Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Clearly, you need to collaborate with @DoktorGlas and turn this into a proper novel.
(Plug here for Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Ruin, a great uplifted-octopi story, though I do find the uplifted spiders from book one, Children of Time, more interesting.)
As a short story and a cautionary tale, this is trite and twee. Just quote Kipling and be done with it.
As a metaphor, it's a blunt cudgel with no cleverness or subtlety or anything really worth thinking over. Obvious message is obvious -- yes, let us not be octopodes and do stupid things like trying to improve the lot of those who rightfully suffer as nature intended. Oh wait, that's already been done better too.
The anecdote about Chesterton feeling relief when the bombing of London commenced, because finally everyone else was living in the same world as he'd been for so long, comes to mind.
I was trying to figure out how Chesterton's Fence applies here, but I think you meant Churchill?
Also, the Dixie Chicks criticized the war and said they were ashamed of George Bush, but I definitely do not remember them saying "America had 9/11 coming," though a few other pundits said or implied it.
You've long exhausted my willingness to discuss modding with you, Jiro. If you think incorrect mod decisions are being made, take it up with Zorba.
No. Trolling means you are making insincere arguments to wind people up.
I don't know if you actually believe the positions you are taking- I'm not a mind-reader. But you are arguing them in a disingenuous manner, intentionally strawmanning counterarguments, and selectively ignoring or changing the elements, in a deliberately provocative manner because (I speculate, with high confidence) that you find it amusing, and that your purpose is entertaining yourself and not engaging in genuine debate or testing of your ideas.
Your condescending "I hope for your sake..." is so uttterly contrary to both my observed, historical behavior and yours that I likewise conclude it is meant merely as an insult (it's just a verbose variant on the classic rebuttal: "Neener neener I win you lose!").
I am not warning you as a mod here. I just find your behavior personally annoying. We put up with Darwin for a very long time because his annoying behavior was not, technically, against the rules. The tons of reports you draw mostly get dismissed because "This guy is really fucking annoying" is not really a report, it's venting. That said, when your entire purpose in being here is not to engage sincerely with people, but just to giggle at how many people you can aggravate, it is very likely to lead eventually to a determination that your presence here is a net negative. So I would advise you, in the same tone: for your sake, mature, fix whatever hole you have in your soul that makes you take pleasure in coming to a board full of people you don't like just to poke them in the eye and titter about it, and if you genuinely want to engage with people and learn something (even if it's just about why they think they way they do), stop trying to construct your arguments in a maximally evasive, inflammatory, and disingenuous manner.
You know what? You really are trolling here. I still don't think you are Darwin, but you definitely use Darwin's tactics. I don't block people, because as a mod I can't, and I also think that blocking people is the blocker identifying himself as bitch-made. But I will endeavor to exercise sufficient willpower not to engage with you in a non-official capacity in the future.
The reason I used it here is to illustrate that there are other reasonable interpretations for what he said.
I guess? If you are bending over backwards to be charitable, you can construct multiple "reasonable" interpretations for many statements, but that doesn't mean they are all equally plausible.
"The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF" is not straightforward.
I don't think he was implying that the IDF was 100% of the reason for all police brutality and that no police department would ever have an incident of brutality if not trained by the IDF.
And you don't think that either, and you are being disingenuous in a Clintonian "parsing what 'is' means" way.
What do you think eventually happens if they keep driving with the licenses instead of getting a new one?
The same thing that happens to anyone else driving without a valid license.
Is it unfair to trans people to target them in this way? Yeah, I think it is. It is still not the state enacting a trans purge. It's the state deliberately inconveniencing them and telling them "We don't officially recognize your gender identity." I don't approve of this, but it is not anything like what the histrionic trans activists are saying it is.
What's the point of the ban if it does nothing when a child transitions?
I assume someone who illegals transitions a child would be prosecuted. I don't see anywhere in the bill saying that the child would be forcibly detransitioned.
