Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Is this not the fundamental nature of all objections?
To moderation? No, half of it is "People are allowed to say things I don't like" and half of it is "You won't allow me to say anything I like."
I am sure you do feel like your objections are legitimate and completely unlike the objections of everyone else we have to brush off because we won't moderate to their precise specifications (i.e., "allow speech I like and disallow speech I don't like").
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Your objection seems to be that people are allowed to say things you don't like.
We give a lot of leeway, but not infinite leeway. People can say they don't like Jews or they think ZOG rules the world. People can be dismissive about someone being killed.
"Lol glad he's dead" would probably have gotten a ban,. but expressing an opinion like "This is not a big deal" would not.
We try to be consistent and principled. We don't claim to be perfect.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
8hr ago
Modhat posts often get reported by people who disagree with the moderation.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
10hr ago
Always amusing when some posters are accusing us of allowing Joo-posting because we're a bunch of antisemites, and other posters are accusing us of protecting Jews because we're a bunch of Zionists.
You're simply wrong. There are no groups that this rule does not apply to. People are allowed to say they don't like Jews or blacks or MAGA white guys. They are not allowed to just insult people for being Jewish or black or a MAGA white guy. Do we always catch every single instance and enforce it uniformly? No, we're not AIs.
As for Charlie Kirk, your recollection does not match mine at all. Maybe someone here on the Motte said his murder was "no big deal" but I would bet more people by far on the Motte are sympathetic to Kirk than not. Even I, one of our resident "center-leftists" who had no particular fondness for him, was unambiguous about condemning his murder. Bluntly, if you are claiming one or two people said something dismissive, I'll take your word for it, though I don't remember it, but if you are claiming this was a widespread sentiment on the Motte, I think you are making things up.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14hr ago
You read the above and your conclusion is that we just made up a new rule: "You cannot insult Indians"?
Buddha wept.
No. The rule is "You may not direct generalized insults at broad groups of people." Whether or not those groups are represented here on the Motte.
We/I did not "move any lines" or retroactively enforce some new rule against KMC. He's been warned about this before.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
Believe it or not, "Americans" is also a category of people you aren't allowed to just say "You're a bunch of demons" about. Criticize American culture, foreign policy, and whatever else you hate about America and Americans, sure. But when you want to criticize a group you have to ground it in specific behaviors and traits, not just label everyone in the group as crazystupidevil. (Yes, I'm sure you don't literally think every single American is crazystupidevil , but that's beside the point.)
You've gotten a lot of slack because you've been around a while and as unwilling as you are to claim "emiitus" status, we do weigh positive contributions against negative ones. But something has happened to you, and lately your contributions are far more negative than positive,.and you repeatedly curl your lip and bark angrily when told to chill.
I'm giving you 90 days in liueu of a permaban. Being perfectly honest, I personally don't care whether or not you come back. I got @KMC snapping at me for "driving off the regulars," but the problem is, some regulars have never contributed anything but shit. And others stop contributing anything good. Emeritus status only goes so far.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
You're getting a lot of reports and more than one mod wants to ban you. Largely because you have a long and shitty record. Mostly, though not entirely, because of this particular hobby horse.
On the one hand, "Only white people should be considered Americans and birthright citizenship should be ended" is an opinion, and we don't prohibit people from expressing opinions. Even disagreeable opinions, even opinions that offend lots of people, even opinions that would strip a lot of people of their currently extant rights. So, you're allowed to express that opinion.
On the other hand, we do have other rules about civility, about contentless sneering at your outgroup, about making generalizations about groups. When you have an opinion like "Indians can't be Americans and don't deserve to live here" or "Jews are evil alien parasites" or "Women are NPCs" or "Blacks are incapable of civilization" and so on (note: these are examples; I am not ascribing all of those opinions to you), your sincerely-held opinion does run up against some of those other rules, and that's where people start complaining about how our rules demand you use "too many words" or dance around "the truth." Because yeah, you are allowed to believe things about non-whites, about people with non-white ancestry, about who should be a citizen. You are not allowed to just say "these people" like they are not citizens, or talk about sending them all "back where they came from" unless you are willing to put in a lot more effort actually describing a colorable position (even if it's literally race war, in which case, say so, and yes, you still have to be polite about advocating for a race war!). Because "these people" are also posters here and are entitled to the same civility as everyone else. That's the same reason I can have an opinion about certain people deserving a kick in the teeth, but I can't just express it like that. Because it would be antagonistic and rude.
Capisce?
So, every time you feel an urge to go off on your "Man born in a barn" metaphor sneering at people with funny furrin' names, pretend you are saying it directly to such a person's face in an environment where civility is expected. Because you are.
If you can't do that, next time I will ban you, and nothing of value will be lost.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
@SecureSignals is many things, but "third worldist," probably not. To figure out why he cares about Cuba and what his position is, you need to ask how Jews are involved.
