Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Sex and nudity is supposedly no big deal
According to whom? The leftists you hate so much? Yeah, some will make that argument, but even they won't say it's no big deal when it's non-consensual.
I don't think the pride parade demographic is particularly representative even of leftists.
But where does that leave us?
I think pretty clearly it's morally objectionable to generate AI porn of someone who is neither a sex worker nor someone who wants AI porn generated of them. What the law says, I am less sure, but I expect the "revenge porn" laws will probably be expanded to include "Generating AI videos of your ex fucking a horse."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I don’t recall seeing an alternative explanation for the popularity of the violent männerbund video game genre in my replies.
Men have power fantasies. They dream of being heroes, of being winners, of being the biggest and the baddest. We are competitive and we dream of glory. But generally speaking, we dream of doing that for a cause, for king or country or our family. Not just for the sheer joy of bashing another guy's skull in. That is the Kulak argument and yours, that we're all just chimps. This point has been made repeatedly to you, that while it may be fun to just blow up pixels in a violent game, it's not actually an urge a healthy person has, to destroy and kill for the sheer pleasure of death and destruction.
The reason this is the edifice of my argument is that it’s a surprisingly strong edifice.
It isn't. "My edifice is very strong because my argument is correct because I have said my argument is correct" is not in fact a good argument.
I am curious why you keep bringing up rape. I never mentioned rape in my post. Why do you have rape on your mind? The Conan the Barbarian quote only mentions the lamentations of the defeated women. Very odd.
Yet you keep harping on it, especially how much fun it was to isolate some group's girlfriend gamer and make her cry. You keep bringing it up as part of the whole destroy and pillage and conquer thing. I think you're being a little disingenuous here appealing to the dark violent urges you think every man has but pretending to be offended that I point out the obvious consequent.
They do. But that’s not why they enjoy warring.
It's your position that they "enjoy warring." It's my position that they enjoy winning wars and receiving the accolades and benefits of winning. Read the actual memoirs of soldiers from nearly any war in the past couple of centuries, and you'll find very few who really enjoyed the experience of war (some, but not many), and quite many who thought war was a horrible experience, even if they did consider it a noble cause, even if they are proud to have done it.
The sentiment is all between the männerbund. Here is what they have to say about the women back home: “(toasting) to wives and sweethearts: may they never meet”.
... You hear that joke made in a toast and conclude "Yeah, this is evidence that Real Men don't actually care about their women and families? They just love killing other men and destroying what others have built?"
Okay.
You must have watched a different Sopranos. Money and chicks factor very little in the show.
I said Mafia movies. Then I went on to point out that the Sopranos, specifically, is a deconstruction of the Mafia glamor.
You do this kind of argumentation a lot.
Men like to see Tony steal the resources and fealty from rivals.
Sure, but they also like to see if Tony is eventually gonna get whacked. Most men don't want to be Tony Soprano, and those who do are people I would not want living near me any more than I'd want Tony Soprano as a neighbor.
They like to see men act within a männerbund to win resources and power.
And to get fucked up by their dumb choices, or wrecked when their plans go south. Most men aren't saying "Man, I wish that was me holding up bodegas and getting in gunfights with other mobs."
Does the average male viewer really crave to learn about the sociology of the mafia in the turn of the 21st century? Is he a criminologist who wants to explore the depths of narcissism in Tony Soprano? IMO, no.
But those elements are what made Sopranos better and more popular than just another mob show.
I think you are very shallow consumer of media.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
But the problem is that shame would also kick in for stuff like a young girl hyping up her debut on Onlyfans once she turns 18 (link is mostly SFW but you'll see some thirst trapping). The puritanical ethics required here would condemn both the voyeuristic act and the exhibitionist act.
I've already said that I am pro-slut shaming.
That said, there's a difference between someone willingly posting their nudes and someone not doing that. I think the OnlyFans girl would have a harder case to make about being harmed by someone generating AI porn of her, versus a girl whom you think should just accept that all women are being punished for the OnlyFans girls.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I don't know about legal harm, but my ideal solution to this would be "The girl who punched the asshole boy gets a finger-wagging, and the boy gets told he had it coming and stop being a little shit."
