Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
he couldnt even take the 3s to do a google search. the guy claims to have traveled the world and he cant even recognize one of the most popular dishes. its how you end up with his totally true anecdotes about Jerry Seinfeld pissing off Turkish people who are too stupid to know hes Jewish.
The wild thing about Jalfrezi's position is Nigeria is literally ground zero for Islamofascist violence. The constant massacres done by Boko Haram in their Jihad to completely Islamify the country (in their vision of how an Islamic society should be organized) are absolutely horrifying.
His complete indifference towards this, as he personally wasn't inconvenienced at all by any religious motivated atrocities during his brief stay, says a lot.
--These massacres against civilians by Jihadis happened in the last couple weeks. And it wasn't even a notable couple of weeks. This is more or less the norm.
https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,619... Mourners Killed, Church And Homes Razed In Fresh Boko Haram Attack In Chibok
Roadside bomb blast kills 26 in Nigeria’s restive northeast
and again, given my travels in middle east and north africa - other people who've been always have this conversation with mei have not met a single woman who felt safe unescorted in those countries - best case scenario is they get a little light gropingpublic gang rapes of unescorted women are so common in egypt that it has its own wikipedia page
Leftists do this trick where they blame white colonialism for people in MENA embracing radical Islam and behaving like this over the last century or so. But interestingly enough, they pretty much hold the people who are actually doing the behavior, and the religion they do it in the name of, blameless.
Ironically, there is a certain brand of far rightist (that have been getting a lot of play on Rogan recently) who are playing this same trick with the Nazis. They are basically arguing it was the West (Britain specifically) which forced Germany to act like they did in the first half of the 20th century.
They are also doing the same trick with Russia today, where far leftists and rightists are simpatico it is the US's fault for Russia (Putin's) behavior.
FWIW, I think that context is important, but at the end of the day people should be held responsible for their own choices and actions made out of free will; at the individual and group level.
There's nothing at all wild about my "position" on Nigeria back then, because it was given as a counterfactual to rickroll's stupid anti-Muslim tirade about how all Muslim places are dangerous for dudes like him to visit.
Sur, the places overrun with extremists are but that doesn't include hundreds of millions of people in Indonesia, Turkey etc. But then rickroll doesn't do nuance.
Alright then, so, the media didn't cover anything up and no stories were suppressed, which is the only ****ing thing I was challenging. Got it, you've been very helpful, thanks.Also, your buddies mongy and mongier were claiming that cover ups are happening right now, not in the 90s. I mean, I get that you are just itching to go off on a full blown tirade about the brown menace,
Even though I might be two fries short of a Happy Meal (TM), even I am starting to notice that recurring theme.
There's nothing at all wild about my "position" on Nigeria back then, because it was given as a counterfactual to rickroll's stupid anti-Muslim tirade about how all Muslim places are dangerous for dudes like him to visit.Sur, the places overrun with extremists are but that doesn't include hundreds of millions of people in Indonesia, Turkey etc. But then rickroll doesn't do nua
Do you think that "jihads" and "intifadas" etc. have created a bad rep for Muslims?
There's nothing at all wild about my "position" on Nigeria back then, because it was given as a counterfactual to rickroll's stupid anti-Muslim tirade about how all Muslim places are dangerous for dudes like him to visit.Sur, the places overrun with extremists are but that doesn't include hundreds of millions of people in Indonesia, Turkey etc. But then rickroll doesn't do nua
Were you actually giving a relevant counterfactual though?
Was the area of the country you were in predominantly Muslim or Christian? And if Muslim, would it have been advisable for Western women to walk around in public unattended?
And would the same hold true for today as it did back then?
We all understand Islamic religious revivals have made much of the Islamic world (and Europe) generally a worse place now than 30 years ago. But the issue is the "revivalists" will always have the moral high ground as their interpretation of how to practice the religion is very reasonable given the language of the source texts and the anathema of said texts towards any reform and progress. And much of the rest of the Ummah, knowing this, does little to oppose actors like Boko Haram and ISIS, as they have no real theologically sound moral reason to do so.
