@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
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 23, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are too many variables to make any absolute rules. How stable is your job? How much of an emergency fund do you have built up? How long do you expect to stay in the house? The calculations if you think being laid off is not entirely implausible and you intend to upsize to a larger house in the future are entirely different than if you're near retirement and expect this to be your "forever home." Do you have kids? Do you have a spouse contributing to the mortgage? If you are worried about risk, then the big questions are "What could happen to reduce my income, and how would I pay my mortgage if that happens?"


A 15-year mortgage is usually tougher to swing unless you're buying way less house than you can afford. A lot of people will tell you take the 30-year mortgage and make extra payments. If you can keep that up, the net result is like taking a 15-year-mortgage but with the flexibility to make lower payments if you run into financial difficulty. The downside is that you're still paying a higher interest rate, so it's not as economical as if you'd taken the 15-year mortgage.


28% of your gross income on a 30-year-mortgage seems a little high, but is probably okay if you feel your income is secure and you can swing it even if you start putting kids through college or something. 25% of your net is pretty conservative, but if I could have bought a house with 25% of my net with a 15-year-mortgage I'd have grabbed it. Unfortunately, in my area houses like that are probably either major fixer-uppers or in terrible neighborhoods.


The big mistake most people make with buying a house is either taking a mortgage they are one or two missed paychecks away from going into default on, or buying on the assumption that it will appreciate and they can easily sell it if they suddenly need to downsize. Winding up underwater when you badly need to sell (as happened to many people in 2008) is a bad place to be.


Big problem with the housing market right now is that lots of people are sitting on their 2-3% mortgages from pre-2020 (which are unlikely to happen again in our lifetime), so people who want to move can't afford to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Stop this tedious whining.


If all you believe is "My outgroup sucks," then this isn't the place for that. Trade barbs on reddit or Twitter.


You can absolutely say what you believe about Republicans or Democrats or Trump or whoever.  But if the content of your post is 100% culture warring, nothing more than ranting about the evils of your ideological opponents, you are not saying anything meaningful or  worthwhile.


We know some people just want to come here to vent and to rage. (And sometimes to troll.) We don't care.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This got reported as low-effort and it really is, but I'm not going to mod it. It's just a dumb, low-effort argument.


Our ancestors were probably sadists and fools to the same degree we are. But they didn't burn heretics out of some deep wisdom. "Our ancestors burnt people who disgust me, we should do that again." Well, the reason they burned heretics is that killing people who were disgusting, disturbing, inconvenient, or a burden was how they did things in a society that would also have burnt half the people on this board.


I am always bemused by r3tVrn-posters who would not have survived a hot second in the societies they idolize.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We know the state and its partisans are hypocrites. We try not to be hypocritical here.


It's still not clear to me what you and Whining want. To be allowed to openly talk about people who should be killed? To talk about when it's time to take up arms against the state?


This is a non-hypothetical question: how do you think our moderation policies are wrong, and how do you think we should correct them? Because from my POV (and as I mentioned above, our "moderation policies" are literally plural, as the mods try to be consistent but obviously we have a lot of latitude to use our judgment case by case), we are just trying to enforce rules like "Don't make death threats" and "Don't talk about doing obviously illegal shit." But we didn't tell anyone they can't talk about resisting the state or non-compliance.


Whining is the one who came in indignant because @self_made_human moderated @remzem for a shitty post. smh's reasoning was not even that remzem was advocating violence! He got modded for boo outgrouping. (The fact that @remzem has a long history of shitty edgelord posts worked against him.) So it looks kind of like Whining got triggered by a post that expressed sentiments he agreed with and thinks he might get modded for, and what do you want us to do about it?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Generally speaking we won't mod people for celebrating someone's death ( though it is in poor taste), but wishing for someone's death is more likely to get modded.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So look, if you want to argue that we are in need of a revolution, you can make the argument. But Thomas Paine you are not. "I hate my enemies and want them dead" is not an argument.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, full disclosure, I found @remzem's post obnoxious and performative, but I would not have modded him for it, even though it did get several reports. @self_made_human decided otherwise, and while I would have decided differently, I don't think he's necessarily wrong. (Yes, this does in fact mean how you do or do not get modded sometimes depends on which mod decides to take action.)


