Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
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.
You're missing the point that "Asian" doesn't distinguish Chinese from Indian from Pakistani from ...
No person of Asian heritage here would appreciate you calling them Asian, or British Asian even. They'd want to be called British Indian, or British Chinese etc, whose communities have been here for many generations. In the US perhaps it's different where "Asian" was used when "Chinese" should have been used, and it's stuck despite the many
In the US, Asian is a racial category found on official government census forms. It is literally a category the US government uses to classify people.
There are no categories for Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese.
EV wise right now nothing is happening. At least in my example victims of state kidnapping are getting compensation. Some is better than none.
My mom has a relative in Africa. It’s cause my mom’s people raped his family and they went back to Africa eventually. It’s not hard to find the roots of slavery
Damn, it sounds like you come from a line of some nasty rapist slave owners.
I gave up my driving licence and car and live in the walkable historical center of the city because it's insane how people drive around here so I can understand what you mean
Can confirm - was in Sicily in March/April, and my experiencing driving in Palermo was insane. The rest of the island wasn't nearly as bad, though.
In the US, Asian is a racial category found on official government census forms. It is literally a category the US government uses to classify people.
There are no categories for Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese.
Orly?
It's awkwardly shown, but I think the countries of origin shown on that form are not considered a race, but an ethnicity / subdivision of a race. Trust me, no one in the US thinks Chinese is a race, and I have never seen it called that in any book or government form.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population...
The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:
White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
The 1997 OMB standards permit the reporting of more than one race. An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification.
An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. The Census Bureau does not tell individuals which boxes to mark or what heritage to write in. For the first time in Census 2000, individuals were presented with the option to self-identify with more than one race and this continued with the 2010 Census. People who identify with more than one race may choose to provide multiple races in response to the race question. For example, if a respondent identifies as "Asian" and "White," they may respond to the question on race by checking the appropriate boxes that describe their racial identities and/or writing in these identities on the spaces provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_e...
The United States has a racially and ethnically diverse population.[1] At the federal level, race and ethnicity have been categorized separately. The most recent United States census recognized five racial categories (White, Black, Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander), as well as people who belong to two or more of the racial categories.
looks like the census measures ethnicity exclusively on the basis of origin , ie... common ancestors.
not something you can acquire after birth, something 100% inherited, as non jalfrezi people usually do
looks like the census measures ethnicity exclusively on the basis of origin , ie... common ancestors.
not something you can acquire after birth, something 100% inherited, as non jalfrezi people usually do
As I said earlier, for my entire life I have considered ethnicity only based on country of ancestral origin, not any of those other factors, and that is the way the word is generally used in the US.
As I said earlier, for my entire life I have considered ethnicity only based on country of ancestral origin, not any of those other factors, and that is the way the word is generally used in the US.
"For my entire life".
Taking a wild stab at this but I'd hazard a guess that your entire life means pre-genetic science revelations about "race" (2003).
Jalfrezi do you think ethnicity can be lost or acquired after you are born?
Yes because they are also different races lol. There are more differences among sub saharian african races than among the average black and the average white (which is what you might have misunderstood when you claimed something similar, but among whites). African races have both the tallest and the shortest human populations for example.
Coming back to this. I was doing some reading and found something that might help you:
Genetic differences between continents
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).
Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3). “Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry. However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another. In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.
Then you should both start updating dictionaries and encyclopedias with the definition provided by some idiot in government.
I think I see the problem.
You might need to accept that words are used differently in different parts of the world, just like you told me earlier.
And I don't think new races have come into being since 1997.
Yes, by the definition of ethnicity clearly it can.
If you converted to Islam and went and lived in a village in Pakistan, changed your citizenship and married a local and raised a family there. adopting their language, customs and traditions you're not Italian any more by any reasonable definition of what an Italian is, so what ethnicity are you?
Coming back to this. I was doing some reading and found something that might help you:
It helps me see that apparently there is no such thing as ethnicity either.
Some term is useful to describe groups of people whose customs, languages and cultures are different.
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity
This is deliberately obtuse because you know the point being made is that post-2003 those of us that read obtained a different understanding of what "race" is.
Since then I have learned, as have you, that race isn't a real thing. So it certainly makes no sense for there to now be more races; it means there are none.
Your arguments make no sense when combined. Somehow you believe that there is no such thing as race, but also that Chinese is a race and that it is possible to be racist.
"For my entire life".
Taking a wild stab at this but I'd hazard a guess that your entire life means pre-genetic science revelations about "race" (2003).
Even in this comment, you take something I say about ethnicity and assume that means I don't know anything about science since 2003.
Race and ethnicity are obviously different things, and I said nothing there about race. I was stating how the word ethnicity is generally used in the US, and I am certain that I know more about that than do you, unless you have lived in the US for more than 55 years.
Yes, by the definition of ethnicity clearly it can.
If you converted to Islam and went and lived in a village in Pakistan, changed your citizenship and married a local and raised a family there. adopting their language, customs and traditions you're not Italian any more by any reasonable definition of what an Italian is, so what ethnicity are you?
As I already said Italian isn't an ethnicity.
But take Lap which is, or Eskimo, or Maori, such a person wouldn't become of Pakistani ethnicity if raised in Pakistan by Pakistani.
At least not the way most people use the word.
I mean ancestry.com determines your ethnicity by your DNA alone, that's what ethnicity means for non jalfrezi people.
A 100% inheritable trait which exclusively and strictly depends on who your ancestors were.
This is what non jalfrezi mainstream vanilla pubblications use the word for
Since then I have learned, as have you, that race isn't a real thing. So it certainly makes no sense for there to now be more races; it means there are none.
Your arguments make no sense when combined. Somehow you believe that there is no such thing as race, but also that Chinese is a race and that it is possible to be racist.
Here you go.
Racism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.
The people practising racism do believe that race is a meaningful distinction between groups of people and that some "races" are inherently better than others in various ways (which just by sheer chance also seems to align superiority with the racist's own perceived "race").
As I already said Italian isn't an ethnicity.
But take Lap which is, or Eskimo, or Maori, such a person wouldn't become of Pakistani ethnicity if raised in Pakistan by Pakistani.
At least not the way most people use the word.
I mean ancestry.com determines your ethnicity by your DNA alone, that's what ethnicity means for non jalfrezi people.
A 100% inheritable trait which exclusively and strictly depends on who your ancestors were.
This is what
Classic Luciom. Ignore the posted link to a well researched Harvard scientific article and repost one from the internationally esteemed organ..........HealthDigest.com?
LOOOOOOOL
Classic Luciom. Ignore the posted link to a well researched Harvard scientific article and repost one from the internationally esteemed organ..........HealthDigest.com?
LOOOOOOOL
the topic is how normal people use the word, so yes health digest is exactly what you should look at, while Harvard is absolutely irrelevant
Often treated synonymously
So everything before your arbitrary date is ignored? What if I had ancestors that were slaves in 1500 but in 1750 were slave owners?
I assume you mean the government pays only if it has enough money left after paying for blowjobs.
the topic is how normal people use the word, so yes health digest is exactly what you should look at, while Harvard is absolutely irrelevant
Scientists discovering and publishing things about genetics that blow apart your decades-old received wisdom about race = irrelevant
More disingenuous bad faith arguments from you.
