@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 297


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Amadan


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Letting the hate flow through me

				
				
				

				

					10 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 297


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What do you mean by exploitation exactly? How is this bad for society, even if it makes minors happy?




There's a very prolific and once-ubiquitous science fiction author named Piers Anthony, most famous for his Xanth series. (Bear with me here.) He's not quite as popular as he once was, so you don't hear about him much anymore, but he was all over the place in the 80s and 90s.


Besides being prolific and writing a ton of series, the thing almost anyone who's ever read Piers Anthony will tell you is that every one his books oozes horny, and there are very few that don't involve some underage sex, at least hinted at if not explicit. Piers Anthony is a classic Dirty Old Man. And hey, everyone has their thing.


Anyway, one of his most infamous novels is Firefly, which is a horror novel about some kind of ooze-monster that makes people super horny. I read it so long ago I don't really remember the plot much, but I do remember a rather infamous courtroom scene:




The Judge refocused his eyes and mopped his brow with a handkerchief. "Is—is the Defense ready to proceed?"






"We are, Your Honor. We believe that this poignant tape establishes that though the Defendant may be technically guilty of the charge against him, he is not morally guilty. He did not seek the girl, he did not force his attention on her. He demurred at every stage, by her own testimony. It was entirely voluntary on her part. In fact, they were lovers, in the truest sense, age no barrier. The law may say he is guilty, but the law is sometimes an ass."






Several members of the Jury nodded their agreement.






Then he turned to the Jury. "If there is guilt here, then surely it is that of the father, who set her up by incestuously toying with her. And of her brother, who practiced sodomy on her with a candle. Remember, it was to escape that abuse that she first fled and found the Defendant. The Defendant never hurt her. He did only what she asked. He gave her what no other man did. He loved her. We may take issue with the manner of the expression of that love, but we cannot deny its reality. She came to him of her own accord, again and again, because what he offered her was so much better than what she received at home. Her family should be on trial!"




The child here is, IIRC, five. Five years old. Piers Anthony writes a sympathetic courtroom scene in which jurors are moved to tears by the unfairness of prosecuting a man who fucked a five-year-old because they truly loved each other.


Lest I be accused of committing the classic fallacy of assuming fiction represents the author's actual views, Piers Anthony is also notable for stuffing every one of his books with chapter-long Author's Notes in which he is not shy about his views. Let's just say while he never comes out directly and says "Yes, fucking consenting five-year-olds should be legal," it's, uh, not exactly hiding between the lines.


My point: I don't buy it from a rather accomplished and very charming author who did his best to make it plausible in the pages of a novel. I certainly don't buy it from you. The reason "statutory rape" exists is that the law recognizes that children can be persuaded to do things, and even enjoy things, that are not good for them. A child will enjoy eating ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A child will enjoy playing all day and not going to school. A child will enjoy dressing up in skimpy clothes and makeup and prancing around in front of adoring grown men who tell her how pretty she is. And a child, no doubt, can be persuaded that she enjoys sex with a grown man.


This is why we have age of consent laws. To protect children from, well, people who think "She likes it" means it's okay.


To address your other point, that you seem to deny the testimony of victims of child sexual abuse who later claim they were too young to consent and that even if they enjoyed it at the time, it fucked them up later in life, I suggest you watch some parole hearings, of which there are many on YouTube. Chomos often use the "She seduced me/it was consensual" argument. I think they usually really believe this. I know some guys believe every rape accusation is just a woman having regrets afterwards, but I find it hard to believe that the adult victims of these men (and note that sometimes the victims are boys, too, if that weighs more heavily with you) are just making it up when they say that what they "consented" to when they were children is not something they should have been allowed to consent to.


Now you may protest "I'm only talking about 15-year-olds, not 5-year-olds!" And, fair enough. Except that once we accept your arguments for why young men should not be denied the pleasures of a 15-year-old, you really don't have much except vaguely-defined "physical and mental development" to argue against going much younger. (There are children who go through very precocious puberty. Should they be on the menu?)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why are all the guys so eager to fuck teenage girls also so insistent that these girls be virgins?


Serious question, bub: You keep talking about your "lived experience." So I assume you are not a virgin. I'm not going to ask if you've ever banged an underage girl, but I am going to ask: assuming you have had sex with a virgin, why didn't you marry her?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your entire argument is predicated on your ability to read a poster's intent better than we can.


