Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
10hr ago
Do you even realize that the fact I am wasting time responding to your three (3!) responses to my one post is a gesture of respect that I fully realize will be both unappreciated and is largely undeserved? Yet here I am. Maybe it will be instructional to others who have similar complaints, if not you.
You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on. Maybe you should work on that? I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater".
I literally made the point you are claiming I did not get.
"He-man, woman hater" was, in fact, sarcasm.
I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady.
No one has ever asked you to take anything like a lady. You are being asked to follow the rules that apply to men, women, and Martians here on the Motte.
So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".
Many people post things that are arguably not worth engaging in because they are so risible. I often feel this way, and I'm pretty sure everyone feels this way at times. And the rules remain: if you cannot engage without mockery, you should not engage. When someone posts something utterly retarded, sometimes I cannot resist the temptation to respond, and sometimes it's really, really hard not to respond with the derision I think their retardation deserves. But whether as a mod or a non-mod, I am required to stifle the derision, and you are required to do likewise.
Do I? I'm starting to wonder. Was that remark about hoping for an economic crash so women (and it wasn't specifying any particular set of women, rather all women which would include the likes of me) will be forced to choose between destitution (yes, that was the exact word) or 'making concessions to good men' - was that remark 'ha ha only joking', in which case it too should have earned the sarcasm penalty, or was it meant in all seriousness?
First of all, making a joke is not the same as sarcasm. The rule is not "You may not be funny."
And the "avoid sarcasm" rule is not even an absolute prohibition on sarcasm, it is an injunction against using sarcasm in place of plain and respectful speaking when responding to someone else. Stop trying to be a pedant just to rules-lawyer things to suit you. Those are the worst sorts of complaints to mods.
As for whether the poster was serious about wanting women to be forced to suck dick for food (that's my paraphrasing; see, that's an example of mildly sarcastic humor), I don't know, why don't you ask him? But here's my question for you: why does it offend you so much? I mean, beyond the obvious: yes, you're a woman and obviously the suggestion that you should be forced to trade sexual favors for survival is likely to offend you. Do you think you (or women as a class) are the only ones entitled to not be offended by someone's outrageous suggestions? When our Joo-posters go off about Jews, and their physical weakness and cowardice, their nefarious schemes to destroy Western civilization, their hatred of the white race, their sleaziness and bad faith dealings and genetic predisposition to start conflicts with everyone around them (this is not hyperbole, these are all things people have actually said on the Motte), do you want the mods to step in and say "Hey, you're not allowed to offend Jews like that?" I do not recall you ever objecting to those posts. When people talk about how ugly and psychopathic and perverted and delusional trans people are, do you think a trans person would be entitled to complain about being offended? When our white nationalists and just garden variety racists propose that black people need to be controlled and "husbanded" like livestock, or that we should not tolerate coexisting with them, would it be okay for a black poster to be as mocking and sarcastic as he wants to be in response? Or would you say "Hey, you need to engage with the argument even if you don't like it, you aren't allowed to just go off on someone because he offended you?" Or would you just say nothing because you don't actually care when someone who isn't you is offended?
Because we've lived the days of "sex for meat" and that's the damn reason feminism came into being in the first place. Hoping to exploit the misery of others is not what I thought The Motte was about.
Hey, I'd like to think so too. If you haven't noticed, a lot of people here do in fact want to exploit the misery of others. I think this is bad and those people are bad people. What's your point? The mods should start forbidding meanbad opinions? You seem to want an axial shift in how moderation works here, and while that might be worth discussing, it's hard to take the proposal seriously when, again, you only seem to notice when it applies to you personally.
How about if someone cheered on the idea of AI putting all the guys on here out of work, so that they will have to bend the knee to employers and scrabble for former white collar jobs with the cheap imported labour, which drives down salaries and workplace conidiations? Suppose I reacted to someone talking about their fears for their late career with "serves you right, you had it too good all along, now you will have to agree with whatever an employer demands of you if you want any kind of job"?
