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.
No such thing as a "libertarian culture".
You call yourself a libertarian (though you're not). What cultural practices do you share in common with other "libertarians" that non "libertarians" don't practice? Is there a strange dance routine you do together, do you eat only asparagus for breakfast, or what?
Ok, this is going to never end, and it's pointless. It doesn't matter if you are classifying people into racial categories, cultural categories, ethnicities, religions, or whatever -- mods are going to draw the lines where we think they are rational and reasonable to be drawn. The lines will be fuzzy. If you don't think you can figure out where the lines are, maybe just be nice in all your posts or accept that you may get banned now and then.
Ok, this is going to never end, and it's pointless. It doesn't matter if you are classifying people into racial categories, cultural categories, ethnicities, religions, or whatever -- mods are going to draw the lines where we think they are rational and reasonable to be drawn. The lines will be fuzzy. If you don't think you can figure out where the lines are, maybe just be nice in all your posts or accept that you may get banned now and the
i am ok with that, keep in mind my only question was if saying the same things about new yorkers, or right-wing voters, or literally any other group however defined by any characteristic would be moderated the same.
can we say worse things about convicted pedophiles than about residents in Seoul? if yes why?
I was informed elsewhere (correctly imo) that it's not racist or sexist to make derogatory remarks about Italian males wrt their driving.
There's always the thing about punching down being a necessary component of racism.
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
I was informed elsewhere (correctly imo) that it's not racist or sexist to make derogatory remarks about Italian males wrt their driving.
There's always the thing about punching down being a necessary component of racism.
Is that real? Who decides what is up and what is down?
Does that mean that in a place like Miami, the black population can't punch down at the hispanic population (who can in turn punch up at them)?
Lots of grey areas of course but when it comes to racism it's pretty obvious who the people discriminated against historically are and who did the discriminating, and the second group should avoid making sweeping derogatory remarks about the first group. I'm surprised this even needs to be stated.
When it comes to black/hispanic people slating each other, I don't think that's really the same as white people slating either group because of history, but generally it's better not to make sweeping statements about large groups of people who've sufferered from discrimination imo.
Making fun of Italian drivers seems like harmless fun really.
Lots of grey areas of course but when it comes to racism it's pretty obvious who the people discriminated against historically are and who did the discriminating, and the second group should avoid making sweeping derogatory remarks about the first group. I'm surprised this even needs to be stated.
When it comes to black/hispanic people slating each other, I don't think that's really the same as white people slating either group because of hi
So in this system, black people CAN make the comments on whites and it's acceptable?
Jews were persecuted by Arabs for almost a 1000 years. Does that not therefor qualify?
What are the dates we use?
So in this system, black people CAN make the comments on whites and it's acceptable?
Jews were persecuted by Arabs for almost a 1000 years. Does that not therefor qualify?
What are the dates we use?
I don't know why you do this rhetorical thing where you try to get someone to pin exact values on something that clearly doesn't have any, as if you can then claim victory when they don't satisfy your demand.
I just don't ascribe to these concepts as being remotely universal or well thought out for that matter.
I'm going this route:
I think the problem about Luciom is thinking libertarian is solely a right wing affair …
https://study.com/academy/lesson/liberta...
The debate of libertarians vs. liberals is rooted in their shared history as ideologies. Libertarianism today comes from the ideas of classical liberalism, a form of liberalism not categorized within liberalism as it is viewed today. However, there are times when the two ideologies still overlap and this can cause some confusion. For instance, both of them hold individual rights and liberty as central concerns.
Having some aspect of libertarians beliefs do not necessarily means u are a full fledge libertarian like Lucian think he is .
Ok, this is going to never end, and it's pointless. It doesn't matter if you are classifying people into racial categories, cultural categories, ethnicities, religions, or whatever -- mods are going to draw the lines where we think they are rational and reasonable to be drawn. The lines will be fuzzy. If you don't think you can figure out where the lines are, maybe just be nice in all your posts or accept that you may get banned now and the
I think it should be easy to determine that anything said about practitioners of a particular religion has nothing to do with race or racism.
If it is not allowed to say anything negative about a religion or those belonging to that religion, that should be made clear. It certainly makes no sense to prohibit saying anything negative about only one religion in particular.
I think it should be easy to determine that anything said about practitioners of a particular religion has nothing to do with race or racism.
If it is not allowed to say anything negative about a religion or those belonging to that religion, that should be made clear. It certainly makes no sense to prohibit saying anything negative about only one religion in particular.
Is a practitioner of Judaism always of the Jewish race?
Lots of grey areas of course but when it comes to racism it's pretty obvious who the people discriminated against historically are and who did the discriminating, and the second group should avoid making sweeping derogatory remarks about the first group. I'm surprised this even needs to be stated.
When it comes to black/hispanic people slating each other, I don't think that's really the same as white people slating either group because of hi
It's also clear that none of those people are alive today. But you think it is fine for someone to say derogatory things about me and my sex or race just because some people who looked similar to me did some bad things in the past? But it's not ok the other way?
I don't see where you derive that conclusion from.
But if you think it's ok for eg white people to slag off black people without the history of Europeans/Africans hanging in the air then I think you're mistaken.
I don't consider Jewish to be a race. I guess it is an ethnicity according to the definitions given yesterday.
Practioners of Judaism can be of any race, and I think it should be fair game to criticise them for the tenets of their religion or for bad things done in the name of Judaism.
Not the ones who "historically" did things, which was in your statement.
I interpret that phrase to refer to times before anyone alive today was born.
There are no Americans alive today who owned slaves. There are almost none left who were old enough to be adults at the time Jim Crow was prevalent in the south, and those few will be dead within the next 10 years or so.
There are plenty of white South Africans very much alive who exerted dominion over black people, and still do economically.
I don't see where you derive that conclusion from.
But if you think it's ok for eg white people to slag off black people without the history of Europeans/Africans hanging in the air then I think you're mistaken.
I don't know what conclusion was referred to here.
I don't think what you mention here is ok, but it also goes the other way, and has nothing to do with history.
I don't know of any modern or historical incidences of black people being oppressed by Asians. Does that mean Asians should be allowed to say bad things about blacks?
Asia is a very large continent.
