@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

So.. the Straits of Hormuz are actually open and Iran is just talking shit? There is no threat to shipping, nobody is paying tolls, insurance rates are not being jacked up, oil prices are not being affected, a US military presence is not necessary because the Iranian military no longer exists, and this is all fake news, we can go home and declare victory and ignore anything Iran says about shipping?

That is fantastic news!

BMI 25-30 is historically unusual. Reubensque figures have often been considered attractive; modern obese Americans are not.

Being slightly plump might increase your overall longevity, but relative to other factors, I'll take not fat and active over fat and sedentary. Attractiveness is subjective but whatever heroin chic fashion might have been in style in the 90s, I got really sick of seeing FA advocates argue that humans naturally are fat and some Pacific island tribe proves that obese women are actually sexy.

I think the issue is that most trans people don't feel that the outside view is operating in good faith.

Well, that's one of the issues. And to be sure, a lot of trans opposition is religion-based, or just gut level "Ewww!" reactions, which I agree just use any "diagnosis" of transness as not real as post hoc justification.

However, any attempts at actual diagnostic accuracy have been summarily rejected by the trans movement. Jesse Singhal is a tragic case study: he is despised by the trans community almost as much as JK Rowling, because his whole thing is deep dives into studies and data analysis, in which he consistently shows that trans studies tend to suffer from all kinds of shoddy methodology. And despite the fact that he's about as liberal as they come and repeatedly asserts his support for trans rights, he is accused of being, like JK Rowling, a fascist who wants to see trans children dead in the streets.

So while I understand the mistrust you might have for a generally hostile "outside view," the fact that you take it for granted that any negative conclusion must be bad faith and born of hostility rather than clinical assessment means that there isn't really any way to find some common rational basis for settling trans issues.

And as I've said before, I think the actual issue is trans right supporters being unwilling to confront the bad faith actors in their own camp. People like (presumably) you who just want to live your lives and would trouble no one would be mostly accepted even by the majority of the population who doesn't really believe your gender self-identification is real. But you have a small but vocal group that does things like dress like Cormac McCarthy's hellish parade of Commanches and behaves in the most aggressive, male manner possible while screaming that they "don't owe anyone femininity" and you will call them she/her/they. You have trans women who make a point of inserting themselves into every female space they can, from lesbian dating apps to Girl Guides, just to make a crusade out of crushing the expected resistance. And you have the grifters and the "pornsick men" who are obviously, obviously autogynephiles and getting off on making other people (pretend to) see them as women, and in many cases making people pretend to see the emperor's new clothes is part of their delight in the experience.

It should not be surprising that these highly visible faces of the trans movement make a greater impression on trans opponents than the folks who "just want to pee."

It is not comically trivial. This is the sort of problem the Wellness thread is for.

Is having skin in the game a reason to trust your self-read more, or less?

If people were able to be real and honest with themselves and their self-intuitions were reliable, we would not have such a booming therapeutic/self-help industry. No, in my opinion most people are actually pretty bad at knowing themselves. Of course they think they do. Who wants to admit that their self-image bears no resemblance to reality, or that how other people see them might be more accurate than how they see themselves?

Intelligent, assured, and emotionally stable people don't have to worry about this much, and may not understand just how many people are not all of those things.

This doesn't mean there are no trans people who really and truly experience gender dysphoria and an internal sense that their gender is different than their biological sex. Whether or not that is "real" in the sense of being a thing that exists outside their mind, it's real enough to cause genuine distress and I'm sympathetic. But no, I don't think every one of them is really and truly what they perceive themselves to be and the best judge of what their "real" sex is just because they feel it.

There was a time, many years ago, where one of my weird fascinations was the fat acceptance movement (this was early days, when they were still pretty fringe). I was into health and fitness at the time, after having lost a considerable amount of weight myself. I started reading the forums of people who initially fell into this subculture because, well, they were fat, they were unhappy about it, but losing weight is hard. As you might imagine, the levels of cope and rationalization would give trans people some serious competition. Every pseudo-scientific and psychological theory under the sun to explain why losing weight and keeping it off is absolutely and totally impossible and never works, which leads to elaborate theories of socialization to explain that actually, being fat is sexy and normal and it's just our modern society that's stigmatized fat.

Anyway, as you might imagine, many, many people would cruise by and ("helpfully" or otherwise) tell them they were delusional and/or there are actually ways to lose weight. A common refrain from the FA people was essentially what trans people say: "How dare you presume that you know more about our bodies than we do?"

Thing is, yeah, a lot of people actually did know more about their bodies than they did, because the things they thought about their bodies were mostly unscientific cope that flew in the face of reality. Plus the mundane things, like I can't count how many times I've read about someone who weighs 300 or 400 pounds insisting that they literally ate 800 calories and did 2 hours of exercise daily for weeks and physically could not lose weight. No, I am not exaggerating, I have seen those literal numbers quoted. And sometimes much less extreme, but still clearly unrealistic, figures. The degree to which all of these people really believed this, I cannot say, but I'm sure some of them did somehow manage to convince themselves that the bags of chips and bottles of soda and extra whip mocha frappucinos didn't "count."