I will attempt to answer your questions directly.


Are you allowed to discuss resisting the state? Yes, you can discuss it. People discuss that all the time here! (And that's why I personally thought @remzem's post was borderline but within bounds.)


Talking specifically about people you think should be killed is not within bounds. Talking about plans to do violence is not within bounds (and would be pretty fucking stupid if you're serious).


No, we are not saying it would be "rude" to talk about not walking into ovens (really, though? Come on.) Or that you can't talk openly about "non-compliance."


But what is it, exactly, that you want to say that you think you are not allowed to say? That you hate Jay Jones and hope someone shoots him? Well, you can say you hate him, but no, you can't openly wish death on him. (Yes, his texts would have gotten him banned on the Motte.) If you want to be more indirect about it ("I really think some of our state leadership should water the tree of liberty"), we are not stupid and we're still going to tell you to knock off the fedposting. Both because, yes, it's easy for you to whine about what you're not allowed to say when you're not the one who would get visited by the FBI, and because as several others have pointed out, most people here are not really interested in reading dick-fondling threads about what people will do to their enemies when the Boogooloo happens. If that's what you're into, there are guys on Twitter whose entire niche is jerking themselves off over such fantasies, including our own Motte alum Kulak. If you want Kulak-posting, go give him a follow.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"how feminized this place is" - LOL. @remzem, Internet Tough Guy never impresses anyone. Do you think anyone actually believes you're the very model of a modern masculinity?


The "ruling" is that fedposting is against the rules because it could get Zorba in legal trouble, and actually advocating violence is against the rules because it's rude. We have all these feminized rules about being civil and shit.


Can you discuss what you'd do "hypothetically" in the event of the Happening? Depends. Advice about how to stock up on ammo and form your own militia - probably okay. Talking about how you're going to murder all the people you hate? Not okay.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Motte equivalent of Artembares is someone who decides we suck and leaves (and then goes to whine about us on reddit). We can't actually keep people here who decide they don't want to play anymore.


Or if you want to compare Artembares to the guy who lashes out and gets banned - yes, he is being agentic and he's quite entitled to decide he doesn't want to follow the rules. And we're entitled to ban him.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Mainstream Christians also discuss Biblical justifications for beating their kids or putting homosexuals to death.


You do a lot of ducking and weaving and selectively answering specific points for which you have a canned response and ignoring the rest, which is typical of all our irrational Jew-haters.


You are very intent on trying to convince me that some very narrow interpretations of selected texts are what "Jews" really believe despite the fact that very few Jews would agree with you. You'd actually be on firmer footing going after Muslims – most Westernized Muslims don't believe in the atrocious treatments recommended in some of their texts for unbelievers, but we know many Muslims from Muslim countries do. But your obsession is Jews.


Presumably you have met Jews who do in fact demonstrate compassion and love to Christians. Surely you have met non-evil, non-slimy Jews. Or maybe you haven't. Maybe every Jew you ever met tried to swindle you or stuff you in a locker, and you're a real-life victim of Chinese cardiologists. But I doubt this.
So I will try again by asking you directly – is your thesis:


(A) Any Jew showing kindness to gentiles is a bad Jew who is not following his own religion correctly?


or


(B) Any Jew showing kindness to gentiles is just pretending, in order to deceive gentiles as to their true intentions?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But surely you can see my point here, that refusing to play isn't inherently more agentic than choosing to play




Nor is choosing to play inherently more agentic than refusing to play. You can choose not to play. And if that means breaking commitments or you choose not to play because it was too hard, perhaps that speaks poorly of your character. But--


Agreeing to make some other kid "king" is not a commitment as binding and serious as joining a sports team or signing up for calculus or agreeing to start a workout program. The scenario you (Herodotus) present is that some kids made Cyrus king for a day, one kid got sick of it, and you argue that he was wrong to get tired of the game. He should have continued bowing and scraping until Cyrus said the game was over, dammit! Again, I think "running to daddy" was the weak part, not when he got tired of calling Cyrus king. But Cyrus responded to some kid not respecting his "authority" by getting the other kids to gang up on him and beat him, and you (Herodotus) praise him for this!


