Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
We have lots of discussion here all the time about the unfortunate state of black demographics. It is fine to "Notice" and comment on this. It is not fine to simply make blanket, very general assertions intended to be inflammatory, which you do all the time. Something about Haitians seems to be stirring up an unusual level of nastiness in the mod queue, but unlike the last few people I have warned, your record is nothing but shitty comments like this.
Banned for a week.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Crappy comment expressed crappily. As I seem to have to be telling several people, if you want to condemn an entire population as invasive retards, you need to put more work into it than a Twitter-tier hot-take. You have a poor record of comments like this; next time will likely be a ban.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
No, you're not joking or being snide, you're just being as inflammatory as you can so you can bitch at us about how you can't even call an entire country "retards." Posting "But technically they are retards!" links is not much better than your ChatGPT stunt.
Let's suppose your links are accurate and the average Haitian does indeed have an IQ that low. Do you think if every time people referred to Haitians they called them "retards" that would invite reasonable discussion? You could have expressed your point without calling every Haitian a "literal Biblical plague of retards" but that wouldn't have been so satisfyingly vicious, would it?
Be honest, you knew you were going to get modded for this, and I'm sure you have your whine about it already locked and loaded.
Lately you are about 50/50 AAQCs and venom-spewing shit-takes, and I recently told someone else, posting AAQCs gives you a little slack, but your long record of being incapable of controlling yourself and devoting much of your considerable cleverness to seeing how nasty a one-liner you can get off is eroding that slack. Unlike some of our shit-tier posters, you are capable of doing better, more often, and I wish you would.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
She isn't changing any votes, but she will get more people to vote.
Taylor Swift gets thousands of women to literally follow her across continents. She could be a significant poll driver just by asking her fans to vote.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Well, we allowed a separate debate thread, but it overflowed here anyway.
I don't know if saying this is against the rules, so I'm trying to say this politely: I think this kind of posting needs to be bullied.
Saying you think that is not against the rules (lots of people have opinions about what threads should and shouldn't be tolerated), but if you actually try to "bully" people because you don't like the thread they started, you're probably going to break the rules in numerous ways (for one thing, the implied effort at consensus building). You are free to criticize the comments (politely), but just because you think a topic is tedious doesn't mean everyone else is equally disinterested.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I'm calling this one a loss for Trump. Not hugely, and I don't think Harris's performance was dazzling. But she came off looking better and more prepared. She was aggressive and sounded like a prosecutor; Trump kept rambling off on ill-thought attack scripts.
"I have the concept of a plan" is probably going to be a meme, and talking about Haitians eating dogs is not going to help him. Treating the debate like a Twitter thread doesn't work with normies.
Moderator bias was evident (repeatedly fact-checking Trump, and asking him about his comments about Harris's race could only hurt him), but mostly I think he has just slowed down a lot (he's not suffering cognitive decline like Biden is, but he's clearly not even who he was 4 years ago). Harris is hardly a spring chicken, but she seemed more on the ball. A decent debater might have made her sweat, but Trump never made her lose that annoying smirk.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Trump got off the "I'm talking now" line first. You know he was waiting for that, but he couldn't resist overplaying it.
So far, I am not seeing anything in this debate that moves the needle. Harris is being Harris, and Trump is being Trump. No big gaffes, no notable zingers, no impressive new declarations.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Both candidates launching into a scripted spiel regardless of what question was asked is something I have seen in basically every presidential debate in recent history.
Radical feminists believe any difference in "intellectual interests" is entirely sociological, not biological. In a hypothetical Patriarchy-free world, they think there would be equal numbers of male and female engineers and teachers.
ETA: Didn't notice this post was 7 months old. I replied only because someone for some reason reported something in this thread, so I was reading it on my phone.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
I think my point is reasonably clear and plain: people are signal boosting rumors with a reckless disregard for the truth because they don't care about whether the particulars are true.
Your point was clear enough, yes. Which part of my point did you not understand?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
No one even remotely in our reality would think Kamala is a strong candidate.
Someone reported this as "Building consensus," and it does come awfully close to saying "Nobody could possibly disagree with me." I'm gonna call this a borderline statement of opinion, but do avoid making statements like this no matter how strongly you think they are true, because there certainly are people "in our reality" (though maybe not on the Motte) who think this.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
After all, even if it's not true, the fact that I could believe it really says something about society.
Several people lately have decided it's clever to do a bit where they say something they imagine their opponents might say, with a straight face, with the intention of saying "Aha, gotcha!" when someone points out how ridiculous what they are saying is.
It's not clever; it's disingenuous and annoying. Make your point reasonably clear and plain.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
and on the rare occasion I wander onto Slate or listen to a libtard podcast.
C'mon, man. You know better.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
What's interesting is that I've long held the opposite intuition -- but that certainly comes from having read the works of classical opponents of Industrial Britain like Charles Dickens and JRR Tolkien, who valorized rural, pre-industrial ways of living. No one can read Hard Times and come away with a positive impression of Victorian factory labor.
I was about to mention Dickens (he certainly did not think Victorian England was a "high trust, low crime" society), but I don't think he valorized some golden pre-industrial pastoral age like Tolkien did. Tolkien was reacting to the world wars; Dickens was reacting to his personal experience as a child laborer with a father in debtors' prison.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
So... who are you voting for?