Ah so that’s it. In fact I’m an English Uker and have no particular gripe with you other than I think you talk a lot of shite, most of the time.
My username is my favourite Indian (Nepalese in fact) dish, another example of you talking shite.
You use the word "shite" a couple times. Did you mean to write "Shiite". Interesting!
I'm glad that mongidig has returned to fulfull my prophecy about his contribution to the thread.
wan,
As I told you before, I am not a mod of this forum, and I haven't been a mod in a long time.
I know, and you know i know. The fact you were selected as a mod is the point. that should have been obvious in the context but for some magical reason nobody could ever manage to guess, you had to carry on with this quibble.
Almost every post by you is some variation of "I can't say X," "we can't discuss X," or, in your latest formulation, "we can't have an adult conversation about X." But here is the thing. You can say whatever the **** you want. As far as I know, you haven't been banned by any moderator of this forum in several years. The forum is nearly unmoderated now. As long as you don't
You and mod 1 have literally proved my point that we currently and historically "can't have an adult conversation". Like a bat signal went out and mod 1 showing up to say "1943 jackboot nazi" wasn't the perfect "ok maybe he has a point" moment.
"you can say whatever the eff you want". Ok but that still doesn't deal with the simple point I made that you can't have an adult conversation without freaks + mods showing up to completely derail everything. The second layer we are witnessing is absolute oxygen theives like d2 and trolly that don't even try to participate in any actual discussion ever are allowed to endlessly inflame and derail everything. This very discussion highlights that point as well. And those are just 2 of them.
You just posted a comprehensive list of posters on new accounts here a couple weeks ago. Notice a pattern? So yeah if you don't think there's a history of an inability to have adult conversations about something like immigration due to deeply biased mods and a mob of total spazz shows, you're out to lunch.
The forum is nearly unmoderated now. As long as you don't tell people to kill themselves, which I don't ever recall you doing, I highly doubt you will be banned. You surely realize as much.
That would be a different point than my statement about not being able to have an adult conversation on topics like immagration. That said, we had a thread about the trans issues. Its closed. Because reasons. Not because our newest mod is passionately in favor of sterilizing and mutilating minors in favor of "like saving gender affirming care". People were debating issues of men dominating womens sports. Transitioning minors with surgery and hormones. Social contagion theories. Doctors and clinincs in Europe doing a complete 180 in how they treat minors etc
The reason the thread was closed is because disagreeing with leftist cult perception of sex and gender deeply hurts some peoples feelings. So yeah, thats what "unmoderated" looks like I guess
I suspect that your real grievance is that a lot of people disagree with you and don't think you are a good poster. If you want to start working on that problem, quit complaining about the imaginary problem of you not being allowed to speak your mind.
No the fact that I know people disagree with me is the best part of this place. Did you think I was here to make friends? I just point out that mod selection is so bad and biased it seems like a bit. That has consequences. I think I demonstrated that quite clearly
Now if we're playing the "I suspect your real grievance" game I think you should maybe look in the mirror and come up with one of your deep craig-style analysis on why you act like i've shovelled some sand in your vag. why do you seem to always have a disproportionate desire to jump in with disdain at completely obvious comments like "we can't have adult conversations about immigration"? Even though a mod just finished responding with "1943 jackboot nazi". Why does your disdain always seemed to be aimed to the right of you politically? Those are rhetorical btw
I did what few others will bother to do and just read all that verbal diarrhea, and I still have no idea what in the actual **** you're whining about. 1 star, would not read again.
there was a cover up of the existence of the very gang rapes, which started in the 90s, and got discussed only 15+ years later.there was a cover up of the fact that it was mostly about Pakistani people doing the raping, as per link I provided.it wasn't about "the media", it was the people who supposedly should have protected the British girl from the Pakistani rapists who prefe
this is where we are. I'll list a few questions in a point about how we can't have adult conversations about immigration and one on the list will be something like "and how did things go in england with large scale immigration from pakistan"? Now you'd think a situation like organized grooming gangs raping thousands of minors, and that story being covered up wouldn't be a derailing comment. But of course here we are. A habitual idiot wants to go on some side quest. He gets ignored because there's only so much time in the day and this forum has a lot of idiots. Then he keeps spazzing on because he's being ignored. Then his piping hot issue with the comment about the cover up of child rape grooming gangs is if the media participated.
like ok
Here's gemini. I really don't care if you agree or disagree. It's not even the point
Allegations of Delayed or Insufficient Coverage:
Several sources suggest that for many years, there was a significant delay or insufficiency in media coverage of these crimes. Some commentators and reports argue that this reluctance stemmed from fears within media organizations, as well as among officials, of being accused of racism or inflaming racial tensions.