I think in many ways they are very similar to trans people: they feel something is wrong about their bodies, they would like to change it, but change is hard and difficult, especially when it's your own thinking that needs to change, so instead, they decide it's other people's perceptions that should change.

There are many people I dislike and would not be sorry to see go. I personally consider it gauche to celebrate death, even someone like Putin or the Ayatollah, though I certainly wouldn't be sad about them. But first of all, wartime deaths are fundamentally different. Second, I'm talking about people who are happy to say they think someone deserves to die for being on the "wrong" side politically. Or even openly advocating for violence.

Sigh. Look man, modhat off.

You're getting reported a lot, of course, but none of your posts are really rule-breaking, they are just... obnoxious. Because you're doing this schtick where "no one actually celebrated Charlie Kirk's death" (yes they fucking did) and the left wing media atmosphere is definitely as tuned to outrage slop as the right wing one. I don't think you are a troll or a Darwin alt, but you generally do not post good or interesting thoughts, just very weak equivocations. As someone who's been accused of that myself because of my squishy liberal sensibilities (now decaying like a gangrenous sore), what offends me about your posturing it that it often seems fundamentally disingenuous and I don't trust that you are being entirely sincere and not just trying to farm outraged responses yourself.

I am aware a lot of the celebratory posts about Charlie Kirk getting shot were obtained by skimming the worst people on X and reddit, which is always a goldmine of really bad takes if you're trying to assemble a wall of Chinese Robber mugshots, LibsOfTikTok style. But in my own social media orbit (i.e., people I know), I saw a lot of takes along the lines of "Well, murder is bad, but he did cause harm to marginalized people..." Or a smirking repost of his quote about how the 2A was worth a few dead children.

Do I personally know people who would outright celebrate an assassination? Noo... but a whole lot who would "read the news with pleasure."

I think this is bad and cause for worry and it's why I tend to put a boot on "fedposting," even if @gattsuru thinks I am overzealous about it. People who celebrate death, who advocate murder, who think it's funny when someone on the "other side" dies, who want violence, are bad people.

Zorba never expressed a fear of being served a warrant or asked me to mod fedposters to prevent that from happening. That was me saying "Let's not post things that could result in Zorba being served a warrant," so blame me, not him.

Nowhere do I see examples of your claim at the top that we (moderators) or I (specifically) prohibit fedposting "only for one political allegiance."

I will generally put on the modhat whenever someone is threatening violence or being too explicit about wanting someone or some group to die. Whether or not I actually think Zorba is likely to be served a warrant.

If in your database of Every Fucking Thing Amadan Has Ever Posted, there is a time I came down on a leftie less vigorously than I came down on a rightie for posting something similar, I will say with all sincerity that it was not intentional, I try my level human best to be fair and even-handed regardless of political allegiance, and if I fail, it's because my memory is as fallible as I am. I don't keep a spreadsheet of times I modded righties and lefties and how many days I gave them, respectively, for "fedposting."

If Ken White went on his "Someone should kill Elon Musk" rant here on the Motte, I would definitely have modded him.

The Big Stick is when you get banned. I am not amused that you think this is a joke.

Well, I understand your opinion. I think you're wrong and honestly, being a little silly here, but I am not trying to persuade you to be either a rationalist or a stoic.

You seem more invested in the conflict than I am, but it doesn't bother me. While I wouldn't call myself a "stoic rationalist" or a "rationalist stoic," I wouldn't scoff at the label.

I think the part that hangs you up is the discipline of stoicism I find the least relevant, that of Physics, concerning the nature of God. I find stoicism more interesting in its mental practices and its connection to CBT.

I'm aware they are different philosophies, though I disagree that they "could not be more different." I find them similar in their systemic approaches. As I said, I don't identify with either or take either one as ground truth about the nature of reality.

If someone annoys you and you don't have a substantive rebuttal, blowing raspberries is not constructive. Knock it off.

All(most) rationalists are atheists, but not all atheists are rationalists.

I think rationalism is kind of like stoicism (both philosophies I like and try to practice, though I don't really "identify" as either a rationalist or a stoic) - the basic outlines are unobjectionable and sensible, and more people would benefit by them, but the more fine-grained you get, the harder it is to be a "true" rationalist/stoic. Nobody can act with pure rationalism or stoicism all the time, and the more seriously you take it the more you become entangled in questions of "what is the real rationalist/stoic answer, anyway?"

More effort/commentary, please.

The mods don't really know what to do about it either. We don't have a lot of levers to use that won't just disincentivize posting in general.

