Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
I am not, in principal, against the death penalty, and I certainly think Nidal Hassan deserves it.
However, IMO, it should be a sober, deliberative action we do because we have made a rational decision, not something to please a bloodthirsty crowd. And it should be done humanely, no matter how big a scumbag the condemned was, and no matter how many people would like to see him slowly tortured to death.
reveling in low-class pandering and/or ostentatious cruelty
is exactly the point here. I fully expect the administration to "botch the aesthetics of the occasion," by which I mean they will treat it like a celebration and sell T-shirts, and if they botch the execution itself and Hassan lies on the ground, bleeding out but not dead, Trump will probably do a cute imitation of his dying gurgles, to wild cheers.
You could probably call it that nowadays, in the same way that a lot of stuff that wasn't originally "YA" is now called that. I've read very little Mercedes Lackey, but my recollection of the Pern books is that the romance subplots were mostly pretty light, not the primary running theme.
I like your Harry Potter takes much more than I like your Iran takes.
I generally agree with you about the nature of the Potterverse, but one of the reasons people get wrapped up in the illogic, and the "shipping," is that the books made an awkward transition from "children's series where we can accept that magic is whimsical and fairy-tale like and doesn't need to make sense" to "YA series where people are starting to have adult relationships, the story is increasingly metaphorical, and the world is starting to look silly." Thirteen-year-old Hermione being given a Time-Turner so she can take more classes is funny. The Time-Turner is a MacGuffin. Seventeen-year-old Harry fighting wizard Nazis and being threatened with torture and death makes you wonder why he (or Hermione) isn't thinking about Time-Turners.
Rowling is a good author. The sense of wonder, the aliveness of the wizarding world, the investment in characters, is why HP became huge despite neither her world nor her prose being better than many other authors writing in the same playground. But she's very much an author for whom "numbers aren't real" and "worldbuilding isn't a thing," and that means when the audience gets older and starts thinking about the inconsistencies, well, they realize that the Wizarding World only works if you don't think about it too much.
Getting back to Malfoid, I agree that this is gooner slop, even if the visual presentation is chaste. Harry marrying a nice girl next door isn't good enough; gooners don't want a quiet girl next door, they want a hot blonde badass who's pretty and feisty and kind of bitchy but will become submissive and demure (but still sexy) for you... only for you. It's the flip side of the woman who fantasizes about the rough bad boy alpha who reveals his tender squishy heart only for you.
I am kind of surprised to see you praise romantasy, as hereabouts it's often criticized for being basically literary porn for women. Now, I am a literary snob (no, not really, I like Dungeon Crawler Carl and Harry Potter), but I'm also a literary gourmand. I'll try anything. I've tried romantasy. Have yet to find one that didn't bore me or strike me as execrably bad writing. I tried to read Twilight back in the day. I didn't hate it, it didn't give me girl cooties, it just... bored me. You say the bad writing is the point, and maybe that's true (romance has always been a very formulaic, mass-produced product), but I don't know why I'd want to suffer bad writing and boredom if I am not the target audience getting dopamine hits from an enemies-to-lovers alpha story written like a fourteen-year-old's first fanfic.
Is Progression Fantasy still "niche," with Dungeon Crawler Carl breaking containment?
DCC is LitRPG, which is another sub-genre of Progression Fantasy. Yes, DCC has dramatically expanded the audience for both, but I have yet to see a harem fantasy hit the mainstream. Would be hilarious when/if it does. I can only imagine the CW discussion points it will spawn.
If you say so. I cringe (for the blocker) every time I see someone do it.
There is already a male romantasy genre, but it's called Harem Fantasy and considered a very low-status sub-genre of the already rather niche Progression Fantasy.
Male-POV strictly monogamous romances with a HEA were more popular in the Regency and Victorian eras, but fell off by the 1950s, as romance became mostly for women and men were more interested in the (fantasy) world shown to them by the likes of Hugh Hefner. There's probably a 2rafa-style argument to be made here, something-something sexual revolution, but yeah, these Malfoid stories are touching a chord with guys who want a waifu and not a harem, I guess. (These kinds of stories are much more common in Japanese manga and anime.)
and we now got to the point where BlueSky is having meltdowns over fanfics where a girl falls in love with a boy
They're having meltdowns over fanfics based on the works of She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.
Left wingers love stories where a girl falls in love with a boy. Most romance (including "romantasy") is very left-coded. The girl may be a Strong Independent Woman who can outfight five times her dainty elfin weight in Navy Seals, but they are still fundamentally about a girl who falls in love with a vampirewerewolfboy.
I think a lot of people performatively block someone who once humiliated them, but regularly read the Motte while not signed in to see what that-asshole-they-totally-don't-care-about is saying.
If you drop "Also, we should kill my political enemies" into an otherwise acceptable post, that's the part that's going to get modded.
Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.
Who would these be?
Well, don't answer that. Better yet, don't post like that.