There are few people whose judgment would cause me to second-guess my own, and you aren't one of them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Elsewhere in the thread I said I supported a "common law age of consent," where the aptitude for consent is judged by a jury in a trial that charges rape or sexual assault, where the prosecutor brings evidence that the victim lacks mental capacity.




So could a 22-year-old claim she was statutorily raped and force a trial to establish she was competent to consent?




The problem here is that most cases over 15 result in serious harm to a man, and little to no harm to the girl.




Ah. There it is.




while also causing positive externalities like the expansion of young male dating pools, increases in young marriage and increases in the TFR




I don't think adding 15-year-olds to the dating pool will actually solve the dating woes of young people. Do you think suddenly young men will be locking down teen virgins before they start looking for older chads too?




The issue is therefore asymmetrical; an age of consent of 18 is plausibly far less optimal than an age of consent of 15, when it comes to the amount of harm and negative externalities either causes.




This assumes you don't believe 15-year-olds impregnated by older men are "negative externalities."


Your mathematical approach assumes a spherical and symmetrical world, which sexual relations surely is not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't find this argument convincing. Your entire premise is that 15 is arbitrary and most 15-year-olds (according to you) are physically and mentally mature enough while most 10-year-olds are not. This might be true. But it's clearly a sliding scale: some (very tiny) number of 10-year-olds probably are physically and mentally mature enough, while there are a not-insignificant number of 15-year-olds who definitely are not.


Every age-of-consent argument boils down to this: yes, the number we choose is somewhat arbitrary. You're saying 18 is too old but 14 is too young. You may or may not be correct, but there will always be someone saying "Aktually most 14-year-olds nowadays..."


While I wouldn't lose sleep over lowering the AOC to 15, nor am I losing sleep over it being 18. And I would pretty seriously side-eye a grown man with a 15-year-old girlfriend, however full of hip and round of breast she might be.


(Also, I think you probably are our previous ebophile poster.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Blocking is petty, and announcing you have blocked someone is extremely petty. If you want to know what someone you have blocked is saying about/to you, you need to unblock him or view the board without being logged in.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If a man is convicted of statutory rape, then he had consensual sex with a teenage girl.




Okay, now tell me why you can't (or wouldn't) make all these same arguments about a 10-year-old who has hit puberty?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I really don't comprehend how you and @The_Nybbler think the argument is "It's a few kids on college campuses" (well, I do, I think the attack is disingenuous, but that doesn't get us anywhere). No, it's a not a dodge. It's, as for example @Jesweez pointed out above, largely a matter of what you notice more (and what you choose to or want to notice). If you think bitches be crazy, you will see a lot of crazy bitches, and social media will feed you more and more of them. If you think specifically 50-year-old liberal women are losing their minds, you will see lots of 50-year-old liberal women losing their minds. If you think right-wing e-thots are on the rise, you will see lots of right-wing e-thots. I don't think I have to repeat myself about how easy it is to convince yourself that conspiratorial Jews or murderous black cannibals are everywhere.


Show me some "clear thinking" that shows specifically that 50-something women are increasing in both mental instability and liberalness because Minneapolis videos are trending.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


and that smart people on this forum independently arive at the same opinions as myself




Do they, now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You say that as if it was a bad thing.




Not per se. But if my goal is "Prove that a certain subset of people is loud, aggressive and crazy" and I can find lots of videos of people being loud, aggressive and crazy and I am always looking for the subset of people I hate doing that, it suggests that when I post those videos and say "These people are loud, aggressive, and crazy" you should be skeptical.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It is not your personal obsessive counter-argument. It's a broader phenomenon, and in terms you might care about, it's "Why is the culture war manifesting like this?" Framed as the OP did, it's "Why are 50-year-old women like this?" Using a few videos as evidence that this is a phenomenon with 50-year-old women is shoddy thinking. You are capable of reasoning this out when your fingers aren't twitching reflexively to post insults.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Contra @Jiro's usual supercilious sneering, when we see a post like this, no one is naive to the likelihood that it's a troll. Some of the people who argue with obvious trolls are just the sort of people who cannot resist responding even to troll-posts. OTOH, if an obvious controversial post is "long and grammatically correct" (in other words, it's actually making a coherent argument), the difference between "troll" and "someone making a sincere if inflammatory argument" is only in what their motivation is, which we generally cannot know.


