Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
fair point. this seems like a more recent phenomenon though. not entirely sure how it got so bad
American progressives can’t go so far that they have no American identity and no American pride.
It’s fine if you are predominantly ashamed of this country’s past, but then you must find some possible way the country can redeem itself in your eyes and derive a level of American pride from that hope. You can’t be waving a pride flag, or a Ukrainian flag, or a Mexican flag while disrespecting an American flag.
Otherwise, you are breaking the social contract in my mind.
A good rule of thumb: as much identity and pride you have in another group identity (ethnic, racial, sexual), you should strive to match that with your American identity. And if you can’t, then you should redefine American identity until you can.
In my view, multiculturalism / assimilation won’t work without this national identity and national pride, which requires constant upkeep.
American progressives can’t go so far that they have no American identity and no American pride.
It’s fine if you are predominantly ashamed of this country’s past, but then you must find some possible way the country can redeem itself in your eyes and derive a level of American pride from that hope. You can’t be waving a pride flag, or a Ukrainian flag, or a Mexican flag while disrespecting an American flag.
Otherwise, you are breaking the social contract in my mind.
A good rule of thumb: as much i
I don't quite know what your point is here, but I feel no pride in any identity. Pride in any identity one was born with is definitely a negative and just creates more division between people.
"Pride goes before destruction"
I don't quite know what your point is here, but I feel no pride in any identity. Pride in any identity one was born with is definitely a negative and just creates more division between people.
"Pride goes before destruction"
There is no negativity in having pride about your ancestors (if they weren't trash like many were: you need to be intellectually honest).
It is actually anti-human and violently anti-human biology to disregard who your ancestors were
We all descend from mitochondrial Eve. Your view of ancestry is ridiculous.
There is no negativity in having pride about your ancestors (if they weren't trash like many were: you need to be intellectually honest).
It is actually anti-human and violently anti-human biology to disregard who your ancestors were
How would one know that one's ancestors that one never personally met (and existed without record) were "trash"?
Based on historical records, I know that most powerful people of the past were trash, IMO, and since they generally had the most descendants, not many people have much to be proud of anyway. Unless someone like you believes that being the descendant of a mass murderer is something to be proud of.
I'm proud of being anti-human, as most humans are trash who deserve to be tortured to death. If only I had the power!
He's talking about race as usual, codified as "cultures" or "civilisations".
I don't quite know what your point is here, but I feel no pride in any identity. Pride in any identity one was born with is definitely a negative and just creates more division between people.
"Pride goes before destruction"
“Pride goes before the fall” is descriptive. Before pride can go, pride must come.
It’s a mistake to see pride as all bad. Pride is associated with advocacy and serving something bigger.
The common error is when people get stuck at pride and resist the fall, but the fall must happen in order to progress.
“Pride goes before the fall” is descriptive. Before pride can go, pride must come.
It’s a mistake to see pride as all bad. Pride is associated with advocacy and serving something bigger.
The common error is when people get stuck at pride and resist the fall, but the fall must happen in order to progress.
If we aggregate your posts, it seems like you are arguing in favor of the nation-state, an entity where nation and state to overlap to form a strong and fairly narrow common identity.
Coming from a nation-state, I quite like it. I would also agree that cultural clashes have good sides and bad sides. Debating those is difficult, as there are loud voices who only want to focus on the bad and loud voices who only want to focus on the good. Nuanced views are met with skepticism, and often rightfully so as "both sides"-rhetoric is often exploited for dog-whistling.
However, the US has never really been a nation-state in a narrow sense, it is a collection of nations. Sure, there is the common identify of "the American" which has become more prevalent as generations pass, but this identity is incredibly broad compared to say the identity of "the Fin".
As for symbols and patriotism, I would agree that patriotism is important. However, to paraphrase Mark Twain: Patriotism should be to the country, not the government. Thus, you must be free to reject the symbols of the country when they are exploited, and you must also live with the fact that patriots can disagree on what patriotism looks like.
Nationalism is also very good at disguising itself with the symbols and language of patriotism, even if it is anything but. This is often exploited by authoritarians and parties which then demand loyalty to themselves as opposed to the country, often subtly so.
If we aggregate your posts, it seems like you are arguing in favor of the nation-state, an entity where nation and state to overlap to form a strong and fairly narrow common identity.
Coming from a nation-state, I quite like it. I would also agree that cultural clashes have good sides and bad sides. Debating those is difficult, as there are loud voices who only want to focus on the bad and loud voices who only want to focus on the good. Nuanced views are met with skepticism, and often rightfully
This is an excellent post. Your description of the intersection between political identity, patriotism, and nationalism is as clear and concise as I have ever seen in this forum.
Rather than "patriotism to the country," I often have used the term "national interest," but we are talking about a similar concept. And the term "national interest" begs the same question. What is the national interest? In addition to the problem of conflating the country with the government (which you point out), there is a real lack of consensus in the United States about what the country should stand for, probably less consensus than there is in Finland. And I suspect that lack of consensus promotes more intolerance for differing views of patriotism than you might see in Finland.
Twain also said
"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."
and
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth."
and
"A man can be a Christian or a patriot, but he can't legally be a Christian and a patriot -- except in the usual way: one of the two with the mouth, the other with the heart. "
and of course
"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel."
Clinging to patriotism but it's not nationalism is like saying you're agnostic because you're afraid to say you're an atheist.
