Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
No bio...
User ID: 297
In that case, why say progressive at all?
I don't know - you guys said it, I didn't.
Now, there's tacit acknowledgement even from the mods that this is true and the party line has shifted to liberals are just too thin-skinned to deal with how wrong they are.
Which mods have acknowledged this?
Jiro saying 'Yeah, no' because he was butthurt about Jews being called parasites.
I've called @Jiro out on his hypocrisy before because yes, he's definitely someone who believes you should be able to say any terrible thing about any group except his own. But -
But yes, I'm pretty sure he could get away with hating on American blacks or illegal immigrants or Islamists or progressives or plenty of other groups for a lot longer than he could get away with hating on Jews.
This is just wrong and tells me you're either being disingenuous or you just don't pay attention.
You (the mod team and userbase more broadly, not you specifically) pride yourselves on being free speech absolutists and sneer at [insert lesser forum here.]
No we don't. This is, again, flatly wrong. If we were free speech absolutists, we wouldn't ban people for calling brown people locusts and Jews parasites.
I just think it's hypocritical to claim to be advocates of free speech when the only difference between you and reddit is where you've drawn the line in the sand, and that line is largely a product of the views of your userbase
Bullshit.
Is it hard being a liberal ( or "progressive") here? Yes. But someone coming in saying Black Lives Matter and Trans Rights Are Human Rights would be allowed to argue for those positions. If ( when) they get banned, it wouldn't be for having unacceptable views but because it's dispiriting having an entire forum dogpile you and they tend to break and lash out. I admit we don't have a good solution for that. BUT - it must be said, one reason they break so readily is that they are just not used to people being allowed to dogpile them, instead of the other way around.
How many places on reddit or elsewhere can I very calmly and civilly argue for why I don't think trans women are women, or HBD may be real? Let alone the latitude we give to the likes of SS's performative Holocaust denial?
Yes, we do in fact allow more free speech than almost anywhere else that isn't "full of autistic 20 page screeds." No, we are not in fact free speech "absolutists." Yes, the community here has suffered evaporative cooling and a hardening of consensus viewpoints.
But your criticisms are off base and mostly just wrong when not outright disingenuous.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
13hr ago
Can you name a single progressive here?
He said "progressive/liberal." "Progressive" is kind of a dirty word hereabouts, basically interchangeable with "woke," but do you not consider yourself a liberal?
On the flip side, there's nothing in the post being modded that would deserve a ban on any other topic.
Really? So you think he could have said something similar about another group and not been modded? Why do you think that? Or are you agreeing with Hanik that the mods are ZOG collaborators? That would be a twist.
There's no objective rule here (however much the mods may protest to the contrary), just an arbitrary line in the sand that the local userbase happens to draw further to the right than reddit does.
We aspire to consistency and objectivity and freely admit that we can achieve neither. But we generally can point to the rule that was broken and for all the times I have asked someone taking a bite out of our ankles to point to this mythical other foot on which can be found an equivalent shoe, it never ever happens. "You modded a Joo-poster for crossing a line, but you totally wouldn't do that on any other subject!" Okay, show me. Show me where someone else posted something equivalent and wasn't modded. Maybe it's happened, we do miss things. But every time I have made this request, what I get is a post that isn't equivalent and a 20-post-deep argument about why it's not. I mean, do I need to point out that in your link, @naraburns was not speaking as a mod? I am the one who posted a mod comment in that thread, and that was because @magicalkittycat was kind of pattern-matching as a Darwin-troll… it wasn't about his freedom to say what he thinks of Republicans.
To be clear, I think they're doing a good job. But the hypocrisy and chest-thumping around free speech is profoundly irritating.
"You're doing a good job and you also suck" is such a special snipe.
Thumps chest
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
19hr ago
To that extent, like jews being parasites that weaken it, and browns being locust that devour it
I might let "browns being locusts" pass since DWHD did say "don't hold back," but for everyone else in the thread- no, that doesn't mean you can just let loose with your unfiltered hot takes about Indians. You, however, decided it was also an opportunity to dump on your other obsession, as if suddenly the rules about broad generalizations about your outgroup were suspended. They are not. You've been warned and banned many, many times for this. You're just a hate-poster who barely controls yourself most of the time until you can't hold back any more, and you do... this.
