Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
10d ago
Well, "very far from a representative sample" indeed. If there is anywhere that I would expect 90% of the posts to be hysterical meltdowns, it's Tumblr.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
10d ago
My personal social circle is unhappy and distressed and posting lots of doomer posts, but mostly sane. They think the world is going to suck with Trump in charge, but they aren't threatening to leave the country or start underground railroads or join the 4B movement.
Online, it's hard to tell to what degree all the cataclysmic tweets and videos from leftists melting down hysterically and screaming that we're going to enter an era of plantation slavery and the Handmaid's Tale are nutpicking (the reason LibsOfTikTok is so popular is that Millenials and Zoomers so freely provide so much content) and to what degree they reflect a genuine widespread sentiment.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
10d ago
But I'm also a bit skeptical of attempts to place male aggressive humor beyond political analysis because it's supposedly so impartially transgressive and also 100% facetious and harmless.
Isn't political analysis exactly what @doglatine was doing? I didn't read him as saying male aggressive humor is 100% facetious and harmless; it's that the seriousness and harmfulness is very context-sensitive. Nick Fuentes's "joke" was intentionally meant to freak out liberal women who right now are already freaking out over Trump's election, and to the degree it's not serious, he's capitalizing on the fact that so many women will take it seriously. Nick Fuentes is an asshole (because people who go out of their way to poke people in the eye are always assholes) for verbalizing something that would be a joke between men in private but will be read as a threat if voiced in public. Locker room jokes about banging your mom are funny (for a certain kind of man) in the locker room; made on Twitter, you'll get people reading you as sincerely threatening to rape someone's mom, and while a certain kind of man will find that funny too, it's not at all the same kind of humor.
I know humorists who are wildly transgressive but still don't make any jokes of the dick-swinging, put-down sort - so just pointing out that men love breaking rules doesn't fully account for what makes women uneasy about YOUR BODY MY CHOICE.
This is true, and there are a lot of men who don't like put-down banter, would not find "your body, my choice" amusing, and most roll their eyes at such jokes. But the difference here is that a man will still understand that it's "boys being boys" and just roll his eyes, whereas to a woman, the very idea of "boys being boys" seems to excuse and justify such humor, which they find morally reprehensible and threatening. A lot us (speaking as the sort of man who doesn't particularly like the locker room stuff) sense that women, if they had the power to do so, would love to enter the locker room and tell us "You can't do that." How often have I read an overwrought think-piece by a liberal (often single) mother about her teenage sons, whom she loves dearly but she's absolutely terrified that they will become those sorts of boys - the sort of boys who tell locker-room jokes, the sorts of boys who roll their eyes when she's haranguing them about the Patriarchy, the sorts of boys who will become rapists!!!
Two follow-up questions: do men think it's funny to joke about raping each other's daughters, the way it's funny to joke about raping moms? I feel like the former isn't as common. Why? How about each other's sons?
I first want to say, as one of those men @doglatine mentions who thinks locker room humor is puerile, that you may be overestimating just how common and blatant such jokes are. Having been in plenty of male environments, yes, I've heard lots of crude humor and innuendos that wouldn't be voiced around women, but "I'm gonna fuck your mom" isn't really something I hear a lot. I'd guess it's more of an online gamer thing (the same sort of crowd that likes dropping n-bombs and "faggot" just to try to distress their opponents). But yeah, to the degree that someone might joke about banging someone else's mom, "mom jokes" are an ancient and well-understood form of low humor that no one really takes seriously. Jokes about banging your daughter are a lot more aggressive and threatening - not threatening in the sense that you'd likely believe they really intended to rape your daughter, but threatening in the sense that the message is not funny. The message is "You're such a pussy I could rape your daughter and you wouldn't be able to stop me." So no, a man wouldn't find that funny.
Threatening to rape your son would be the same, with the added implication that your son is gay (or will be a "bottom" for a dominant man), so you'd be explicitly insulting both the father's manhood and his son's.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
12d ago
Several would-be very funny people reported you with "He can't post that, it's boo outgroup."
Of course it's not "boo outgroup" to post an actual argument, without being inflammatory and rage-stroking over it, which is why this post is not being modded.