Obviously, that's too old school and common sense for a school to do.
Photoshopping a woman's face onto a pornographic image has long been understood to be a shitty thing to do and possibly actionable. But AI-generated real-person-porn is probably just something society is going to have to get used to.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I know, I know: Amadan is going to hammer me for using sarcasm.
Sigh. Yes. Come on, you're just trying to be provocative and you knew you were going to get reported.
It's not the sarcasm that's the problem. It's that you (and I mean you specifically) can make an intelligent and cogent argument for why this is bad behavior that should be discouraged. And you can even be (a little) snarky about it. But when you layer on the "gosh gee whiz"s and straw men obviously directed at the person you are responding to, of course you're dialing up the antagonism in a way that doesn't actually lead to productive engagement. You're just trying to say "You're a shitty human being unworthy of a respectful reply" without using those words.
The "big yikes not a good look chief" millennial slop has ruined online discourse because it feels so good to get off those snide, snarky little burns but it absolutely destroys any hope of good faith dialog. Do you want to talk to people and maybe enlist their sympathy and get them to see your side of things, or do you just want to score little zingers?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
How many of those surprise blowjob stories involve a three-year-old and an 18-month-old?
And, again, no physical harm was done here.
I am not sure what to make of your fixation on "no physical harm." Yes, you can do lots of things to children that won't cause physical harm.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
You have a habit of dissecting things into discrete components that you can fit together into your thesis, and ignoring vast swathes of context and nuance. You are also very guilty of typical-minding what you apparently feel.
You've built your entire hypothesis that "Actually, all men enjoy looting and raping" on the edifice of "We like competitive sports and violent video games." Numerous people have offered you other interpretations with examples, and you reject them because looting and raping sounds like a good time to you and therefore it must be natural to all men.
That’s what makes it such a good movie: there’s none of that sentimentalslop that guys don’t actually care to watch.
There was a lot of sentiment in Master and Commander. It was very male-oriented, yes, but the idea that men don't like or feel sentimental about things like home, family, nation, faith, is a stunning declaration.
The whole mafia genre is another case of this. Why do guys love mafia movies? It is not because of the subtle sociopolitical commentary and ironies of the Sopranos.
In fact men did enjoy the sociopolitical commentary and ironies of the Sopranos. That's why it was an award-winning show. The Sopranos was in many ways a deconstruction of the Mafia glamor, and yet it had a very large male audience. Men like Mafia movies in general for the same reason we like all kinds of power fantasies, but most men want the money and the chicks but not to actually go around beating whores and shooting shopkeepers. Apparently you don't understand this. It may be that you are a more typical man and it may be that I am, but I know which way I would wager.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I am not saying you're a pedophile. I'm saying the story isn't funny, and presenting it as "funny" is why you're getting a lot of flack.
I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved
This really isn't helping the impression that you're being a little oblivious here.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Look, you do you, but throwing a fit and saying you don't want to do this anymore because you can't include cute and funny pedophile stories... like, c'mon man.
Honestly, if you hadn't called it "hilariously hentai facts," you probably wouldn't have gotten reported. What was "hilarious" about it?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
, instead they see themselves in the männerbund who are singularly interested in destroying their enemy through trickery.
No, they are empathizing with defending your home and family.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
Man, one of my guilty pleasures is watching YouTube videos of sentencing and parole hearings. Often they involve child molesters who did shit like this. The chomos (or their lawyers) tend to give very similar arguments to what you said.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I wasn't thinking of you, for what it's worth, nor do I classify everyone who is anti-feminist as a woman-hater.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I appreciate you rereading what I said, because the entire issue is poisoned by bad faith toxic discourse on both sides, and it's very hard to make any kind of proposal for how either men or women should change their behavior, or be pressured to change their behavior, without being mapped to the worst extremists.
"I think men should be responsible for any progeny they create, you can't just dump them on the mother and/or the state and keep fucking around."