A Gish Gallop is not a long post meandering in several different directions. A Gish Gallop is making an argument and then backing it up with a barrage of weak arguments and dubious facts, none of which really hold up if examined closely, but which are hard to address en masse because the arguer can keep switching from one point to the other ("Okay, you say Not A, but I notice you didn't even address B, C, and D, why is that? Hah!")

You are mostly just expressing your personal preference as to what type of posts you'd like to see. I don't entirely disagree with you, but we aren't going to require people to "only post about one thing at a time."

As for upvotes and downvotes, that's unfortunately an inevitable result of evaporative cooling. I would say the Motte is still more ideologically diverse than the average forum or social media site, but the number of people willing to post long posts about their hobby horses is becoming narrower, and upvotes mostly reflect the general attitude towards those hobbyhorses (generally, "right good, left bad").

Way too much generalizing.

"My enemies want bad things and hate good things" is a fat raspberry, not a coherent or accurate description of everyone on "the Left."

Back when interest rates were 2%-3%, a 30-year mortgage was practically free money, but today, if you can afford the house you want with a 15-year mortgage, it will save you a large amount in total payouts. Most people take 30-year mortgages so they can afford more house.

Some people will say take the 30-year mortgage and make double payments when you can afford them, which saves you almost as much but allows flexibility should your finances become strained. That works, but requires financial discipline, and if you can comfortably afford the 15-year rate, it's still a better deal.

Sure. But I think you are pointing at a different problem than what dogma is focused on.

It's a very basic concept that isn't being used pedophilia. If you don't have this concept, you have to accept the Orwellian newspeak idea that in California, 17 year olds can't consent.

I think everyone understands that age of consent laws are arbitrary and when the law says someone can legally consent does not necessarily correlate to when someone actually has enough agency to consent. Age of consent various from state to state and from country to country, and everyone knows this does not mean that teenagers in Alabama are ready for sex earlier than teenagers in California. This is no less true of age restrictions on everything else, from driving to enlisting to signing a loan.

Inventing a concept like "scientific consent" just sounds suspiciously like an attempt to punt. Even if you and I agree that five-year-olds cannot meaningfully consent and most 17-year-olds can, if you reject age-constricted consent and you just want go on vibes, the door is open, yes, for someone to argue that a five-year-old has enough awareness and agency to consent. (If you think this is absurd, enjoy some Piers Anthony).

Yes, I know what prepubescent means.

My point is not that being thirsty for a barely-legal anime character makes someone a pedophile, my point is that splitting hairs over the exact age (or technical age, hence the thousand-year-old dragon meme) and secondary sex characteristics of a character clearly drawn to be childlike fits a certain archetype.

Misuzu Kamio is not prepubescent.

No idea who this is (other than a Google search telling me she's some kind of reincarnated moe light novel character) but that's some real "She's actually a thousand-year-old dragon" energy.

Being scientifically able to consent means you can understand what is going on and make an informed decision.

Look, I don't love @FtttG's call-out (@FtttG: Argue with the OP directly if you take issue with his statements, do not play the "Reminder: OP is a bad person!" game). But you aren't exactly beating the rap here. "Scientific consent" seems to be something you made up, in the way that people who want to make up terms to justify something that would otherwise be hard to justify will do. It has no legal (or scientific) basis. "Can understand what is going on and make an informed decision" rests entirely on how we define "understand" and "informed," and having unfortunately seen some interviews with actual pedophiles, they will absolutely argue that 5-year-olds can understand and consent to sexual relations. 12-year-olds certainly think they can understand and consent to sexual relations. So if your definition of consent rests on the expressed internal mental state of a child, you are going to be defending the premise that essentially anyone who's verbal can consent.

So look, I am not going to ding you for riding your hobby horse, as annoying as it is. But this entire post is nothing but reposting what some X-personality says. I don't know who Thuletide is or why we should care what he thinks. Is he noteworthy, famous, is there some reason why his thoughts about banging teenagers are interesting? When someone posts a Happening from Twitter that has CW significance and is making the rounds, we'll usually allow a thread about it (we prefer the OP at least frame it with some context and some thoughts of their own), but not only did you not do the latter, but this is literally just "Here is some dude on the Internet with hot takes I agree with."

If you want to write an effort post with your thoughts on the gynocracy preventing older men from accessing nubile fertile young females carefully selected for their evolutionary fitness, go ahead and write that post, but if you just want to repost the resentful yammerings of randos, I will point you to Leave the rest of the Internet at the door:

In keeping with the rules above regarding "low-effort" and "weak-man" comments, and our goal to produce more light than heat, we ask that you refrain from posting bare links to culture-war-related discussions held outside of this sub. If you are going to link to another platform we ask that you please put in the work to contextualize the post and explain why it is relevant to readers of this community.

IOW, "random person said something on twitter" by itself is not really worth of a top-level post.