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.
The vast majority of violent crimes are committd by a minuscule percentage of the population. Almost all by young, under-educated adult men, and among them, you have pareto proportions again and again.
What if we just make all men start in jail. You’re on death row until you earn your way out. Guilty until proven innocent. Boom. All problems solved.
I expect Luciom to support my ideas 👍
I'm quite fond of the welfare state. I see no point in being a member of a society of hoarders.
If that's is where my country ever goes, then let us no longer pretend we are a society. I also refute the notion that I should in any way be bound by duty, obligation or law in a "society" that won't even care for its members. That is not a nation worthy of any respect, it's a glorified and very tedious round of king of the hill.
I also refute the notion that I should in any way be bound by duty, obligation or law in a "society" that won't even care for its members. That is not a nation worthy of any respect, it's a glorified and very tedious round of king of the hill.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. You are going to subject to the laws, whether you personally feel bound by them or not. Also, consider whether there be some logical connection between the societal failure and the law you are not bound by.
It isn't intuitive to me that I should be able to drive my car into a playground w/o fear of legal consequences just because I live in a country that doesn't have adequate policies to address homelessness.
What if we just make all men start in jail. You’re on death row until you earn your way out. Guilty until proven innocent. Boom. All problems solved.
Why do you need to dismantle the basic fabric of the rule of law like per your proposal, instead of just increasing the penalties for repeated offenders? those do prove by they own actions not to deserve a place in society.
I'm quite fond of the welfare state. I see no point in being a member of a society of hoarders.
If that's is where my country ever goes, then let us no longer pretend we are a society. I also refute the notion that I should in any way be bound by duty, obligation or law in a "society" that won't even care for its members. That is not a nation worthy of any respect, it's a glorified and very tedious round of king of the hill.
So the UK in 1875 or the USA or Australia or Germany weren't societies?
You aren't the first to dislike your society rules enough not to feel part of it in an obligatory moral sense, that happens routinely to many people, it happened to people on the right for decades in many european countries for example.
But see when there is little taxation and little government interference, at least you are not the slave of the same society you deeply despise
I'm not sure exactly what this means. You are going to subject to the laws, whether you personally feel bound by them or not. Also, consider whether there be some logical connection between the societal failure and the law you are not bound by.
It isn't intuitive to me that I should be able to drive my car into a playground w/o fear of legal consequences just because I live in a country that doesn't have adequate policies to address homelessness.
He says that he fails to recognize any moral validity in any society that isn't heavily social-democratic (ie in most human groups in history since agriculture).
What if we just make all men start in jail. You’re on death row until you earn your way out. Guilty until proven innocent. Boom. All problems solved.
I believe a huge portion of violent crime is committed by those under the influence of alcohol as well. Gotta work that into the equation somehow.
There is a reason why a podcast where one smokes pot with MikeTyson exists and a podcast where one gets drunk with MikeTyson doesn't.
Bolded has no application to Luciom. He doesn't want to be known as a fascist because he views fascism, especially in Italy, as too collectivist for his taste. But far right? He's fine with that label. He applies it to himself.
far right when used to describe Milei* (or say Wilders, which is too moderate for him but at least i don't despise his whole platform), not Le Pen or the like.
Fascism is too collectivist, too paternalist, too authoritarian, too censorious, it's like the anti-me
Again, I would have a lot more sympathy for your desire to be very precise about the historical definition of fascism if you didn't use "Marxist" as an all purpose pejorative. It's all gestalt for you when discussing Marxism. A person doesn't have to adhere at all closely to the nuances of Marxism in order earn the label. But we have to be very precise when using the term fascism because you don't like to be labelled improperly.
because marxism isn't a crime in my country (and others in europe), fascism is, so a misuse of the second label has legal consequences when agreed upon by society, so yes it should be used very sparingly and only when clearly usable.
And btw it has been a while since i called anyone marxist in this forum (outside of those who actually self define as marxists)
because marxism isn't a crime in my country (and others in europe), fascism is, so a misuse of the second label has legal consequences when agreed upon by society, so yes it should be used very sparingly and only when clearly usable.
I can't imagine that people calling you a fascist in this forum is going to subject you to criminal liability in Italy. But if I'm wrong about that, you should leave this forum immediately -- like, this instant.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. You are going to subject to the laws, whether you personally feel bound by them or not. Also, consider whether there be some logical connection between the societal failure and the law you are not bound by.
It isn't intuitive to me that I should be able to drive my car into a playground w/o fear of legal consequences just because I live in a country that doesn't have adequate policies to address homelessness.
Your example is turned on its head. It would be this hypothetical country that won't care for its members but enforces its laws that will have no issue with sending children to their death.
Which incidentally is how countries without social safety nets tend to go about their business, so this isn't even a hypothetical.
Your example is turned on its head. It would be this hypothetical country that won't care for its members but enforces its laws that will have no issue with sending children to their death.