You are presenting one principle ("You should choose your commitments and stick to them") but supporting it with an entirely different argument ("You must be obedient and you may not change your mind").


I honestly find your entire argument rather baffling. "You gotta serve somebody" is a truism that sounds profound on the surface, but essentially you're saying "Choose your master and obey him." Herodotus presents this as an anecdote about how awesome and naturally kingly young Cyrus was. Not being enamored of kings, or the concept of any man being "born to rule" (and others born to bend the knee), I don't know what to make of your ode to submission except that I reject the premise. We all serve someone, willingly or not. We don't have to make a virtue of it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, I know who Maimonides is. I also know you're giving a hostile reading of what "Jews believe and are taught" that Jews would not agree with. Why should I take your word over a rabbi's? Is your premise (1) You actually know Jewish law better than Jews do or (2) Yeah, that's what they actually believe and they're lying to the goyim?


Your entire argument, from the hostile readings of selected Talmudic passages to Ben Shapiro's involvement in a shady charity, is nutpicking. Sure, there are slimy evil Jews. There are also slimy evil Christians, Muslims and atheists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's an easy setup with an obvious answer. But "Obey the little shit who got elected as our sandlot 'king' no matter how tired you get of this game" is not showing agency, persistence, or drilling and practice. It's just being a submissive bootlicker.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, buddy, I know about the New Covenant. And I'm also quite familiar with Islamic jurisprudence and interpretation (and disputes) over hadiths.


The problem is, the vast majority of religious practitioners of all faiths are not theologians or lawyers. This is why some Christians actually quote those Old Testament verses when it's convenient, and then fall back on "But Jesus" when the ones they'd rather not follow are quoted back at them. I don't think Christians are particularly hypocritical or unlearned about this, relative to anyone else. But by the same token, some Muslims and Jews are aware of the bad stuff in their holy books and handwave it away, and some don't. Most Muslims don't approve of marrying 9-year-olds, most Jews don't approve of taking gentile slave girls, most Christians don't approve of stoning children to death.


There is no difference, except the artificial one you create in an attempt to gotcha Jews.


Now, you can claim that means most Muslims and Jews aren't really following their orthodox doctrines (though I don't know why we should consider a hostile outsider more qualified to interpret their scriptural fidelity). Maybe you can even make a theological argument that under the letter of their respective laws, Christians are correct to ignore their bronze age genocidal covenants while Muslims and Jews are incorrect to ignore their bronze age genocidal covenants. But that would presumably be between them and their gods. If you want to convince us that Jews don't really follow the Talmud, go argue with a rabbi. If you want to convince us that Jews are actually that evil and slimy because they secretly follow all your uncharitable Talmudic interpretations, your case is entirely scriptural nutpicking, and it's fair to ask if you've stoned any children or damned yourself with polyester lately.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Jewish examples from the Talmud have been given above - lots of rules about how you can treat gentiles (badly). The Bible has Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with the various laws about what you can and cannot eat, and also that you should put to death adulterers or disobedient children, and exhortations to slaughter enemy tribes. There are also some ugly stories in Judges. The Quran and the hadiths, likewise have verses about taking women as sex slaves, slaughtering the Jews, and everyone's favorite story about Mohammad and Aisha.


