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.
I feel much better about not having any idea what craig was trying to say. I am an idiot when it comes to word salads which is why trying to read the Bible makes me want to lay down.
I'm sure that I will regret engaging in this exercise, but here it goes.
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, sexu
Thanks for taking the time. Your overarching critique seems to be that I didn’t elaborate enough on certain things. I agree, but I’m not writing a book here. I’m already getting accused of word salad and wasting time by other posters.
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.
Yes, you have understood the main point of my post. The purpose was to introduce the idea without writing an entire book. It’s a moral truth claim which is derived differently than a purely rationalistic truth claim based on proof.
Again, thanks for taking the time. I would see the validity of the criticism more if you didn’t receive the main point I was trying to communicate, but you did.
Looks like no one here ever read a CRT paper, or you would all be "rightwing extremists" like me if you did, given how much you hate word salads (as I do).
Gender theory published literature in particular
Looks like no one here ever read a CRT paper, or you would all be "rightwing extremists" like me if you did, given how much you hate word salads (as I do).
Gender theory published literature in particular
I'd probably rather slather my dick with honey and stick it in a hive of killer bees than read an academic paper on anything that is not a STEM topic or closely adjacent to one (e.g. economics). I imagine they do in fact read very much like craig's posts.
Mocking this phenomenon is nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affa....
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?
Yes I can answer any questions about what Craig wrote.
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?
craig see rococo's better breakdown
here's your intro
Through the socialization process, a group identity and a sense of duty is established in the child.
you're starting off not by saying what it is you want to say, but simply pointing out the existence of an abstract idea
the following sentence does nothing for it
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.
this is just more abstractions upon abstractions
so what is your idea here? we still don't know. you're just using the most complicated way possible to say a 3 letter word of "groups have culture"
so groups have culture got it
you end with this
The above is, in my mind, the position the political left should be promoting.
that's perfect, that's what we're talking about, you end with a "this is what i think the left should be doing"
but... what exactly do you think they should be doing? that's unclear because you open with "groups have culture" how is the left doing "groups have culture"????
so perhaps it's the second part of a concluding thought and we'll go up one
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.
alas, it's not a concluding sentence, but a continuation of the thought above
and again, it's all abstract - this paragraph taken by itself is meaningless
i'm guessing you're saying that nations should have a single culture - but i already know that to be wrong because you said you're advocating the opposite, so i have no idea what you wanted to say
when you communicate like this so vaguely, you leave it open to interpretation, which means one person reads that and thinks you're advocating for white supremacy, others read it and believe you're advocating for a national monoculture - because we can't follow what you're saying so instead just pick out a single sentence and say "that's probably it"
this is why you should introduce and conclude your thoughts concisely instead of freeballin it
Good pointers there also, rickroll. I'll briefly add my 2c.
Ask yourself the following questions:
1. "Would a 13 year old understand what I'm trying to communicate with this passage?"
2. "Am I trying to communicate a nuanced concept that I wouldn't expect a 13 year old to understand?"
If the answer to both questions is "no", re-write it from scratch.
I'd probably rather slather my dick with honey and stick it in a hive of killer bees than read an academic paper on anything that is not a STEM topic or closely adjacent to one (e.g. economics). I imagine they do in fact read very much like craig's posts.
Mocking this phenomenon is nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affa....
all ok, except when those fields of "science" become the basis for the whole ideology of the main parties on the left in the western world, then you should start noticing
Rick, Craig more or less was claiming that the left should promote healthy nationalism.
he also says that a sovereign nation can't exist without huge problems, if the vast majority of people don't agree on some core set of values identified as being part of that nation.
he is saying that racial identification as a core identity in a multicultural society is a complete disaster.
and that whatever end point of morals you reach as a national group at the present time should be always subject to criticism, and that criticism be allowed, and denying that is destructive for society.
he allows for the ever-changing (toward progress?) idea of morality of the left (so he abides to some sort of arc of history) but without forgetting nationalism and fighting against intersectionality.
is a vanilla Hegelian attempt to synthesize what he sees as good in the moral compass of leftism with what he thinks works pragmatically.
Rick, Craig more or less was claiming that the left should promote healthy nationalism.
he also says that a sovereign nation can't exist without huge problems, if the vast majority of people don't agree on some core set of values identified as being part of that nation.
he is saying that racial identification as a core identity in a multicultural society is a complete disaster.
and that whatever end point of morals you reach as a national group at the present time should be always subject to critic
Whether I agree with this or not, at least I understand it. I find it hard to believe you got all that from craig's post rather than just extrapolating your own interpretation from a few key words, though.
Whether I agree with this or not, at least I understand it. I find it hard to believe you got all that from craig's post rather than just extrapolating your own interpretation from a few key words, though.
I know the slang because intellectual dark web left leaning people talk exactly like Craig
ofc Sam Harris would have written it better but the ideas and the wording are like that
Rick, Craig more or less was claiming that the left should promote healthy nationalism.
he also says that a sovereign nation can't exist without huge problems, if the vast majority of people don't agree on some core set of values identified as being part of that nation.
he is saying that racial identification as a core identity in a multicultural society is a complete disaster.
and that whatever end point of morals you reach as a national group at the present time should be always subject to critic
If he meant racial identity, then why did he use the term "group identity," which is both broader and more vague than racial identity?
I can think of a couple of bad answers to that question, but I can't think of any good answers.
Regardless of what exactly his post meant, I think the fact that a number of intelligent people who usually have no problems with reading comprehension are debating its meaning is sufficient evidence that it was word salad.
If he meant racial identity, then why did he use the term "group identity," which is both broader and more vague than racial identity?
I can think of a couple of bad answers to that question, but I can't think of any good answers.
to include sex and sexual preference groups as well, the whole of intersectionality, but putting "multiculturalism" in the title meant he is primarily focused against racial identity.
he is saying that people that cut society I to slices and pander to those groups, are doing damage to society.
it's the very vanilla critique of radical leftism intersectionality, very common on the moderate-left-turning-right (the equivalent of never Trumpers on the left)
Good pointers there also, rickroll. I'll briefly add my 2c.
Ask yourself the following questions:
1. "Would a 13 year old understand what I'm trying to communicate with this passage?"
2. "Am I trying to communicate a nuanced concept that I wouldn't expect a 13 year old to understand?"
If the answer to both questions is "no", re-write it from scratch.
the single biggest thing i would ask other product managers and designers in meetings is "but if you handed this app to your grandmother, would she be asking you follow up questions on what to do next or could she figure it out on her own?"
Craig has repeatedly posted about how identity takes us away from our true selves.
