Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Seems reasonable.
But I say let him have his thread and when it devolves into white supremacy and a billion Luciom kill-them-all-when-its-legal posts then close it.
As I’ve said, I critique the left from the left primarily. I put my hope in the left because the left is supposed to lead moral development.
i read craig's op and it's basically the same viewpoint most monoculture asian societies have
same with tribal africa
only in the west would it be considered racist
That's why I asked if the same conversation would be allowed for non white -majority countries in this forum.
It seems the answer is yes, because people asking for a Palestinian Arab ethno state are allowed to make their case in this forum, but I wanted explicit confirmation
I have a very low tolerance for people who like to think they're being smart or cute by communicating in an evasive and circumlocutory manner. It's transparent sophistry and shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of your interlocutor. Write like a normal human being and you'll find I mock and troll you a lot less.
This cynicism is why I made the thread. Cynicism is the problem.
I have a very low tolerance for people who like to think they're being smart or cute by communicating in an evasive and circumlocutory manner. It's transparent sophistry and shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of your interlocutor. Write like a normal human being and you'll find I mock and troll you a lot less.
I very much agree with the bolded. And as I have said many times, confusion in the reader almost always is the fault of the writer.
That said, I'm not sure craig was playing a game. Most of his posts read exactly like the OP he just made. He may be incapable of communicating in what you or I would regard as a normal, direct way.
craig, he's not wrong though, with about half your posts i see multiple competing viewpoints you could be promoting because you like to keep things intentionally vague
this standard format would do wonders for your posting - as you can see that many people read your OP and interpreted it dramatically differently than you intended
thesis
supporting documentation
summarized conclusion
i believe apples are the best fruit
apples are better than oranges
apples are better than pineapples
apples are better than graps
since apples are better than so many other commonly eaten fruits, we can be assured they are the best
It just reads like some milquetoast policy paper - a lot of words, not much meaning.
craig, he's not wrong though, with about half your posts i see multiple competing viewpoints you could be promoting because you like to keep things intentionally vaguethis standard format would do wonders for your posting - as you can see that many people read your OP and interpreted it dramatically differently than you intendedthesissupporting documentationsummarized conclusio
Or even better, read your post out loud and ask whether it sounds like something that a flesh and blood human might actually say in a normal conversation. If the answer is no, try again.
craig, he's not wrong though, with about half your posts i see multiple competing viewpoints you could be promoting because you like to keep things intentionally vaguethis standard format would do wonders for your posting - as you can see that many people read your OP and interpreted it dramatically differently than you intendedthesissupporting documentationsummarized conclusio
Apples definitely are better than graps. I ****ing hate graps.
I very much agree with the bolded. And as I have said many times, confusion in the reader almost always is the fault of the writer.
That said, I'm not sure craig was playing a game. Most of his posts read exactly like the OP he just made. He may be incapable of communicating in what you or I would regard as a normal, direct way.
Morality is difficult to communicate. Some of my posts I know are going to be difficult to grasp. The response to this one was a surprise to me.
If people can specifically point out the parts that are word salad, it would be helpful.
I agree with the first part. I thought I was writing plainly and simply.
I guess the main point is that it’s not enough to just claim you have a national identity. Identification requires you to accept the problems + guilt of that other person / group. We are not doing that currently.
I have a very low tolerance for people who like to think they're being smart or cute by communicating in an evasive and circumlocutory manner. It's transparent sophistry and shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of your interlocutor. Write like a normal human being and you'll find I mock and troll you a lot less.
just comply just conform
craig, he's not wrong though, with about half your posts i see multiple competing viewpoints you could be promoting because you like to keep things intentionally vaguethis standard format would do wonders for your posting - as you can see that many people read your OP and interpreted it dramatically differently than you intendedthesissupporting documentationsummarized conclusio
Everything I wrote before this..
“ This is where national identity becomes useful and even necessary. “
.. was simply a lead up. It was supposed to break down why national identity is useful and necessary.
I could’ve / should’ve began with it is your point?
Everything I wrote before this..
“ This is where national identity becomes useful and even necessary. “
.. was simply a lead up. It was supposed to break down why national identity is useful and necessary.
