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.
This might help ya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...
Where did she say anything about who "deserves" to reproduce? XN stated that incels aren't going to be in the gene pool long, which seems true by definition. But that's not a moral judgement, just an obvious consequence of not being able to have sex.
Thanks for the link. It says "Evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure is exerted by factors that reduce or increase reproductive success in a portion of a population, driving natural selection [as opposed to sexual selection] "
If you truly can't tell that everything Crossnerd says about men contains moral judgment than your reading skills could use some work. Of course I know you are just trying to justify your prior bad faith statements, as always.
as intended semantically by us when we use that word.
you don't reproduce, your genes aren't part of the gene pool anymore, "evolution selected you out".
Probably still not looking at it accurately.
The genes are still going to be out there-- not your exact combination obviously but your genes are still going to be in the pool and represented.
Probably still not looking at it accurately.
The genes are still going to be out there-- not your exact combination obviously but your genes are still going to be in the pool and represented.
for a while, if they were common enough, and if they didn't correlate strongly (or if they weren't part of a gene cluster with strong anti-fitness properties) with anti-fitness.
but there will be fewer of them than the counterfactual, and over enough generations that can mean exctinction, at least of specific behavioural related gene sets if not single genes
yes? but OTHER individuals ARE the environment especially for social species.
you aren't going to thrive as an individual of a social species if other individuals all hate you for example
I understand what you're saying, I just don't think using the word 'environmental' that way is useful.
If you do that, you need to come up with another term meaning "the environment excluding other members of the same species".
Thanks for the link. It says "Evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure is exerted by factors that reduce or increase reproductive success in a portion of a population, driving natural selection [as opposed to sexual selection] "
*sigh*
Rob, do you think sexual selection produces "factors that reduce or increase reproductive success in a portion of a population" or not? I genuinely don't get your confusion here.
"Evolutionary pressure" or "selection pressure" is a thing that drives evolution. Natural selection can create selection pressure, sexual selection can create selection pressure, artificial breeding can create selection pressure, etc. etc. That link had a whole section on "Humans exerting evolutionary pressure," if you'd care to read it.
It seems very likely to reduce evolutionary pressure by a lot when an organism can change its environment to meet its needs, rather than needing to change to adapt to environmental changes.
When life reaches this point, as humanity has, then life is no longer playing the Darwinian / biology game anymore. The new game is harder.
Life can no longer depend on biology to save it against the metacrisis it’s now facing in the new game.
What winning means must be re-understood.
so perhaps chillrob , "abiotic and biotic environment" could work, at least among us?
When life reaches this point, as humanity has, then life is no longer playing the Darwinian / biology game anymore. The new game is harder.
Life can no longer depend on biology to save it against the metacrisis it’s now facing in the new game.
What winning means must be re-understood.
why do you think we are going through some unique crisis currently? genuine question, it's not like I don't see there is some significant tension currently, it's just that I think historically (both recently and a long time ago in many places) humanity went through FAR WORSE (imo).
When life reaches this point, as humanity has, then life is no longer playing the Darwinian / biology game anymore. The new game is harder.
Life can no longer depend on biology to save it against the metacrisis it’s now facing in the new game.
What winning means must be re-understood.
How am I doing, Craig? Just wanna check the temperature
why do you think we are going through some unique crisis currently? genuine question, it's not like I don't see there is some significant tension currently, it's just that I think historically (both recently and a long time ago in many places) humanity went through FAR WORSE (imo).
Past threats were more localized, slower moving, and less connected.
I am grunching most of this thread (for now), but IMO Chez made a good point in his comment about human intelligence complicating matters relative to other mammals.
Because of our (**** sapiens) intelligence and being highly social animals, “incels” can and do band together to overthrow alpha male tyrants who monopolize reproductive fitness.
In some ways one could view the election of Trump as an “incel revolution”.
