@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 297


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Amadan


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Letting the hate flow through me

				
				
				

				

					9 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 November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A reminder that this is not a rationalist forum. As for new atheism and rationalism being the same thing: no, they definitely are not. There is definitely some overlap, but new atheism spawned Atheism+ and was a driver of SJW/wokeness, which rationalism has always been ambivalent-to-hostile towards.


As for not knowing Christianity, I kind of agree with you that a lot of people don't actually understand Christianity at all, but at the same time, there are many, many "Christian" doctrines, and even the Christians here on the Motte have a habit of expressing their own interpretation in a doctrinaire fashion as obviously the correct and orthodox form of Christianity, from which any deviation is a misunderstanding at best, heresy at worst.


As for blaspheming against the holy spirit, you know, that is a pretty hard one to get around if you actually believe in taking the Bible literally. As a kid, I once made a Halloween joke about the holy spirit being like a ghost in a sheet or something, and the Sunday school teacher very seriously read me the verse about mocking the holy spirit being an unforgivable sin. Imagine telling an eight-year-old that he's just irreversibly damned himself to hell with a joke!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not a libertarian.




In general, I perceive much of the social movements of the last 70 years to have been an attempt to stamp out visible tragedies affecting a small fraction of people at the expense of the long-term happiness and healthy functioning of the whole, and I don't think that this was a good idea. That's a moral intuition I don't expect you to share.




Well, I agree that in some cases that was effect (if not the intent) of legislation. No one thinks "I will stamp out visible tragedies affecting a small fraction of people at the expense of long-term happiness." The problem with all legislation is that even the best-intentioned legislators do not have a crystal ball or the ability to foresee all second and third-order effects.


So if you want to argue "Feminism was bad for society and we should repeal feminism," uh... I kind of agree with the first statement (for some value of "feminism") but I do not see how you achieve the second (given that "repeal feminism" tends to mean "repeal the entire concept of female emancipation writ large") without winding up at "Women are property." If you want to argue for that explicitly, I guess I can hear you out, but you are right that my moral intuitions are against it.




I also think that the number of true misogynists is very low, with the caveat that I define those as people who deeply hate women to the extent of wanting them to suffer as a terminal goal, plus those who are so deeply callous that they are totally unmoved by the legitimate suffering of a woman they know. In short 'viscerally hates them and will treat them like a fleshlight', as you say. I see no sign of this in the Dread Jim essay you link, which like it or not expresses its thoughts in terms of making both men and women better off.




I dunno how you failed to see it in that essay, but have a look at some of his other essays. I'm sure Jim himself (and indeed, almost no one but the most psychotic incels) will actually own up to literally believing "I do not care if women suffer, they should be treated like the livestock they are." But I absolutely do believe that is Jim's conviction, and that the words of some people here have come about as close as they felt they dared to expressing that. And here is mild compared to some other corners of the Internet.


Are those men a small minority of the (Western) population? Yes. (At least, I certainly hope so and have to believe so to preserve what little faith in humanity I have remaining.) But they are a non-neglible portion of the vocally online and advocates for "social change for the betterment of the whole," and they are a substantial contingent of the sad incel constituency the less, er, explicit sex warriors are arguing we need to appeal to.




In practice, I suspect that your informal definition of misogyny is much more extensive, very broadly along the lines of 'sees men as being rational enlightenment agents who have high moral worth and deserve respect and traditional American liberties, and treat women as having reduced rationality, reduced moral worth (depending on the tradition) and believes that they should be constrained i.e. not granted traditional American liberties to the same degree'.




You're incorrect. My definition of misogyny is not quite as narrow as yours, but I reserve the label for men who genuinely dislike (if not hate) women and don't believe women's concerns or preferences should register at all. A tradcon who thinks women are less rational and have less agency than men and should stay at home and raise children is not necessarily a "misogynist" in my view. (Maybe sexist, though I actually have no problem with that kind of relationship- I only have a problem with a woman who doesn't want that kind of relationship being forced into it.) No, I do not think everyone who lived prior to 1900 was a woman-hating misogynist just because almost all of them had a "traditional" view of women.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That's the beauty of male sexual preference; men find 80%+ of fertile-age females attractive.




