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.
you seem to care a great deal. unfortunately, it is not my job to teach you to read.
Bad read. I do enjoy trolling dumbasses and pointing out their dumbassery though, so you're quite the treasure trove for me.
That is unfortunate, it would have given you a great opportunity to learn that particular skill yourself.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “fixing the problem”. Incels are natural selection. If you can’t adapt to a world where you actually have to attract women instead of forcing them to be with you, then the problem is you and you should not be bred with under any circumstances. That’s just evolution at work.
No, that's Social Darwinism, which is reactionary pseudoscience, historically employed to reinforce whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. Evolution works simply by random genetic mutations which occasionally in certain circumstances result in organisms more likely to produce greater numbers of fertile offspring which survive to produce offspring of their own. Evolution tends to be arrested in highly successful populations because the survival imperative disappears. Western societies, with the low birthrate that generally results from prosperity, are certainly not advancing human evolution, which has been effectively arrested for a very long time because the current model is 'just good enough to get by'.
Oh look, the usual experts have arrived 😀
Tell me, daddy, how does science work?
No, that's Social Darwinism, which is reactionary pseudoscience, historically employed to reinforce whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. Evolution works simply by random genetic mutations which occasionally in certain circumstances result in organisms more likely to produce greater numbers of fertile offspring which survive to produce offspring of their own. Evolution tends to be arrested in highly successful populations because the survival imperative disappears. Western societies
"Thats not evolution, its a reactionary pseudoscience subset of evolution"
No, that's Social Darwinism, which is reactionary pseudoscience, historically employed to reinforce whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. Evolution works simply by random genetic mutations which occasionally in certain circumstances result in organisms more likely to produce greater numbers of fertile offspring which survive to produce offspring of their own. Evolution tends to be arrested in highly successful populations because the survival imperative disappears. Western societies
This is a godawful description of how evolution works at an elementary level, FWIW. The "survival imperative" doesn't disappear.
For real, how come the calipers squad can't even get the basics right?
This is a godawful description of how evolution works at an elementary level, FWIW. The "survival imperative" doesn't disappear.
For real, how come the calipers squad can't even get the basics right?
If civilization continues mostly as it has for the last several thousand years, how do you think humans are likely to evolve, and what are the pressures which will lead to that?
If civilization continues mostly as it has for the last several thousand years, how do you think humans are likely to evolve, and what are the pressures which will lead to that?
Evolutionary pressure doesn't disappear just because an organism is well-adapted to its environment. How humans will evolve in the future, I have nfi, but I'm sure Kelhus has all kind of exciting theories about that.
When considering human evolution its usually best to go with your gut
If civilization continues mostly as it has for the last several thousand years, how do you think humans are likely to evolve, and what are the pressures which will lead to that?
We're going to interfere with our genes etc and wete going to augment. People can argue whether this counts
As incels came I remind you of chezlaws 7th law - there will be sex robots
Condescending pricks are an unfortunate part of life and are often condescending to everyone.
This is the internet and everyone is some kind of admired expert in their chosen field with decades of managing large teams and no one but no one is a sad little man in a grubby room addicted to posting ludicrous political extremism.
Apart from Luciom.
No, that's Social Darwinism, which is reactionary pseudoscience, historically employed to reinforce whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. Evolution works simply by random genetic mutations which occasionally in certain circumstances result in organisms more likely to produce greater numbers of fertile offspring which survive to produce offspring of their own. Evolution tends to be arrested in highly successful populations because the survival imperative disappears. Western societies
Nope social darwinism is thinking "it is good" if the current societal arrangement selects against some specific genes.
Evolution isn't arrested in highly successful population. What is arrested is fitness improvement because they are already close to the current environmental asymptote.
You happen to describe mutations as the core of evolution. They are relevant, and very occasionally they determine large shifts in the population (see milk digestion in humans, our last evolution in the sense you mean it).
But evolution is also about promoting different competing genes already existing in the populace.
Like high IQ rewards are higher than ever currently. In the past very often you were better off selecting a healthy but stupid sexual partner. Nowadays because of various reasons, high IQ low health and low physical dexterity/strength individuals can be very successful (resource wise).
Evolution is also when those sets of traits increase in the gene pool as a percentage of total because circumstances have changed. It doesn't require novel pro fitness mutations necessarily to bring about a large shift in the genetic pool.
Crossnerd is right more than she maybe realizes when she said now it's about convincing women not taking them by strength.
Cunning sociopaths have their best time ever in current society, physically very strong and imposing men have far less success than they historically had.
This is a godawful description of how evolution works at an elementary level, FWIW. The "survival imperative" doesn't disappear.
For real, how come the calipers squad can't even get the basics right?
Not survival rather reproduction. If you survive but don't reproduce it's identical to you dying in the womb for evolutionary purposes.
Evolution still works all the times though , you are correct at that.
If civilization continues mostly as it has for the last several thousand years, how do you think humans are likely to evolve, and what are the pressures which will lead to that?
You need to model future plausible scenarios to put that question on the table, otherwise your question is more about how do you see society in the future than an evolutionary question
Condescending pricks are an unfortunate part of life and are often condescending to everyone.
This is the internet and everyone is some kind of admired expert in their chosen field with decades of managing large teams and no one but no one is a sad little man in a grubby room addicted to posting ludicrous political extremism.
Apart from Luciom.
Wat
Not survival rather reproduction. If you survive but don't reproduce it's identical to you dying in the womb for evolutionary purposes.
Evolution still works all the times though , you are correct at that.
Not identical. Siblings/uncles etc can have as much influence as the more classical grandparent
Of course I’m right but ALSO I’m very entertained 😀
Not identical. Siblings/uncles etc can have as much influence as the more classical grandparent
Yes yes a living relative can be pro fitness for approximate genetic relatives true I was trying to simplify the thing (because it can also be a cost, think the drunk addict uncle and the mother struggling to help him AND her children)