"OH SO MEN ARE JUST PAYPIGS FUCK YOU AS LONG AS WOMEN CONTROL REPRODUCTION AND CAN HAVE ABORTIONS MEN ARE SLAVES OF THE STATE!!!!!"
"I think women should be encouraged to have children young instead of giving up their most fertile years seeking a career they probably won't even enjoy."
"OH BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT IN THE KITCHEN IS IT? WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR WOMEN TO LEARN TO READ LIKE IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS YOU PATRIARCHAL INCEL?!"
Obviously, it's pretty hard to have a dialog like this. Also obviously, the all-caps lines are a bit tongue-in-cheek but not far off from what you see most places online and even to some degree here. So I have definitely taken the first position, for example- if you get a woman pregnant, you did the deed, now you have to feed the kid. No, I don't care how irresponsible and slutty the mother is or if she "baby-trapped" you. No, I don't care that she has the unilateral power to abort or not. You stuck your dick in it, you know how babies are made, so the options are (a) you pay for it, (b) I pay for it, (c) we let the child starve. I choose option (a). Yes, some men get screwed. This is unfair. Tough shit. Use a condom or don't drink and fuck.
"OH SO WE SHOULD ONLY BE UNFAIR TO MEN WE CAN'T BE EVEN A LITTLE BIT MEAN TO WOMEN????"
Sure, we can be "mean" to women. I am not anti-shame. I think slut-shaming is good and we should do more of it.
I think if there was a way to implement welfare reform to ensure children get fed and clothed with as little incentive to the mothers as possible to keep popping them out, we should do it (I admit, I don't really know how this could be done, short of poorhouses or something, which historically have been even worse).
Relatedly, I would be in favor of social messaging to encourage fewer people (but especially fewer women) to go to college, and start families instead. But realistically I don't know how this social engineering would work, especially without the power of a church behind it, and I am not in favor of increasing the power of religion, so, yes, once again you may be right that there is no real solution.
Also, "young people should get married and start families young" and also "young people are totally screwed, the economy is terrible, no one can buy a house" - I read Scott's "vibecession" post and I am still not sure how much to believe about how bad the economy and the future really is but it does seem rather bleak for a young couple starting out without a lot of money.
All of which is to say, I mostly don't disagree with your proposals per se, and I mostly agree they can't really happen.
In the alternative, the proposals I mostly see amount to varying levels of coercion, and mostly this is directed at women. Ranging from "Be more mean to them and make them settle" to "Be really mean to them and make them property."
As much as I dislike the rabid bad faith feminists calling any man who has standards and expectations a sexist incel, you can kind of see why they react like this when you see their opposite numbers. There are quite a few men who hate women and are very clear that they consider women to be inferior beings who should just acknowledge their inferiority and suck it up (literally). We have some of them here on the Motte, and their he-man woman-hating screeds get lots of upvotes. A woman who's had a few encounters with these men (who also make it very clear they want to fuck the women they hate) is understandably going to develop a negative attitude about men and a paranoid attitude about any proposal that smells like "control women."
I dunno, man. But nothing any of the he-man woman-haters say has ever convinced me the solution is to hate/control women, or that I should feel anything but contempt for incels. I am not really averse to a "neotraditional" revival of some kind, but like you, I don't see how it can be done.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Yeah, I've already addressed this to our snarky friend. Historically it wasn't really settle or starve, but it was settle or probably have an impoverished and empty life. My issue is, as I said, with modern incels and incel-adjacents who say things like "If a woman won't be led, she won't be fed."
Here on the Motte, some of them have a fondness for saying things like "maybe we should use what worked for 5000 years..." and if you read what they are proposing, it's basically that. Yes, they have a myopic, ahistorical view of the history of sex relations ( even ancient tribal societies did not resemble Tarnsmen of Gor).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
What you stated, specifically about what I have expressed, was incorrect.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
Too many to count; the issue is that, like face guy's proposals, you'll reject them because they involve some measure of browbeating prescribed to non-men.
Nope, wrong. Don't presume to project sentiments onto me contrary to what I expressed.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
2d ago
I think of all the modernisms about the history of men and women that breaks my heart the most, this is probably it. Women only did it to not starve.