More than 20% of fertile-age females in the US, at least, are obese, so I question whatever survey you're using this time. Or did it classify "would fuck" the same as "attractive"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I would find the "Waifu Importation Bill" hilarious, but how exactly would they ensure "attractive and fertile"? Will there be a panel judging their attractiveness (no doubt hosted by the President himself), rejecting anyone who scores below a 6?


Of course it would also be hilarious to see this backfire when a flood of Muslim women arrives completely on board with the "get married and have at least two children" plan.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Saying an election is "obviously fraud" is a very inflammatory claim for which you have provided insufficient evidence to justify just throwing it out there as an "obvious" fact, and claiming the entire Democratic party "will cheat if we can" (because they backed a noxious candidate) is merely booing your outgroup.


Many other people have made more substantive arguments about these issues, for which there is ample ground to criticize Democrats and Jones. Aspire to do likewise.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't personally agree with passing whatever laws you think would be necessary to eject women from the workforce, but the principle behind it, that women are happier being married with children and that everyone would be happier if society aligned to encourage that instead of "independent women," is probably true. I object to coercion and restricting people's freedom, even freedom to make bad choices, so I am not going to subscribe to "We should make women do what's best for them" even if I really did believe it's what best for them and not motivated by self-interest. "Society would be better if people did X, therefore we will force X through legislation" is ironically the sort of authoritarian thinking communist governments try to implement to reorder society for the greater good.




IMO the goal is lots of loving, happy relationships. (With, yes, an inevitable long tail of grudging-but-functional relationships and some pretty nasty ones). This benefits a big fraction men very clearly, because the current system is straightforwardly inimical to them; it’s hard to say whether it benefits women because they will gain certain things and lose certain things and probably different groups of women will benefit. I would like to think that the averaged outcome for women would be better, but even if it is mildly negative, ultimately the end effect will be positive when averaged across the sexes.




This is a pretty autistic Motte-pilled take. "If we measure how much happier most men would be, and how much happier many women would be, we can calculate that the net increase in happiness X is greater than the decrease in happiness Y of the women who don't like this arrangement, therefore they can suck it up." Talk about your authoritarian central planning! But let's say it's true. Let's say we blithely handwave away your "long tail" of abuse and misery which was much of the motivation for the rise of the feminist movement in the first place.


Here is the part you're really missing:




I can’t speak for the Dread Jim etc. because I don’t follow them, but IMO the point is that men and women more naturally form loving bonds when a) they are paired together, and b) their interests are broadly aligned.




The Dread Jims of the world (of whom there apparently many more than you might think, even in Western society) don't care about love and happiness. They care about themselves and sexual satisfaction, and removing the indignity of women being able to thwart them. I don't know what Jim's personal life is actually like, but having read enough of his essays, it's hard to believe he actually loves his wife or daughters, except maybe in the same sense you might love your dog. Some of them (like Jim) might talk in Biblical terms about God's intended role for men and women, but their motivation is much baser and cruder: they think women should be property. Literally. Unironically. Dread Jim wrote an essay about it. He isn't kidding and he isn't being metaphorical. Most of our blackpillers and incels aren't so explicit about it, but you can read it in their words. They aren't motivated by some philosophical notion of what's best for society. They're seething that women they want to have sex with can tell them no. Their goal is not "loving, happy relationships," because that implies that the happiness of women is important also, and they consider pleasing women to be a distraction at best, the source of all evils at worst. You are not cynical enough when reading the words they actually type.


You know the old feminist slogan "Feminism is the radical belief that women are human." It's rightly derided for its simplistic, bad-faith assumptions about those who criticize feminism ("What the hell do you mean, no one is saying women aren't human!") While I roll my eyes like most people when I actually see it on t-shirts in the wild, I am occasionally reminded, even here on the Motte, that there are in fact people who exemplify the mindset that slogan is reacting to. It is not surprising to me that, faced with men like this who make it clear that they see a woman as a collection of warm wet holes that unfortunately has vocal cords and a brain stem attached, some women react in an extreme and possibly self-destructive fashion. If you want to persuade women that they should "settle" for less than the unrealistic and absurdly high standards that supposedly they are all demanding nowadays, keep in mind you're not just telling them to settle for an average guy who'd be a good if unexceptional husband, you are (at least from the incel viewpoint) telling them they should settle for a man who viscerally hates them and will treat them like a fleshlight.


