Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
Yes? Adding it as a comment to more of a roundup thread is less risky than a top-level thread, I received a 7-day ban for my last one.
No, it's not. Do you think you're invisible if you don't post a top-level thread?
I'm not going to ban you for this comment, but it's borderline and adds to our stack of evidence that all you ever post about is Jews, and that even when you pretend you're posting about something else, it will always turn out to be about Jews, and when you respond to someone else in another thread, you will make it about Jews. So yes, if you continue to do this, you will eat another ban.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
Come on, dude. It's a slur everywhere. Nobody uses it except to be insulting. (No, don't point to the handful of trans people who use it to refer to themselves. You also can't call black people "niggers" here just because some black people use it amongst themselves.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
If you need a timeout until after election day, we can oblige.
Stop doing this.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
I think your entire premise is wrong. People don't generally assume that someone who is unsuccessful with romantic relationships is lacking in moral virtue. That might be the case, but there are many other explanations: he's terrible at dating, he has unrealistic standards, he just doesn't put himself out there enough, he has some baggage that becomes evident once a woman shows interest (not necessarily the same as "lacking in moral virtue"), or he has so convinced himself that he's undateable (because he's short) that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, there are men (and women) who try and try and fail and never find love. That's very sad. But it's never because of any one thing (like height).
When he is in fact a short but fit engineer, or a corporate lawyer, or a programmer for Google, he's then roundly criticized for being misogynistic or lacking in moral virtue.
Look dude, ima be honest. You've been banging this "Short men can't land anyone but a morbidly obese hag" drum for a while now, to the point that you've actually been warned about giving it a rest. It's tiresome, and when you refuse every bit of advice that's been given to you, starting a top-level thread to pose it as a "general question" about why short men who can't get dates are treated so unfairly, it's no less tiresome.
This post is... okay, I guess. If it were anyone else posting it, it would be fine. But seeing your name, I immediately knew what the post would be about before reading it. So seriously, give it a rest. Yes, consider this an invocation of the single-issue posting rule.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
This is a crappy post that reminds me of this guy. While I banned @Astranagant for personal antagonism (and to be clear, this was a continuation of a pattern, not just for insulting you), you don't seem to have much to say here beyond cackling triumphantly at "effete liberal Europoors."
We are frequently accused of not modding people for posting low-effort culture war sneering if they use enough words. Well, you used a lot of words, but this is just low-effort culture war sneering.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
An mtf tranny
Don't do this. Directly using slurs (as in "use," not "mention") is a direct violation of several of our rules.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
I cannot say I'm surprised that you came back from your most recent ban, in which you were explicitly told to stop dropping flaming paper bags full of shit on the doorstep, to immediately do the exact same thing. But you cannot say you weren't fairly warned.
Banned. Most likely permanently, pending mod discussion.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4mo ago
The mods had a little discussion about this. Your post isn't against the rules on content - "I don't want more Indians here" is an allowable opinion - but it is veering close to consensus building. (You cannot speak for how most people on the Motte feel, let alone presume to speak for the entire country.) And we have noticed that your two posts so far seem to be harping on your dislike of Indians. I'm pretty certain this is an alt you are using to grind this particular axe.
Contribute something other than how much you don't like Indians if you want to keep posting with this account.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
The idea that any reasonable person is even entertaining the idea that these children had the right to effectively assault this woman
I don't see that at all, either an "effective" assault or anyone defending assault. But it's possible she will come forward and say this version of events is a lie, in which case we're back to she-said/they-said.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
/lukeskywalker quote
Somehow I doubt that,
Well, I can't do anything about you insisting I'm lying about what I believe.
given their story, as they tell it, has some pretty conspicuous and fantastical gaps
I'm open to being persuaded on this, but I don't see conspicuous and fantastical gaps.
you're willing to overlook
Implies I am just willfully cherrypicking which facts I believe. Again, I cannot persuade you of my ingenuousness, but there really isn't much point in engaging if your go-to move in any disagreement is "You're lying, you don't actually believe that."
and/or create your own implausible account
Okay, you find my account implausible. I don't.
which is definitely not the story they are telling.
