Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I also would add that some people are just much better at living with limited rules than other people are. Luckbox is a good example. He believes some truly crazy stuff. I don't agree with him on much. But if he is told that a particular topic or behavior is off limits, he generally attempts to live with the decision, whether he agrees with it or not.
I mostly just try to believe stuff that's true.
But the truth can be a bit crazy.
Is that true? I want zero moderation apart from bans for obvious spam and death threats etc. Maybe a small number of exceptions for very egregious **** that doesn't abate, not sure.
People should grow up and learn to scroll. There are several regs here I rarely bother reading because their content is so bad, and it's no big deal to scroll past them.
this is indeed exactly what i want
moderate spam and death threats - ignore the rest
phresh was banned for opposing a fringe leftist viewpoint which sam harris here declares is the insane out of touch stuff which caused trump to retake the whitehouse
he's a good poster and a solid dude but some mods here are extremists (but unaware that their positions are extreme, extreme to the point that a majority of americans voted for trump in retaliation)
Voting for Trump "in retaliation" to trans stuff, regardless what you think of trans stuff, is batshit insane. It's pretty much the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Voting for Trump "in retaliation" to trans stuff, regardless what you think of trans stuff, is batshit insane. It's pretty much the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
just listen to the piece first and then respond, i'm unfamiliar with his work, but he very articulately sums up what i've been unable to effectively convey over the past few years
It's 40 minutes long, I'll watch it a bit later. Sam Harris is one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse or whatever that group of atheists called themselves, right? Or am I getting him confused with someone else?
idk, i've heard his name a bit but am very unfamiliar with him - someone texted it to me and i listened and was blown away and super jelly i couldn't express these views as well as he did
this is indeed exactly what i wantmoderate spam and death threats - ignore the restphresh was banned for opposing a fringe leftist viewpoint which sam harris here declares is the insane out of touch stuff which caused trump to retake the whitehousehe's a good poster and a solid dude but some mods here are extremists (but unaware that their positions are extreme, extreme to the
Trying to find in-between rules for moderation , so more than me and you would like, would still allow complete denial of all gender theory to be discussed, because it's a very significant part of the population that believes that.
It's quite incredible to have a political forum at all if you don't allow a full, unadulterated defense of any political opinion which polls at least double digit in the country the political forum is based in.
Yes that would include incarcerating people if they refuse covid vaccination, something that more than 20% of americans agreed with at some point (basically all of them, democrats). As horrendous (and exceptionally more dangerous than gender-theory-denialism can ever be for society) as that idea is, how can you forbid people to claim they agree and defend the reasons , when it's a common enough opinion in society?
If you are going to ban CORE political ideas of a political party from being defended you can't have a politics forum. Even if the majority of the people in one forum disagree, don't you even want to know why others don't?
You can defend open borders in conservative subreddits and political forums. You will get a ton of people comment against you, some of them angry, but you wouldn't get banned.
It's 40 minutes long, I'll watch it a bit later. Sam Harris is one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse or whatever that group of atheists called themselves, right? Or am I getting him confused with someone else?
I remember the acronym IDW, intellectual dark web, for the group, maybe the 4 main ones were the horsemen?
Voting for Trump "in retaliation" to trans stuff, regardless what you think of trans stuff, is batshit insane. It's pretty much the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I doubt that swing voters who broke for Trump were motivated by 'retaliation' at all. From the Blueprint poll, it looks as though voters felt the Democrats were wandering off into the long grass of luxury-belief weirdness and had lost connection with most people's concerns.
I remember the acronym IDW, intellectual dark web, for the group, maybe the 4 main ones were the horsemen?
No, this was something else, found it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheis...
On 30 September 2007, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett met at Hitchens' residence in Washington, D.C., for a private two-hour unmoderated round table discussion. The event was videotaped and titled "The Four Horsemen".[31]
I must have come across it from following Chris Hitchens, always been a big fan. RIP sir.
Hitchens was an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq.
And? So were a lot of people. Are we blacklisting everyone who was a supporter at any stage from being respected for eternity, regardless of anything else they ever did?
Also, you're sure you're not thinking of his brother Peter, a Daily Mail columnist and notable right winger, right? Suffice to say that he and his brother quite publicly didn't get along.
I doubt that swing voters who broke for Trump were motivated by 'retaliation' at all. From the Blueprint poll, it looks as though voters felt the Democrats were wandering off into the long grass of luxury-belief weirdness and had lost connection with most people's concerns.
This is true, but it's also probably an accurate description of the losing side in most elections.
ffs I know who his brother is and have read enough of Christopher to know what he espoused. As a big fan of his I'm surprised you didn't know about his support for the Iraq invasion, considering the waves it made at the time.
Trying to find in-between rules for moderation , so more than me and you would like, would still allow complete denial of all gender theory to be discussed, because it's a very significant part of the population that believes that.It's quite incredible to have a political forum at all if you don't allow a full, unadulterated defense of any political opinion which polls at least
I agree with this, and have made the point before. At the very least a politics forum should allow discussion of anything within the current Overton window, and while exactly what falls within and outside it might be subject to debate around the edges, I don't think it's debatable "gender theory denialism" falls squarely within it.
ffs I know who his brother is and have read enough of Christopher to know what he espoused. As a big fan of his I'm surprised you didn't know about his support for the Iraq invasion, considering the waves it made at the time.
I should have been more specific, but I didn't expect to get pulled up on it. I'm a big fan of his work on atheism, specifically the debates I've seen him participate in. Outside of a couple of interviews and talks I've seen him give, I don't know much else about him. I don't think I'd even heard of him till I found videos of his debates on youtube, which would have been some time well after 2010, hence I have no idea about the Iraq war stuff.
Discussion of these things is good but making disparaging remarks about trans people definitely isn't.
I should have been more specific, but I didn't expect to get pulled up on it. I'm a big fan of his work on atheism, specifically the debates I've seen him participate in. Outside of a couple of interviews and talks I've seen him give, I don't know much else about him.
OK, I see. Yes he was great on most issues as a "man of the left" but being charitable was an anti-dictator purist rather than pragmatist which explains his odd stance on Iraq, which is quite a blot on the old copybook.
And? So were a lot of people. Are we blacklisting everyone who was a supporter at any stage from being respected for eternity, regardless of anything else they ever did?
Also, you're sure you're not thinking of his brother Peter, a Daily Mail columnist and notable right winger, right? Suffice to say that he and his brother quite publicly didn't get along.
Peter Hitchens was, for right-wing reasons, opposed to the Iraq war. (And also to NATO intervention in Kosovo. Peter seems to like letting dictators do their thing untrammelled. I don't altogether know why.) Christopher Hitchens was strongly in favour of the Iraq war, regarding Ba'athism as something like Fascist, and remained unrepentantly in favour to the day he died.
OK, I see. Yes he was great on most issues as a "man of the left" but being charitable was an anti-dictator purist rather than pragmatist which explains his odd stance on Iraq, which is quite a blot on the old copybook.
Also, just a general point - I had no interest in politics till about 2016, and would have been about 21-22 at the time of the Iraq war, so I really don't know much about the politics of that time in the sense of who supported what etc.
