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.
No idea what this has to do with the conversation, but sure any of those, take your pick or assume all 3.
These unfortunately were't true leftist regimes as those exist only in theory. In the real world the right corrupts all.
I would say that Colombians today seem a lot happier with Petro than Argentinians were under Christina Fernandez de Kirchner
Lucium beat me to it. But the correct response to this is that leftism has an incorrect model of reality, especially human evolutionary psychology, which is why leftist societies dont work. And not only do they not work, because they are organized around faulty premises, they give much worse results.
--Damn, a lot of posts since I went to bed. Did you guys play a WW game here last night?
It's such an odd question. We beat napolean without conscription. A little thing called the british empire managed without it.
I think it's fair to say the left aren't keen on conscription so we should definitely plan not to need it either. However I've never heard of some fundamental plank of left wing thinking that means it can't be a last resort.
No that's not what raised food prices and led to shortages in Europe recently. Low yields in Spain and other places were responsible, and guess what caused that?
You are mixing up olive oil (whose yields decreased in 2022-23, now they are coming back from that) with everything else.
Recently we had a massive spike in energy prices because of Russia & green nonsense insanity, and agriculture uses energy as an input a lot, and that increases food prices.
And Ukraine itself was a big producer of food so we had supply problems linked to disruption there.
But in general regulation that your people pushes for and passes into law always increases prices. Truly insane stuff like the "no deforestation" regulation where companies have to check their suppliers with geolocation equipment. Truly Orwellian stuff.
If we could produce food with the rules that existed in 1950 it would cost far far less.
Thank you for clarfiying d2. I now get what Jalfresi was suggesting. So I guess the one option we've been given so far is:
1. forget all leftist ideals and resort to slavery
The main prayer for this leftist utopia is that they never have to answer my question because they have no hostile neighbors and a big enough buffer of liberal shitholes which are actually capable of defending themselves and are also peaceful enough not to invade.
It's such an odd question. We beat napolean without conscription. A little thing called the british empire managed without it.
I think it's fair to say the left aren't keen on conscription so we should definitely plan not to need it either. However I've never heard of some fundamental plank of left wing thinking that means it can't be a last resort.
I really doubt the people I'm asking this question to would consider UK a leftist nation.
Is Ukraine not at a last resort situation? It's being referred to as slavery for them.
It's such an odd question. We beat napolean without conscription. A little thing called the british empire managed without it.
I think it's fair to say the left aren't keen on conscription so we should definitely plan not to need it either. However I've never heard of some fundamental plank of left wing thinking that means it can't be a last resort.
The british empire managed because it ... wasn't a society inspired and built upon leftist ideals exactly lol. Actually the opposite. It was a society based on supremacy of anglo ideals, culture and ethnicity over everyone else on the planet, a very unequal one domestically as well where losers at the game of life lived horrible lives and succesful people lived splendid ones and so on and on.
A rightwing ethos society. Imperial, not ashamed of itself rather very proud, unapologetical in the use of violence to further society interests (both domestically and with foreigners) and so on.
The question is "how can a society built upon jalfrezi ideals of pacifism and so on defend itself from aggression".
You can translate it as, how can you keep existing if you don't have a military-industrial complex (or you piggyback on another country military-industrial complex)?
I really doubt the people I'm asking this question to would consider UK a leftist nation.
Nor would I. Just addressing your odd question. We had a left wing government in 1945. Many with very distinguished records fighting the nazis
You seem to be arguing against some utopia nonsense. An easy argument but not addressing anything serious as being left wing is not being utopian.
Is Ukraine not at a last resort situation? It's being referred to as slavery for them.
by who? The whole of the left?
Is it some requirement of being left wing to claim conscription in ukraine is slavery?
Sure. and if we could manufacture with the rules (or lack of them) that existed in the Victorian era we could outcompete Chinese companies.
Can you think of any disadvantages?
Your schtick is getting old. This garbage was repeated by the economic far right back in the 80s, heavily influenced by Hayek.
Nor would I. Just addressing your odd question
We had a left wing government in 1945. Many with very distinguished records fighting the nazis
You seem to be arguing against some utopia nonsense. An easy argument but not addressing anything serious as being left wing is not being utopian.
So wait a sec, is this LEFTISM in YOUR MODEL?
/
The 1945–1946 War in Vietnam, codenamed Operation Masterdom[3] by the British, and also known as the Southern Resistance War (Vietnamese: Nam Bộ kháng chiến)[4][5] by the Vietnamese, was a post–World War II armed conflict involving a largely British-Indian and French task force and Japanese troops from the Southern Expeditionary Army Group, versus the Vietnamese communist movement, the Viet Minh, for control of the southern half of the country, after the unconditional Japanese surrender.
Western countries recognise three Indochina Wars: the first being France's unsuccessful eight-year conflict with the Viet Minh nationalist forces (1946–1954); the second being the war for control of South Vietnam, featuring an unsuccessful American-led intervention, ending in 1975; finally, the conflict in Cambodia, sparked by the Vietnamese invasion in 1978. This numbering overlooks the brief but significant initial conflict, from 1945 to 1946, that grew out of the British occupation force landing at Saigon to receive the surrender of Japanese forces.
The Viet Minh were defeated by the combined British/French/Japanese forces, and southern control of Vietnam was reasserted by the French colonial empire, leading to the First Indochina War.
You are using a different definition.
UK has never been leftist. Even suggesting that UK under Churchill was leftist probably caused some audible gasps from several leftists itt.
The leftist notions being floated around are indeed utopias. The type that most sophmores in highschool realize are unrealistic fantasies.
She is not wrong. By all accounts he was foraging for supplies when he was caught, but did fight till the end. That being said, I have had little exposure to Caitlyn Johnson (a tweet here or there), but I am pretty confident that supporting and glorifying brutal authoritarian bad actors that are worse than the liberal world along any dimension is not a path towards the better future of humanity she insists is her goal.
Sinwar, Putin, the Ayatollahs, Maduro and Kim are not benevolent wise men who are going to lead humanity towards a better future. They are brutal, corrupt authoritarians who have all tremendously mismanaged their nations; and there is an extremely long line of people trying to flee these madmen, and a tiny line of people trying to get in their nations.
The british empire managed because it ... wasn't a society inspired and built upon leftist ideals exactly lol. Actually the opposite. It was a society based on supremacy of anglo ideals, culture and ethnicity over everyone else on the planet, a very unequal one domestically as well where losers at the game of life lived horrible lives and succesful people lived splendid ones and so on and on.
A rightwing ethos society. Imperial, not ashamed of itself rather very proud, unapologetical in the use o
I'm not going to accept your claims about Jalfrezi but to address the point
being left wing doesn't require being a pacifist. A very small proportion are pacifists afaik
You are using a different definition.
UK has never been leftist. Even suggesting that UK under Churchill was leftist probably caused some audible gasps from several leftists itt.
The leftist notions being floated around are indeed utopias. The type that most sophmores in highschool realize are unrealistic fantasies.
Churchill was not part of the left wing goverment of 1945.
Left wing is not utopian. Portraying it that way to win arguments makes the argument very weak.
Man the whole thing started with jalfrezy decrying interventionism as evil and leftism as fully opposed to that
Agan Jalfezi can speak for himself and i dotn accept your portrayal
Personally I've never heard being absolutely against interventionism as some necessary part of being left wing. Not sure it's any part.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I was specifically responding to the contention that I've been indoctrinated by shithole countries so that's why my tiny mind is incapable of grasping the brilliance of leftist ideology.
Which is an understandable reaction but let's not confuse it with some reasoned debate about the left
Mod questions. lolololololol