Clarify this for me. You seem to be claiming that they are claiming that she physically lifted/moved/forced a kid off his bike and manhandled it out of his possession with brute force.
In the above link (which is their version of events), the only statement I find resembling this is:
She then pushed her way onto the bike and attempted to remove it from the docking station and take it.
I suppose you could read that as "She physically forced a resisting teenager off the bike" (which I agree would be very implausible). Which do you think is more likely: that that is indeed what they meant, that she used her Pregnant Lady Strength to bully them, or that they meant she was pushing the kid on the bike and he got off rather than escalating? Note that this does not make that version of events true, but it does not seem implausible to me.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
6mo ago
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your posts on this topic.
"Some Jews happened to die during a war, and now anyone who might have somehow been involved with a Jew dying during the war is cause for cancelling elections. Holocaust grifters are pretending that Jews dying during a war is worse than anyone else dying during a war. Yeah, there were some resettlements and shootings, but that's just stuff that happens in war."
Well, gosh, yes, that would be pretty outrageous, wouldn't it?
Your responses are bad and disingenuous, and I have pointed out before that you don't engage in good faith or honestly, not because I disagree with your premises (which I do), but because you intentionally obfuscate and cloud the actual issue you are arguing.
Your core belief is that the Holocaust didn't happen, and if it did the Jews deserved it, and nothing exceptionally bad ever happens to Jews and if it does they deserve it. Of course if you presented it that bluntly, you'd turn off even a lot of the Jew-critical readers. So instead you post things like this, arguing as if people are (at the instigation of paranoid manipulative Jews) criticizing some guy who admires some other guy who might incidentally have been involved in a few Jews dying along with lots of other civilians during the war. But unless you can handwave away all Jew-slaughter as conveniently as you would like to, the charges against Antonescu are considerably more than "some shit happened during a war."
Now this is not an invitation to go through your entire Holocaust denial tap dance one more time to explain how being an anti-Semite is irrelevant and anyways anti-Semitism is good actually because Jews are bad. You single-issue posting about Da Joos is annoying; dropping the Joo-posts into every single thread that you can possible make about Jews is even more annoying. What grinds my gears personally is when you engage in this level of disingenuous, which offends me because I dislike sleazy argumentation. If you said "Antonescu wasn't responsible for any massacres because those didn't happen," I'd disagree but at least you'd be arguing honestly. Likewise if you said "Antonescu participated in the slaughter of Jews because they had it coming and he was doing a good thing." I am honestly not sure which of those two statements is closest to your actual belief, but "Antonescu dindu nuffin" is surely not something even you are niave enough to actually believe.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I feel like one of us must be WILDLY failing the ideological Turing test, for you to call this a 'zombie idiot' view.
It's you. I know lots of progressives. Exactly zero of them believe that literally no minorities would ever commit crimes if not for oppression, or that crime doesn't exist.
I'm not going to debate progressive criminal theory because I don't subscribe to it, but I'm pretty sure even AOC would not say there would be zero crime if the economy were better. If you cannot steelman their perspective in a way they themselves would agree is what they believe (not "this is what your beliefs lead to" but "this is what you literally believe") then you are weak manning, and the OP was being obnoxious about it and has a long history of being obnoxious.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
Everyone loves a nice hot dump on progressives. It's practically the easy-mode for scoring upvotes.
You still need to actually be making an argument or saying something factual and defensible. This post is just pure boo-lighting with a bunch of uncharitable straw men. Do you think any progressive would agree with your characterization of what they believe and what their real motives are? It's one thing to argue that "This is the end result of their policies," it's another to argue "Actually, progressives are all zombie idiots with a worldview that says crime doesn't exist and minorities only ever do bad things because they are oppressed."
