Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
Since you're being pretty up front about it and accepting the inevitable consequences, I'm only going to ban you for one day, but yes, this is absolutely not the kind of post we want.
Every one of us (including me) has a list of "people I can't fucking stand and wish would fuck off forever." If even blocking them is not enough for you and their very existence causes you to post things like this, that is a you problem. Deal with it in some manner other than this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
Really? Before the trans debate, do you think men could just occasionally walk into the women's bathroom and pee in peace while only being freaked out at by rare Karens?
Men who were making a genuine effort to dress and pass as women (even if they didn't really pass)? Yes.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1hr ago
Out of curiosity, have you actually read any books about the history of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you think you could accurately summarize both the Israeli and the Palestinian positions in words that they themselves would agree with? Of course there is no single "Israeli" or "Palestinian" position, which is part of my point below, but even narrowing it down to the militant partisans on either side?
Yes, I said that my view was based on those things, not that I was just directly quoting them, and I don't think any individual element of that description is inapplicable. Even pro-Israeli partisans admit they've killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, including women and children - “There are no schools in Gaza, as there are no children left.” was proudly chanted by them in public.
Who is them? The footballers in Amsterdam?
It's undeniable that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. There is no war, especially one happening in an urban environment, where lots of casualties weren't women and children. This doesn't make their war just, but it does make it unexceptional. Nor are the Israelis exceptional in having some drunken footballers chanting terrible things and soldiers in the field sometimes getting up to stupid and offensive grunt shit to amuse themselves.
I've based my views on quotes straight from the mouths of Likud officials, not Hamas. As I said, I'm not condemning the Israelis as evil (I don't think calling a state evil really has much meaning) - I'm just taking them at their word.
That would require you to describe them as they would describe themselves. Do you think they would describe themselves as "a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs"? Again, you aren't using the word "evil" but you're clearly saying, in not so many words, that they're evil monsters and there is no other way to explain them.
Also, Likud is one political party in Israel whose popularity waxes and wanes. They do not speak for the Israeli state and the entirety of the Israeli citizenry. This would be like taking some of the Republicans' most extreme statements and saying they speak for Americans. (Which of course is exactly what they and their enemies would both like to claim, but it doesn't make it true.) Much has been made of Netanyahu's "Amelek" comment. Netanyahu is a sort of Trump-like figure in Israel - he has a lot of supporters, especially after 10/7, but a substantial portion of the Israeli's population hates him. Think of all the outrageous things Trump has said, which a sizeable portion of the American population would not agree with, and then claiming that Trump was clearly speaking for the American people, and reflecting what Americans think. In an abstract sense, this may be true (they elected him, after all), but at the same time, you'd be completely wrong in claiming he's channelling the American psyche and voicing what the average American thinks about everything. Netanyahu, and other militant Likud officials, are pretty open about despising Palestinians, and there's a sizeable portion of Israel that would just like the Palestinians to go away (who can blame them, after all this time?). But most Israelis do not want to exterminate Palestinians because God said to, and you know this and you know it's not an accurate characterization, you're just using that description because it makes Israel sound really super-evil.
I'm just taking them at their word. I think that they're motivated by ethnonationalist impulses
"Motivated by ethnonationalist impulses" is rather different from "literally wants to commit genocide because God told us to," which is what you are claiming.
We have a number of white ethnonationalists here, and while sometimes they will admit that they would be okay with a violent solution to create the ethnostate they want, none of them would accept as uncharitable a description of their motives as the one you are claiming is the Israeli one.
Whether or not you believe ethnostates are bad, people (including Israelis) want them for reasons beyond "We hate other people and want to purify the Earth."
That's precisely what I'm doing
No, you are assuredly and absolutely not. Again, can I ask what books you have read?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
11hr ago
I'm basing my view of the Israeli side on direct quotes from high-ranking government officials and widely respected international legal bodies.
I'm pretty sure the UN and the ICC did not say "the Israeli side is a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs." Though it is probably what a lot of people in those organizations think, given the hostility they have traditionally shown towards Israel.