I don't actually think this was literally the case! Though certainly the situation for an unmarried woman was pretty dire in previous eras. Maybe not quite starvation level, but there is a reason so much Regency and Victorian literature was about women trying to find a husband before they aged out of any hope of doing better than seamstress or nanny.
It's the modern guys who have, I assure you, here on the Motte and elsewhere, been more or less explicit about wishing women had to settle in order to eat. Granted some of them may be ironic or trying to be edgy. I certainly hope most of them don't really want women to choose between dick and starving. But there are a fair number whom I believe are pretty literal.
There's nothing to be done. You can't have a solution that isn't just browbeating men that doesn't involve some level of browbeating non-men. It's impossible.
Okay, but what's your solution that involves browbeating both men and women? As I told @faceh, that's basically been the line taken by most religions, and yet here we are. So do you propose morality laws, taking away all benefits for non-married or childless couples, or what? Some variation of those things has been tried also, with little success.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Are you spending much time around people who are ages 20-29? They're the ones reporting the most problems
Yeah, actually. Most of my younger coworkers are actively dating and/or getting married.
Maybe I am in a very unusual bubble, but I actually don't think so.
Stop sending so many women to college.
As a practical matter, how do you propose to do this? We don't "send" women to college, they choose to go.
If your solution is "Campaign on social reform that encourages fewer women to go to college and more women to get married young and have children," okay, I don't object to that in principle, but if churches are failing to sell that message, how will you?
If your solution is "Don't let them go to college," well, no, I'm not going to jump on board the "Make women property again" Jimbus.
Do this by making it harder to get student loans in general, going back to before the 1993 Student Loan Reform Act.
Okay, I'll buy that. I doubt it will actually reduce the number of women who want to go to college. It might reduce the number of women who go to college for Afro-Queer Anti-Colonialism Studies.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.
Women are, and they reject it.
You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.
I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.
We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..
Comparing 2025 to 1925 has so many conflating factors that trying to reduce men's dating woes to "Women have become too selective" is like saying our modern economic woes are because we moved off the gold standard. There may even be a degree to which that is true, but someone harping about the gold standard as the reason for everything wrong with the economy today is ... probably not seeing things clearly. Yes, women today can be more selective than they were in 1925. What are the reasons for that? I imagine you don't like your position being reduced to "Women should be forced to settle or starve," but how else to interpret "The problem is that women today don't have to get married to a man they don't particularly like"?
Despite being non-religious, I don't entirely disagree that "the Christian standard" had certain advantages, and I give you credit for arguing that we should impose the old rules on men as well as women-- if we force women to settle, we should also force men to stop alleycatting. But I don't really think we can do either without reverting to a level of authoritarianism we didn't have even then. Given that most people are not as religious as they used to be, and without a religious justification, you're basically going to have to impose state-mandated dating controls. Sounds like a cure worse than the disease.
So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.
So you keep saying. Women would argue that the problem is with men. We could go back and forth on to what degree this is self-centered female narcissism (your preferred theory) and to what degree this is men being of genuinely lower quality and women not actually needing to settle to avoid starving. You hate "men need to step up," but some men really do need to step up, and by that I do not mean they need to wife up carousel-riding Cathy at age 35, but I mean I see a hell of a lot of men who don't really bring much to the table at all other than "Penis, not a drug user (unless you count weed), has a job." Why would a woman want to settle for that if she doesn't have to? Why would you settle for that level of pickings?
I honestly do not see men who actually have something going for them unable to find a partner.
Assuming, of course, that their standards are not too high... You don't want fat Sally the checkout clerk or carousel-riding Cathy, fine. You insist on a 20-something slim attractive virgin who is agreeable and submissive? Hmm, good luck if you're not a 6/6/6. (Or a Mormon.)
I don't know what else to tell ya. If the solution to this was to browbeat men, we'd have solved it a long time ago because that's all men get from every angle is constant browbeating.