If this was a one-off, I'd chide you for weakmanning and ask you to put more effort into your inveighing against progressives in the future. But this isn't a one-off. You have a long, bad history of this sort of post, and being told to stop it.
You actually have a couple of notes to the effect of "last warning, permaban next time." Somehow you skated in the past, and then you went and earned a couple of AAQCs.
You seem to be able to post interesting things when you aren't choking on bile about your outgroup. We would like you to focus on your strengths. By that I do not mean "entertaining rants about how your outgroup is pure stupid evil."
Banned for 2 weeks, and next time will be a permaban.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
Oh ditch the fucking halo, it doesn't fit.
There are a lot of people here arguing "My side is sincere, your side is all unprincipled conflict theorists," but this post stands out for its naked belligerence and culture warring.
If you're saying things about your outgroup that you would consider inflammatory and unjustified if they said it about you, then you are not making rational arguments, you are booing.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
Sometimes the complaints here about cancel culture are legitimate and real (if frequently also repetitive and tedious) and sometimes it's more like "Some idiot said some stupid shit and got backlash, but I agree with the stupid shit or I hate the people who are offended by it, therefore this is bad."
Your complaint is in the latter category.
Irving doesn't have "weird" opinions, he has inflammatory, bigoted opinions. It is not a new thing that most brands (including sports teams) don't want to be associated with people spouting outright racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry. If you were complaining about uneven enforcement (e.g. that some other player said "Kill all white people" and didn't get suspended) you could dredge up a point here, but no, you just don't think anti-Semitism is bad and you think the people who do think anti-Semitism is bad are bad, therefore it's bad for people to be punished for it.
"The weird people are necessary" - really? Is Kyrie Irving a generational talent such that basketball will suffer without him? (Genuinely don't know, I don't follow basketball.) What exactly is it about his "weird" opinions that enriches our culture or the sport? If you told me there was a brilliant physicist who's on the verge of discovering cold fusion but he just got cancelled for telling a racist joke at work, I'd agree that's stupid, but a basketball player got suspended (he wasn't even "cancelled") for being an anti-Semitic loon and you think this is damaging to the culture? Nah, man. Most employers will suspend you, at the very least, if you spout off like that in a way that damages their brand.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
Sure, I hate them too. All of them. I blame your Republicans more for where we are now, but I've got plenty of hate to go around.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
That's a weird take and I don't think it's an ingenuous one.
Recognizing that biology has a material impact does not mean being a proponent of "based natural law" and fantasies about reverting to Hobbesian savagery.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2mo ago
This is so low effort it's barely even a critique. Normally I'd leave it at that, but you've now been told about eight times to stop the low effort sneer-posting and that you were heading for a permaban. I dislike permabanning someone for a post that would normally be just a warning, even if it is like strike nine, but I think it's appropriate at this point for you to go away for a while. Thirty days, and don't come back unless you're going to stop doing this.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8mo ago
I can believe the writers thought the audience "didn't get the point" the first time and wanted to write a new movie with the "correct" message.
I think the more sinister conspiratorial nonsense - that the studios literally don't care about making a profit (!!) and deliberately did this as a "humiliation ritual" just to punish the audience, whom they hate - is ridiculous and a sign of how far down a rabbithole this sort of "THEY are out to get you" thinking can take you. Maybe there is a screenwriter somewhere chortling as xe/xir thinks "This will show those white incel losers!" but I am pretty sure there is no studio that will deliberately put out a money-loser because all the money-men are on board with a "punish incels" program.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
10mo ago
Naked culture warring with inflammatory assertions backed by your feels.
You've been warned repeatedly about this, and you've made it clear that this what you're here for. Your last ban came with a note to permaban you next time, but that was ten months ago and you've earned an AAQC since then (in which you showed you are capable of dialing down the heat and engaging in good faith), which suggests you've made some effort to improve your behavior. So I'm just giving you another two-week ban which will hopefully serve as another course-correction.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
However, is he responsible at all for the fact that his followers went too far and harassed those people?