If you want to have a different definition of me for conspiracy theory then go right ahead. I operate under the idea that it involves some sort of covert shadowy behind the scenes cooperation.
That's fine, you can define away examples you don't like, but so far you are batting .000.
First of all, I am really not a fan of "Ask ChatGPT to settle a debate." There are lots of reasons for that, and it's not because I don't think AI is useful for a lot of purposes. But AI is definitely not useful for impartially adjudicating subjective interpretations of culture war events and statements.
ChatGPT sort of gives it away with "I think the most charitable—and probably most accurate—" ChatGPT likes to be charitable. ChatGPT does not like to imply negative things about contemporary figures. A judgment like "probably most accurate" is purely the LLM churning out tokens in a most-probably-plausible response, not any actual reasoning or analysis by which it can tell you that this interpretation is "probably most accurate."
It's specific claim? "A metaphor for institutional influence"? What ... institution would be that, exactly? How does the IDF become "a metaphor for institutional influence"?
Come. On. Apply some actual critical thinking. Don't offload it to ChatGPT and say "Neener neener an LLM says I'm right and you're wrong!"
The first one is obviously a conspiracy, these other ones are not.
Yes they are. I am well aware that some states are passing laws requiring birth sex on driver's licenses. I figured you would bring it up. But that does not mean that federal agencies are preparing to conduct mass arrests of trans people who have the wrong sex on their driver's licenses. Yes, their current licenses were invalidated in Kansas and they have to get new licenses, and that sucks, but it's a leap, a stretch, a ballistic missile launch from "federal troops rounding up trans people."
A ban against transitioning children is not forcibly detransitioning people.
Congressman Ronny Jackson sounds like a crackpot. Let me know when he gets any traction outside of Newsmax.
I mean, come the fuck on. You are willing to give maximum charity to Mamdan's crack about the IDF lacing the NYPD's boots, accepting any interpretation other than the obvious one, while you want us to give full weight and seriousness to a Republican popping off on a radio show as if he's speaking for the federal government.
Being wrong about that number does not allege a shadowy cabal behind such shootings.
Right, so we're going to debate the nuances of what constitutes a "conspiracy theory." Fine, I'll grant it's not a modal example, but it certainly does allege that, not a shadowy cabal, but massive institutional power, is behind such shootings. Which seems at least "conspiracy-adjacent" to me.
Everything was fine about your post except the "Fuck you!" You get a 2-day ban for that.
Yeah, I know people who were on the 495 and saw the plane. I got no patience for these chucklefucks.
Bro, Mamdani has certainly toned down his rhetoric since he became mayor, but how else do you interpret that line about the IDF lacing the NYPD's boots? He was, at the very least, gesturing towards Da Joos and implying Israeli training was responsible for police brutality, and he's too smart not to know what he was implying.
I personally know trans people who genuinely believe that federal agencies are gearing up to start going after trans people, either to put them in camps or forcibly detransition them or maybe just arrest them for having the wrong gender on their driver's licenses.
And we've discussed many times here how many unarmed black people the average leftist believes are gunned down by police every month.
You can quibble over what the precise definition of "conspiracy theory" is, which strikes me as being about as useful as arguing about the legal definition of "genocide" wrt Gaza. But irrationality is definitely not limited to the right.
So when whites were winning the culture war, that was decreased tribalism? It seems like you just define "tribalism" in relation to whether or not your tribe is "winning." If you want to say "I am pro-tribalism, I am a zero-sum conflict theorist and I want my tribe to crush other tribes," that would be honest. But you still haven't described anything unique to Jews to justify blaming them for culture war and tribalism.
The literal bible was inspired by culture war.
All religious texts are.
Jews vs Civilization, over and over.
Hindus vs. civilization. Confucianists vs. civilization. Christians vs. civilization. Muslims vs. civilization. Over and over. Every religion frames itself as being "against" the world, which is in need of cleansing/refinement. In all your ranting about Jews, over and over, you have never, ever pointed at anything unique to Jews.