That said, namecalling and telling people they are full of shit is over the line.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I think a couple of you have misunderstood: the OP himself did not get reported! (Actually he got quite a few AAQCs.) It's the arguments downthread that are getting reported- and it's both pro- and anti-lockdown posters reporting each other.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
General comment on this thread, not a warning for any individual in particular:
Rarely do I see so many reports on posts that are almost entirely "This guy's opinion makes me mad."
The thread is interesting and obviously evokes lots of feelings. What depresses me about it is not any of the discourse about Covid and vaccinations and lockdowns. It's the constant reminder that on a forum where people supposedly value free speech, the average poster still just wants everyone they disagree with to be shut up.
Contemplate that while whining about vaccinations and lockdowns.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
As soon as someone says "I have to write ten paragraphs to..." I dismiss them as someone disinterested in factuality.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Both of you stop this petty "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!" exchange.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite.
As often happens in discussions that get heated and personal, you are veering into unnecessary antagonism.
"Your argument is hypocritical, here's why" is much less antagonistic than "You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite."
Strive to be less antagonistic, even if the other person is aggravating you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
If you don't like the rules you can raise it with us and we'll discuss it (but this particular rule has been discussed repeatedly and we are very unlikely to change our minds). Telling someone else to set themselves up for a ban is definitely not going to move the needle.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Okay, this is just linkspam.
Yeah, some of it is kind of interesting. Like a listicle or a "You won't believe..." TikTok or YouTube thumbnail is interesting.
We have rules against low-effort posts that are just collections of culture war fodder. No, we are not going to bring back the link roundup. That is not what this place is for.
Don't do this again.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
When people write screeds like this about feminism, in my mind I always wonder "Which kind of feminism"? Because nowadays, "feminism" means pretty much whatever the person using the word wants it to mean, whether that is "Women should be able to vote" or "Evil civilization-hating penis-removing witches."
It's not just that there have been many different waves and schools of feminist thought, it's that it literally has become such a generic term that essentially anything other than a neolithic model of gender relations can be called "feminist." That's not even an exaggeration when we have people here on the Motte who literally believe that women should be property and it's those fucking bitch feminists who are the reason they aren't.
This is my personal opinion, not a mod note, but "feminism is a mind virus," "feminism is objectively false," "feminism is cancer," etc. reads as very boo-outgroup to me when you don't even specify what you mean by it. Generally I assume you more or less mean modern progressive feminism, 3rd wave or whatever, sex positivity and equal rights etc. etc. And before you think I'm white knighting or some shit, I think I have made it clear enough in the past that I largely agree with the criticisms of modern feminism. But I don't think someone who believes "Women should be allowed to vote" or "It should be illegal to beat your wife" is the same as someone who's pushing whatever specific progressive feminist thing is enraging you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
No, because the consequences of getting it wrong are very different.
So I have made an argument similar to this (but notably, not the same) and gotten heat for it, so allow me to say that I agree with those who are pointing out that truth should not depend on the social consequences. If something is true, even if that truth is hard, uncomfortable, and leads to unfortunate implications, that doesn't make it not true and you cannot demand people pretend that it is.
What you can demand is that we be very sure of it, and that we exercise extreme caution when deciding what to do about it. Which would be the steelman of what what you seem to be saying. What I was accused of was defending the "Noble Lie" (i.e., "We all collectively understand this is true but we must pretend we don't know it"). Which is not something I defend.
Where I differ from you is that you seem pretty set on "It would be so bad if this was true, that we must demand absolute 100% certainty, on the level of knowing that gravity exists, before we acknowledge it."
I don't agree that recognizing that there are racial differences in IQ and behavior would inevitably lead to racial oppression. I do agree that would be a risk. What I think it would lead to is some really hard choices and a lot of people unable to accept public policy that stops trying to "correct" a situation that is essentially not correctable. I don't know that we as a society could come to some sort of stable equilibrium where everyone is treated with dignity (and as an individual, not a demographic median!).
Nonetheless, I think we do still kind of need to know and face the truth.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
While I am somewhat more sympathetic to trans people than @FtttG, I agree with him that I see trans people use this "Why do you want to know what's in our pants? Ewwwww!" framing all the time, and it is really annoying and disingenuous.
No one on the gender critical side "wants to know what's in your pants." Most gender critical people don't think trans women belong in women's spaces whether or not the trans woman has a penis. While some (particularly in the radical feminist fringe) might have a particular horror of penises, it's not just the penis that makes the man, so to speak.
You can disagree with gender criticals and their desire to exclude trans women from women's spaces, but I think @FtttG is justified in being annoyed when you try to reduce it to a cheap accusation of being some kind of pervert obsessed with genitals.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
I'm going to say something I can't truly back up but I'm noticing the belief forming so I'll throw it out there
You should use the feedback you are getting to appreciate the Motte for its true purpose, which is to test (and sometimes discard) your shady ideas. Because as a number of people have pointed out, the right is not lacking in sexual predators, or the tendency to close ranks to protect their own.