I could’ve / should’ve began with it is your point?
You could start by exactly what you mean when you say "national identity", i.e. what it means in the context of your argument, as that is a term that is very much subject to interpretation.
Morality is difficult to communicate. Some of my posts I know are going to be difficult to grasp. The response to this one was a surprise to me.
If people can specifically point out the parts that are word salad, it would be helpful.
I'm sure that I will regret engaging in this exercise, but here it goes.
Through the socialization process, a group identity and a sense of duty is established in the child.
Quit using the passive voice. Sentences generally are harder to read when they are written in the passive voice. Tell us what you mean by vague terms like "socialization process" and "group identity." By "socialization process," do you simply mean the experience of growing up as a child in a particular culture? What do you mean by "group identity"? Are you primarily referring to race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, social status, wealth, regional identification, political affiliation, education level, union membership, etc.? Are you referring to all these things?
This group identity provides direction, and ideally moral guidance, to the child by saying, “This is how we do thing here.” Security and protection are other benefits of group membership.
However, there are costs of group identity as well. The problems and the guilt of the group become your problems and your guilt. .
The cohesion and persuasiveness of these sentences depend heavily on what exactly you mean by group identity, which isn't clear.
To the individual, this can be perceived as a sort of moral injury. In a free society, a morally concerned person is prone to de-identify with any group(s) which harms their moral self image and identify with a group they see as morally superior.
As far as I know, the concept of "moral injury" is relatively recent. You should explain what you mean by the term. Also, I'm not sure that you are using the term in the way that it is typically used in academic literature.
What is a "morally concerned" person? Almost everyone thinks that they have morals. What does it mean to "de-identify" with a group? Suppose you are a white person in the U.S. and you have been raised to feel remorse about the historical sin of slavery. That doesn't mean that you can successfully "de-identify" as a white person. Your skin is your skin. When you step on bus, you are going to look to the other passengers like exactly what you are -- that is, a white person.
Throughout history, nations have tried to control for this by enforcing a strong national identity and limiting freedom in order to establish and preserve a monoculture. While this strategy has obvious short term benefits, over the longer term it results in moral stagnation of its people due to living in an echo chamber.
You are proposing a causal chain here that is far from obvious. It is true that certain nations have limited freedoms and it true that certain nations have relatively cohesive cultures. But it isn't clear that those nations are organized in the way they are because of a desire to prevent the "de-identification" that you describe.
Also, the last sentence is very poorly written. You use "it" and its" within seven words of each other, but the referents are different, which makes for difficult reading.
Multiculturalism and free speech bring judgment and critique. This is a moral good. Still, there is the issue of morally concerned citizens crafting their group identity in a way where they start believing they have reached the end of moral development.
What evidence is there that any particular group believes that it has reached end of moral development? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any such evidence.
Then, they begin to seek power for the purpose of enforcing their morality on the other morally inferior groups.
Give an example of a group in a contemporary society that is behaving in the way you describe. Bonus points if the group is in the country where you reside. When you avoid giving examples, you cause the reader to speculate that you don't want to defend the application of your idea to any real world example.
This is where national identity becomes useful and even necessary. National identity says, “You know that other group who you don’t want to identify with and take on their problems / guilt, well they are you too.” For the people who primarily care about their moral image rather than actual moral development, they will resist this. But for the nations and people who take on this responsibility, they will gain the benefits of moral progress.
I think that you are suggesting that nationalism promotes moral progress, at least in relatively multicultural nations, but I'm not sure. In any case, you haven't proven the point. You have simply thrown it out there as a self-evident conclusion. Also, what do you mean by moral progress? How do we know when it is occurring?
The above is, in my mind, the position the political left should be promoting.
You need to state clearly and concisely what "the position" is. I still am not sure after reading the entirety of your post.
Fwiw I understood everything Craig wrote.
Damn Rococo, very good stuff there, you should be charging per minute for that.
@Craig - dude's done you a solid there, that's probably his pro bono quota for the month ITF.
So you should be able to answer Rococo's questions then, right? Because you wouldn't simply be picking out key words then extrapolating them to imbue his text, which is vague enough to mean just about whatever you want it to mean, with your own interpretation of it now, would you?