In your mind Open-Borders advocacy is the absence of tribal conflict
See, this is an example of how hard you fail at Turing-modeling your opponents. I am absolutely not an open borders advocate.
If you are just gesturing at open borders as an example of "Jew things," I'd like to see a poll that shows the majority of Jews are in favor of open borders, because I doubt it.
We've been living in conflict and animosity towards us our entire lives. The conflict and animosity has always been here dude! It's just been a one-sided conflict until now.
We have been living in conflict and animosity for all of human history, but violence, and specifically inter-tribal conflict, is actually at a historical low, particularly in the West. To the degree that it goes up, it is owing more to people like you, who fan your personal resentments and animosities and try to exhort others to join in violent conflict against your outgroup, than Jews. Jews did not start the wars, Jews did not create culture war, and Jews are participants, like you and me, and not puppet-masters.
I would like to reduce conflict, and you want to exacerbate it.
I'm not shocked or angry. Again, why do y'all project so much?
Very simply, I think you are factually wrong and your views are both ahistorical and malign, leading to conflict and animosity that is the desired goal of certain types of people, but not better for humanity as a whole. Which I do not limit to "white people" because I also think tribal zero-sum conflict is bad.
The same Christians who accept immigrants, homosexuals, women's rights and support for Israel.
Actually, it is also used by conservative Christians who are not in favor of those things. (Except maybe support for Israel; most conservative Christians are pro-Israel.)
I hear Christians use it more often than Jews.
Sure, but most Jewish "tribalism" is just sticking to their own community and following their own religion (and being moneylenders, which is never popular but also is a result of historical exclusion from other professions). The SS version where they have been inimical to gentiles is just "drinks the blood of Christian children" / "rats who stabbed the Fatherland in the back" nonsense being repeated in the 21st century as "engineered woke and mass immigration."
You are just flatly wrong, you have been tricked.
Dude, I know history better than you do. You just keep repeating things that intentionally miss the point.
Do you believe Jews have a race consciousness as Jews?
Yes and no. They have ethnic and religious consciousness as Jews, but not all Jews are Ashkenazi and my understanding is there is actually some racial division within the Jewish community. What you're really asking me is "Are Jews tribal? As tribal as I want whites to be?" And the answer is yes. That said, when people like you want them to cease existing ("as Jews, in Minecraft"), of course they are going to be tribal. Historically, people like you are the reason Jews are so tribal. Yes, I know your version is that they started it and if Jews didn't act so Jewish people wouldn't hate them.
people like you are duped into thinking we always thought the way you do today.
You're being very lazy. When I say whites didn't have racial consciousness as whites, I don't mean I believe Thomas Jefferson or the 1920s Supreme Court believed all races are the same. I mean you are trying to construct a pan-white brotherhood based solely on European ancestry that did not exist.
Jews should be treated no differently than Jews treat Whites.
Concretely, what does this mean? I know you think (almost) all Jews are involved in some conspiracy to destroy white people, though the mechanics seem to be basically using social influence and democratic processes to make society more liberal? So how would you reverse uno the Jews?
Atheistic Jews still very frequently identify as Jews.
Okay, so thanks for confirming that there's no realistic way any Jew could be regarded as acceptable to you, regardless of his individual beliefs. If a Jew actually said "okay, I no longer identify as a Jew, I am just a white American," you would say "lol no."
Can we just appreciate that you don't think "White American" is a real thing when it was the original requirement for citizenship?
I do think "White American" is a real thing as a social category. I do not think it is a real thing as a unified ethnic tribe with uniform common beliefs and traditions. (It's kind of getting there but it's relatively recent.) You are playing a weaselly game of definitions here. "Hurr hurr you don't even think white people exist, you have been brainwashed by Da Joos." No, I think white people exist. I do not think "white people" have had the "racial consciousness" you assert and advocate until recently, historically.
