Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
And of course most people know that 22-year-old Megan Fox in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen mogs all subsequent Megan Fox. But IMO, she is herself mogged by 19-to-20-year-old Megan Fox in the first live-action Transformers, who is in turn super mogged by 14-to-15-year-old Megan Fox in Holiday In The Sun. She's maybe slightly mogged by the slightly younger 14-to-15-year-old Olsen twins in the same movie, but the three of them are all super mogged by 13-to-14-year-old Emma Watson in Prisoner Of Azkaban. Is she mogged by her 11-to-12-year-old self in Chamber Of Secrets? Maybe, I would need to go refresh my memory to say, but I think I've dug myself deep enough at this point.
This is very much a you thing. I mean, yes, biology trumps culture so men will find young teen girls attractive, but usually it's young teen girls who are at least post-pubescent, which 11-year-old Emma Watson was not. If you find 11-year-old Emma Watson hotter than 19-year-old Megan Fox, you are certainly outside the norm.
There is nothing "broken" about a world that doesn't let you have everything you might like, regardless of consequences to others.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5hr ago
I know people who genuinely oppose data centers for real reasons. I think their reasons are mostly incorrect, and sometimes I argue with them, but they do really believe these things, they are not lying about their opposition, and they are not (all) degrowth luddites.
It's becoming entirely too popular hereabouts to just lead with "My position is right, and people opposed to my position are all bad faith liars who don't actually believe what they say they do, they are just NPCs who hate Western civilization and God and sunlight."
It's a very satisfying thing to believe. It makes it easy to caricature your enemies as unthinking orcs who can be dismissed as evil stupid liars. You don't have to steelman everybody, but when I can see with my own eyes that yes, people actually are angry about data centers for real reasons, I know you summarily categorizing them all as "barely sentient" is just venting anger at your outgroup. And when I note certain people taking a side that I think is mostly comprised of bad-faith liars, and I have to charitably assume some of them are sincere, I feel no guilt at all in telling you to do the same thing.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
It's amusing that you project "anger" as hard as you can, when I am very rarely angry. Occasionally annoyed. Mostly tired.
they aren't the true objections
By your own admission, there are plenty of rational arguments. It should be obvious that some people actually believe those arguments.
You may believe that most people objecting to data centers are bad faith conflict theorists, and unlike you, I won't pretend I've surveyed them to have an educated guess how true that is, but since unlike you I am not a bad faith conflict theorist, I will continue to enforce the rules here, which are that if you want to assert your ideological opponents are 100% wrong, evil, and lying, bring evidence ("my seething hatred" is not evidence) or dial it down.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Anti-datacenter people are barely sentient.
Really? You can't conceive of a single rational argument people might have against data centers?
You have some feelings, evidently. I don't disagree with the direction of your argument. But this is pure flailing boo-outgroup and weakmanning. This kind of flaming verbal grenade doesn't invite discussion, it's just saying "I have an opinion and fuck you if your opinion is different." It's really hard to build any kind of discussion from that.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
I don't disagree that there is a hereditary component and that genes affect behavior (and thus culture). I would argue that an African or Arab raised in a Western culture might still be comparatively low in intelligence, impulse control, etc., but would be much less likely to be an amoral barbarian incapable of understanding that rape is bad. We know that African Americans are more likely to be criminals, 13/52 and all that, for reasons HBDers recite endlessly, but the vast majority of African Americans do not act like those South African men.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Protections from rape don't apply in their worldview because they are from cultures where rape of their own women is more of a property crime (offense against the woman's father/husband) than a personal violation. Women behaving in their culture the way British women do (i.e., walking around freely not under the obvious protection of a man) are also viewed as fair game.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I'd argue that rape "in the modern sense" has been illegal for centuries. As with abolition, the criminalization of marital rape simply expanded the category of people to whom legal protections against criminal assault applied. (Wives were in a sense considered property of their husbands- much as it used to be legal to beat your children.) You can still read people arguing that marriage implies permanent unconditional consent and therefore marital rape doesn't/shouldn't exist.