Your last ban was 90 days. This one will also be 90 days. Next time is probably permanent.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
1d ago
I don’t think I am outsourcing my thinking or perspective to AI
If it's obvious to people reading your post that you used AI, then yes, you are.
I have no doubt there are other people using AI to help or generate their posts, but if you edit it enough that we can't tell, it might as well be yours. If we can tell, though, then I put you in the same category as a bot. There's a difference between using it as a spelling and grammar checker and using it to generate entire lines (like the telltale "It's not X-emdash-it's Y").
@cjet79 already decided not to ban you and remove your post. I might have decided differently.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
We generally do not let new users post self-promotional links as their first post. If you would like people to read your blog, please establish yourself in the community first.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
I almost did, but it was more like a snotty conclusion to a crap post that by itself would just have been mildly obnoxious.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
3d ago
You're allowed to echo Russian talking points, but you still need to engage civilly.
So please don't act like a leftist who is permanently obtuse.
You seem to lack a theory of mind
This is not civil. Stop it.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
So the furor is literally because "white"? I thought it was because "cloud dancer" is Native American appropriation or something.
Next year: the year of Burnt Umber.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
Yes, but were they involved beforehand or did they hear about Fulnecky's complaint afterwards? Or did she go to them when she got a zero?
There is the version where TPUSA put her up to it, the way a lot of organizations go looking for sympathetic cases and even stage them. There is the version where Fulnecky just wrote a Bible paper in her class, got a zero, and went looking for sympathy and found TPUSA. And there is the version where TPUSA put out some kind of mailer ("Are you a Christian student being persecuted by your woke professors?") and Fulnecky was inspired to see if she could provoke her instructor into "persecuting" her. I am inclined to think it's probably #2, and would be surprised if Fulnecky came up with #3 all on her own.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
I already said the essay probably doesn't deserve a 0 (though it certainly deserves a D at best). I agree the instructor probably gave her a 0 out of pique/personal offense.
Does it meet the legal definition of "religious discrimination"? I doubt it, but determining Constitutionality is more complicated than "Does the instructor dislike Christians?" or "Did other students who wrote crappy essays get zeroes?" That said, you don't really care much what courts and the law says nowadays, do you?
Was it actually religious discrimination, in the sense that the instructor was motivated by animosity for the student's Christian beliefs, as opposed to just being outraged at the student's opinions? (Throwing words like "demonic" doesn't exactly help Fulnecky's case.) I am only slightly more sympathetic to Fulnecky than I would be to a student writing a creationist paper in a science class. Slightly more sympathetic because I actually believe in evolution and I don't believe in "multiple (sic) genders," but I am unmoved by Biblical arguments in either case.
That said, what should Fulnecky have done? Well, protesting low grades is a time-honored tradition, and nowadays every student thinks they should get an A and protests if they don't. If in fact zeroes are uncommon in this class, and especially if she was the only student to receive a zero, I'd definitely agree she was treated unfairly. Does that mean Christians are being persecuted in this class? Eh- did anyone else write such a stupid essay? Would someone writing a paper that says "Actually, there are only two genders and trans people are gross and delusional" without involving religious arguments get a better grade?
I don't really "object" to righties defending her, per se, but I think I made my position pretty clear. She wrote a bad, dumb essay. The instructor reacted badly and is probably a fool. In a sane and reasonable world (bitter laughter), they'd have had a private discussion, maybe involved the department chair, and agreed she deserved something more than a 0, or been given an opportunity to revise. Instead, we are in our world, so a stupid essay in a stupid class about a stupid subject with stupid people is a national news story.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
4d ago
A lot of people seem to think this was a trap that the trans instructor stepped into. I'm skeptical of these sorts of political chess game theories. Unless evidence comes to light that Fulnecky was in fact conspiring with someone or put up to it by TPUSA or some other organization, it seems unlikely to me that she's smart or strategic enough to have planned this out. I think the more likely explanation is that she decided to tell this trans instructor what's what according to the Bible, was outraged at receiving a zero, and then someone suggested to her that she should file a complaint. It attracted buzz because of CW and here we are.