What you are noticing is that leftist sexual predators are of a particular type, which is somewhat different than rightist sexual predators. Right-wingers who like to do a little groomin', rapin', and molestin' generally don't make excuses for it (unless it's part of some religious cult thing); they just do it (if they can get away with it) and hide it (if their followers would not approve). Whereas leftists will try to wrap it in their ideology, hence all the "male feminist" sex pests, hence all the grooming by professors and creatives and academics and the like of adoring female acolytes (though this is not a lot different than "grooming" of groupies by rock stars back in the day), hence the current wave of "polyamory"-related implosions.
So you aren't wrong to notice that there is a... kind of thing that is particular to the left. You're just wrong to think that this kind of thing is part of the fundamental psychology of leftists, and not just the same thing fundamental to the psychology of basically all amoral people with means, motive, and opportunity, but styled in a particularly leftist way.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
Okay, that's enough. I missed the initial post and another mod approved it even though it looked suspicious, but generally we do not let a new user join the Motte and post a manifesto as their first entry. The more I read the more I am convinced someone has pointed OpenClaw at the Motte.
Y'all took the bait, but so did the mods. This is the future, folks- forums getting trolled by ClawBots.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
What all of these groups have in common is that they hold the Talmud in high regard
This thread started with your tender heart bleeding for the poor Palestinians, and when I accused you of not actually caring about Palestinians but only being obsessed with Jews, you…. shifted to screeds about how (almost) all Jews are conniving liars and cheats and the Talmud is evil.
I rest my case.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
So you ask me how I feel about a “group” but refuse to define it.
This is an untruth. It is you who do not define your terms when you say "they" and "the groups behind all this." Because you like to remain weaselly and evasive on the Jewish Question. Most JQ posters are evasive on the topic of what exactly they want to do about Jews (i.e, how they would personally answer the Jewish Question), but you are evasive about who you're condemning when you write all your Jew-posts.
So let's be specific. The group is Jews. Jewish people. I include here anyone who identifies as Jewish, whether or not they practice Judaism. If your definition is different, then be precise. When you say "the Jewish community" and "Jews do this" and "no Jew does that," do you mean everyone who identifies as Jewish? Do you mean specifically religious Jews, or Zionist Jews, or pro-Israel Jews, or any Jew who does not explicitly condemn other Jews? Am I a Jew because I have Jewish ancestry, even though I have literally zero connection to Jewish culture and religion? Would my Jew blood make me a Jew who does Jewish things? (And is my Jew blood stronger than my Irish blood?) When you bring up things like fraudulent charity programs (I'll accept for the sake of argument that your judgment is correct, though in reality of course I accept nothing you say at face value), how are those "Jewish" schemes that Jews must call out in order to be a considered virtuous? Do you call out every bad thing Christians do and side with people who hate Christians because of it? Even assuming some of these allegedly fraudulent charities are backed by Jewish organizations, is this some behavior that Jews disproportionately engage in, or is charity fraud a pretty widespread phenomenon? (Hint: look into most charities and you'll find a lot of graft and definitely a lot of waste.) This is reminiscent of the Joo-posters who blame pornography on Jews because a lot of pornographers are Jewish-- as if Jews invented pornography, as if consumers of pornography are largely Jews (or wouldn't consume pornography if not for Jews), as if there wouldn't be a pornography industry without Jews. It's all "I hate this group, let's find some examples of members of this group doing bad things -> This group is responsible for all the bad things!"
Your lack of answer is an answer. You hate Jews. You probably carve out some exceptions, like if there is an individual Jew who writes anti-Zionist books and agrees with you "You're right, we Jews are just the worst!" maybe you don't hate him. But by your admission above, you consider Jews as a group to be uniquely perfidious for specious reasons. It's irrational hatred and disingenuously constructed.
I'm not asking for names, but if your objection is "I have a list of names of users I think get away with saying things other users cannot, " yes, I am going to dismiss your objections. If your objection is "I think people are allowed to say things about some groups of people that they cannot say about other groups," I am going to dismiss your objections. We've heard it, we've heard it many times, and whenever I make the mistake of asking for specifics, specific is what I get - not any kind of systematic bias, but some thread or poster in particular that grinds the complainer's gears.
You've already made multiple, objectively false claims about past discourse here. When I asked you "Where are all the people who were dehumanizing Charlie Kirk on the Motte?" you tell me that's not the point. The point is you "perceive " something something. Well, okay then. What are we supposed to do about that?
We are obviously capable of entertaining the possibility that we are biased or make bad calls sometimes. But I would require a very high level of evidence to be convinced of the very broad accusation you are making. Otherwise, yes, I dismiss it as "I would like moderation to be fine-tuned to my precise preferences."
More options
Context Copy link