You can either say you don't care about that because society as a whole will be better off, or you can have some understanding for why this is a hard sell for anyone who does, um, think women are human.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not the scenario the "Make women property again" fanboys are advocating.


I think there are problems with your economic assumption that basically our entire infrastructure is running on top of welfare and without it there will be almost zero female employment (this was, in fact, not the case in previous centuries), but you seem to ignore the quiet part being said out loud. They don't want women being happy and married. Reread some of those posts again. They literally consider all women to be hypergamous whores whose toxic sexual impulses can only be constrained with force or threat of starvation. This isn't 'convince women they'd be happier in more traditional roles." It's not even "Kinder, kuche, kirche." It's unironic hatred.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Allow me to express  my skepticism that these miserable "incels" whining that they are incapable of attracting a woman without compulsion are in fact the productive members of society suffering for the benefit of others.


You also, as per usual, make unfounded assumptions about what I find normal and proper and would actually agree to, given a choice.


Be that as it may, let's say we agree to cut every form of charity and allow non producers to starve. That still doesn't put every female under your boot, especially not the desirable ones. They'll still mostly have jobs. So you need to go well beyond cutting off benefits for non producers.


The black pillers and Dread Jim fanboys do not have some clear eyed view of sexual relations and how civilization is supposed to work. Dread Jim doesn't even get Islamic society right when he's ranting about it, and they are about the closest to implementing his ideals in the modern world.


Yes, I am in fact horrified to notice some people are unironically endorsing rape and enslavement. Libertarian cavils about welfare notwithstanding.


Actually, horrified is too strong a word. It suggests I still have the capacity to be morally offended and shocked. I've known for quite a while there are people this base. I'm just disappointed at all the masks coming off as we gyre.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are those truly the only two alternatives you can conceive of? You are literally incapable of envisioning, or observing, relationships between men and women that are not slavery?


That is indeed horrifying.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You aren't citing redpill theory, which argues that we all act according to evolutionary imperatives to reproduce, which supposedly explains almost all male/female behavior. As reductive as it is, it does not posit that we are a loveless, hateful species unable to be happy with one another.


You are blackpilling. That's the "Females are hypergamous whores incapable of forming genuine emotional attachments to men because they hos" theory.




I can think of nothing more horrifying.




Indeed. If I believed your philosophy, I would see little reason to pursue a relationship at all.


If I were a woman in your world, I would expect death to be preferable to being forced to partner with men.


Now of course an outlook being bleak and nihilistic beyond words doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. But my empirical observation suggests you're wrong.


Certainly, you don't make a compelling case for any woman, or any man who doesn't absolutely despise women, to adopt your worldview and solutions.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Without @HereAndGone's snarkiness: why do so many of you salivate at the thought of women being forced to sexually service someone they don't want in order to eat? Yes, this was the norm in earlier ages. Those ages sucked a lot for almost everyone, given that the average person lived a precarious existence at best.


To desire a return to the sort of civilization in which you can get a woman because her survival literally depends on you does not seem to me like a normal, healthy thing to desire in a society with abundance enough that most people shouldn't have to consider starvation or enslavement a realistic possibility.


Even if this worked, would you not always be living with that gnawing awareness that she's only with you out of necessity? That you're literally just the next best thing to starvation?


It seems to me to not only be a spiteful and misogynistic attitude, but one utterly lacking in self respect.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your first post was a low-effort sneer (@gattsuru was at least pointing at something substantive, a specific grievance, you are just sneering). Your second post above is doubling down on the non-specific callouts of non-specific "respectability centrists" whom you are apparently accusing of being morally contemptible hypocrites who don't actually care about standards and decency. As an enforcer of standards and norms here, I am telling you this is a terrible post because all it does is spray piss on the floor. Apparently the eight people who have reported you so far agree.