I have only kind of paid attention to this case so I will not claim deep legal knowledge here, but I suspect this case is, like so many others, one in which the deep legal details matter, and are mostly ignored by partisans in favor of "He's being punished by the Elites for offending the NWO" or "He's an evil monster who mocked dead children."
A number like $1.5 billion is basically saying "We're taking everything you have (except your home)." Is that a fair judgment? Eh. I don't feel sorry for him, and not just because he's a crank.
My understanding is that the huge judgment was not so much because he claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax and told parents their children didn't really die (vile and obnoxious and possibly cause for a defamation suit, but not $1.5 billion), but because of all those followers of his who harassed and threatened the parents for years. So as to whether he is responsible at all: having some crazy followers who do things without your knowledge or instigation is one thing, but if you keep beating the "crisis actor" drums for years, until you know darn well what your followers are doing to those parents, then at some point yeah, I think you become responsible for continuing to egg them on. That and his legal fuckery with the court makes me think he FAAFO.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1yr ago
I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. I'd even go so far as to agree with you if you speculated that she probably feels more loyalty to Somalia than the US and does not, in her heart of hearts, really feel an allegiance to the Constitution. But that would be speculation; neither of us really knows.
That said, this is appears to be an attempt by her enemies to willfully read the worst possible interpretation/translation into her words. Even if "Somalian first, Muslim second" really is an accurate translation of her words, that isn't the "gotcha" admission that she doesn't consider herself American or loyal to America that it's being represented as. I am sure I've heard similar statements of ethnic solidarity from other politicians.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
True enough. But "A homeless black guy harassed me, this is why I wish we could go all Turner Diaries" is the direction I see.
Outrage at being bullied and essentially rendered helpless by a criminal psychopath in public is understandable, but all the stuff about "large, high-testosterone, social and biological inferiors" is just racial seething.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2yr ago
people like yourself seem perfectly happy insisting that biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts and decided their policy and there's just nothing we can do about it.
I do not think "biology wrote our laws regarding paternity established family courts" (sic).
I do not think there is "nothing we can do about" inequities that may result from biological differences.
I think laws need to reflect facts like, for example, that women can get pregnant and men can't.
If you really are sincere about "Laws against rape, or laws recognizing only women get pregnant: choose one," well, that is certainly a take.
Update on the Black Teens Versus Pregnant Nurse story.
This twitter thread seems like a reasonable summary. I know it's not entirely unbiased, but absent additional contradictory evidence, the story seems to basically check out like this:
Kids had checked out the ebikes for a ride, and docked them before the 45-minute "free" period ended, planning to undock them to resume riding. (This is apparently a pretty common practice?)
They're sitting on the bikes chilling, when Comrie, the pregnant nurse, approaches and asks to have one of the bikes.
The teens say no, unmoved by her appeals for consideration for her pregnancy.
She scans (checks out) a bike one of the kids is sitting on, and tries to take it.
The kerfluffle we saw on video ensues. The kids apparently filmed it with a legitimate fear that she would turn it into "gang of teens harasses pregnant white lady."
So basically, no one looks like an entirely innocent victim here. The kids were just hanging out in preparation to check out the bikes again, but since they were docked, you don't really get to "call dibs" on a bike you are not currently renting. Technically Comrie was entitled to take an available bike; the kids shouldn't have been squatting on them. They were also kind of jerks for not showing a little compassion for an obviously pregnant woman (their version is that if they'd given up the bike, one of them would have had to find some other way to get back to the Bronx).
That said, deciding "Screw you, I'm taking your bike anyway, get off" wasn't great behavior on her part, even if legally justified. I cut her more slack because apparently she just got off a 12-hour shift, and she was pregnant.
However, even if the teens were perhaps being inconsiderate and less than gentlemanly, the narrative that's basically portrayed them as ganging up on her and trying to steal her bike appears to be inaccurate.
More options
Context Copy link