Yeah, I looked at @DeepNeuralNetwork's history to see if he might be an alt of our old nazi-pedo friend or the other guy who insisted that not granting full adult rights and responsibilities to children is slavery. Is he? shrug Don't think so, doesn't have the same style. Is he a troll writing an effort-post to giggle and see how the Motte will react to "It should be legal to fuck 15-year-olds?" He could be. On the other hand, he might also really believe what he is saying. While I don't agree with his argument, I don't actually think it's insane on the face of it- there are lots of reasons for why the age of consent is the way it is today and not what it was in the 18th century, and overall, his post didn't read like your typical troll who just wants to fuck 15-year-old girls.


One of @ZorbaTHut's explicit goals for the Motte is to enable it to be a place where people can come here with blazing hot takes (sincerely held!) that couldn't find a fair audience anywhere else. Let people post them and argue them and take the brickbats and rotten tomatoes. Yes, sometimes that means enabling trolls who are just here to shit-stir. Of course sometimes those blazing hot takes are things like "Certain people should have bad things done to them," which crosses some other lines. And often those blazing hot takes descend into an exchange of insults and personal attacks, which crosses others.


Moderation has never been flawless here. We have a set of dials we can adjust up or down, and every adjustment has consequences. The OP got reported by several people basically saying "This didn't break the rules but I don't like it." I've seen this a lot lately. I mean... what are we supposed to do about that?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I sympathize with your complaint, but it's just the way things are here - if you are standing your ground on an unpopular opinion, you will get downvoted.


That said, @YoungAchamian is correct- starting a top-level thread to complain about another thread is generally bad form. Address it in the thread, or if you really think it deserves its own thread, maybe take the effort to frame it as a general discussion about how and why Motte users upvote and downvote things so it's not just "I'm mad about this one thread."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The weird thing about reading things in isolation from the mod queue is my first thought was "What the hell did Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez do now?"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree with @OliveTapenade. This is nutpicking enabled by modern social media. When there's a probably smartphone within range of just about anything happening in public nowadays, you can be sure that any time someone gets loud, aggressive, crazy, or weird, someone will start recording it and uploading it. This enables anyone who wants to post a regular stream of Karens Going Crazy, Black People Doing Crime, White People Doing Racism, Gen Z Zombies, etc. etc. will have no trouble finding content.


We're not going to "mod-slap" you for this, though it does border on "Can you believe what Those People did this week?" I would prefer we not have endless threads about "Look at the latest crazy thing some people did that validates my biases" but to a certain extent I understand the urge to post the latest crazy thing Those People did.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the only thing we agree on is that we are both frustrated. And I'm answering here because when I throw up my hands and let it go, I later get accused of refusing to answer. But as wrong as you think I am (that's about the only thing I can discern for certain here), I am not being glib or sarcastic or dismissive here when I tell you that there is something about your j'accuse posts that are, besides being annoying, really hard for me to follow.


I don't know if it's the way you write, and I can even entertain the possibility that I'm just not smart enough to get you (I doubt this, but I'm humble enough to own that I am no longer as smart as I once thought I was). But I go through your laundry lists of accusations and feel like sincerity requires me to try to answer them point by point, and I get bogged down in a mixture of "That's completely not what I meant," "That is not what I said and I think you're straw manning me," and "What does he even mean?"


So, really and truly, I'm not sure what you want from me. I mean, besides a wholesale admission that I'm on the bad side and everything I've said for the last five years is wrong. I'm afraid I am not willing to oblige you there. I dunno, some people attack me and at least I know what they are accusing me of, even if it's wrong. Some people attack me and they're just crazy, so I can roll my eyes and move on. You attack me in a very effortful way and I don't even know where to begin rebutting because it's all "You said this and here's a long paragraph about what other people did and isn't this funny and here's something you said four years ago."


I realize this leaves us back where we started.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure, bud.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, you're not wrong that "You're an idiot" is not necessarily nicer than "You're a liar."  But it makes a difference whether someone is being ignorant or being insincere. If you want to argue with someone, you should generally assume they mean what they say. Ignorance should be something you can demonstrate with counterarguments. I get annoyed when people accuse me of lying because, besides not being a liar, what am I supposed to say? You can't read my mind and I can't prove my internal mental state.