As I have said before, I don't particularly have affection for Israel, but to say the Israelis are the bloodthirsty medieval ones, living next to who they do, seems disingenuous.
Just to clarify, I didn't say they were evil.
Well, you might not have used the word "evil," but you all but called them worshippers of Khorne, so come on.
but you can't even begin to talk reasonably about the topic without being honest and admitting that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza (as their government has repeatedly admitted, and as the UN has repeatedly accused them of).
While this is debatable (kind of like "genocide" - if you are going to invoke the UN and international bodies, then the precise and legalistic definition of words matters), sure, I will provisionally agree that that's what they are doing. And even say that I think what they are doing right now is pretty bad.
My point here is not that I think Israelis are the good guys and how dare you criticize them, but that the history there is a lot more complicated than your simplistic, straight-from-the-mouths-of-Hamas version of Israeli history. I find conversations more productive when people are actually able to steelman their opponents as rational human beings acting out of motives other than pure malice or blind fanaticism, and if that's all you can imagine as what motivates your enemies, then either your enemies really are monsters, or you are probably failing to understand them (or you are doing so deliberately because you hate them and it is more pleasurable to believe they are monsters).
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
14hr ago
If the trans community were smart, they'd stop complaining about these bills and shrug them off.
Agreed, but that's kind of the problem here - the trans community has not been smart, and instead doubles down defending bad actors (or denying they exist).
Had trans women limited themselves to peeing in peace, you might have had an occasional Karen freaking out seeing someone who looks like a man in the women's restroom, but most people wouldn't have cared. My recollection is that this wasn't an issue for many years. Trans women have been around since long before the current iteration of the culture wars. Why do you suppose suddenly they are a major front in the culture war? I don't think it's because conservatives suddenly discovered they exist.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
14hr ago
I like these conversations a lot more when the Israeli side is willing to admit that they're a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs - when you're willing to admit that there are actual conversations that can be had.
I too like conversations a lot more when my opponents are willing to accept my most uncharitable and cartoonish representation of their point of view as accurate. It's so bizarre you would suggest the Israeli side should just admit that they are evil and monstrous and start the conversation from there that I am genuinely not sure whether I missed the subtle irony you're conveying.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1d ago
is precisely why what you are doing ought to be criminalized.
Well. You are allowed to argue that political views you don't like should be criminalized, but we are going to insist you keep it in the realm of civil discourse, which means not going after the posters you don't like personally.
Unfortunately you are not as clever as @SecureSignals, who usually manages to keep his Jew-hating impersonal. I would probably have let all the "you you you" "racist treason genocidal hypocrisy" statements pass, except you just piled them up and up and ended with this:
The idea of destroying other nations except the Jewish one is an insane megalomaniac ideology that ironically shares plenty with pop culture idea of Nazism. Albeit you are a bit more sneaky about it.
This is not the first time you've been told not to get personal and to avoid slinging insults and insinuations at other posters that they are part of some nefarious Joo-spiracy because they are pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. Last time you got a short ban, because it had been a while, but since then you've accumulated several more warnings for doing the same thing, so you do not seem to be learning. This thread is full of reports on your wall-of-text diatribes, and while the wall-of-text diatribes are (mostly) within the rules, if generally just kind of shitty and inflammatory, attacking other posters directly is not.
Banned for a week.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
1d ago
Too antagonistic. Don't get personal.
Your conduct in other threads right now is, while not quite as bad, not good.
You've been warned about this before. A lot. Ever since your first ban, where you claimed you were taking your ball and going home because this place sucks so much, and yet you keep coming back.
You've collected an impressive eight warnings since then, but no bans. And contrary to what some people think, I don't look forward to banning people (it's clearly a failure to steer people towards better participation, but some people are unwilling to change). I can only conclude you've interpreted our forbearance as tolerance and weakness.
One week ban.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
This post is neither rage-posting nor outgroup-bashing, but you're giving it a mod warning for not "providing more than a Twitter link."