But you knew that. You always know what you're doing. You just pretend to be confused when you get modded for ranting about "Biblical plagues of retards" and the like.
Carry on.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
12d ago
Look, demanding "cite?" can be an obnoxious form of argumentation and you are not required to provide one on demand. People here are very prone to (selectively) demanding links to evidence when they don't believe something, but that is the nature of this forum - you are supposed to proactively provide evidence, especially in proportion to the inflammatory nature of your claims.
But I'm not admonishing you here for failing to provide evidence. I'm admonishing you because your response to someone asking you for evidence was "Well, I do real work, not like you worthless paper-pushers, I'm too busy with my real and valuable life and family to care about what I write here."
And, you know, good for you. Spending time with your daughter is undoubtedly a better use of your time than arguing with Internet randos. But don't jump into an argument with inflammatory claims, and when challenged, play this "I'm too busy and I have a real life" card. That is really obnoxious.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
13d ago
I wonder if their genius idea was to stage a "predator catch," but they went full vigilante with it (because young dumb males).
If you're not aware, there are a ton of "pred-catcher" YouTube and Rumble channels. Basically doing the Chris Hansen thing (who has his own channel now as well): a decoy pretending to be a minor will hang out on dating apps or social media sites until some guy (a guy 99.9% of the time) takes the bait, and then they set him up to come meet the minor. They confront him, try to get him to confess, and then call the police - filming the entire thing.
The YouTubers, however, are familiar with the law and are generally very careful not to do anything that could get them arrested (especially not putting hands on the pred). They also make very sure their targets have thoroughly and unambiguously incriminated themselves. Their decoys usually pretend to be 12 or 13 - well below any possible age of consent - and they wait until they have hours and hours of sexually explicit messages, with the perp clearly stating he's aware of the decoy's (supposed) age.
Usually these are straight men going after young girls, but sometimes they get a gay guy trying to hook up with a boy.
Anyway, that's what this looks like to me: they got the idea from watching a pred-catcher video, but decided to beat the shit out of the perp instead. Very stupid, but probably not a hate crime, although since they found the perp on Grindr, I can imagine a DA who wants to make it a hate crime arguing that they were specifically targeting gay men.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
15d ago
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
15d ago
Is this a comment? A question? What are you saying? I can take a guess, so can other readers, but make your point clearly and with some effort.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
16d ago
This comment is bad. It contains no insight, analysis, information, or content except the fact that you evidently don't like the guy and don't care about dead squirrels and wanted to express it in a belligerent fashion. You could have just not commented on a story you don't care about, or you could have put some minimal effort into explaining why you don't think it's a story worthy of discussion (though generally we take a dim view of telling other posters what they should or shouldn't be talking about, since obviously plenty of people did think it was worth discussing), or you could have added some content (like details, with links, about this individual and why you think he's unworthy of sympathy and therefore no one should care about his squirrel). Instead you just decided to uncork and spew. We do not like it when people do this. You have a history of doing this. Stop it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
20d ago
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
21d ago
Don't call people stupid.
"... makes you sound stupid" is not a loophole.
If you think someone is saying something stupid, explain the flaw in their argument, do not simply call them stupid.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
22d ago
If you need a timeout until after election day, we can oblige.
Stop doing this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
22d ago
"Drugged out hippies" is unnecessarily inflammatory and derogatory, and while you can feel how you feel about your outgroup, you need to inject some civility into how you describe people, whether you feel civil towards them or not.
"Got blasted by the IDF" is a claim that contradicts pretty much all reporting (and my own lying eyes, since I saw the videos) on the events at the Nova music festival. I'm aware there are claims that civilians were accidentally killed by the IDF on October 7, and probably this did happen, but your description is such an extraordinary and inflammatory claim that the requirement to Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be applies here.
Generally, your participation in this thread is bad. It's bad because once again you can't contain your hatred of Jews, which leads you to write inflammatory polemics that contribute nothing but seething and spittle.
Because hating Jews and siding with Hamas is not against the rules, we've given you a lot of slack, but you still do not get to write posts about how your enemies have it coming as you make up fictional narratives, and you have been warned before and last time you were told you'd start earning tempbans.