That doesn't mean all arguments are genuine. There are definitely people here who argue disingenuously. Not just the obvious trolls, either. But it tends to be an accusation people throw sloppily because they're angry or outraged at the argument itself.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Never happened, and I don't address your screeds because they are irrational and incoherent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.


And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like, but like the black people who sincerely believe that cops hunt them in the streets or the trans and gay people who think they're going to be herded into camps any day now, being a fool duped by hysterical disinformation doesn't mean you don't actually believe what you're saying.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Also, your ProPublica link isn't against body cameras. It's accusing the police of acting improperly with the footage they have.




It should be noted that bodycam footage, like court hearings, are generally not uploaded to social media by the police themselves. They are public records which many jurisdictions make publicly available on a government website, and then YouTubers grab the video and make content out of it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Your dedication to insisting that nothing you said in the past should matter, sure is a sight to behold.




Never happened. I have not denied anything I've said in the past and in some cases I have even amended my opinion. I'm just bemused, as always, at the spite.




And yes I think he should prove he actually believes what he's saying. There's nothing unreasonable in stating that he doesn't.




Actually, accusing someone of not believing what they are saying is uncharitable and we frown on demands that someone "prove" they mean what they say. Likewise claiming that if you don't put money on it's proof that you don't.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From someone who doesn't have a lengthy record of this sort of low-effort sneering and baiting for which you've been warned or banned almost ten times now, I'd just say "knock it off."


But I told you last time:




You post nothing but worthless content like this, and you've been warned many times. You're obviously an alt created explicitly for this purpose. Tell you what: I'm giving you a week ban. Decide what you are going to do when you come back.




Clearly you have made your decision. Good bye.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


((and to bite on the obvious bait: that hasn't stopped you from offering that style of wager unsolicited.))




Dayum, you managed to find a reason to use that one again! That's some dedicated hatin'! Okay, I'll give you that one, though I will point out that I didn't actually demand money stakes to "prove he really believed what he was saying."




Are you even pretending to believe that there's a 10% chance of Trump suspending the Constitution?




No, that I'd put closer to 1%.


(I'd pay to see him get in the ring with Mamdani, though.)




It's just a word, and it just means 'something you don't like'.




No, as someone who has complained about overuse of fascism myself, no, I do not use fascism to mean "something I don't like" and you should know better. I do not think Trump is literally a fascist, nor the Republican Party, nor ICE. I think the US government, including the past several administrations (not limited to Republican ones!) have shown an increasing tendency to appeal to identify politics, cults of personality, and disregard for previous Constitutional limits, and that there is a ~10% chance this will lead us towards an actual fascist state (for some value of "fascist" - we can argue over exactly what the definition is if you really want to, but I am talking about something we would both broadly agree looks and smells like fascism, not "something I don't like"). In other words, the actual end of the Republic as we know it, at least in all but name.


I do happen to think Trump has fanned the flames worse than Biden or Mamdani or Nancy Pelosi or whomever you'd prefer to blame, but he's not the sole or first cause. (Note also that this is an admission that I have updated my priors somewhat since that argument I had with @FCfromSCC way back when - I still mostly believe the things I said then, but with weaker confidence. On the other hand, the fact that Trump was reelected should have made him update his.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As a (former) poker player, I feel obliged to point out that these "If you really believed it, you'd bet money on it" gotchas miss the point of betting the odds.


A single bet at 10% odds with a 50x payoff is not a good bet, because there is a 90% chance you'll lose.
Twenty bets at 10% odds with a 50x payoff is (probably) a winning strategy. A single bet is not. That's why professional poker players measure success over the long term, not whether a single bet paid off (and they also understand that variance is a bitch).
If you're doing polymarkets or something, maybe it's rational to make a lot of bets like this. It's not a rational challenge to a single claim.


Of course there is also the fact that if someone wins betting on "Will the US become a fascist state?" then their payoff is going to be small comfort…


(And yes, while "literally Hitler" is absurd, I think 10% is a reasonable estimate of how likely we are to see something like a descent into fascism. But I'm not going to put money on it because I can't bet on 10 different alternate timelines.)