Moderation Questions for Whiners
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, but don't pretend like your opinion has anything to do with the numerosity of trans people. You feel the same way about black people, women, etc.
No I don't think the same about women.
Women deserve special superior legal protections in various cases, like women only prisons jist for example. And the exemption to military draft as well if there are enough men to cover needs.
I do think the same for races (complete racial blindness is the only thing that can work stably) but I don't think the same for languages.
I quite understand why a country might subsidize dying/low frequency languages that have an identitarian cultural element to that country (so I am ok with subsidies for Welsh language in the UK same as I am for 1000 years old buildings).
I am ok with every single European language having translators in the EU for all official documents even if it's inefficient.
But anyway point was and is that the bullying went on very violently from a single side for many years. Dunno if it was the mandate to sign pledges agreeing with gender theory (that is very different from accepting the existence of trans people) or the mutilation of minors or the biological men in women sports or the pronouns in bio or all of it together but at some point normal people correctly snapped and said enough to the actual bullies and just want to go back to normality.
A normality where trans people exist and no one in any place of society EVER owes them anything they don't owe to any other individual in society of their biological sex.
Are the biological sexes owed different things?
Thread was closed because everyone agreed in the mod forum that it was a raging dumpster fire of bigotry that has no place here
And then a political party with ideas FAR more anti-trans than the median poster in that thread won the elections and so basically we are in a political forum barred from agreeing even in part on a topic with the party that got more votes in the USA.
Yes as I said above, women deserve special protections, as the vast majority of civilized societies agreed with until the very recent past.
Military draft rules being different is probably the most important example
What do you mean by protections and why do women deserve them?
Special treatment in front of the law.
Again (third time), military draft rules are the biggest example. Most countries don't draft women in the military even in emergencies, and some of those who do don't plan to put them on the field facing the same risks as men anyway (but they are willing to draft them for all other roles.
Regardless of our personal preferences that's what happens right now in most countries including many at the top of civilization indexes.
As to why that happen you should ask the super majorities in most countries that do agree with it.
They do it because they’re chauvinist and also to preserve the baby factories
It’s mostly the second thing, btw. It isn’t altruism or to protect us; it’s because history has shown that societies who only use male fighters are naturally selected via evolution for their ability to repopulate quickly. It’s not to “protect” us, it’s to protect you by keeping all the women home to impregnate. So please spare me the narrative that it’s for our benefit. It isn’t.
It’s mostly the second thing, btw. It isn’t altruism or to protect us; it’s because history has shown that societies who only use male fighters are naturally selected via evolution for their ability to repopulate quickly. It’s not to “protect” us, it’s to protect you by keeping all the women home to impregnate. So please spare me the narrative that it’s for our benefit. It isn’t.
I suspect that the motivation to have women's only prisons is at least as much about maintaining security as it is about protecting female prisoners.
I suspect that the motivation to have women's only prisons is at least as much about maintaining security as it is about protecting female prisoners.
Oh, I totally agree. But protect them from what?
Let’s just all be real here for a second. The “protections” are all just things men themselves impose on us. It’s just protection from YOU guys! ****ing lol.
We’re “protecting” you from us! 🙄
We’re protecting you from us killing you, protecting you from us raping you. Yeah you can take that nonsense and go peddle it some pick me in her twenties who hasn’t figured out the natural order of things yet. I’m not the one.
We’re protecting you from us killing you, protecting you from us raping you. Yeah you can take that nonsense and go peddle it some pick me in her twenties who hasn’t figured out the natural order of things yet. I’m not the one.
This is how most mammalian species have operated for millions of years. It is hardwired. Males compete with each other, at the individual and tribe level, over access to reproduction (females). Genetic analysis indicates that prehistory mostly entailed different tribes of humans conquering each other, wiping out the males, and mating with the females. Similar to most other mammal species. That is actually the "natural" order of things.
I mean, if you want to argue modern liberal society has developed a better system for gender norms that is fine. But it certainly wouldn't be accurate to argue modern liberal gender norms are "natural"
It’s mostly the second thing, btw. It isn’t altruism or to protect us; it’s because history has shown that societies who only use male fighters are naturally selected via evolution for their ability to repopulate quickly. It’s not to “protect” us, it’s to protect you by keeping all the women home to impregnate. So please spare me the narrative that it’s for our benefit. It isn’t.
I don't see how repopulation would be more for the benefit of one sex than the other.
We’re protecting you from us killing you, protecting you from us raping you. Yeah you can take that nonsense and go peddle it some pick me in her twenties who hasn’t figured out the natural order of things yet. I’m not the one.
Wow, that is the most biased opinion I have ever read in this forum. You believe every man is a murderer and a rapist?
If you don't actually believe that, then it should be easy to identify that it is the non-murderers and non-rapists who want to protect women from the bad guys.
Oh no, not the bad guys! Lol chillrob
And good luck appealing to Rococo. Of all men here, he knows the score. That’s why I like him.
And honestly chillrob, I don’t care. Be mad 😀
This is how most mammalian species have operated for millions of years. It is hardwired. Males compete with each other, at the individual and tribe level, over access to reproduction (females). Genetic analysis indicates that prehistory mostly entailed different tribes of humans conquering each other, wiping out the males, and mating with the females. Similar to most other mammal species. That is actually the "natural" order of things.
I mean, if you want to argue modern liberal society has
You tend to just make things up. Conflict between groups over females is the norm for mammals? There really isn't a norm for mammals in this regard. Like even among great apes mating is extremely different between gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans.
There is no typical mammal, but if there were, it's probably some kind of bat. And there are a lot of different kinds of bats with a few different mating behaviors, but female choice is the norm with males doing the attracting, as with a lot of birds.
Wow, that is the most biased opinion I have ever read in this forum. You believe every man is a murderer and a rapist?
If you don't actually believe that, then it should be easy to identify that it is the non-murderers and non-rapists who want to protect women from the bad guys.
It didn't seem to me like she was saying that. Seemed like she was saying women are segregated in prison to protect them from men, which is correct I think. I think her point was just that she wasn't gushing with gratitude towards men for protecting women from men.
It didn't seem to me like she was saying that. Seemed like she was saying women are segregated in prison to protect them from men, which is correct I think. I think her point was just that she wasn't gushing with gratitude towards men for protecting women from men.
I interpreted her comment the same way as you.
You tend to just make things up. Conflict between groups over females is the norm for mammals? There really isn't a norm for mammals in this regard. Like even among great apes mating is extremely different between gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans.
There is no typical mammal, but if there were, it's probably some kind of bat. And there are a lot of different kinds of bats with a few different mating behaviors, but female choice is the norm with males doing the attracting, as with a lo
It also seems more than a little euphemistic to describe the prospect of sexual assault in mixed gender prisons as "competition among males for access to reproduction."