So you're angry that Jay Jones won. That's fine. Who, exactly, do you think you are directing this venom at? Because just saying, as @gattsuru did, that it's radicalizing that Democrats elected him despite his abhorrent statements is fair commentary. But you seem to be angry and wanting to start a fight with people here.


I'm not going to say "Who?" because we don't actually encourage named call-outs just to start fights, but on the other hand, it's hard to see who you did have in mind. A couple of people have already asked if you mean them. I dunno, maybe you mean me too. Maybe my previous post unambiguously denouncing Charlie Kirk's murder wasn't enough for you. As I predicted to @gattsuru way back when, those of us on the moderate/left side are apparently responsible for denouncing unhinged leftists wherever and whenever they occur or we're assumed to sympathize with them. "Silence is violence"?


Or maybe you just mean anyone who votes Democrat or anyone who believes in norms and decency in politics. Because it's very reasonable and rational to track every terrible thing someone vaguely aligned with your opponent says or does and demand a repudiation or else claim they are responsible too. Just like they do on X, a very rational and reasonable place of respectable politics and decency.


Speaking for myself only, I am not a Virginia voter. Jay Jones seems like a disgusting person to me, and I also think Mamdani winning in New York is bad but neither am I a New York voter. If someone ever asked me "Hey @Amadan what do you think of that shit Jay Jones said?" I would have said "Utterly terrible and if I were a Virginia voter I wouldn't vote for him." But no one did because why should they? If my reputation on the forum is not sufficient to make people believe that I do not in fact endorse or sympathize with people cheering for political violence despite my many, many posts to the contrary, I don't know what to tell you. (Well, I do, but nothing I can type as a mod.)


Of course my response here is not a personal defense. I'm charitably assuming you didn't mean me, though honestly I don't care who you meant. What I do care about is that you are angry-posting and looking for a fight with any targets who present themselves and just vaguely gesturing at a group of people you want to spit on. As much as I also dislike @gattsuru's tactic of linking to months- or years-old threads to start fights over them again, at least he points to a specific thing to take issue with. You just seem to be angry and hoping someone will step up to fight you.


Stop it. Stop this snide, sneering, passive-aggressive baiting.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I understood it had something to do with being a shill, but $7000 seemed to be referring to something specific. Clearly I was not the only one who thought I was missing some context. Asking you what you're talking about, or to just explain the meme, is not a hostile act.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
10% may be an overstatement, but I agree that even 1% is unacceptable. But my point was that "schizo mode" (like if you literally see references to mermaids) is pretty obvious. "Abraham Lincoln was married to Susan Elizabeth Fancher" is not an obvious hallucination if you don't actually know his wife's name.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The main thing that is improving them is agentic AI - i.e., they can now actually do web searches and other external reference lookups, rather than just making up whatever isn't in their training data.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This reminds me of Vox Day's Encyclopedia Galactica project, or the even more retarded Conservapedia.


Wikipedia and crowd-sourced intelligence in general has its obvious failure modes, yet Wikipedia remains an extremely valuable source for.... most things that aren't heavily politicized. Even the latter will usually have articles that are factually correct if also heavily factually curated.


The problem with AI-generated "slop" is not the "schizo" hallucinations that you see. It's the very reasonable and plausible hallucinations that you don't see. It's the "deceptive fluency" of an LLM that is usually right but, when it's wrong, will be confidently and convincingly wrong in a way that someone who doesn't know better can't obviously spot.


With Wikipedia, if I read an article on Abraham Lincoln, I am pretty confident the dates will be correct and the life and political events will be real and sourced. Sure, sometimes there are errors and there are occasional trolls and saboteurs (I once found an article on a species of water snake that said their chief diet was mermaids), and if you are a Confederate apologist you will probably be annoyed at the glazing, but you still won't find anything that would be contradicted by an actual biography.


Whereas with an AI-generated bio of Lincoln, I would expect that it's 90% real and accurate but randomly contaminated with mermaids.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm fine with addressing both, but most people only want to address the thing that makes them angry in the moment.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Indeed, let us then abnegate all prior agreements we no longer consider binding on us because we don't like the costs. This will be very reformative and beneficial.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Indeed, people who say X doesn't matter would be making a poor argument.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's a fully generalizable statement. People can argue any benefit you receive is because of some form of upstream corruption. The point is not to whatabout the point about union corruption and whether or not any pension would meet your standards for legitimacy. The point is you can't just abdicate on legal obligations because you don't like how they were created.