There's probably an acceptable effortpost that could be made that argues that some people are traitors and we should execute them, but you need to put effort into it, not just imply that your political enemies should be killed in a free-form rant.
I'm sorry to, uh, throw a wrench into a fine rant, but I'm not a sex-positive liberal so you seem to be addressing it to me on the assumption that I believe things I don't.
I mean, I guess I am a "sex-positive liberal" in a literal sense, or in the sense that a lot of behavior I consider shameful and disgusting shouldn't necessarily be illegal. But if you see me defending Jane Doe or Mattress Girl or Jackie, et al, then you have been operating on a very poor understanding of my liberalism.
I didn't say they aren't entitled to a defense.
They can be dirtbags without being guilty of criminal charges.
It's arguably "virtuous" to defend their right to innocence until proven guilty of criminal charges. It's not virtuous to line up on Team Dude and say they did nothing wrong because you hate the slut.
ESH is a perfectly valid conclusion.
She's gross, the men are gross (seriously, consent or not, who thinks it's not gross to put your dick in the same place a dozen other guys just put their dicks?), and social shame and disgust should befall all of them regardless of criminality. But most people are lining up on Team Woman or Team Bitches Ain't Shit. And so it goes.
It's amazing how clouded some people's minds get when you tell them that 18 is an irrationally high age of consent.
Nobody here is "mind clouded" by the idea of lowering the age of consent. People will agree or disagree that 18 is too high or 14 is too low, and the discussion is not prohibited (because it comes up regularly). You aren't dropping some unthinkable 70-degrees off-the-azimuth hot take that makes people freak out. You're just being predictable and annoying and you think you're being clever by inserting your obsessions into tangential posts that dance around without quite naming the thing you want to talk about. But do go on testing our forbearance.
It was totally you. You're still here because we have a (sometimes irrational) willingness to let ten guilty ban evaders pedo-post than accidentally ban one innocent just-happened-to-stumble-onto-the-Motte-and-post-exactly-like-a-banned-pedo, but you've basically outed yourself, so I would suggest not going for the I-am-very-smart-I-totally-p0wned-you tactic to test how far you can go antagonizing the mods just because we've let you get away with it this long.
-signed, Amadan the genius
FYI (@cjet79) we've also applied the single-issue-obsessive rule to the Hock guy who posted weekly about how he was doomed to inceldom because he's not 6'2".
I don't know if "Goodgoy" was intentional or not, but even if it was a typo, this is a snarky, catty, low quality post.
IIRC, Zorba's plan was to eventually allow some community-based auto-modding to take place, but only once he feels it's properly calibrated (and I have no idea when or how that will be achieved). Right now, the community modding does give us some sense of how the community feels about a reported post, and while mods make the final decision, I personally am somewhat influenced by community consensus in borderline cases. That does not mean if enough people say "This is bad" it will overrule my opinion that a post did not break any rules, or vice versa. But it's useful feedback, even if lately a lot of that feedback is "I want my tribe to have no restrictions and I want the other tribe silenced."
Come on. Along one axis or the other, that describes a substantial number, if not the majority, of regular posters. There are very few people on the Motte with credibility to point that particular finger.
I can usually tell but it's not 80-90% reliable (and I'd consider my literary analytic abilities to be well above average). There are times when I read a book with an ambiguously-gendered pen name (in itself usually a tell) and think "This was absolutely written by a woman." I've commented before that JK Rowling, while a good writer, has womenwritingmen issues. But I doubt you'd actually score 80-90% on a real blind test of writing samples.
It is, but /r/menwritingwomen material is almost always rather dated.
I knew all the words on the left and most of the words on the right, though I couldn't actually describe in detail the differences between "tulle" and "chambray" without looking them up.
Perhaps most men and women are simply not well-read?
You have to really stand out and be persistently obnoxious about it for us to invoke that rule. Everyone has their "thing" that they like to talk about - that is not what the single-issue posting rule prohibits.
I put a modhat on for "stop it or you're getting banned" posts. Those are the ones that have the red flag. Me saying "I see a lot of stupid shit in the mod queue" or "No, I am not modding this post" is not the same and does not obligate me to go into customer service bot mod.
I generally do not opine on the thread itself when I modhat a post. We especially avoid using a modhat in a thread where we have already been engaging (or arguing).
That is a general practice, not a hard and fast rule.
Note that the topic of modding (whether or not someone was being unnecessarily antagonistic) was orthogonal to the topic I expressed an opinion about (LLMs).
We will not be following the practice that "I may not refer to anything to do with moderating or what I see in the mod queue if I talk about the thread." Once again, we are not customer service bots, and while we're mindful of appearances and community trust in our diligence and best efforts at fairness, there is a limit to how much weight we're going to give someone sore at being disagreed with.
- Prev
- Next

Yes, they're disgusting. Call me old-fashioned; I remember when we expected presidents to be above acting like that.
More options
Context Copy link