People have said more or less this, in different ways. Depending on how you say it: "Hah hah, you deserved it!" is definitely going to get modded. "Well, I think is a good thing actually and too bad that you're the one suffering for it but" is in fact allowed, even if the person suffering for it usually does angrily report the post.
Hoping for bad things to happen to those you disagree with is fine and will not get me into trouble, just so long as I avoid sarcasm, see Amadan's mod decision.
You are misunderstanding the difference between "fine" in the sense of conforming to rules and "fine" in the sense of moral judgment. Do I think it's "fine" to hope for bad things to happen to those you disagree with? No. See above. I think that is a base and vile impulse (not that I haven't felt it myself) and should be discouraged, but that's between you and your conscience and/or your priest/therapist/AI waifu/whoever.
Are people allowed, here on the Motte, to express the hope that bad things will happen to other people? Well, we moderate on tone, not on substance. If you can write an effortpost sans sarcasm on the topic, yes, though you might be narrowly navigating between the Scylla and Charybdis of boo outgrouping and inflammatory claims without evidence. Many Joo-posters crash here, trying to express that Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them without actually saying "Jews are vermin and we should exterminate them." And likewise, as I told you, some of our incel-posters have gotten rapped for not being able to prevent their seething contempt for women from bleeding onto the screen.
But hey, if that's the direction you want to go, some of our more artful accelerationists and doomers mostly get away with it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Say you are looking forward to women being forced into destitution: a-okay to say.
If you are making a serious point and not just sarcastically mocking women, yes. People have in fact been modded in the past when their incel-posting was basically just "bitches be crazy." On the other hand, people have been allowed to post all sorts of outside-the-Overton-window stuff without being modded if they are able to do so while following our discourse norms.
You know this. You know what the Motte is all about. You are not some naïf wandering in here and shocked to discover we have Holocaust deniers and white nationalists and yes, unironic anti-female emancipationists. Why do you pretend you don't understand how things work here?
You know I have modded people for being obnoxious and sarcastic while venting their spleen about how much contempt they hold women in. You've also seen me just today arguing with the incel-posters, as a non-mod, so your "interesting view of life" crack is petty and disingenuous. What view of life is it you are accusing me of holding, exactly? What exactly are you pleading for? A rule that people aren't allow to say hurtful things about women (but everyone else is fair game)?
Quote historical real actual content of the same kind: how dare you be sarcastic!
Look up at the top of the page. There's a rule that's been there forever:
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
Now, if you want to argue that we don't always mod every single instance of sarcasm or mockery, and indeed that I have a sarcastic bone or two in my body, you're not wrong! But your post was just a long screed of pure unfiltered sarcasm and mockery. If you had really wanted to make that same point seriously, you could have. "Hey, look, your ideas are not new and they look pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms, don't they?" That would have been fine. But no, you were clearly upset at all the he-man woman-haters going on about how women and their ladybrains don't belong in the workforce, and so you worked up this (admittedly effortful, and even kind of funny) little polemic to mock them with.
And my warning was barely a slap on the wrist! A "okay, hah hah, now please don't do this." But like all the humorless scolds who think everything is funny when they do it and nothing is funny when it's done to them, here you are once more taking grave offense like I personally singled you out with my biased woman-hating agenda. You could take the rap and move on, but no, you obviously wanted more attention, so here it is. That's my explanation of why you got modded while the people posting things that outraged you did not. That's my "view of life." Happy to straighten that out for you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Okay, I'm mostly going to let this go as a joke, but you know this is bad argumentation ("Look at the crazy sexist things men in the early 20th century believed har har har!") and pouring on sarcasm thick enough to spread on toast doesn't help.
You find the he-man women-haters club frustrating and annoying? Yeah, I get that. We still don't encourage this kind of water balloon-throwing.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I'm not bitter, dude, at least not in that way. You're very un-calm for someone accusing others of being excersized.
I think you should review where rationalists are at nowadays. You're lumping a lot of people with views from mildly positive to actively hostile towards every position you named. I could just as easily say that there is no meaningful difference between Catholics and Mormons. And indeed, to someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity this would be true. But of course to someone who actually takes the time to examine what they believe, it is obviously not true. They share lineage, obviously. Hence my description of "intersecting Venn diagrams that have moved apart."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
by implying that, metaphorically, she is the tail and Catholic priests are the trunk of Christianity.
