@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

Don't engage if that's how you feel.

Okay, so like Dean said, how would you know I'm not lying? Do you think that's how it works? You can catch a fed by asking them a question they aren't allowed to answer?

We can swap insults all day if you want and the mods will tolerate it

No, we won't. You and @Sloot both need to knock it off.

I have no idea what Dean does or does not know. I do know that regardless of what "everyone knows," the number of people who actually know the answers to questions like that is pretty small. No, there's no general law applying to US citizens regarding Israel.

Probably. Why are you asking me?

Oh, stop making assumptions and stop being paranoid. Anyone who's ever brushed up against the military or government contracting knows how classified information works.

If he isn't allowed to say it in a public forum, then he shouldn't be arguing the subject in a public forum, right?

You can make arguments based on things you can't prove. Other people can point out that your argument depends on something unverified.

I don't want to ban you.

But if the Jews on the Motte can cope with all the Joo-posters saying "The Holocaust didn't happen and it's good that it did," you can cope with some misogyny without losing it every time.

I told you already, argue without the condescension and ad hominems.

And you do realize that someone who is actually in a position to know the real answer to "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" would not be allowed to say so in public forum, right?

At a certain point, pushing the button repeatedly is just annoying to everyone. You've made your point.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

, 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.

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.

I wasn't thinking of you, for what it's worth, nor do I classify everyone who is anti-feminist as a woman-hater.

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.

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).