Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4hr ago
This is not an impressive question to me. The American military undergirds a global economic system that contributes to Americans being fabulously wealthy. War makes us rich.
I find your answer equally unimpressive.
So, we should just be starting wars right and left? Why not start a war with Russia? With China? With anyone who briefly inconveniences us? Come on. War has a cost and you are asserting without evidence that all wars are net profitable.
If by bombing Iran, we will achieve price stability and a permanent decrease in military opposition to America and terrorist activities in the Gulf, it is plausible (though hardly a given) that this will be net profitable in the long term, but I am not the only one to doubt this, and my doubt is not some reflexive abhorrence of military action or empire. Stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is, again, something you have repeatedly insisted is a mission accomplished, there is no world in which Iran will build nuclear weapons again. I would argue that Iran certainly can begin trying to build nuclear weapons again in a few years, and if your answer is "We'll keep bombing them," then the cost of having to bomb Iran every few years in perpetuity is something we kind of need to factor into our budget. (This is without even considering the human and political cost- you might not care at all about America becoming Rome, or just killing Iranians whenever we feel like it, but I do and I think these things should be put honestly to the electorate.)
All your other high speech about ending theocracy in the Gulf, autarky in Europe, and piracy in the Mediterranean, is just that: nice words flowing from your belief that God-Emperor Trump will stretch his hand forth over the waters and the seas themself shall obey his will. I am beginning to believe that you, unironically and unmetaphorically, believe literally that. I do not and remain skeptical that bombing Iran will make the entire world our bitch and treasure will flow into our coffers forevermore.
Cool story bro. I hate that you keep putting me on the same side as [the likes of ETA: self-edit, this was too antagonistic] @hanikrummihundursvin and @coffee_enjoyer (I don't buy the "We did this at the behest of our Zionist masters" narrative), but it looks to me like the situation is materially worse for the US than before the war started, and the fact that it's much worse for Iran does nothing for me. I will ask you again: what is the benefit to me, as an American taxpayer? In what way is America now richer and safer? "We won we won we won!" okay, cool, what did we win?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
It is not "consensus-building" in the way we apply that rule. Using rhetorical devices like "It's beyond debate" are, perhaps, a little questionable (because literally everything will be debated by someone) but it's not meant to prohibit an assumption of common knowledge. It's meant to prohibit making an argument from the assumption that your opinion is a settled matter.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
MadMonzer is right, and I'd go further, the authors you're citing aren't one tradition.
Oh, absolutely not. My point wasn't that Austen and Tolstoy and Wodehouse were writing the same thing (I deliberately chose some very unlike authors) - my point was that SS is trying to gesture at a particular theme in fiction being a nefarious Jewish anti-white agenda (even if it's non-Jews doing it, they're only doing it because of Da Joos), and I'm saying it is none of those things. Even if you distinguish between "mocking from the inside" from "mocking from the outside," Jews are not the ones who began the trend of mocking from the outside, and outsiders throwing stones at a structure they consider illegitimate is not a uniquely Jewish (or woke, or anti-white) phenomenon.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
No one would accuse me of "consensus-building" if I said it wasn't open for debate that JFK was assassinated in Dallas in November '63, or that two planes crashed into the Twin Towers in September '01.
Ah, never met a JFK conspiracist or a 9/11 Truther, have you?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
My argument is that country clubs are the modern representation of stuffy rich people. Ordinary folk have always loved making fun of stuffy rich people. The stereotype that rich people are assholes and stories about rich people being bested by pliebs is not a modern Jewish invention to subvert the white race. That you need this explained is my point about your Jew-obsession. If a Jew does anything, anywhere, it doesn't matter why he did it or that other people do it too, in your world he did it for nefarious Jew reasons. Story written by a Jew? There's an anti-white message somewhere. Film featuring a Jewish comedian? It's anti-white. No matter how tortured the interpretation, you'll find some anti-goy propaganda somewhere. In this case, there weren't even any Jews involved AFAIK, so you had to reach for a totally unrelated work that happened to have a Jew in it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Point and sputter? Heh. Dude, you'd be more sufferable if you had some self-awareness and a sense of humor about it. If you can't put hands on keyboard without making it about Jews, just own it.
Making fun of WASP Country Club has been a thing for as long as there have been WASP Country Clubs (i.e., pretentious rich people to make fun of). Dickens did it. Austen did it. Freaking Tolstoy (one of the few people with less of a sense of humor than you who comes to mind) did it. Wodehouse definitely did it. It was not invented by Jews.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Wait for it... wait for it....
