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.
I have no reason to believe propensity to infibulate specifically to be genetically determined in any significant extent.
but for historical/geographical/cultural reasons that propensity is , as you know, fully concentrated among very specific ethnic groups original of a very specific region of the world.
so claims about cultural superiority/inferiority of groups are allowed on this forum, predicated on things like "this group accepts and enc
Look, I'm not a mod here, so I can't give you lines to colour within and I'm not sure even a mod would. If it were me and I were trying to figure out whether a group is fair game to criticise, I'd probably ask myself the following questions: "Is the group formed by people because of choices they made or opinions they hold?" and "Does what I'm about to say sound like something a Nazi would say"? Your mileage may vary.
See, again, you are missing the point. You can say certain practices are barbaric and the people who perpetuate them are morally reprehensible human beings without attacking everyone from a specific ethnic group or country etc. In other words, don't colour with such a fat brush.
ok so if in a group 98% of people favor a practice I can't use a "fat brush" when talking about that group.
if a group is made up of 98% of people who act abhorrently, I still can't use that to say "people of that group shouldn't be allowed in my country"?
so if only 98% of nazists actually wanted the Holocaust and 2% didn't, you aren't allowed to call nazista as a group immoral monsters, and all Nazis as horribly people, I get it.
most smart people both on the left and the right simply are on the left or the right because of what their perception of reality is, and what set of ideas according to them represents reality more.
and it's usually not about being interested in reality" (most smart people are regardless of where they end up politically), rather about moral preferences, which can differ a lot among individuals and are orthogonal to intelligence.
vast majority
Right. Kel's point seems to be that the left have some sort of monopoly on being subjective, though.
Look, I'm not a mod here, so I can't give you lines to colour within and I'm not sure even a mod would. If it were me and I were trying to figure out whether a group is fair game to criticise, I'd probably ask myself the following questions: "Is the group formed by people because of choices they made or opinions they hold?" and "Does what I'm about to say sound like something a Nazi would say"? Your mileage may vary.
isn't being pro or against infibulation a very clear example of what an OPINION, a choice is?
ok so if in a group 98% of people favor a practice I can't use a "fat brush" when talking about that group.
if a group is made up of 98% of people who act abhorrently, I still can't use that to say "people of that group shouldn't be allowed in my country"?
so if only 98% of nazists actually wanted the Holocaust and 2% didn't, you aren't allowed to call nazista as a group immoral monsters, and all Nazis as horribly people, I get it.
If you can adduce evidence to support your 98% number, I imagine that this would be allowed. If it's a number you pulled out of your ass, then it probably wouldn't.
Right. Kel's point seems to be that the left have some sort of monopoly on being subjective, though.
I don't know who Kel is nor what you mean with being subjective here.
if you mean massaging data and ending up with pseudo "science" I have seen that done on the right as well, although recently the left does it far far more often, but in the past it was kinda the opposite. I think it usually is about who is culturally dominant in the presents abuses reality more because he can
isn't being pro or against infibulation a very clear example of what an OPINION, a choice is?
Yes. Still seem to be missing the point. You are not referencing the group as a "pro infibulation" group, are you? You are referencing it as something else, with no evidence provided that the members of the group you are referencing are all or most in fact pro infibulation. You are leaving that part as implied. Post receipts.
Kel is Dunyian, it's a reference to one of his previous banned accounts.
If you can adduce evidence to support your 98% number, I imagine that this would be allowed. If it's a number you pulled out of your ass, then it probably wouldn't.
so you think this would suffice to talk very very very badly about Somalians as a group?
I don't think it would on this forum but I might be wrong.
(again for mods: these are all examples, not arguments. hypotheticals about what is allowed or not to discuss in this forum)
Yes. Still seem to be missing the point. You are not referencing the group as a "pro infibulation" group, are you? You are referencing it as something else, with no evidence provided that the members of the group you are referencing are all or most in fact pro infibulation. You are leaving that part as implied. Post receipts.
Kel is Dunyian, it's a reference to one of his previous banned accounts.
I am actually asking if I can reference the group as that, and because of that then start working on the corollaries.
so you think this would suffice to talk very very very badly about Somalians as a group?
I don't think it would on this forum but I might be wrong.
