Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
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.
Almost everyone did. Because all main media did.
And that's the kind of world people now want to come back to when they say social media is bad for democracy
Btw there was (and is?) a big difference between being in favour of going to draw and assassinate Saddam and his cronies, or staying to "foster democracy".
Many people like me are fully in favour of annihilating anyone who steps on our feet, and then leave, and then if someone else comes and gives us problems again we assassinate him, and everyone around him and so on.
People usually learn fast and stop giving us problems which is kind of the topic.
"Democracy building" with troops om the ground forever was and is an insane idea.
“If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.” - Hitchens
One of the all time great burns of a dead man.
True, but it's a fine line between that and deliberately referring to eg trans women as men, which is just an attack.
I have no horse in this race, but I think that if something is a fine line then the angle should be to err on the side of under-moderation rather than over-moderation. I'm certainly not in favour of blanket banning an opinion because there is a fine line between that opinion and some other opinion.
I didn't say I thought it should be moderated but that it is a disparaging remark. Ideally the weight of opinion among posters would be against it.
Political view could be discussed while trying to avoid disparaging remarks towards vulnerable groups.
Unfortunately not a popular view.
I'm not a group
I used to have a line I liked about what you would have to do to offend me but unfortunately it's too un PC.
Btw there was (and is?) a big difference between being in favour of going to draw and assassinate Saddam and his cronies, or staying to "foster democracy".Many people like me are fully in favour of annihilating anyone who steps on our feet, and then leave, and then if someone else comes and gives us problems again we assassinate him, and everyone around him and so on.People usu
Except it worked with Japan and Germany. People just aren’t willing to make the commitment anymore.
Except it worked with Japan and Germany. People just aren’t willing to make the commitment anymore.
Yes it worked for countries with great local histories of previous success, where you "just" have to let them get back to what they were.
It never worked anywhere the country wasn't previously among the best in the world (already fully civilized and so on)
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?
Yeah, they basically popularized the New Atheism movement. Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett had a roundtable discussion on the topic (on YouTube), and Hitchens wrote a book titled The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution. They have a myopic understanding of religion, but at the same time, I don't dislike any of them. Dennett has some interesting ideas and a better understanding of the topic than any of them, but a lot of his conclusions are incoherent. Hitchens was an excellent writer, and his flippant behavior could be pretty funny. He mostly focused on institutions. Dawkins adds nothing of value to that conversation, but overall, he's great. Harris is boring. He's well-spoken and has plenty of common sense views about politics, but I've never heard him say anything profound, and a lot of his ideas are oversimplified. However, his criticisms of the new left are pretty spot on.
Spoiler
This is the moment that put Harris on the map. In my opinion, he's short-sighted, in that he blames religion and tends to disregard other factors, but watching him and Ben Affleck go at it is entertaining.
I always got a kick out of Dawkins reading hate mail.
Dawkins came out as "cultural Christian" recently lol.
those guys were all just bigoted frauds looking for a reason to warmonger.
Dawkins came out as "cultural Christian" recently lol.
those guys were all just bigoted frauds looking for a reason to warmonger.
Dawkins is a warmonger? How sure are you that you know what that word means? Is this a bit like "lying," which you use as a synonym for "anything I disagree with"?
Yes it worked for countries with great local histories of previous success, where you "just" have to let them get back to what they were.
It never worked anywhere the country wasn't previously among the best in the world (already fully civilized and so on)
Korea, Iraq, it was working in Afghanistan until we all collectively decided to give up on a project that was slowly but surely working.
Half of those guys are Epstein buddies and promoted for a reason.
Since President Trump was now elected president (for the 3rd time) can we please close the "ex-president Trump" thread since we have a more current "Trump 2nd term prediction threads"? There's not really a need for multiple threads about Trump IMO.
