Amadan
I will be here longer than you
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
6hr ago
We are not cops, and we are often not unanimous. In the event of a serious disagreement, we will very occasionally undo a previous decision, but no one "overstepped his bounds." Mods are autonomous; we will often consult with one another when we're unsure of the most appropriate course of action, but sometimes we'll just act because no one else is around. Sometimes afterwards one of us will say "Eh, maybe that was too much."
You're getting transparency here because I value that, but it's not an invitation to demand a humiliation ritual because you think a mod made a bad call.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
7hr ago
You should really try reading an entire post before jumping on your keyboard to Au Contraire Mon Frer now and then.
If you had, you'd see I am indeed not blaming him for restating his original message with more words.
I am blaming him for prefacing it with the "drooling retards" crack.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
7hr ago
I asked @ZorbaTHut, and apparently that is how it works currently. He might change it so that mods can't be blocked, but for now, that's how it is.
So if Whining gets banned because he ignored my warning... ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
(No, blocking does not make you immune to banning.)
11 reports so far. 2 of them "Quality Contributions" from the usual "AAQC anything that drops a hot steaming turd on the floor" reporters. (To be fair, a couple of negative reports from people who negatively report everything they don't like, as well.)
So just to peel back the curtain a bit, there was a lot of mod discussion about your earlier post, and several of us (including me) thought it really didn't warrant a ban. We didn't roll it back (as we did last time) because it was just one day. However, I predicted you'd come back super angry and spoiling for a fight, and here we are.
I think you're actually hoping you eat another ban, because you really like to feel persecuted. But despite your repeated claims that the mod team (and me specifically) are out to get you, this is not true.
The points you make here are valid, including that it's okay to say "I believe there are no viable political solutions or legal solutions left." You can even talk about the potential/likelihood/sad inevitability of political violence. We're not going to ease up on modding anything that even smells like fedposting, but yes, I think you got an unnecessary timeout (even if you did, as is your wont, come back shrieking like the child who screams bloody murder because he got a tap). And for that reason, I'm going to let this:
(Drooling Retard Edition with words, words, words fo the slow kids in the back who have hammers they can't be trusted with)
go.
This time.
But to be clear, this is unacceptable and if I didn't think you'd already kind of gotten a ban you didn't deserve, I'd ban you for this. You do not get to call us drooling retards no matter how indignant you are.
Anyway, since you've blocked me, you won't read this, which doesn't mean it won't apply in the future. So be it.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
Talking about fundraisers is comparable but peripheral.
It's not peripheral to what we're actually talking about here. I really don't care to relitigate the Rittenhouse case. What @FCfromSSC pointed out was that the legal defense fund for Rittenhouse was shut down, whereas the legal defend fund for Karmelo Anthony was not.
No matter how wrong or guilty you think Rittenhouse was, would you not agree that he was entitled to a legal defense? And that people who sympathized with him had the right to donate to it? And that it would be wrong to decide whose legal defense funds people are or are not allowed to donate to?
Regardless of which of us comes out the victor, either of us could be plausibly at fault.
Yes, of course the facts of the case are going to matter a lot, and we can construct hypotheticals where pulling a knife when being threatened by fists would be considered justifiable. But most of the time, it's not.
I am not rushing to judgment on the Karmelo Anthony case, because often some details emerge over time that change what everyone thinks they know, but based on what I've heard so far, if a teenager pulls a knife and stabs another teenager who was threatening, or even shoving him, I would expect him to have a hard time making a convincing case that it was justified.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
The situations at hand are neither symmetric nor complementary.
I'm on the record as saying that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there but his acquittal was correct. That said, c'mon, while no two situations are exactly equivalent, they seem close enough to me. At least close enough that arguing that a fundraiser for Rittenhouse's legal defense was illegitimate while fundraising for Anthony is legitimate sure makes me raise my eyebrows, and I'm not an accelerationist.
Personally speaking, I do martial arts, and I would consider pulling a knife on someone who wants to throw hands a reasonable, proportionate act.
I do martial arts also, and I predict you'd be facing an unsympathetic DA and a very tough jury if you did that. "People can be killed with bare hands!" Yes, but it's very uncommon, and pulling a lethal weapon is an obvious escalation and most courts will see it that way.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
or else you have to admit you hold beliefs purely because they’re convenient for you and that you’re okay with letting your less fortunate peers sink.
I think this has always been Scott.