Righties have rallied around a dim but photogenic Bible Karen, and the trans instructor predictably threw a shitfit when challenged. Both sides following a very stupid and tiresome script. An early version of ChatGPT could have generated this plot.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
That depends on how much the essay is worth towards the overall grade. It looks like a fairly trivial assignment; if it's worth 25% of the overall grade, that must be a pretty worthless class (which is entirely possible).
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
Bluntly, it is a crap essay, poorly written and is nothing but her expressing her Biblical views. It is not college-level writing.
Did it deserve a 0? Probably not. It's... grammatical and uses complete sentences and is sorta on topic inasmuch as the student is "reacting" to the article as directed. But I think giving it a C would be extremely generous even by modern grade-inflationary standards.
I have no doubt the trans prof threw a fit upon reading it. But it's very unfortunate that righties have no better material to rally around. A smarter student could have written a critical essay that would have been harder to justify giving a 0, but Fulnecky frankly does not seem very bright in her interviews.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
5d ago
If you send Zorba a modmail with your email address he can probably reset your password for you.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
I recall you being no longer filtered also. As far as I know, once you're unfiltered you should not go back into the filter.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
9d ago
C'mon dude, this was obviously written by ChatGPT. Don't do this.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
You're still not comparing like things. The vast majority of civilian.deaths in Chicago are criminals engaged in violent activity. Do you think the average citizen of Chicago would agree "I'd feel safer in Ukraine"?
You can make a point about high crime rates without juicing numbers dishonestly. In this case, "civilian" and "combatant" is exploiting a gap where you are comparing gang activity and warfare. Is it more dangerous to be a gangbanger in Chicago or a soldier in Ukraine? Is it more dangerous to be a non-combatant (not involved in drugs or warfare) in Chicago or in Ukraine?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
12d ago
If you're going to claim a city is more dangerous than a war zone, you have to include the people actually killed in the war - including the combatants. This isn't just cherry-picking, it's lying with statistics.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14d ago
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.
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
14d ago
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?
Amadan
Letting the hate flow through me
15d ago
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.
This is exactly the sort of pedantic argumentation I hate. I know for a fact I have personally warned and/or banned people for making posts about blacks and women and liberals and Democrats that crossed the line.
You, trying to play "Why did you ban Jimmy and not Johnny" for the zillionth time, want to litigate each and every case where we as mods decided that this post about Jews was acceptable but that post was not. You are being willfully obtuse. You know, because we have reiterated it many, many times, that you can make just about any argument if you can "color within the lines." Yes, that means what "crosses the line" is somewhat subjective. Does that bother you? Tough, it's how it's been for years. Do you think I or another mod made an error of judgment in an individual case? Maybe, it's possible! But I am not going to put much weight on your opinion, or anyone's opinion, who's just making bad and disingenuous arguments because they have general dissatisfaction that we mod people they think shouldn't be modded and don't mod people they think should be modded.
hanikrummihundursvin is not the only one who regularly posts about how much he hates the subhuman subcontinental filth and Jewish parasites that are holding down the proud Aryan race. And they usually don't get banned, because usually they can phrase it in a way that conforms to our rules. This is not Hanik's first, second, or twentieth time expressing how much he hates Jews, but sometimes he loses control, and he gets banned.
This is a lie, and I resent you lying about my motives and my actions. If I were banning speech I dislike, a lot more people would be banned. If I were putting boundaries only on the "deplorables," I wouldn't ban anyone expressing sentiments I broadly agree with (I assure you, I have).
This is not what I said. In a hypothetical Motte where the majority is liberal but with a zealous commitment to letting anyone argue anything as long as they do so civilly (gods, I wish such a place existed), someone who came in politely arguing that actually, blacks really are lower in IQ and higher in criminality and women really shouldn't be allowed to vote would probably get dogpiled relentlessly until he snapped. I do not think lefties are particularly more thin-skinned than righties -- though I do think in the current political climate, liberals are a lot more comfortable in a controlled speech environment and become a lot more uncomfortable in an environment like this one where speech is not controlled they way they're used to.
Yes. You are wrong.
No, I do not think I am going to change your mind.
"Why do you argue with ankle-biters?" is a question I often ask myself. Sometimes I even promise myself I am going to stop. Still working on it. That I still suffer from "People are wrong on the Internet!" syndrome is probably why I am still here.
More options
Context Copy link