Which is why I find @RandomRanger's argument that Africans are not human beings like us unconvincing; low IQ people have problems modeling other people's minds, showing empathy, or thinking about consequences, but it's also downstream of culture. Many Muslim immigrants are not particularly low IQ, but it's their culture that tells them women are property and caring how a woman feels about being raped is like caring how a chicken feels about being eaten. The ancients likewise considered rape a property crime, not because they couldn't understand that women had feelings and didn't like being raped, but because that just wasn't part of their moral framework.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
The funny thing about rape is the west only made rape illegal in around 1865.
Rape was not legal in the West before slavery was abolished. Slaves just didn't count as "people" and so you were allowed to do many things to slaves that were crimes if done to non-slaves.
Rape was illegal long before 1865. The abolition of slavery did not (finally) criminalize rape; it just added former slaves to the category of people to whom legal protections (theoretically) apply.
I really dislike this disingenuous form of argumentation.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
And your takeway from that is that when you meet a black, white or Asian person or Jew, the way you treat them should not be based on how they behave, how they present themselves, how they treat you, but purely based on their ethnicity, because you believe everyone else is doing that to you?
What would your end goal be, assuming we all adopt this approach?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
A lot of people seem to have the idea that mods are bots and we are not supposed to express personal opinions, or respond to bitching at all except with a customer service voice. While we strive for civility, most accusations of being uncivil boil down to "You told someone who's being a jerk to stop being a jerk." When someone who's already been extended more grace than he deserves several times over is told he lacks self awareness, that is not incivility.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
But half our bans are not bad.
All your bans were deserved.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Person who gets banned a lot thinks his bans are bad. Many such cases.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Of course everyone is a member of a group. Most people are not like you, acting as if their ethnic membership is their only relevant trait.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
You were banned for being antagonistic and obnoxious, not because of the side you were arguing or for lack of citations.
The claim that you have been banned for what you are arguing might be something you genuinely believe (lots of people come in with a hot take, call people who disagree with them names, and then insist they were banned for their hot take and not for their name-calling), but it is not true.
Your lack of self awareness is unfortunate.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I agree that it would be a bitter pill to swallow. I don't blame the OP for being upset at this reality, if it is reality and if he has become convinced of it.
But I guess I just don't see the point of "Life is unfair!" posts. The Motte is mostly for discussing ideas and testing hypotheses. The OP doesn't really present anything to debate. Maybe he's hoping someone will talk him out of the HBD conclusion? (In this place, not likely.) Otherwise, a vent about existential angst is at best more appropriate for Wellness Wednesday or Small Scale Questions.
If you accept HBD but reject inidvidualism, you wind up where our enthusiastic ethnonationalists are. "Tribal and clannish" is just signaling you want war.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Every time you post, you repeat this lament. At this point, I am not sure you're not a troll.
But taking you at face value: what do you want? What are you asking here? What do you want people to say?
Either HBD is true or it's not. If it is true, then it doesn't matter whether it's "fair" in some cosmic sense. Of course it's not. No one is promised fairness. It's not fair some people are born into loving families in first world countries and other people are abandoned at birth in a slum. You are dealt the hand you're dealt. What other justice is there but "treat people as individuals"?
You can advocate for fair treatment. You can advocate for help to redress historical injustice. You can argue against the premise. But shaking your fist at reality because reality is unfair seems... really pointless.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
We are not allowing AI-generated drive-bys from first time posters.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
It seems like you keep circling around the same points you won't quite touch. Let me ask this:
What does "winning" mean for the US?
Because I don't think anyone ever claimed Iran could militarily defeat the US. And everyone knows that the US could, if it were willing to expend unlimited monies and go scorched earth, end the regime and even occupy the country. We could turn Iran into a parking lot. We could turn Iran into a colony. That we have the military power to do this has never been in doubt. What has been, and is, in doubt is whether we have the money and the political will to... do anything other than lob some missiles at them and declare "mission accomplished."
You say Iran does not "meaningfully" control the Strait of Hormuz. No, they don't. It's true, ships can sail through it and probably emerge unscathed. And yet, it's still considered dangerous, because Iran is still shooting at them, and strangely, commercial vessels are not comforted by being told "They'll probably miss you."