I'm probably not. All the options disgust me deeply. And I don't live in a swing state, so it doesn't matter. (My lack of a vote may be taken as whatever signal it may be.) This will be the first presidential election since I was of age in which I did not vote.
The only thing I have to look forward to is schadenfreude. (Where I live, if Trump wins, and here, if Harris does.)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
This sort of presentism is common in a lot of threads. I have frequently commented about how divisive and violent American politics were in previous centuries (even before the Civil War). And how in previous civilizations, contrary to some of our DreadJim-posters, women did not live like chattel under the absolute rule of their Patriarch. It often comes up in discussions about race (I wonder how many of these young black Millenials and Zoomers saying that racism is "as bad today as it was under Jim Crow" have actually asked their grandparents if they agree?)
As you say, previous generations were much poorer than us, relatively speaking, though that goes to the common argument about medieval kings having fewer luxuries than a modern American teenager. "Would you rather be a Roman emperor, or a poor person in 21st century America?" I think a lot of people would prefer to be a Roman emperor, even if they would miss smartphones and flush toilets.
It's very hard to avoid seeing yourself relative to the rest of the world you live in.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
If I call a county Sheriff to a home in Kryas Joel, do they have the same authorities they would elsewhere? Can they arrest people, can they enter premises with probably cause / warrant etc?
Yes, Kryas Joel is not literally an autonomous state immune to US law. Just like the FLDS and Amish communities are not exempt from US laws. In practice, local law enforcement prefers to leave them alone and avoid political shitstorms unless they absolutely have to step in.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Huh, didn't realize Islam had permeated the continent that thoroughly.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Damn, you just can't not talk about Jews for very long, can you?
Mormons and Amish and Muslims are pretty fecund too. So, for that matter, are Africans, mostly not followers of Abrahamic religions.
I think it's more complicated than "fertility cults" but sure, good luck with your eugenics program.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Okay, so we agree her opinions didn't come out of the aether. Since her opinions are as well-formed and independent as yours, no more, no less, you have only object level disagreements with her (namely, you'd prefer she not persuade other women to think like her).
Obviously it would be bad if all women decided to be cat ladies. But she's addressing people who think she can't possibly be happy and that women shouldn't really have that option. (Not necessarily in the sense they should be forced to breed, though at least here on the Motte that viewpoint is certainly represented, but in the sense that a lot of conservatives' "solution" to low TFR would be to impose steep social and economic costs on women who don't.)
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Pretty much nobody reaches conclusions "independently of cultural signals." Do you think you came to your beliefs entirely through independent research and reasoning from first principles?
Do you think absent "cultural signals", there would be zero women who would actually prefer being cat ladies over being mothers?
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Posting a clip to a YouTube video calling something gibberish is not better than directly calling something gibberish. (Worse, because you made me go watch the clip to see what it is you're saying.)
Calling someone's post gibberish is pretty antagonistic, which means we're going to expect you to do more than just say so (with or without a YouTube video). Since I can read the post and understand what his point is (not saying I agree with it, nor am I judging the quality of his writing, just saying it is clearly not "gibberish"), you have failed to meet the threshold to justify such antagonism.
You have a bunch of AAQCs. You also have a bunch of warnings for this kind of low-effort insult and culture warring. The first gives you more slack for the latter, but it's not a one-for-one relationship where earning an AAQC gives you one free cheap shot. Please stop doing this or steeper consequences will ensue.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2mo ago
Yes, I did, and I noticed that her calculator estimating the cost for a woman to have children doesn't even attempt to place a value to a woman on having a child.
She talks quite a bit about the arguments in favor of having a child. Do you really think "Did you know that some women actually enjoy having children and find motherhood to be an enjoyable and fulfilling experience" is a mind-blowing thought she never had? She's making a point about the costs that men arguing for children frequently don't consider, not saying "Having children is miserable for everyone and no one would want to do it if they considered the costs."
But her calculator includes no consideration of the cost of being a miserable, old, ugly cat lady with a gaping hole in her life she can't fill with all the wine and cats in the world.
That's your assumption, which requires you to assume that you know what people experience internally better than they do. Her argument is that in fact some "cat ladies" are actually pretty happy and are not the miserable, bitter hags you wish to believe they must be. Of course it is possible that she really is miserable and lonely and just coping, but I'd trust her account of what she actually feels over yours.
It's not independent thinking.
Writing a defense of an opinion that many people share does not mean they are bots writing effortposts like an LLM, which is basically your assertion. Do you think that in the world you want where women are pressured to have as many children as possible and told this is their natural and most fulfilling role, a woman who wrote an essay about the joys of motherhood and why everyone should do it would be exercising independent thinking? Or would you just say "Well no, because women can't do that, but it would be good because she's been properly programmed according to values I agree with?"
Another wall of text full of polemics directed at your outgroup and personal attacks directed at the person you are arguing with. You've been warned about this repeatedly and banned a few times. I'm going to leave this as a warning since sometimes you dial it back a bit after being warned, and you had an AAQC recently which is just barely mitigating, but the mods were split on warning or ban, so take the grace and dial it down more.
More options
Context Copy link