Which incidentally is how countries without social safety nets tend to go about their business, so this isn't even a hypothetical.
that's how the world worked until very recently everywhere (after agriculture).
I'm not sure exactly what this means. You are going to subject to the laws, whether you personally feel bound by them or not. Also, consider whether there be some logical connection between the societal failure and the law you are not bound by.
It isn't intuitive to me that I should be able to drive my car into a playground w/o fear of legal consequences just because I live in a country that doesn't have adequate policies to address homelessness.
There a difference between moral and legal obligations.
I know you're smart, but I've seen first-hand in my brother, who is a lawyer, how those things get muddled.
Do you have an obligation to do what the Mafia tells you to do just because you live in a Mafia controlled neighborhood? If not, would that mean you have no obligation to anything?
I'm quite fond of the welfare state. I see no point in being a member of a society of hoarders.
If that's is where my country ever goes, then let us no longer pretend we are a society. I also refute the notion that I should in any way be bound by duty, obligation or law in a "society" that won't even care for its members. That is not a nation worthy of any respect, it's a glorified and very tedious round of king of the hill.
Also, if we are literally focusing on creating the possibility of having our work done by machines, it would not only make sense, but be pretty idiotic for us as a society to not allow that capability to make it so that we don't have to work as hard and successfully allow the govt to fund our permanent vacation away from it.
There a difference between moral and legal obligations.
I know you're smart, but I've seen first-hand in my brother, who is a lawyer, how those things get muddled.
Do you have an obligation to do what the Mafia tells you to do just because you live in a Mafia controlled neighborhood? If not, would that mean you have no obligation to anything?
TD said that he wouldn't feel bound "in any way" by any sort of "duty, obligation, or law" in a society that didn't take care of its members. The distinction between moral and legal obligations isn't muddled in my mind at all. I would feel morally obligated not to drive my car into a playground no matter what sort of society I lived in.
In general, I don't think of laws as obligations that the individual owes to the state. I think of them more as a social contract among individuals in a society. I certainly don't think that you have an obligation to the state that requires you to obey unjust laws.
In general, I would say that lawyers understand the concept of civil disobedience at least as well as non-lawyers, and lawyers probably are more supportive of civil disobedience as a legitimate form of protest than non-lawyers are.
Also, if we are literally focusing on creating the possibility of having our work done by machines, it would not only make sense, but be pretty idiotic for us as a society to not allow that capability to make it so that we don't have to work as hard and successfully allow the govt to fund our permanent vacation away from it.
Dream on if you think that the owners of those machines will allow the machines' profits to be spread around more evenly. When has that ever happened in the west?
TD said that he wouldn't feel bound "in any way" by any sort of "duty, obligation, or law" in a society that didn't take care of its members. The distinction between moral and legal obligations isn't muddled in my mind at all. I would feel morally obligated not to drive my car into a playground no matter what sort of society I lived in.
In general, I don't think of laws as obligations that the individual owes to the state. I think of them more as a social contract among individuals in a soc
It's a fairly modern question. Dont know if it even came up before republic and death of socrates.
Social contract is a view. I see it as part of democracy and as democracy fails any moral reasons to obey the law goes with it. That doesn't mean there aren't other moral reasons that coincide with the law. (Re an old conversation microbet who once misunerstood me, even with democracy there can also be (and frequently are) overwhelming moral reasons to break laws as well as the moral reason to follow them - that too is part of a well fuctioning democracy).
Also, if we are literally focusing on creating the possibility of having our work done by machines, it would not only make sense, but be pretty idiotic for us as a society to not allow that capability to make it so that we don't have to work as hard and successfully allow the govt to fund our permanent vacation away from it.
Bingo
except plebs kept as well treated pets by their kings isn't a basis for democracy.
It's a fairly modern question. Dont know if it even came up before republic and death of socrates.
Social contract is a view. I see it as part of democracy and as democracy fails any moral reasons to obey the law goes with it. That doesn't mean there aren't other moral reasons that coincide with the law. (Re an old conversation microbet who once misunerstood me, even with democracy there can also be (and frequently are) overwhelming moral reasons to break laws as well as the moral reason to follo
You have a social contract even in feudalism as a paesant of the lord (or in any other social arrangement). You do some work in his land and castle and he administers justices, fights the brigants if they come to your area, and defend you paesants.
Then you have a contract with other paesants, a lot of stuff simply is something you aren't supposed to do and so on.
What's very modern is to develop an "ability" to coscientiously refute your polity arrangement. Because of information and the knowledge many other systems exist. Tame deuce simply decided that systems that aren't social democracies are incompatible with his morals so he would act as a domestic enemy of society if end up being part of a society that isn't a social democracy.
I tend to agree with TD. Not going to comment on the rest
Please count me down as an enemy of a non democratic system and of laws that I find immoral.