So the “natural” polygamous harem mating system that crossnerd seems so fond of that you see in other mammals doesn’t work as well in humans (for this reason and others)
Of course there are social strategies that “elites” use to convince Incels to not revolt and accept very poor reproductive fitness prospects, such as organized religion where you convince low status males they will be rewarded in the afterlife (see Palestinian society as an example of this phenomenon in action)
But I think we have enough of a sample size (and really common sense would lead one to the same conclusion) to suggest that the current western paradigm of atheist neoliberalism, feminism and social media derived polarization (which has created conditions where as Lucium points out there are a large population of males AND females not mating) is not particularly stable or viable.
We are going to overcome and win, but relying on what we’ve relied on in the past (biology and technological advancement) is only speeding up the crisis.
When life reaches this point, as humanity has, then life is no longer playing the Darwinian / biology game anymore. The new game is harder.
Life can no longer depend on biology to save it against the metacrisis it’s now facing in the new game.
What winning means must be re-understood.
I would say we are still playing the ecolutionary fitness game, just not particularly well. And our extinction in the near term seems likely.
And there is nothing special about this. Environments change, species don’t adapt (even when they are the ones causing the change) , and they go extinct.
I would say we are still playing the ecolutionary fitness game, just not particularly well. And our extinction in the near term seems likely.
And there is nothing special about this. Environments change, species don’t adapt (even when they are the ones causing the change) , and they go extinct.
Are human beings just like those other animals? If so, extinction awaits.
As I mentioned previously, the solution is in culture, not biology or technology. Humanity must become experts in culture. That is our superpower.
I would say we are still playing the ecolutionary fitness game, just not particularly well. And our extinction in the near term seems likely.
And there is nothing special about this. Environments change, species don’t adapt (even when they are the ones causing the change) , and they go extinct.
i don't see exctinction in the near term as being plausible. it's technically possible but rather unlikely.
I think there are niches of human beings able for various reasons to survive even extreme catastrophes.
a massive reduction in world wide population is unlikely but orders of magnitude more probable that actual extinction with requires very peculiar characteristics
In certain ways. I think it’s undeniable. A lot of people are making this argument, though.
Very few understand how existential and fast moving the chronic illness / chronic pain trend is.
I think it is going on but it's not universal, and it doesn't touch anything close to 100% of humanity. if 10, 20, 30 or even 70% of people are going to existential dread and will self select outside of existence that leaves more than one billion human beings to thrive later on.
we survived several instances of 15-30% of the population dying in 1-2 years. like 10-15 such cases (pestilences) from 500 AD to 1700 AD in Europe.
we can surely go through one or more su he events again and come out of that stronger than before like it happened every other time.
it's rather time that happens actually, some of us were hoping COVID was it but unfortunately it did nothing on those terms, population INCREASED worldwide instead of 500m + dying
I think it is going on but it's not universal, and it doesn't touch anything close to 100% of humanity. if 10, 20, 30 or even 70% of people are going to existential dread and will self select outside of existence that leaves more than one billion human beings to thrive later on.
we survived several instances of 15-30% of the population dying in 1-2 years. like 10-15 such cases (pestilences) from 500 AD to 1700 AD in Europe.
we can surely go through one or more su he events again and come out of th
Well good thing you don’t get paid for thinkin’, big dog 👍
I think it is going on but it's not universal, and it doesn't touch anything close to 100% of humanity. if 10, 20, 30 or even 70% of people are going to existential dread and will self select outside of existence that leaves more than one billion human beings to thrive later on.
we survived several instances of 15-30% of the population dying in 1-2 years. like 10-15 such cases (pestilences) from 500 AD to 1700 AD in Europe.
we can surely go through one or more su he events again and come out of th
Your intuition is right that thriving is on the other side of culling and death, but it’s not in the way you’re thinking about it currently.
I think it is going on but it's not universal, and it doesn't touch anything close to 100% of humanity. if 10, 20, 30 or even 70% of people are going to existential dread and will self select outside of existence that leaves more than one billion human beings to thrive later on.
we survived several instances of 15-30% of the population dying in 1-2 years. like 10-15 such cases (pestilences) from 500 AD to 1700 AD in Europe.
we can surely go through one or more su he events again and come out of th
Have you checked ACM rates recently? You might get your wish. Just wait till the depop weapon really kicks in.