(again for mods: these are all examples, not arguments. hypotheticals about what is allowed or not to discuss in this forum)
I mean I'd agree that it's not a good look and criticising the human rights record of a country is certainly allowed. I guess it's how far you go with it. "All Somalians are barbarians and we should drop a nuke on Somalia and turn it into a desert" wouldn't be allowed. I mean, in this case even, 50% of them are victims of the practice.
I don't think I can add much more here as I'm not the authority on what is or isn't allowed, so I'll leave it there for others or mods to chip in should they wish to.
I mean I'd agree that it's not a good look and criticising the human rights record of a country is certainly allowed. I guess it's how far you go with it. "All Somalians are barbarians and we should drop a nuke on Somalia and turn it into a desert" wouldn't be allowed. I mean, in this case even, 50% of them are victims of the practice.
I don't think I can add much more here as I'm not the authority on what is or isn't allowed, so I'll leave
98% of Somalians agree with barbaric practices so given it's very hard to determine who the 2% who don't is, we should ban immigration from somalia in western countries -> allowed or not?
98% of Somalians agree with barbaric practices so given it's very hard to determine who the 2% who don't is, we should ban immigration from somalia in western countries -> allowed or not?
No idea. As I said, you're asking the wrong guy. If it were me, I'd allow it as a view, although it's one I disagree with. But I'm not an authority here.
As for why I disagree with it - I don't know how much freedom of expression there is in Somalia, but I imagine it doesn't rate particularly high on that index. Therefore, I don't think that if something happens there 98% of the time, then it logically follows that 98% of the people support it.
In fact, I think in a large enough group, you'd be hard pushed to find 98% who are uniformly in favour of any given proposition, outside some contrived examples.
In fact, I think in a large enough group, you'd be hard pushed to find 98% who are uniformly in favour of any given proposition, outside some contrived examples.
which is why it's actually shocking when you find something at 98% and it's a very bad (for us) behavior.
but anyway, detour went up enough. idea was to answer jalfrei about what I would like to speak about but I can't
No idea. As I said, you're asking the wrong guy. If it were me, I'd allow it as a view, although it's one I disagree with. But I'm not an authority here.
As for why I disagree with it - I don't know how much freedom of expression there is in Somalia, but I imagine it doesn't rate particularly high on that index.
even if it's something parents have to actually do, or organize being done to their daughters?
even if it's something parents have to actually do, or organize being done to their daughters?
If it's voluntary for the parents rather then mandated by law then I agree it's barbaric. Perhaps in that society it's not seen as such. This could be something that is fixed by education rather than expulsion.
Would you also be against immigration from any society where a large number of members organise, or at the very least don't oppose genital mutilation on newborn male babies for cultural reasons? If not, how is this different?
If it's voluntary for the parents rather then mandated by law then I agree it's barbaric. Perhaps in that society it's not seen as such.
Would you also be against immigration from any society where a large number of members organise, or at the very least don't oppose genital mutilation on newborn male babies for cultural reasons? If not, how is this different?
If there weren't exceptional other reasons to more than make up for it actually yes?
Dunno if I wrote about it in this forum yet but i really don't like involuntary circumcision (although it's objectively far less worse than infibulation).
I only accept it for religious reasons btw, I would totally ban it for non jews , and only because of the special status morally deserved by Jews, because of their special contributions to humanity and 2000 years of worldwide persecution.
Keep in mind that in my worldview it is not incoherent or inherently wrong to treat different human groups differently. It can depend on other assessments, explicitly.
If there weren't exceptional other reasons to more than make up for it actually yes?
Dunno if I wrote about it in this forum yet but i really don't like involuntary circumcision (although it's objectively far less worse than infibulation).
I only accept it for religious reasons btw, I would totally ban it for non jews , and only because of the special status morally deserved by Jews, because of their special contributions to humanity and 2000
I edited a line into my post after you quoted, which I think is important so I'll repeat it here. I think a lot of these historical practices that are rooted in ancient superstitions, including religion itself, do not necessarily make the people who practice them evil, just ignorant, and can be fixed with education rather than expulsion from Western society.
Rococo, Gangstaman, King Spew, and Bobo Fett-- the latter of which is more like a glorified mod troll than an actual mod of this forum but he's still responsible for the hiring, firing, and Christmas bonuses.
Bobo is an admin, he has mod rights (and more) but he doesn't moderate this forum other than deleting spam, so he would just direct you to the other mods for rules related questions.