I came to SSC because I liked his writing and he sometimes had some good insights. But he's always been the guy you're seeing today.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
I'm not saying Scott used to be a firebrand. But it shouldn't be surprising that getting married and establishing a career means he's not as willing to stick his hand into the fire. Hence everyone complaining about him losing his edge and not writing bangers like he used to.
That said, I never thought he was courageous or even particularly principled. He's always been a squish and something of a coward, and it surprises me that people are surprised by this now.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
2d ago
Who's "us"?
I agree Scott got soft, but stability and family making you more mellow and less of a firebrand is an eternal cycle, it's how things are supposed to be. It's why Kulak in his incessant calls for violence never actually talks about building things, starting families, falling in love, having children. Men who have lives and families to care about don't want to burn down the world.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
I can extend enough charity to believe you actually believe this, but this is such an inaccurate description of reality I am tempted to give the Luke Skywalker TLJ quote.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
3d ago
Not a warning, but I'm seeing an increase in "I don't believe you really believe what you're saying/you are who you say you are" accusations lately, and it really poisons the discourse. Yes, we get trolls and sock puppets and some people may be pretending to be more principled than they are, but this forum is by its nature anonymous and no one is going to show you their Internet CV. Take people at face value if you choose to argue with them, or have a reason beyond "vibes" to accuse them of dissembling.
I'm not saying you might not be right, but this kind of purity testing and challenging someone's not-a-basic-bitch-lib bonafides is worse than either sincere engagement or choosing not to engage even if someone is being insincere. You cannot read anyone's mind.
I will note also (before @SteveAgain screams at me) that this is not a right wing or "anti woke" forum, even if that describes the majority of posters, and a leftist "Orange man bad" redditor is actually allowed to participate here, if they can follow the rules.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
Right, so I have to deal with this one too.
There are two issues here: (1) the post itself, and (2) your history.
The post itself is just a rather sneering boo-outgroup directed at Nick Fuentes and his supporters. You are certainly allowed to have a negative opinion about any particular group (Fuentes fans, the Alt-Right, Democrats, Neo-Nazis, MAGA, Muslims, blacks, moderators on the Motte, etc.) and you can talk about why you have a negative opinion of them. But the combination of lazy insults ("Fuentards") and assertions without evidence (I have no idea if Fuentes is homosexual or an FBI informant or whatever, but if you want to throw those accusations out there, you should back them up with something beyond repeating Internet memes) is not a good way to criticize a group you dislike. Once again I am making no judgment about the claims themselves or based on what I personally think of Nick Fuentes and his crowd. We just don't want to see people dropping lines like "Fuentards" into conversation; it does nothing but poison the discussion. On rdrama that may be funny, but this isn't rdrama.
Now, regarding you. You are one of our worst posters. You have acquired a rap sheet so long I have to use to the scroll button. Last couple of reports were basically "Last chance." Honestly, I think I should permaban you because you're inevitably going to keep coming back to shit up the place. But I am loathe to permaban someone for what would normally just incur a warning, even taking your history into account. I will probably regret this- this is not an invitation to come back and post something really bad so I can permaban you with prejudice. But I am giving you a one-week ban this time, and if (when) you get modded in the future, it will very likely be your last.
@hanikrummihundursvin, next time report the post, don't whine publicly, and you've been here long enough to know that we are not on call for you 24/7.
They don't. They are simply lying. Yes, it is my belief that to say Garcia was "denied due process" is a lie.
Okay, coming in to this late because I was hoping someone else would address it.
This is really skirting the line. You may sincerely believe that literally no one actually believes Garcia was denied due process. If so, you are engaging in a complete failure to extend even a little bit of charity or theory of the mind to people who think differently from you, including (obviously) people here in this forum. Even if you didn't directly address them, you're clearly addressing this at them. Coming as close as you think you can get away with to "Anyone who disagrees with me on this is a liar."
Besides obviously being intended as a slap delivered to anyone arguing the opposite, it's simply very poor argumentation. You don't have to steelman every argument you disagree with, but you should at least keep in mind that very often people really do believe the things they say they believe, and saying "No, you can't actually believe that, you're just lying" is a cheap dodge to avoid defending your own position or addressing theirs. It never produces good discussion, and here it just inevitably leads to clusterfuck threads where people are trying to get their digs in to express how much contempt they feel for the other side.
Note that I am not trying to rule on the object level claim here- I have read the same breakdowns of the Garcia case as everyone else and the situation is, at best, fuzzy. I am sure there are people arguing in bad faith. I'm sure there are people who really believe what they say, regardless of how well-founded their beliefs are.