All three religions have a large body of jurisprudence explaining how these laws or parables were very specific and contextual, or were superseded by later precedents, or by the New Testament, and so on. So no, you don't need to explain to me that the Bible does not actually require you to stone your disobedient son or prohibit you from eating shrimp. I know that. But all these apologetics require accepting that these prescriptions were, in fact, contextual and open to interpretation, and just taking one snippet all by itself and its literal meaning is basically scriptural nutpicking.


People like @coffee_enjoyer who enjoy those long lists of horrible Talmudic prescriptions as evidence of all the secret evil things Jews believe are doing exactly this (and will likewise happily take at face value the less savory Quranic verses and hadiths). But of course Deuteronomy 21 and Leviticus 20 and all the stories in Judges about enslavement, rape, and genocide, those are nuanced.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
More shaking my head than curling my upper lip. I mean, I'm part of the problem by responding to you because I know you will keep going as long as I respond, but you really should try to step back and realize how nuts you've become on this. You're not going to get satisfaction, no one is going to validate your version of this absurd grudge you're holding, and trying to rekindle it in random threads just makes you look like a crazy person. And I'm guilty of indulging you because I always want to futilely talk down the crazy people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you know how crazy you sound?


I did not take the strawberries.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Cyrus was not the only one displaying agency here, all the boys were displaying their agency, except the son of Artembares who was displaying cowardice and weakness.




Taking this apocryphal story at face value, Artembares clearly displayed agency by refusing to obey. The argument that he agreed to the rules and helped  elect the "king" and then refused to go along seems a little suspicious and convenient; one would suspect something else happened that made him say  "Nah," but to  call refusing to go  along  with  the  crowd a lack of agency is quite a weird argument. Yes, you gotta serve someone (in some sense), but refusing to serve a particular person is a choice.


Arguably running to daddy to complain is cowardly and weak. But if instead he'd knocked Cyrus in the dirt, I don't think you'd be saying he lacked agency.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
An obsessive making everything about his obsession and trying to make it the topic regardless of context is on point, though it's not the point you think you're making.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What else is new? We don't exist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conveniently ignore some of the uglier stuff in their holy books that if taken literally would oblige and/or excuse them from behavior considered repellent in the modern age. And all three love to point at the ugly stuff in the other religions' scriptures as some kind of gotcha: either they are not "really" following their own religion, or they secretly practice and defend this stuff and hide it from outsiders.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Asylum Tourism. The degree to which this was a "popular middle-class  pastime" has been a little exaggerated, but it was certainly a thing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Oh, I'd be happy to see @SecureSignals actually answer the question, and he wouldn't be banned for answering honestly. But he's too strategic for that and he's never going to spell out here on the Motte why he hates Jews so much and what he wants done with them. I'm pretty sure he uses places like this to quietly draw in fellow travelers, and saves the ho- scaring shit for more private venues.


To clarify: actually calling for violence (eg "We should kill the Jews") or making statements that are just boo outgroup (eg "I hate Jews because they're sneaky cunning vermin who hate me") would be against the rules. But going into detail about what you believe Jews have supposedly done, or even genetic theories about their natural animosity for gentiles, would be allowed even if the reasoning is specious.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You can sit with them, as patiently as you can, for literally hours on end, forcing them to stop changing the subject and actually explain how the different parts of their ‘theory’ fit together, to verbalise each step and watch as it dissolves into undeniable incoherence, and then later the same week they’ll be back with the exact same thing.




Yes. This is why I go so hard on our Joo-posters. Because they do this every damn time. Doesn't matter how calmly and politely you ask them to explain why it's always Da Joos. They'll give you an eliiptical theory of Jewness that doesn't hold together, cobbled together bits of Holocaust apocrypha, and when someone bothers to patiently disassemble it, they curl their upper lip, go silent, and then come back in a couple of weeks repeating the same thing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's actually "not being a religious bigot" that's a historical anomaly. Europeans were not historically more tolerant of Muslims or pagans or Hindus, etc. The reason antisemitism happened more is because there were more Jews around, not because Jews "did" something to make themselves more unlikeable.