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.
As a long time connoisseur of Victor's posting, I have a slightly different take: Victor doesn't actually have a tangible world view that makes sense. Rather, his style is extreme contrarianism. Some may think that he does so in order to ruffle feathers, but I think it is more of an "I am so different and special, so nobody understands me" kind of thing. A couple days ago somebody posted about Bernie and AOC, politicians that you would think he would have at least some affinity with, and of
Victor might be a super rare anomaly in the USA (a grown adult with the worldview of young extremists) but they are so common in Italy I think I get his take pretty well.
He is just completely against first world capitalism and everything associated with it
I think the fact that you can only think that radical left wing (or progresive) policies as identity ones proves the point.
They're not something that can be tacked on. The left (or progresives) need to build a platform, argue on it and fight elections on it.
I'm not sure UKer like me is the one to define the platform but there needs to be one.
They can't, they autolose everywhere if they do in a 2 party system.
They can only have some hope by parasitically attaching themselves to one of the two parties.
Same is true for libertarians btw, but people on the right are more pragmatic so if someone is clearly more pro freedom you vote him accepting that he is still very far from your preferred model. At least you get a tad more freedom if he wins.
Radical leftists have ideological purity as a part of their moral pillars which makes them a problem if they attach to you
He thinks those regimes are bad versions of good ideas while first world capitalism is a bad version of a bad idea.
That's a nice line
In the past there was a dissusion as to why being communist leaning was much more acceptable in the forum than being fascist leaning. It's as you say because we consider the intent behind communism to be good whereas the intent behind fascism to be bad.
It's verty poor to consider a tiny period in time as proof about the idea in general
Capitalism owned the 20th century. I wouldn't on it for the 22nd.
It's verty poor to consider a tiny period in time as proof about the idea in general
Capitalism owned the 20th century. I wouldn't on it for the 22nd.
We've had this conversation. Communism has been an abject failure literally every time it has been tried. You appear to be claiming it's too small a sample size. Most reasonable people disagree.
It's not even a small sample size.
Arguments against it can be made of course but appealing to a few instances in highly labour dependent economies is just a fallacy.
It's not even a small sample size.
Arguments against it can be made of course but appealing to a few instances in highly labour dependent economies is just a fallacy.
I'm sure it was just an unfortunate confluence of circumstances that made it fail the last 5,377 times, and the next time will be a resounding success.
I'm not a fan personally. But it's going to be very different as the need for labour evaporates. Both as a system in itself and because capitalism will lose it's advantage.
"Bad" is a relative term. I'll take 2024 London with global warming/climate change over 2024 Pyongyang without it any day of the week.
You're making the Luciom Assumption that everything will always be manageable for the West. Plenty will disagree with you.
You might not have the same answer in a decade or two, and that uncertainty caused by putting profits ahead of people is why capitalism has let us all down.
Victor is of course mostly completely right about everything.
What leftists tend to get wrong is that they blame current conditions on "the mechanisms of capital", instead of actual people.
The Catalan opening sucks balls and ass and the mods should fix it.
You're making the Luciom Assumption that everything will always be manageable for the West. Plenty will disagree with you.
You might not have the same answer in a decade or two, and that uncertainty caused by putting profits ahead of people is why capitalism has let us all down.
I'm certainly not the one to argue that what we have is a perfect, or even great system. I've also certainly become more disillusioned with it over the last decade or so. But nothing the far left has suggested is remotely any better, and certainly the regimes people like Victor stan for are demonstrably far worse than what we have now.
Very good.
Also, every time he mentions some batshit insane thing the far left thinks or does I think of Victor and think "yep, sounds about right, that's them."
appreciate you taking the time to listen and not just putting up ear muffs and typing bOTh sIDeS BaD again
i'm at heart a liberal, but i've been disgusted by where my natural party has been going and whenever i try to point that out i just get called a hateful bigot by people who would otherwise be my natural allies
like i said ad nauseum over the past few years, i would never in a million years vote for kamala, nor would i vote for trump, but if we had some kind of australian mandatory vote thing and you had to select one of the two, i'm taking trump all day long over kamala despite that i think he should be in jail because to me it's more important to put a stop to this ideological shift of caring more about illegal immigrants than our own homeless etc etc and if the cost of that is 4 more years of trump then i'm fully onboard