If we were "winning" the way you say we are, I would expect us to be in complete, undisputed, absolute control of the Straits. As in, zero Iranian missiles. No ships being threatened. None. Nada. Iran incapable of posing a threat to so much as a dingy, either because they literally no longer have the capacity to threaten, or know that firing one shot will bring consequences they are unwilling to bear.
That's not where we are. Why not? What have we accomplished? I want to know what my ROI is as an American taxpayer who's paying this bill. What have we won? Killing a lot of Iranians and making them spend a generation rebuilding does nothing for me as an American. I actually... don't care a lot about Israel, so Iran being less likely to attack Israel (note: less, not "will never happen again") is also not something I am invested in. Iran less likely to build nuclear weapons is some small benefit, but I remain unconvinced by your confident assurances that in 10 years Iran will not be building nuclear weapons. Iran not sponsoring terrorism anymore? Zero Islamic jihadist organizations being funded by Iran? That seems... very optimistic.
So tell me what we won. Kicking over a country like it's an anthill is a very expensive "victory" if you use a fleet of backhoes to do it and the ants are just going to keep stinging you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Your ban was not for the topic you wanted to talk about.
You have banned me too much under the wildcard rule which really just means per your discretion you don't like my posts.
You have no idea how many people I'd be banning if I banned people because I don't like their posts.
I think it's impossible to become a true forum regular while also being one of the types of posters you mention
We have many forum regulars who are those types of posters.
And that huge ban would obviously not be given to a regular
We have given permabans to people who've been here for years.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Even themotte has to crack down on holocaust denial, HBD and other topics from time to time.
Sigh. You're baiting me, aren't you?
No, we've never "cracked down" on topics *. We've cracked down on obsessive single-issue posters and people turning their hobby horses into culture-warring and consensus-building. We've never forbidden Holocaust denial or HBD posting or even pedo-posting from the guys who want to abolish the age of consent.
- (Once, many years ago on the old subreddit, before my time, the mods put a temporary moratorium on HBD posting because it was close to turning into open calls for race war.)
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
It was the "((they))" that looked like Joo-posting. Multiple parentheses are an online "Jew" tag, and "Jews responsible for all the liberal degenerate things I hate" is not an uncommon mind virus here, but other than generic "Jews=Hollywood" I was struggling to see the connection.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
But the point is ((they)) would think that’s so abhorrent what’s the point of the film
Is this supposed to mean Jews? If so, draw me a diagram, please. If not, what exactly do you mean by "they"?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
Mild mod rebuke:
Who is "we"?
This is about as literal an example of consensus-building as I've seen. You just assume everyone here on the Motte is on your side here. You're posting, literally, about opposing sides in the Culture War and just taking it as a given that one side is "us."
And you're not wrong that defenders of either Woke 1 or Woke 2 (whatever that is) are pretty scarce here. If I had to pick a side, yes, I'm a disaffected anti-woke like (almost) everyone else.
Still. We may be skewing further and further in one direction, but the Motte itself is not intended to be a partisan platform and we will not be "claimed" and you will not assert that only one side is "us."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
11d ago
This rant comes up quite often, in literary spaces, on social media, and on reddit. On reddit, unsurprisingly, it is generally not received well (probably why your post was removed). The usual feminist response is "Boo hoo, fiction catered to men forever, now it's our turn" and/or "Boo hoo, we had to grow up reading about boys, why can't boys read about girls?"
Both of those arguments are of course very disingenuous, but you shouldn't really expect much better on reddit.
(I personally have given up trying to shop my Heinlein-inspired YA teens-in-space novel around.)
That said, I do think "Nothing to read for boys" is overstated. Even "Nothing published recently for boys" is not entirely true. But it's hard, man. You pretty much have to go looking for small, niche publishers or indies... and if your tastes don't happen to run towards Christian homeschoolers or right-wing nutjobs, the selection is even sparser.
You are missing the point. We don't tell you you can't say someone is a fool and instead you should say they are expressing views that some people might regard as foolish. We are saying that you cannot just equate "I think you're wrong" with "You're a fool." Some people are indeed fools, but the bar for calling people names that dismisses any need to actually engage with them is high, by design.
More options
Context Copy link