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.
The entire subsaharan african continent was conquered by Bantus who pillaged, raped, genocided and in some cases merged with (usually , as normal throughout human history, by assassinating all men but keeping the women) previous groups.
When the "colonizers" arrived, they found people who descended from rapists, pillagers, genociders, like everyone else everywhere does.
"The west is an outlier" lol
The invasion that wiped out every man from Spain 4,500 years ago
New research indicates all local males on the Iberian peninsula were killed by hostile invaders with superior technology
//
The west IS ACTUALLY AN OUTLIER, because given what the technological differential would have allowed, it killed, raped, pillaged and genocided far less than all previous human groups with superior technology ever did in human history.
We could have literally wiped out the totality of human beings outside our group , or at least all men, like most technologically superior people did in the past, but we didn't.
That guy ancestors weren't native of that island, were they?
The original people from Cuba were the Guanahatabey, who reached the island 5-6k years ago.
Everyone else on the island is a violent invader or his ancestors were.
Neither of Castro parents was born in Cuba lol, and that would be an example of a peaceful human group living in harmony with nature without violence toward fellow human beings?
That guy ancestors weren't native of that island, were they?
The original people from Cuba were the Guanahatabey, who reached the island 5-6k years ago.
Everyone else on the island is a violent invader or his ancestors were.
Neither of Castro parents was born in Cuba lol, and that would be an example of a peaceful human group living in harmony with nature without violence toward fellow human beings?
Yes, migration has ~always existed. What's your point? That because Castro was descended from Spaniards it somehow invalidates something or other? You're just fulminating as usual.
Yes, migration has ~always existed. What's your point? That because Castro was descended from Spaniards it somehow invalidates something or other? You're just fulminating as usual.
Not "migration". Violent invasion, people coming and *taking other people stuff* (mainly land) for their own use.
Castro descended from spaniards who took stuff from previous occupants of the island and prospered thanks to that. Ie violent rapists, genociders, pillagers and so on. Because you know, that's human nature.
Casstro father literally was a soldier in the spanish army, and later worked for US company "American fruit company" lol.
Raping, genociding and pillaging isn't "human nature". It's the behaviour of people trained to act that way or succumbing to pressure in war-like situations.
closer to being a Reformer
^ True
Raping, genociding and pillaging isn't "human nature". It's the behaviour of people trained to act that way or succumbing to pressure to copy cohorts in war-like situations.
We aren't built to have a "worldwide society". It is human nature to not consider worthy of any inherent value, human beings who are in outgroups (men especially; for women there is the "let's take them in" aspect which happened a lot as well).
That's why it happened all the times throughout history everywhere, that what "human nature" means.
Stopped reading at the "worldwide society" straw man. Do better.
The one that speaks to me the most is that almost all politicians are corrupt and one must need only follow the money in order to see that as an indisputable truth
Eh. This goes too far imo, and I consider myself pretty cynical about the motives of most politicians. Some politicians are motivated by a desire to personally enrich themselves, but more commonly they are motivated by a desire to stay in office. Many could make much more money outside of politics if they chose to do so.
I've known only a couple of politicians well, but I wouldn't describe any of them as corrupt, and I certainly wouldn't describe all of them as wealthy. (I am revealing that I don't know Bob Menendez. I obviously understand that there are a lot of corrupt politicians out there.)
It isn't a strawman. Universalism in general is opposite to human nature. Like ideologies based on abstinence from sex, or on any other denial of basic human pulsions, are.
At least the traditionalists who have ideologies which demonize human nature, do admit that's human nature, they call it the devil tempting you or whatever, and they tell you , you have to fight your nature constantly to be moral (which creates a lot of mental illness down the line of course).
Leftists go one step further fully denying human nature encompasses things they don't like, claiming it's all about the environment, or training, or "the system" or whatever, and then automatically failing miserably even when they do control all society , because... it was human nature.
Societies that work well do accept it's human nature, try to strive for better moral behaviour among the elites but don't insist the masses are anything but that. So they give them the blood in the arena to watch and satisfy their bloodthirst and so on.
You haven't' yet explained why capitalism's apathy about climate change isn't a refutation of your claim that it's not fixated on the short term.
You haven't' yet explained why capitalism's apathy about climate change isn't a refutation of your claim that it's not fixated on the short term.
Because it's far easier and far more convinient in efficiency terms to deal with the consequences later with better technology than to handicap growth today too much.
Because climate change is far from being the apocalyptic risk that you people claim it is, as proven by the collective choices of the most succesful people around the world (ie those with money and power).
And btw the main obstacle to fixing that is your people opposition to widespread mass use of nuclear power. We are starting to see capital push for that (see microsoft and google building mini reactors to power their servers).
It is fixable, or it would be, with no significant change in how normal people in first world countries live, but your people oppose what works. Capitalism does it's thing and if your people aren't allowed to destroy it, it will fix this as it fixed everything we care about in the last centuries.
You don't even need the human nature argument.
What is a leftist society going to do if they find themselves invaded by... idk Russia?
There is also the fact that long term (50 + years) we are either exctint or with power inimaginable today (see AI), so that's literally the only thing that you should plan for,e verything else is objectively irrelevant
You don't even need the human nature argument.
What is a leftist society going to do if they find themselves invaded by... idk Russia?
umm
Because it's far easier and far more convinient in efficiency terms to deal with the consequences later with better technology than to handicap growth today too much.
Because climate change is far from being the apocalyptic risk that you people claim it is, as proven by the collective choices of the most succesful people around the world (ie those with money and power).
And btw the main obstacle to fixing that is your people opposition to widespread mass use of nuclear power. We are starting to se
So capitalism has worked out exactly how many degrees C the planet will warm by and when, and has ascertained that's not a threat to the societies it depends on and that technology to counteract the worst of the effects will become available?
Clever capitalism for not gambling recklessly with its own future!
Slavery is the leftist answer to being invaded?