Or rather, you can, but you will sometimes be the whom and not the who.


But I'm taking to the wind. We're now burning down anything and everything if it hurts people we don't like. This will end well.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You shouldn't have joined a corrupt union. The payment is not somehow cleansed of its corruption by the fact that it goes to you and not the union.




You didn't answer my question about whether any union would meet your criteria for being non-corrupt. And do you expect everyone who joins the union to do an investigation of its corruption and come to the same conclusions as you? Should we just take it as given that you think no one with a union pension should be able to collect on that pension because they're guilty of complicity in "union corruption"?




Cut them off or reduce them very significantly.




Okay. I say that glibly: at one time I would have been willing to take a personal hit in the form of reduced or no Social Security for myself if it would "fix" SS. Now I am too jaded to believe that's being anything other than a chump. But sure, at some point transfer payments are definitely going to have to be cut/reduced, and I bitterly hope it's not until after I'm dead.




Or maybe we should look at transfer payments.




Or we could look at both and not just go for your low-hanging emotionally satisfying culture war targets.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If that obligation was obtained corruptly, I think they are.




If I join a union that negotiated a pension for me, let's say I agree with you for the sake of argument that the union used "corrupt" tactics to get that pension. Does that make me a parasite because I shouldn't have joined a union, or I should refuse the pension? As as a follow-up question, is there any union or pension scheme that @The_Nybbler does not think is "corrupt"?




Transfer payments are huge. Trying to point to some bigger but much more nebulous problem looks like a distraction to prevent doing anything about transfer payments.




Did I say don't do anything about transfer payments? So what do you want to do about transfer payments?


Maybe we should also look at what the biggest problems are and consider how to allocate efforts accordingly.


"Bigger but more nebulous problems" are indeed harder to "do" something about than raging at welfare moms on TikTok. I don't fault people for taking the ragebait and going for the low-hanging fruit per se. You don't want to fix transfer payments because you have a rational economic plan to do so and you want to make things better for anyone else. You want to fix transfer payments so you can laugh as Laquisha is kicked onto the street. And I'm not even completely faulting you for that! I have not become as blackpilled as you, though my heart is increasingly bitter, but I have started to accept that schadenfreude is one of the few satisfactions left to us.


But don't lie to yourself about your motives. Tell me you want to fix some other stuff that doesn't warm your culture warring heart and maybe I'll believe there is some principle involved.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Is a "distraction" a thing @The_Nybbler does not care about, as opposed to things @The_Nybbler does care about?


I can be angry at single welfare moms while also noticing how much money we sunk into Afghanistan and the billions we're sending to Argentina. Our transfer payments, as you point out, are mostly to old people, and if you want to cut them to the point they are no longer our greatest federal expenditure, you won't just be booting single moms off the rolls.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, fair, forgot about the guy who didn't have time to actually do anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That you find their parasitism morally acceptable doesn't make it not-parasitism.




People collecting pensions they were promised as part of their work agreement is not parasitism. If you think workers should not receive pensions, you can advocate for ending pensions (and indeed, that is happening, and will probably happen even in the few places where pensions still exist, like government employment). You can complain about unions and their tactics, but the individuals who expect to collect on the benefits they were promised are not being parasites for expecting a legal obligation to be fulfilled.


As for old people demanding expensive medical care, we have discussed before the diminishing returns of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep Grandma alive for another month, and those are legitimate ethical debates, but an old person who wants health care and reasonably expects to receive it even if it is more expensive (because they are old) is not parasitism unless you're prepared to advocate for the ice floe health care plan.




But this includes the people in the videos you were complaining were just ragebait!




If you actually read my post, instead of just rushing to chew on my heel as usual, you'd have seen I admitted I also feel the rage and find these people infuriating. My point is not "A worse than B, therefore you should not be angry at B." My point is if you're concerned about the broad dysfunction of society and how to fix it, A is actually more impactful than B and you should consider that B might be an emotive distraction. By all means, let's squash the parasites as well, but let's be clear about motives.