Ah, there it is.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
I am not sure what the point of this joke is, but it's juvenile at best and antagonistic at worse. Please make whatever point you are trying to make some other way (and more clearly).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
What am I supposed to do about it? I do argue for free speech maximalism and fairness. It makes me as popular among my Blue tribe cohort as I am among the Reds here.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
This appears to be an appeal to formal rule-based systems.
Yes. I still care about these things. If you're right it won't matter.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I really do read most of the conflict in that zone as motivated directly by the desire to control the specific territory, rather than a deep-seated racial animus (although that's certainly been building among the inhabitants of the region) or an inherent need to slay the nonbelievers.
It's kind of both.
Palestinians believe Israelis have no right to be there and the land is theirs. So yes, it is a desire to control the territory, and it's not as if they would spare the Muslim or Christian Israelis should they somehow gain the ability to sweep them into the sea.
But Muslims in general, well before the Zionists first arrived in the Holy Land, have always had a negative attitude towards Jews (yes, the Quran says they are "People of the Book" but the Quran also has lots of passages about how nicely you're supposed to treat your wives, and, well) and Islam is a militant religion that does not accept the presence of non-believers except in a barely-tolerated, clearly subordinate position.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Specifically political commentators, no, but traveling pundits/social media influencers like Charlie Kirk are a relatively new phenomenon. If you think of him as "celebrity who appears in public and tends to draw a lot of crazies," celebrities being attacked and/or murdered is not a new phenomenon.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Since this was decision by arbitration over violation of a union CBA, the question of whether saying something stupid and offensive qualifies as "gross misconduct" seems to depend on how their contract was written, not whether the average person thinks dancing in the blood of a murdered man is gross and unprofessional.
While we can all fill in the obvious shoe-on-the-other-foot hypotheticals, I would like to know if there are any comparable cases where a Post writer was fired for "gross misconduct" for social media posts.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
It's still a stretch, though. The "anti-trans" legislation she pushes for is generally "Trans women cannot be housed in women's prisons, trans women cannot demand to be taken in at women's shelters, trans women should not compete with men in women's sports," etc. That's "anti-trans" in the sense that it denies trans people the right to have everything they want (being considered 100% the sex they say they are in every context), but it's phrased as if this "anti-trans" legislation is meant to literally cause them harm or deny them their civil rights, like people are trying to pass bills making it illegal to be trans. Rowling (and to my knowledge, all so-called TERF organizations) has never tried to deny trans people the right to call themselves trans and live as their self-identified gender.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
6d ago
Ah, my linguistics undergraduate degree is finally useful.
Almost all claims of "Such-and-such language has a hundred words for (culturally important concept)" are false/exaggerated. It's not specifically a progressive thing. More like "This makes for a nice anecdote" which gets blown up into a bit of a tall tale. In Eskimo languages, for example (and indeed in most languages concentrated in far northern climes) there are lots of phrases to describe various snow and ice conditions in useful ways, but they do not literally have a hundred different words for minute differences between types of snow.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
7d 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
7d 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
7d 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
7d 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
7d 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.
You said:
And compared my asking why war with Iran is good for us with asking how bench pressing helps lose weight. That was not a nuanced explanation of how this particular war is good (I answered your arguments for Iran specifically), it's a blank assertion that war is good.
We have always been able to bomb them at will. Why did this not stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons before? If your answer is "No one before Trump was willing to do it," then what keeps them from just waiting out Trump? We're not going to invade, we're not going to unseat the regime. At worst, they spend a few hard years, which we know the regime does not care about, however much suffering that inflicts on the Iranian people. We have many examples of irrational and unreasonable regimes holding out much longer than we think we can because "Surely they can't take any more of this" turns out to be wrong. Irrational and unreasonable regimes can hold out longer than one belligerent American administration can remain in power and threaten to bomb them harder next time.
I am. Understand, I am not saying that as a bit. I have read your narratives about Trump, comparing him to everyone from Washington to Naruto. I believe you believe the things you say about him. I am not exaggerating when I say I believe the things you believe about him are in the realm of comic book rhetoric. Yes, I realize you do not think what you believe is cartoonish, but the difference between us is that I could be persuaded that what Trump is doing is succeeding (your arguments so far are not persuasive, nor is what my lying eyes see on the global market), whereas you have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no plausible situation in which you will acknowledge that what Trump is doing is not succeeding, you will just change the win conditions.
More options
Context Copy link