Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
It seems that you are succeeding in convincing exactly zero mods here, so your options at this point are to play by the rules or not post here (either voluntarily or otherwise).
What are the rules on this? Can I ask for drone extrajudicial killings of enemies of the west like Obama did, but to more of them and a wider range for example?
If the only way to write here is by over-self-censoring to play it safe it isn't particularly funny or interesting to do so for me, especially when the rules are interpreted in a hyper-radical leftist way, I mean what I got repeatedly banned for here wouldn't have caused a ban in pre-musk Twitter, which was a leftist-moderated place (that's the only really leftist place I wrote in before this).
And the moderation back then felt really oppressive already (now it is fine).
If the only way to write here is by over-self-censoring to play it safe it isn't particularly funny or interesting to do so for me, especially when the rules are interpreted in a hyper-radical leftist way, I mean what I got repeatedly banned for here wouldn't have caused a ban in pre-musk Twitter, which was a leftist-moderated place (that's the only really leftist place I wrote
Welcome to The Matriarchy. I could expound, but I'll play it safe and leave it at that.
Lets just say from a meta perspective, there have been speculations what would a matriarchal society (as opposed to a patriarchal one) look like in the wild. And some have speculated that in certain liberal spaces, we are getting something of an answer; with a focus on safety and inclusion over risk taking behaviors and competitive dominance displays.
I am not saying that is what is going on here. But Lucium's articulation of his frustrations reminded me of such speculation.
O/U on number of days till Luciom gets re-banned for a post starting "I'm not allowed to discuss this here, but..."?
What are the rules on this? Can I ask for drone extrajudicial killings of enemies of the west like Obama did, but to more of them and a wider range for example?
Can't advocate for physical harm to people, even if it's Trump. We weren't allowed express regret that the attempt on him was unsuccessful, for example. Them's the rules, kiddo.
Wow, with these adjectives we just keep moving further left as you go. We're really not the ones who are extreme, and if you disagree you certainly don't have to post here. There are clearly right wing people who post here without being banned, though.
Man, you guys are just like those other hyper radical leftists, the Nazis.
Can't advocate for physical harm to people, even if it's Trump. We weren't allowed express regret that the attempt on him was unsuccessful, for example. Them's the rules, kiddo.
Doesn't appear to be the rule at all, as people didn't get banned when cheering hamas members being killed and advocating for more of that. Nor when cheering russians being killed.
So no that is absolutely not a confirmed, enforced rule on this board in all occasions.
Moreover i am pretty sure a person CAN advocate for the death penalty in this forum without being banned, and that's advocating for physical harm to people.
So, "kiddo", try better
Doesn't appear to be the rule at all, as people didn't get banned when cheering hamas members being killed and advocating for more of that. Nor when cheering russians being killed.So no that is absolutely not a confirmed, enforced rule on this board in all occasions. Moreover i am pretty sure a person CAN advocate for the death penalty in this forum without being banned, and th
I'm not a mod, but that was my understanding of the rules. There might be exceptions for willing combatants, no idea, I don't go in those threads.
Debating the death penalty seems like it would be an obvious exception.
Wow, with these adjectives we just keep moving further left as you go. We're really not the ones who are extreme, and if you disagree you certainly don't have to post here. There are clearly right wing people who post here without being banned, though.
Some things you guys display are ultra radical , some radical, some just leftist, some centrist (never anything resembling a rightwing attitude ever though).
Not answering where the absolute, objective, transparent boundaries of the rules are, forcing people to "find their spot" by self censoring, is technically maoist .
I'm not a mod, but that was my understanding of the rules. There might be exceptions for willing combatants, no idea, I don't go in those threads.
Debating the death penalty seems like it would be an obvious exception.
So debating about *writing rules that allow legally to use violence* is the exception? that was my take as well which is why i frame my proposal as such
Can i debate legalizing torture in some cases?
Take your medicine without whining and follow the rules instead of pretending you don't know what they are when everyone else does, or go and post on 4chan or 8chan, your natural homes.
Do you agree that we should be allowed to debate any policy proposal of a democracy? taking either side?
I thnk we have to allow debate of any policy proposal that is the current serious politics. That difficult enough given how extreme the mainstream is these days.
You know you're struggling to meet the rules so it might be wise to stop looking for the line and stick to all the obviously ok stuff.
You could couch any extremist viewpoint that would otherwise be disallowed by couching it as a "policy proposal", so no. Nice attempt at an angle shoot, though.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
I thnk we have to allow debate of any policy proposal that is the current serious politics. That difficult enough given how extreme the mainstream is these days.
You know you're struggling to meet the rules so it might be wise to stop looking for the line and stick to all the obviously ok stuff.
it is not obvious to me at all what the line is. I definitely didn't think i wasn't allowed to claim that some antisemitic rants by irrelevant people weren't an actual threat to jews for example.
What are the rules on this? Can I ask for drone extrajudicial killings of enemies of the west like Obama did, but to more of them and a wider range for example?
yes ofc you can so long as it is directed at "terrorists".
furthermore, you can also just support the drone program in general that by the US's own calculation killed 90% civilians.
now you cant say it was good to kill those civilians and no one is allowed to say that you support killing civilians. but you can def say that you support a drone program that kills 90% civilians.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
I cant imagine that discussing policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament would be disallowed, but I'm not a mod.
No, i mean actual policy proposals by actual elected members of parliament and/or executives in the first world.
Like Poland allowing to shoot to kill immigrants trying to trespass on the border
In general, yes, this is allowed. However, I could easily see where posts on this topic cross the line, such as if they suggest that it's good to shoot immigrants before they pollute us with their inferior cultures.
We can't go through every single example you can dream up until you find the exact line because that would take forever and there is no exact line. It's fuzzy. If you don't think you can post without coming across as racist, then your views are likely not welcome here.