That's because we have a rule against bare links. We've had this discussion many times and you are unlikely to add anything new to it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
We're not worried about running out of space. We're worried about the place becoming nothing but daily rage-posting and low effort outgroup-bashing. If all we wanted to do was increase the volume and frequency of posts, we'd remove all rules and just let people post whatever they want. That would probably make this place a lot livelier, but not better.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
I've mentioned this before, but I follow a few Replika subs and FB groups. These things are already being used for therapy. And while some people seem happy with their chatbot companions, a day doesn't go by when someone doesn't post, seriously distraught, that their AI girlfriend or boyfriend "cheated" on them, or didn't remember some important detail of their life, or behaved hurtfully. Some people really, genuinely think they are sentient and feeling, and some people are going to be really fucked up by relying on a chatbot for advice and human companionship.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
You're going to need to provide more than just a Twitter link to post a new thread.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
I cannot disagree with you.
That said, kinda low effort booing. You know we frown on posts that are just dunking on your outgroup like this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
(Meta: is it obnoxious to do multi-top-posts like this? I didn’t want to talk about these ideas right away because I felt it would bias the replies, but at the same time it seems like a waste to write this as a second level reply in an old thread just before the new CW thread opens up).
Within reason it's okay. We only get annoyed if someone keeps starting multiple threads about the same topic.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
No. As I said, "contempt" is also appropriate, but hate is an accurate word. If someone is being histrionic here, it's not me.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Well, I just disagree with you. I am not talking about utilitarian calculations about the value of a Michelangelo vs. the value of some random person, I'm talking about the equivalence you keep insisting on making between women and toilet paper, which you're doing just to be provocative. If that is your mindset, that you literally regard them to be in the same category (disposable commodities that are of value depending on abundance and your need), you can argue all you like that you don't "hate" women, but I don't think women would be wrong to see it otherwise.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
You're just belaboring the equivalence. Obviously, if women are just commodities to put your dick in and produce babies (and I'm well aware there are people here who unironically believe this, though in your case it's hard to be sure whether you're serious or trolling) then yeschad. However, I would suggest it does not serve your purpose to act out the caricature of the dude who spawned the smarmy feminist "Women are human" meme.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
This is how I treat my toilet paper. However I would not say I hate my toilet paper at all, in fact I am usually very grateful that it is present (assuming no bidet etc.) and would be very upset if it were missing.
Well, as I just explained, "hate" in the sense of harboring personal animosity isn't the same as "hate" in the sense of considering someone to be less than human, but I don't think women who claim men hate them are wrong when pointing to men who think it's appropriate to regard them as equivalent to toilet paper.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Sexually successful men dont hate women, they just don't treasure them, and treat them how [sexually successful] women treat men; as disposable.
I guess it depends on what you mean by hate. "I hate you personally and want to hurt you" is pretty rare, but "I consider you to be a disposable object to be used, and your feelings on the matter are irrelevant because you're not really even a person" is a kind of contempt near enough to hate as to make little difference.
Abusive men don't hate women, they hate the world and women just can't resist being around them for some mysterious reason.
I think some abusive men are just misanthropists who hate the world and take it out on those they can (which are most often their partners and children), but some abusive men definitely do hate women and take out their lack of success (sexual and otherwise) on them.
Or by "men who hate women" does she mean that don't soyfully agree with generic feminist talking points? I once ended a relationship over watching The Imitation Game, of all things. "Ah, here's Kiera Knightly reprising her role as a modern woman trapped in the past" was apparently such a hateful comment that it got me a continuous diatribe about women's suffrage until I flat-out got up and left. I wonder if that was proof that I hated women.
I dunno man, but you have so many of these anecdotes, the punchline always being that a woman rejected you for inexplicable and irrational feminine reasons (usually relating to you talking about how much you resent all things female). Do you actually like women? I mean as people, not as things you want to fuck? Pardon the blunt phrasing, but that is kind of what the "men who hate women" construct is getting at. I sometimes hear men who clearly despise women deny it and say that of course they love women, when what they really love is sex with women, and the fact that there is a woman involved in the process seems to be an annoyance to them.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
I was in Korea some 20 years ago, and the situation for women there really is pretty shit. It's still very patriarchal and traditional (maybe less so now than then, but still very much more so than the West). They aren't anywhere near Islamic levels of oppression, but I heard from a lot of women even before the 4B movement spread that marriage was widely seen as something that women just have to suffer if they ever want a life (and children). They don't really expect their husbands to love or even like them, they do not expect sex to be enjoyable, and they are expected to be essentially maidservants for their husbands' families. (There is an entire genre of Korean horror movies about evil mother-in-laws.)