What is the national interest?
ya hard to tell. cant imagine what the interests are of a country that was founded on the genocide of millions of indigenous, built its wealth with slave labor of natives stolen from a different continent, and now holds military bases all over the world. its impossible to know what the USA stands for for.
Global domination through the spread of Democracy
lots of Democracy going on in Syria right now I am seeing
Twain also said
"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."
and
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the univer
I don't think you and t_d (or you and I) disagree as much as you might imagine. t-d's main point was that patriotism (as he defines it) and nationalism are distinct concepts that should not be confused for one another. The former may be benign or even good, whereas the latter is always malignant.
I understand the instinct to reject both words in the United States because the distinction he is drawing is barely recognized in this country and not recognized at all by MAGAworld.
I know that you would happily see the very concept of a nation dissolve into thin air. The world seems so far from that happening that I don't spend much time contemplating whether it would be good or bad on the whole.
I don't think it's impossible or wrong to say that this or that is good about the country one lives in. And it's probably not impossible to thread some needle about how patriotism is about what you define as the good parts of your country and not the bad parts while nationalism makes no judgement about such things.
But, imo, it strikes me, as I said, a lot like saying you're agnostic. You know many people are going to judge you harshly if you say you're not patriotic. If you only support your country when you think it's doing something right and you judge it fairly and rationally without bias, what could it mean to be patriotic? Just that you eat hot dogs at 4th of July parades?
Twain also said
"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."
and
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "
Clinging to patriotism but it's not nationalism is like saying you're agnostic because you're afraid to say you're an atheist.
Nah, I don't really buy these posts.
You might have the gruff view of displays of patriotism that Twain expresses, where you view them with skepticism, often doubting their sincerity (which is wise) or finding them corny (which is okay).
But from your posts I think you like what your country can sometimes be, you have a distinct idea of what it should seek to become and you loathe that these ideals are so often ignored.
If these things were threatened or if someone tried to take away your country's path to better itself, I'm certain you would be willing to sacrifice a lot to defend it. You might not want to admit it in a million years, but I suspect you're a patriot at heart.
I don't think you and t_d (or you and I) disagree as much as you might imagine. t-d's main point was that patriotism (as he defines it) and nationalism are distinct concepts that should not be confused for one another. The former may be benign or even good, whereas the latter is always malignant.
I understand the instinct to reject both words in the United States because the distinction he is drawing is barely recognized in this country and not recognized at all by MAGAworld.
I know that you wou
This is likely a much better way of putting than I just did.
If these things were threatened or if someone tried to take away your country's path to better itself, I'm certain you would be willing to sacrifice a lot to defend it. You might not want to admit it in a million years, but I suspect you're a patriot at heart.
Why would I not do these things if I'm a humanist?
I would sacrifice to have Mexico or Canada or Ukraine or Israel on better paths as well.
Anything special there about the USA? Maybe. It's not easy to separate that it affects me and my family more directly.
I guess the degree of shame I feel about Trump could support the idea that I'm a patriot.
I don't think it's impossible or wrong to say that this or that is good about the country one lives in. And it's probably not impossible to thread some needle about how patriotism is about what you define as the good parts of your country and not the bad parts while nationalism makes no judgement about such things.
But, imo, it strikes me, as I said, a lot like saying you're agnostic. You know many people are going to judge you harshly if you say you're not patriotic. If you only support your
I get all this. I agree that you need to define what your country should be in a benign way in order to make patriotism a benign concept. I certainly would never define myself as patriotic in some sort of "America, right or wrong" sense. For that matter, I can't recall even one occasion in my life in which I have defined myself as patriotic (or unpatriotic).
I guess the degree of shame I feel about Trump could support the idea that I'm a patriot.
Even if it doesn't support the idea that you are a patriot, it supports that you have some degree of national identity. You probably disliked Bolsonaro as much as Trump, but you didn't feel any shame about Bolsonaro because you aren't Brazilian.
However, the US has never really been a nation-state in a narrow sense, it is a collection of nations. Sure, there is the common identify of "the American" which has become more prevalent as generations pass, but this identity is incredibly broad compared to say the identity of "the Fin".
Because of this, the uniting American identity is based in the future and based more on culture than ethnicity.
This is why I said:
It’s fine if you are predominantly ashamed of this country’s past, but then you must find some possible way the country can redeem itself in your eyes and derive a level of American pride from that hope.
I’m glad you’re able to see the value of national identity and the cost when it erodes.
Still, multiculturalism is a forcing function on national identity away from the past (ethnicity). Europe needs to wake up to this.
Before getting to the part of figuring out the future, cultural national identity, it must be accepted that (1) national identity is vital and (2) it can no longer be based on the past (ethnicity, heritage) in multicultural societies.
At the same time, this doesn’t mean we dismiss the reality of ethnicity on national identity. It needs to be a gradual transition to prevent backlash (mass immigration is insanity).
As for symbols and patriotism, I would agree that patriotism is important. However, to paraphrase Mark Twain: Patriotism should be to the country, not the government. Thus, you must be free to reject the symbols of the country when they are exploited, and you must also live with the fact that patriots can disagree on what patriotism looks like.
Because the future, uniting, cultural identity is largely unknown, the symbols are essential as a bridge. Rejecting the symbols destroys the bridge.
You can reject the tyrannical states narrative about the symbols, but it’s important to not reject the symbols in this fragile period.
Twain also said
"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."
and
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the univer
Twain was referring (by homage or possibly plagiarism) to Samuel Johnson's remark, 'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,' which was not a critique of patriotism but of the kind of cynical politician who, when all else fails, wraps himself in the flag.