Banned for three days. When you come back, if you want to write Israel Delenda Est posts, you need to put more effort and a lot more civility into them.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
You're wrong. I don't generally hate everyone on the R side. Don't know what else to tell you, since you clearly prefer to construct an imaginary opponent who believes what you say they believe and not what they say they believe.
If it were DeSantis vs. Harris, my post would not be "both sides suck because they aren't serious." I'd be unhappy about the unserious, woke, midwit Harris vs. a right wing candidate who will enact other policies I don't like.
I don't hate Desantis. Really, I don't hate Trump, at least not in a personal way. I hate very few people. Even the people who make it clear how much they'd like to poke me in the eye with a sharp stick.
Conflict theory has its uses and I understand why people find it comforting and affirming, but it often fails as an accurate model of your opponents.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
It's both. Honestly kind of baffling to me that I wrote a long, admittedly heated post about how much I dislike both of them, and because my disdain is not 100% perfectly balanced (or, let's be real, because I have any disdain at all for your candidate), the conclusion is that I don't have real concerns.
RDS awesome? I agree that he's serious and capable; that doesn't mean I agree with his politics. A smart and capable politician can still be working towards ends I disagree with.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
Do you even read before you start banging your keyboard? No. I have voted for Republicans in the past (not often, but occasionally) and I just said I could be persuaded to vote for DeSantis. (In a DeSantis vs. Newsom match, for example, or DeSantis vs. Harris, I might hold my nose and vote for DeSantis.) I wrote a lengthy post about how I am not "voting blue no matter who."
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
Well, I do have criteria beyond seriousness. Like I'd actually like to be ideologically aligned with them. Obviously I'm unlikely to vote for a right-winger unless he's just that awesome or his opponent is just that terrible.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
Good post, pokes in the eye notwithstanding. There is a lot to think about. You have not convinced me that Trump was or will be a good president, but I do see what you are getting at about my overvaluing Europe, and I will try to adjust my position going forward.
This was much better than "Trump is Naruto and we should worship him," though I still disagree about "TDS," though maybe that's term slippage.
So assuming a second Trump term, do you expect him to actually be good on foreign policy? What is he going to do about Ukraine, about Israel, about Iran, and about China?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
Naruto? Really?
Why don't you just compare him to Superman and ask if I'd dare to be skeptical of the Man of Steel?
This much apple-polishing would make the scriptwriters of The Apprentice blush. But hey, I hope you're right and Trump proves to be the God-King we need and not the God-King we deserve.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
26d ago
Yes, thinking that Donald Trump is going to become a dictator is TDS.
I don't think he's going to become dictator. I think he wouldn't turn it down. I don't think he has a plan to become dictator, because that would be too much planning.
I could possibly be wrong about him, but it's based on what I have seen him do and how he acts. This is not "derangement" or irrational fear or hatred of the man. I don't think he's Hitler. I don't think he's a fascist, and I don't think he wants to kill Group X. I think several other presidents would have been willing to become a dictator if given the opportunity.
Honestly, if there is any Trump-related derangement going on, your hagiographic description of him as if he's one of the greatest Americans to ever live strikes me as far more detached from the reality of the man.
We have rockets that can land on towers in the air now. We are going to build a spirit of building things again, we are going to make America great again, greater than ever before. We have the capacity, we have the smartest people in the world, we have factories lying empty ready to turn on, we have so much potential, nobody has ever had potential like we have. America is the New World, the Classical era and the Renaissance have nothing on what we can do.
I mean, that's all great, but the "we" that did that is not you, and it's not Trump. I'd love to see Trump bring about this new Golden Age you're smoking, but it's certainly not here. Right now it's words.
My friends and I are some of the smartest people in the world, and some of those people are even here on this forum, and I believe we can all move forward onto great and glorious things.
Maybe you are the genius you say you are, but bold words are not accomplishments, or glory. It's nice to believe things.
I'm not sure what "y'alled" means. Is this a reference to some feminists saying it's a "gendered" insult?
More options
Context Copy link