Of course there are exceptions, and they all look at fairy tale romances as an ideal, but it seems like very few of them actually expect this to be the reality.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
I have been hearing about the 4B movement from Korea for years, but it's not clear how pervasive it really is. Korea is facing some steep demographic decline, but I'm not sure how much is because of women intentionally signing up to a radical feminist no-men movement. Japan has the same problem and there is no real 4B movement there.
I have been seeing a lot of women posting 4B rage-videos, and they fit right in with all the post-election meltdowns. Women talking about how they're going to "burn shit down," how they're going to harm men, how they're going to go "feral" on any man that looks at them funny... And to be honest, all I can think is, "Honey, try it."
Because it's all performative. Sigma some very small number of genuinely mentally ill crazies, no woman is actually going to lay hands on a man in a situation where she'd face consequences. They know, deep down, that they are not dangerous or scary and they get to engage in these performative Internet Tough-Girl acts because if they scream at a man in public he's probably going to back away and avoid getting physical with a woman. They can get away with it because most men don't like to hit women and also know the burden will be on them to prove self-defense against a crazy woman.
It's also performative because most of these ladies are not actually going to swear off men, because they like sex, attention, and validation. Political lesbianism and lesbian separatism largely failed as a movement because women found out that they can't just decide to be not attracted to men, any more than men can just stop wanting women.
This is exactly the same as the MGTOW movement, who are just as much a gang of performative blowhards who'd crawl over broken glass to actually score, but talk a big game online about how they don't need no woman. They don't care. They so don't care. Can you see how loudly and obnoxiously and convincingly they are not caring?
Women doing the same thing now.
I agree with you in principal. As a straight man, I have the same inherent revulsion you do to the thought of men having sex, but as a non-religious person, I don't think it's wrong or immoral, just something that turns me off, and lots of people have sexual practices that turn me off. If you don't make me watch/participate, it's not my business.
And I try to have the same empathy for trans people. Yes, I have a strong disgust reaction to trans women. I think they mostly look hideous and freakish, but I also think it would be wrong to judge people because they are aesthetically unappealing to me. Part of the reason I think the "They don't pass" argument from TERFs and other anti-trans people is a losing one; how "pretty" and "feminine" trans women are really isn't the point. There are actual women who are ugly and gross-looking to me, but I wouldn't be so cruel as to degrade them and call them "not women" because of their unfortunate appearance.
The problem with trans women (and to a lesser extent, a lot of LGTBQ people nowadays) is that it's not enough for them to be allowed to live their lives in peace while we politely refrain from commenting on their appearance. Many of them literally want to "shove it in our faces." See all the dissatisfaction about Pride events, which LGTBQ folks mistaken claim is a homophobic backlash. In some cases it is - there are people who genuinely hate gays and all forms of gender non-conforming people. But I think are a lot like me; I am fine with you living your life and being happy about it, but why do I have to celebrate your sexual preferences and fetishes? Why are you looking around the room to see who stops clapping first?
I can have a lot more empathy for someone who is struggling but just wants to live their life and not be harassed and abused than I do for someone who decides that harassing and abusing other people for being insufficiently affirming is appropriate.
It's activists who have degraded our charity and tolerance. As I said in another comment, 20 years ago there were people who thought transsexuals were deviants and perverts, but they really were mostly left alone. Use the bathroom you prefer? Okay, whatever. Call yourself a woman/man, or even use weird pronouns? Okay, whatever. Some people will roll their eyes at you, but most people didn't want to make a big deal about it. Now, however, it is a big deal, always, and that makes it hard to be empathic to people who clearly are not empathetic to anyone else's reaction.
More options
Context Copy link