Despite all the upvotes, you also got reported six times and the "volunteer janny" banner seems to agree with me that this post was borderline, since it keeps alternating between "bad" and "not bad."
In my opinion, this is a bad post because while the rest of it was fine, the very first sentence was its purpose, and that purpose was just to tell off your enemies because you're angry.
ETA: and to @UrgentSloth and @Thoroughlygruntled, who were so thoroughly disgruntled that I modded the "Fuck you" in response to this post but did not mod this post. My initial opinion on this post was that it was borderline. I don't like people calling other people liars, but you are allowed to believe that other people are lying. You are allowed to have negative opinions about your opponents. You have to be civil about it, no matter how uncivil you are actually feeling, but this was borderline.
I did not mod @HighResolutionSleep right away because I kind of wanted another mod who hadn't already intervened in this thread to make the call. But three days later it's still sitting in the queue with six reports and a controversial vote count so someone had to say something, or just dismiss it, and well, I wanted to say something because I agree that "Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar" is not good discourse. So don't do that. Also, don't tell someone off with a "Fuck you" because they are not engaging in good discourse. ESH.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
4d ago
You are not in any way improving the discourse.
The purpose of this forum is not to see how deeply you can stick a knife in, it is not to wittily express how stupid you think someone is, it is not to "score wins" by poking as hard as you think you can get away with because you think someone is a dum-dum or wrong and bad and you really want to make sure they know you think this. This is not a place where the goal is to flex and demonstrate your verbal agility in the field of battle. (Your ideas are supposed to do the fighting, not your sizzling zingers.) If that is what you believe and that's what you want to do, you should not be here.
In your short time here, you've already been warned a couple of times, and looking at your post history, it's full of snideness, sarcasm, and low effort dunk shots that I'm sure you think "really told him."
Hey, you know what would really stick it to the gay trans furry PC master Hot Topic race? You completing your argument.
you shamelessly ducked
But you apparently don't have an arrow in your quiver
Big fat L.
Nah man you shamelessly ducked. Massive L.
If you keep posting like this, first you will get a temporary ban to let you decide if that's what you want to keep doing and whether you want to stay here, and if you don't adjust your style of engagement, we will remove that choice from you.
tldr: this isn't Twitter, shape up.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Your predictions have yet to be accurate. So yes, you're just wrong and misinformed. This isn't the first time you've said some pretty ridiculous and demonstrably far from reality things about the mod team. Wherever you are getting your information, you should consider updating.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
You realize literally in the last 24 hours I've been accused of giving passes to "my side" by both leftists and rightists?
Do tell me, what is "my side"?
People are allowed to make arguments you dislike, even poor arguments.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
We notice the influx of new posters and we often have suspicions about new accounts.
That said, it's not conducive to actually drawing in new members if people start publicly accusing every new poster with a hot take of being a bot or a sock or a troll.
You can report suspicious accounts. But even when we're fairly sure someone is a returning alt we usually don't take action immediately if their behavior doesn't immediately throw red flags.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
We are not asleep. Sometimes there is discussion, and sometimes one mod would prefer someone else decide what to do about a comment because if that mod (me) takes action it will be a permaban.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
Cool. When we tell people not to make low effort assertions without evidence, we are not saying "I don't believe you; prove it to me. We are saying that when you assert things with low effort one liners, proactively provide the evidence.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
5d ago
This adds nothing. Make an actual point, don't just sputter angrily.
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
6d ago
Well, you are right that the question is fundamentally whether trans women are a special category of women or a special category of men, and we simply disagree there.
That being said, I still think that putting trans women in women's prisons is more unjust and hazardous to women than keeping them in men's prisons is hazardous to them, at least without much more stringent requirements about who's allowed to identify as trans so they can go to a women's prison.
So I have actually looked at the images in Gender Queer. I would not call them "erotica." It's supposed to be a coming-of-age novel about a queer kid experimenting with sex acts that she ultimately finds unappealing.
Would I want my pre-teen kids to read it? No. It definitely should be age-restricted. But "This shouldn't even exist in a public library" seems a bit much.
Influencing my opinion is the fact that I distinctly remember books like Flowers in the Attic and the John Norman Gor series existing in my school library when I was a kid. Now maybe you can make a case that text is less harmful/dangerous than images, but I would contest that. Those books had some fucked up themes and scenes, and the sex scenes weren't even explicit.
More options
Context Copy link