Well, that would be flattering to Catholics, certainly, but yes, I see little difference in how closely they hew to reality, however much more erudite in theological matters the seminary graduates may be.
What I meant by "I was there" was not some metaphysical experience of the birth of wokeness, but that I actually witnessed the birth of both new atheism and rationalism, and I am saying they were intersecting Venn diagrams that became increasingly separated. Now if you want to argue that everything is "the toe of the same elephant" as poisonous fruits of the Enlightenment, well, okay, but you might as well say Nazis and Socialists and Libertarians and Evangelicals are all the same thing. Maybe that is what you actually believe.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I want incels who can't get laid to suck it up (or improve their situation), yes.
Their "awful solution" is that women should be forced to have sex with them or starve. You are arguing that if I reject that awful solution, I am endorsing male slavery. How did you get there?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Have you seen the meme that goes:
Man: "The average women is 5'4." Woman: "But I'm 5'8" though."
You're doing the meme.
Certainly I have not reduced it to that. You can just not enslave the men. In fact, even if you enslave some women you haven't stopped enslaving the men.
Great, we both agree you shouldn't enslave people. Why did it take you so long to get there?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
You're getting increasingly lazy in your argumentation. It's not "Just worlding" to notice the correlation between NEET gooners and incels. Is every single incel a non producer? No, but the flattering cope that by and large they are producers unfairly providing for whores who won't give them nooky doesn't correlate to any honest observation.
As for enslavement, what I notice is that you have reduced the argument to "Failure to enslave and rape women means enslavement of men." I'm not sure that is the position you intended to back into. I'm also not sure it's not. But it's certainly a Kulak-based take. Fascinating.
Let's say you're right and I'm failing to be horrified by enslavement of men because I don't notice it. (I reject your flawed logic, but let's suppose it holds, for the sake of argumen.) Are you claiming that believing women should be enslaved and raped is more moral because you admit noticing that's what you're endorsing?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I get that you have very strong feelings about this, but that’s just, like, your opinion, man
No, not really. I'm not sure why some people think implying "strong feelings" about a statement of fact is an effective retort. It's a gambit obviously deployed in bad faith. It's a rhetorical tactic akin to saying "You're being emotional." You should know better.
No, I don't have strong feelings about this. I just know I'm right and you're wrong because I was there. I don't have an emotional investment in rationalism.
And my Sunday school teacher did indeed scare me at the time, me being eight years old and all, but I merely relayed that anecdote by way of saying "Yes, this is a real thing actual Christians believe." Obviously, even if I still were a Christian, I would no longer be traumatized by what a dumb volunteer church lady said when I was eight.
But I would (and am) aware that for all your magesterial apologetics, there is no meaningful difference between her and your priests.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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!
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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"?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
10d ago
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.
Yes, inflammatory is perception. My perception, as the mod who makes these decisions, is that claiming an election was "obviously fraud" is inflammatory. An example of an "inflammatory" statement is a highly-charged partisan statement that the other party is certainly not going to agree with, which claiming that an election was "obviously fraud" obviously is.
I am not making a judgment as to whether or not what you said was true. Maybe the election was fraudulent. Maybe it wasn't. You're free to argue that.
You are not prohibited from making inflammatory statements, like claiming that an election was fraud, or even "obviously" fraud.
What you are prohibited from doing is making an assertion like that and not providing sufficient evidence or reasoning to back up the assertion.
Assumptions that "this couldn't possibly happen because it doesn't fit my model of how the world works" are not sufficient evidence or reasoning, though the expanded version you posted above would probably have been sufficient to avoid being dinged for a bald inflammatory assertion. "I think this election was obviously fraud because here's why I cannot believe it could have been otherwise" is still inflammatory, but it is backed by why you believe that. "I think this election was obviously fraud because duh!" is not.
More options
Context Copy link