And where are they now? They are White. They don't cling to their ancestry in remotely the same way Jews retain their identity and organize on the basis of their identity.
Okay, but so what? Historically, the answer is that Germans, French, Dutch, English, etc. were able to assimilate and become part of the broader American "white" society in a way that was precluded for Jews. Your answer is that Jews are uniquely nefarious and Jewish culture and identity is uniquely malign. Market minorities exist in other places in the world and behave in similar ways. You simultaneously endorse shunning Jews-as-Jews from society but complain that, thus shunned, they continue to band together and maintain their own society. You can't tell people "We hate you and won't accept you, but don't you dare stick together out of self-defense."
That's why it's a non-starter. If Jews want to assimilate into a White pro-civilizational ideology they need to free themselves from Yahweh.
Do Christians also have to reject their god? Are you a "Christianity is a Jew-cucked slave morality cult" white nationalist? Or are you a "Judeo-Christianity is a Jew lie" white nationalist?
"If you want to be one of us you have to be one of us." You can't retain identity with a superstitious desert cult on the basis of a blood-covenant with a jealous anti-civilizational god.
Leaving aside the practicality of demanding people abandon a religion that's thousands of years old because you think that uniquely among all religions in the world, it's evil, I do not believe you'd actually accept Jews who abandon Judaism, and I think with good reason, Jews would not believe you. (And even if you are an unusually magnanimous white nationalist, as I said most of your fellow WNs are pretty open about wanting Jews to just... quietly and peacefully vanish to Mars or something.) There are atheistic Jews today with no connection to the Jewish religion, but you still accuse them of Jewing Jewishly. How many generations would they have to divest themselves of Judaism before you'd consider them no longer Jewy Jews? Your proposal is not sincere and not credible.
You're either trolling in a very unfunny manner, or you're proposing something improbable and inflammatory enough to require something in the way of evidence.
I realize this isn’t a top quality post, so I accept the judgement of the mods
Just for the record, this was fine, and I wish people would stop thinking we impose some unreasonable standard for top-level posts. You described the context, why it's interesting, and what your take on it is, and you provided enough substance to kick off a conversation without it just being a "First!" with a copy-paste of a news blurb.
We don't discourage people from starting threads saying "Let's talk about the latest big news item." We discourage people from rushing to be the first to post it with low-effort bids to capture the top-level thread.
In the United States they absolutely did so, from the foundation of the country eligibility for citizenship was "White".
Yes, because they were very concerned about slaves, and slave (or freedmen) populations mixing with the white population. You're arguing we should use the racial anxiety of slaveholders as the basis of our ethnic identity. Unless you are literally proposing a return to slavery (or at least, something like Apartheid), this is not going to work, and it's still a very particular historical window from which you are deriving your notion of "white identity."
If you read a little American history, you will realize that while English, Germans, French, and Dutch considered themselves closer to each other than Indians or blacks, they certainly did not think of themselves as one people, let alone those barely-human Spaniards, Italians, Irish, and Greeks. Even under slavery, we had all the tribes described in Albion's Seed and more; they were anything but "Hello, fellow White People!"
You want to create an artificial and ahistorical white identity for political purposes. The modern "African American" identity is kind of like that, I guess, but their circumstances were quite different.
You can get arrested for being too enthusiastic in your identification as an ethnic Brit.
You won't see me defending the British legal regime, but you're gonna have to stretch real hard to put that on the Jews.
It is absolutely possible to Culture-War someone's identity into submission. Jewish identity should be analyzed and criticized in equal measure.
Your critique, though, is as useless as the people who think Chinese are all bugmen. Or the people who really do think "it's not okay to be white" (because we're all born racist and evil). It's a paranoid fantasy of a global Jewish hivemind.
- Prev
- Next

Henceforth this shall be called the "Qeekly" Finance Thread.
More options
Context Copy link