encroaches on unincorporated territory and boots out the locals" is a tale as old as time. It's always miserable and tragic, but again, you don't care about the whom, only the who. If Israel did completely pull out of the West Bank and leave the Palestinians there alone, you'd still want Israel to get pushed into the sea by the rest of the Arabs and you'd argue about Gaza and Jordan and Egypt's grievances instead.


The history of Palestine is long and tragic, but it's not directly analogous to England and Ireland, except in the sense that they are inextricably mixed. Israel and Palestine have been mixed since ancient times, and I am no more impressed by Jews' Biblical claims to the land (I don't give a fuck if your holy book says you're rightfully entitled to this land because your ancestors lived here 2000 years ago) than I am by revisionist Palestinian claims that historical Israel never existed and that Palestinians have always had a national identity (they have not) or that Jews haven't been there for centuries.


But again, the historical comparisons are beside the point because I don't believe your "moral intuition" is based on sympathy for Palestinians. it is based on hatred of Jews. Not because this "challenges" us or because you are deeply concerned about the oppressed (in every other context you display nothing but disdain for oppression and social justice narratives). Yes, it's entirely proper to identify your argument as Jew-hatred. If it was anyone but Jews curb-stomping the Palestinians (like, say, the rest of the Arab world, as they have done repeatedly), yes, you'd shrug and say that's what that part of the world is like.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Artificial Programming of Human Needs: A Path to Degradation or a New Impetus for Development?
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not approving a manifesto by someone who just showed up for the first time to post this. Participate in the community a while and then maybe we will let you repost Russian academic papers.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Their official stated policy goal is to leave the fate of Israel up to a democratic referendum which includes displaced Palestinians.




This sounds very nice when put in such anodyne, bureaucratic terms. A rhetorical tactic you are very practiced at, phrasing horrendous or risible propositions in superficially reasonable ways.


"Iran just wants democracy and for the Palestinians to be granted suffrage! Who could be against that?"


Gosh, indeed, who could be... if one ignores the undeniable and immediate consequences of letting Palestinians vote on a "democratic referendum on the fate of Israel."


This is just how people who think Israel shouldn't exist say Israel shouldn't exist without saying "Israel shouldn't exist."




Oh the horrors of justice and the rule of law! Is our heart so small and our palate so delicate that we should ignore three million Palestinians in the West Bank living in a dehumanizing and disenfranchised state as Israel’s state-sponsored proxy settlers (some labeled terrorist groups in the US) torture and torment Palestinian women and children nearly every month? I hope not. America should be unironic social justice warriors (not the gay kind).




It's always amusing watching the Jew-haters suddenly become bleeding hearts over Palestinians. You don't care about Palestinians. You wouldn't want them in your country. You don't care about their enfranchisement or dehumanization. You are well aware of the lengthy history of Arabic atrocities carried out against each other, against Iranians, and against Africans. No one has treated the Palestinians worse than other Arabs. In fairness, that's because the Palestinians have had an unfortunate tendency to destabilize every country in which they are admitted. This sucks for the vast majority of Palestinian civilians, who as several people have already pointed out at length, are the unfortunate victims caught up in every war in which a nation undertakes aggression that the women and children and old men never signed up for. But the Israelis aren't refusing a farcical Palestine/Israel one state purely out of ethnic/religious exclusion (though that is certainly part of it). They reject your proposal (again, hilarious to see you pushing a proposal only advocated by the most deluded leftists in the West, only because it's something that would stick in a knife in Jews) because they can see what has happened in every country in which Palestinians become a political force, and because the Palestinians make no secret of what they want to do to Israelis. The idea that admitted as full citizens of Israel, Palestinians would proceed to coexist peacefully with the Jews as fellow citizens is not something anyone actually believes. I don't think even those deluded leftists really believe it, they just won't say out loud that what would result is something they think the Jews have coming.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
War brings out the worst in people. Especially on message boards where no one is actually in danger of dying. But we sure have opinions about who deserves to die and who doesn't.


Dial it down.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Edit: Just fuck off and give me a 6 month - 1 year ban or even permanently instead of this weaksauce bullshit. The below iran thread is seriously reddit and twitter tier on both sides and if this is what the mods think of as good high effort discussion then just do me a favor and show me the door. Otherwise I can't resist responding in kind.




Post-ban editing is usually a permabannable offense, and we are discussing giving you your wish.


We do not control the quality of discourse. You do. We are not going to rearrange the board to accommodate your triggers and kneejerk reflexes. You can resist responding like this. You choose not to. Your emotional incontinence is a You problem.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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 agree that European institutions are under strain too, especially from the hard right and parties like AfD and Reform here in the UK but they're harder, the damage is slower and meeting more resistance at every level.




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.




Instead what we're seeing over there is that a single administration with a sufficiently bloody minded approach can hollow out norms that were supposedly two and a half centuries deep in what, a year and a half? The US has a proper full constitution and an extremely strong supreme court which could block all this with ease but it has folded like a marzipan deckchair. That's not what deep roots look like. That's what a brilliant structure built on shallow cultural soil looks like when someone finally decides to test the foundations. It sinks at the first real challenge.




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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Counter-reality check: I speak Arabic (poorly) and listen to what they actually say and mean.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you're not trolling, I can only wish you a better life and say it doesn't have to be like that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There are only two kinds of objects in a relationship, a sex object or a resource object




Goddamn, some people are miserable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.