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.
Is there a reason Meisner’s new account, originalgangster, hasn’t simply been banned again? It was only in January of this year that he attacked ganstaman in an ATF thread and ate a ban. Does permanent now mean wait six months, come back post mainly in the trans thread and attack ganstaman again?
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.
You guys are so focused on the “group" part, but I was focused on breaking down the identity part, what it means to identify. Because I genuinely believe what I posted here:
“Power doesn’t drive moral progress. Identity and identification drives moral progress.”
I’m not focused on a certain type of identity but rather the act or relating itself. Capeesh?
You guys are so focused on the “group" part, but I was focused on breaking down the identity part, what it means to identify. Because I genuinely believe what I posted here:
“Power doesn’t drive moral progress. Identity and identification drives moral progress.”
I’m not focused on a certain type of identity but rather the act or relating itself. Capeesh?
Not in the slightest. I have no idea what you mean by:
- Identity
- Identification
- Power
- Moral progress
- The act or (of?) relating itself
I mean, I understand what these words mean individually, I just have just never seen them in that order.
Cool. If you could add definitions of "identity" and "true self" in this context to your list of questions that you're planning on answering for us that'd be grand, thanks.
Identity is just any sort of idea a person has about themselves as it relates to other people.
True self is what you get after you strip away all of the false ideas that people have about themselves.
None of this is too hard.
Group identities become a problem when they supplant the self + soul. Still, identifying with other groups in your country is a moral good. It requires constant effort, but the alternative is the path toward civil war we are currently on in the U.S.
Identity is just any sort of idea a person has about themselves as it relates to other people.
True self is what you get after you strip away all of the false ideas that people have about themselves.
None of this is too hard.
Oh ok, like identity politics then. I remember you explaining that one to me a while back. Ok, 1 down, a few more to go.
Craig thinks that some group identity is needed, but group identities that slice up a nation in juxtaposed groups are a disaster, so the only group identity that can work is nationalism, I wrote it above.
and according to him it must be a nationalism open to criticism striving constantly to "improve"
Craig thinks that some group identity is needed, but group identities that slice up a nation in juxtaposed groups are a disaster, so the only group identity that can work is nationalism, I wrote it above.
and according to him it must be a nationalism open to criticism striving constantly to "improve"
Ok, I guess I can sort of follow that. It does lack some specificity (since "groups" of some description or another will always exist - no society can ever be truly homogenous, and it's human nature to identify with a group or "tribe") and, as an aside, "intersectionality" is a meaningless/terrible word to describe the phenomenon you have articulated.
Ok, I guess I can sort of follow that. It does lack some specificity (since "groups" of some description or another will always exist - no society can ever be truly homogenous, and it's human nature to identify with a group or "tribe") and "intersectionality" is a meaningless/terrible word to describe the phenomenon you have articulated.
intersectionality is what the left calls it
Not in the slightest. I have no idea what you mean by:
- Identity
- Identification
- Power
- Moral progress
- The act or (of?) relating itself
I mean, I understand what these words mean individually, I just have just never seen them in that order.
Full identification requires you to take on both the problems and guilt of the person / group you are identifying with. It’s not simply paying lip service to national identity while dehumanizing your political opponents.
This is why I view the current political class as morally illegitimate and why politics is not the solution.
Is there a reason Meisner’s new account, originalgangster, hasn’t simply been banned again? It was only in January of this year that he attacked ganstaman in an ATF thread and ate a ban. Does permanent now mean wait six months, come back post mainly in the trans thread and attack ganstaman again?
If a poster can come back from a ban and follow the rules, then maybe they've learned how to play nice and can stay. I don't view any of the comments against me to be against the rules.
Full identification requires you to take on both the problems and guilt of the person / group you are identifying with. It’s not simply paying lip service to national identity while dehumanizing your political opponents.
This is why I view the current political class as morally illegitimate and why politics is not the solution.
Ok man, god sees I tried.
I would like to hear the reason I am required to treat liars who insist on being liars who exist for no other reason than trolling like they deserve to be treated like adults since it is clear they won’t change, I won’t acquiesce and I’m the one who is screwed cuz of that unless I clear the runway and stop posting
You can call people liars (to an extent), but you go over the top with insults and cursing. If you don't want to treat people with at least some respect, then you aren't being forced to post here.
I always associated multiculturalism with cultural pluralism, which is distinct from racial pluralism.
in current parlance it's a lot about race
which is why you end up even getting mocked if you claim Switzerland was multicultural even when 100% white, to the point of some people on the left taking it personal if you push that (ask me how I know)
Group identities become a problem when they supplant the self + soul. Still, identifying with other groups in your country is a moral good. It requires constant effort, but the alternative is the path toward civil war we are currently on in the U.S.
Admittedly, I often struggle with interpreting statements about the soul, but I don't what it would mean for my group identity to supplant my soul.