I don't think the solution is to "browbeat" men, but I think moral disapprobation on both sexes has been implemented, historically. That horse is out of the barn. Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Although we've argued about this in the past, I don't disagree with you, in very broad strokes, about your key points. Women's expectations have gone up, women's desirability has gone down, and a lot of people are finding it hard to find a partner. I think the reasons are actually a lot more complicated and multi-faceted than "Women are unreasonably picky (bitches) and aren't willing to settle," but sure, that's part of it.
I am going to repeat one point that I have brought up before and add another one I haven't:
"I'm actually perfectly fine with marrying a man who is not exceptional in any particular way, as long as he fulfills his role as a man."
This kind of sugarcoats the whole notion of "settling." You're right, most women would not agree to that statement. How many men would agree to that (gender-swapped) statement? Probably more men than women, because yes, there are men who will settle for literally any willing pussy, while there aren't many women whose sole criteria is "penis." But there are not many men who would really be happy about settling for a woman who just checks the "sex, mother" boxes and nothing else.
(Caveat: Obviously I am talking about the West here. We know that in many parts of the world, "vagina and fertile" are indeed the only criteria men have. Are those cultures models we would wish to emulate?)
So how about being likeable as a person, being attractive and pleasant, being smart or at least sensible? (As Mr. Knightly said in the very redpilled era of 1816: "Men of sense do not want silly wives.") Most men don't want to settle either, even if their standards for "settling" are lower than the average woman's. Not to belabor the stereotype about incels thinking their obese cheeto-crumbed-neckbeards are entitled to a hot fit young blowjob enthusiast, but it's hard to avoid the impression that it do be like that from many of the most vocal grievance-mongers. This is somewhat unfair, but it's also somewhat unfair to just write off women as being unreasonably picky bitches who will not settle for less than the "three sixes". Both these stereotypes exist, but you keep bringing up things like the OKCupid survey (from, like, 15 years ago), which given the limited and narrow datasets (the attractiveness surveys, IIRC, mostly ask people to rate based on photographs alone) do not convince me you really have evidence that "50% of men are invisible to all women" and that no women will "settle" for a guy who is just a basically decent, normal man.
My other point:
Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.
On the one hand: sure. If it is true (big if) that chubby grocery clerk Sally is waiting for her 6/6/6 chad to marry her and let her live her life as a TikTok-watching SAHM, Sally should really adjust her expectations. But your notion that women should "make their desires comply with reality" really gives me "If you don't find fat/black/trans women attractive, you should work on yourself!" vibes. I know you are not saying that, but you are saying something in that ballpark: that people are responsible for who and what they find attractive and should be willing to change their attraction for the social good. That is going to be a pretty hard lift for anyone.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
Coffee_enjoyer has a rather simplistic view of this stuff, but yours is pure denial.
No.
Epic poetry was born as a means of exploring and understanding violence, not moralizing about it
Yes.
I don't deny we glorify and celebrate war, but as a means, not an end.
It's only with fairly advanced civilization we even get the concept that this violence could be bad in itself, instead of merely situationally unacceptable
That was my point.
Chimps do violence for the sake of violence (and because their instincts tell them to, because there's a lot of evolutionary hardwiring).
We should prefer not to live in a society of chimps. That doesn't mean castrating men. We can still acknowledge the evolutionary hardwiring.
I don't want to "beat down" boys, but anyone who celebrates violence for the sake of violence and revels in pain and suffering and destroying what others have built is a chimp.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
War. Why do you think this is a gotcha?
War is a means to an end and we sing songs about it, but
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
You’re not coming up with any direct or circumstantial evidence to forward your theory, though.
And yours is just "My feels."
I think you have no idea what either the average Swede or the average Somali feels, only just- so stories to flatter your preconceived notions. You just make stuff up, throw it at the wall, and pontificate about "explanatory power" when you're just starting at a desirable conclusion and working backwards to construct a theory.
That's why I specified morally objectionable. I don't have to think it should be illegal to think someone who does that is a shitty person. I can legally draw a picture of your wife fucking a horse and post it online. Even if you couldn't press charges, you'd probably want to punch me, and most people would think I deserve it.
More options
Context Copy link