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.
put a stop to this ideological shift of caring more about illegal immigrants
this is what happens when objective facts are ignored for vibes. Biden and the Dems have been just as bad as Trump on "illegal immigrants". they just dont talk a bunch of **** while doing it.
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
This is where you and Sam Harris (and you and I) part ways. He was making a case that he could understand why some people voted for Trump, but he certainly wasn't saying he agreed with their decision. In the second part of the same video he made a very eloquent case for why Trumpism is a danger and how it has already degraded democratic norms more than most people, especially conservatives, understand or care to admit. I agree with Sam Harris.
This is where you and Sam Harris (and you and I) part ways. He was making a case that he could understand why some people voted for Trump, but he certainly wasn't saying he agreed with their decision. In the second part of the same video he made a very eloquent case for why Trumpism is a danger and how it has already degraded democratic norms more than most people, especially conservatives, understand or care to admit. I agree with Sam Harris.
You sir, are correct.
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.
Could you elaborate on why you wouldn't want it for the 22nd?
Is it too unfettered, unregulated, and are those problems with human behavior minimized using a different approach?
I think your point is that we had capitalism during a period of human existence where progression and innovation was needed, but as a result, isn't as useful to mankind in the 22nd and when sustainability and the capabilities to do so are already in motion?
How would it work, exactly?
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
Man, just say "I'm an embarrassed Republican," this is taking all day.
I’m just surprised that anyone thinks Trump has ever had anything but contempt for the homeless.
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
If he could get away with it Trump would have all the homeless gunned down or incinerated.
The federal government dealing with homelessness is just one of the many violent subversion of the constitution, a denial of basic division of power.
Homelessness is 100% a local problem. States might decide to tackle it at a state level if their state constitution prescribes it, or not, but it's absurd, obscene, disgusting and eversive to discuss the topic at a federal level.
Ofc the last decades were so completely in denial of the basic working of the constitution that federal agencies and committees and whatnot, with 0 power and efficacy but great costs, exist to pretend to address that topic.
But have you guys all collective lost your minds with this continuous, incessant denial of the basic rules of your country?
The federal government dealing with homelessness is just one of the many violent subversion of the constitution, a denial of basic division of power.
Homelessness is 100% a local problem. States might decide to tackle it at a state level if their state constitution prescribes it, or not, but it's absurd, obscene, disgusting and eversive to discuss the topic at a federal level.
Ofc the last decades were so completely in denial of the basic working of the constitution that federal agencies and commi
Isn't it republicans who always use the "why are we spending money on xyz when we have so many homeless on our streets" (usually xyz has something to do with sending money to other countries) argument? Those conservatives love themselves a bit of casual constitutional rape, huh?
Wouldn't illegals be deported anyway if caught, on the grounds that they're illegal, regardless of what anyone believed?
Not sure. Sounds like it depends on who's in charge - if it's democrats then no, if republicans then yes. At least that's what what I inferred from all the rhetoric surrounding their policy positions. Also, I think Trump ran on a platform of actively going out to find them as opposed to just deporting them if they happened to pop up on the radar.
If they're caught committing crimes they get deported regardless though.
The federal government dealing with homelessness is just one of the many violent subversion of the constitution, a denial of basic division of power.
Homelessness is 100% a local problem. States might decide to tackle it at a state level if their state constitution prescribes it, or not, but it's absurd, obscene, disgusting and eversive to discuss the topic at a federal level.
Ofc the last decades were so completely in denial of the basic working of the constitution that federal agencies and commi
Don't you think if the Federal Government did something about the Fentanyl problem homelessness would go down as well? Other than that I agree with you. Homelessness is big business in California
Don't you think if the Federal Government did something about the Fentanyl problem homelessness would go down as well? Other than that I agree with you. Homelessness is big business in California
Pretty sure homelessness in CA is the opposite of business. It’s actually very bad for business and life in general. The people that are truly invested in the homelessness policies are mostly activists, and they can be defeated democratically quite easily if people are well-informed enough on how to do it.
Could you elaborate on why you wouldn't want it for the 22nd?
Is it too unfettered, unregulated, and are those problems with human behavior minimized using a different approach?
I think your point is that we had capitalism during a period of human existence where progression and innovation was needed, but as a result, isn't as useful to mankind in the 22nd and when sustainability and the capabilities to do so are already in motion?
How would it work, exactly?
I meant to say 'wouldn't bet on it'
Very briefly the reasoning is that captialism in the 20th century thrived because people were able to earn wealth from the value they could provide from their labour. That value of labour is evaporating. I'd argue the problem has already begun but by the 22nd century it will be dead and buried.
Communism (still not fan) had the idea that people would provide the value of their labour doing often hard shitty jobs with the state providing anyway. That too looks very different as the value of labour evaporates. We'r'e going to need some means of redistribution and it wont be via the value of our labour with some added tinkering.
Don't you think if the Federal Government did something about the Fentanyl problem homelessness would go down as well? Other than that I agree with you. Homelessness is big business in California
actually fentanyl kills some of them, there would be more homelessness without fentanyl around.
fentanyl is a terrible problem but homelessness has other causes.
mainly government corruption as usual, and a refusal to use the necessary state violence to fix it (coupled with the funds that already exist).
actually fentanyl kills some of them, there would be more homelessness without fentanyl around.
fentanyl is a terrible problem but homelessness has other causes.
mainly government corruption as usual, and a refusal to use the necessary state violence to fix it (coupled with the funds that already exist).
Pretty sure it's drug addiction and mental illness that causes most homelessness.
From the Ukraine thread. Seems wortthy of being here.
Hi there. Admin is here 😀 I might ban some frequent posters in this thread from the politics forum in the near future. And I want to state some basic guidelines to avoid getting banned.
You can say whatever you want about any government, president, or government official.
You can say whatever you want about any public figure.
You should restrain yourself from speaking badly about a large group of people, for example, the whole population of a country or an ethnic group.
You should restrain yourself
BGP obviously gave his special version of events to the admins before he self-banned, which is frustrating considering the amount of time and energy the mods here dedicated to his complaints.
I’ll keep my opinions about that and the surrounding circumstances to myself since it doesn’t matter anymore. His contributions will be missed.
I meant to say 'wouldn't bet on it'
Very briefly the reasoning is that captialism in the 20th century thrived because people were able to earn wealth from the value they could provide from their labour. That value of labour is evaporating. I'd argue the problem has already begun but by the 22nd century it will be dead and buried.
Communism (still not fan) had the idea that people would provide the value of their labour doing often hard shitty jobs with the state providing anyway. That too looks v
It's the wrong thread and I won't derail further but communism/socialism and capitalism are kind of archaic terms, and it isn't an either or as they can coexist despite the definitional differences in implications.
A regulated market that prevents exploiting workers and resources while using that revenue to care for everyone else is something that can work in theory and in practice and will have to as the need for labor continues to decrease - we are seeing that already take place. But human beings are simply overrated in their perceived intelligence and capabilities and that corruption we see in a capitalistic society isn't necessarily a function from the exploits of the system but more of the result from unrestricted human behavior. That system has better safeguards at preventing corruption than using a full faith honor system with the same people without those safeguards - because the human greed will always be there.
They are a bit archaic but the point is about redistrubution of wealth. 'Capitalism' uses the value of labour as a basis for that restribution ina competitive market. Whatever you want to call it, that is dying.
If we want democracy (I do) then we need to share wealth without earning it in some form of democratic socialism. Otherwise it will be authoratarianism in some form. Or maybe anarchy ( I'm not agaisnt some forms of that - maybe one day)
I'm not betting against authoratianism taking over.