Fear of Racism Accusations: Reports, including the 2014 Jay Report on the Rotherham scandal, highlighted that a fear of being labelled racist was a factor in the failure of authorities to tackle the issue. This atmosphere is said to have influenced media reporting, with some outlets hesitant to cover the ethnicity of perpetrators.
Delayed Mainstream Attention: It has been noted that widespread media attention on the issue, particularly highlighting the ethnicity of many involved in certain notorious cases, did not become prominent until around 2011-2012, notably with investigations by journalist Andrew Norfolk for The Times. Some analyses suggest that prior to this, there was a relative media silence on the specifics of these gangs despite rumors and concerns being raised earlier. For instance, a Channel 4 documentary discussing grooming claims was reportedly delayed in 2004 due to police concerns about potential racial tensions.
Criticism of Coverage Levels: Some political scientists and commentators have compared the volume of media coverage of grooming gangs to other race-related issues, arguing that grooming gangs received comparatively less attention from some major outlets for a significant period.
Excellent, now we're actually getting somewhere, and I think I am even able to understand the point you're trying to make despite your broken English, which I can only assume is not your first language (no small thanks to the AI answer there, which is actually comprehensible, unlike your chicken scratchings).
So, who is preventing you having these adult discussions on this forum?
wan,
I thought you were confused about whether I was a mod because you called me "mod 2."
It is a natural consequence of my own opinions that i will disagree with right wing opinions on 2+2 fairly often.
That said, I have disagreed frequently over the years with posters that you would characterize as left wing. Just ask Victor, Karl, jalfrezi, StoppedRainingMen, and various others if you don't believe me.
I readily concede that I have a low tolerance for whiners and babies, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
As for the rest, as I've said, i'm happy to let others make their own decisions about our respective merits. And i truly don't care what they decide.
Any time there is some question about media coverage some person (typically on the cultural right although I think it's happened with Victor as well) will say that the media is not covering something and then someone will find a counter-example.
But just because counter-examples exist doesn't mean that the person alleging lack of coverage is wrong. In politics counter-examples typically exist for all sorts of things. It's not a hard science.
Any time there is some question about media coverage some person (typically on the cultural right although I think it's happened with Victor as well) will say that the media is not covering something and then someone will find a counter-example.But just because counter-examples exist doesn't mean that the person alleging lack of coverage is wrong. In politics counter-examples t
If it was covered by the UK media- and it was, thoroughly- then claims of a media cover up hold no water.
Any time there is some question about media coverage some person (typically on the cultural right although I think it's happened with Victor as well) will say that the media is not covering something and then someone will find a counter-example.But just because counter-examples exist doesn't mean that the person alleging lack of coverage is wrong. In politics counter-examples t
When it's a habitual bullshitter who regularly makes shit up and fails to back up his claims like that guy, the default position is that he's not to be trusted until and unless he brings receipts.
Any time there is some question about media coverage some person (typically on the cultural right although I think it's happened with Victor as well) will say that the media is not covering something and then someone will find a counter-example.But just because counter-examples exist doesn't mean that the person alleging lack of coverage is wrong. In politics counter-examples t
While this is true the abstract, in most cases where this happened, a poster (usually Kelhus) would claim that the MSM was ignoring some story, and then people would find not one article, but a dozen articles, in the MSM discussing exactly the issue that the poster claimed was being ignored.
When people say something wasn't covered enough, what they mean is that it wasn't the top story everyday and there was not enough outrage to force immediate change.
What they mean is they didn't know about it until fox news told them it's being covered up.
