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.
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.
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 usually learn fast and stop giving us problems which is kind of the topic.
"Democracy building" with troops om the ground fo
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.
