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.
What's marxist about the issue of the definition of woman is the attempt to violently force a change in semantics
You're not being threatened with violence here for not following the rules. But the rules are set anyway. There's no point in continuing to try to convince us mods to see it your way. It's not as though we haven't heard your arguments, it's that we disagree.
Other than the utterly, horrific, immoral requirement of pronoun usage, have you provided any proof that gender theory is false? Because all I have ever read from you is that you don’t believe in it.
No one cares to read repetitive posts that you think it is Marxist and it is an affront to your fragile belief system.
Lol i don't have to "provide proof that gender theory is false", given it's a non-provable theory based on unprovable assumptions. It starts with "the soul" (gender identity) exists in the way they define it (arbitrarily) and moves from there.
Gender theory is based upon the belief that subjective self identification is truth about reality, and that cannot be proved (or disproved).
You're not being threatened with violence here for not following the rules. But the rules are set anyway. There's no point in continuing to try to convince us mods to see it your way. It's not as though we haven't heard your arguments, it's that we disagree.
So being banned from talking with others and kicked away from somewhere isn't violence now, ok.
Mind, in a private place like this you have a right to use violence in my model of the world. But the violence reference was about society at large, where that right does not exist (for me).
Imagine thinking getting a temp ban for being a bigot is "violence" lol.
We don't kick fascists enough these days, whole world has gone soft.
I don't understand this thing where people assign a highly idiosyncratic definition to X and then try and debate whether Y is an example of X based on that highly idiosyncratic definition.
For example, if we define treason to include temp-banning people on politics forums, then we can all agree that the mods on the Politics subforum on 2+2 occasionally engage in treason. But what is the point of this sort of semantic exercise?
Other than the utterly, horrific, immoral requirement of pronoun usage, have you provided any proof that gender theory is false? Because all I have ever read from you is that you don’t believe in it.
The onus is on the gender proponents.
Are Japanese females more similar to American females or Japanese males?
Correct, this is an online forum. That would be a bastardization the word violence to claim that it can occur here.
Not all violence is physical. There is verbal violence. There is passive aggressive violence. You can violently insult someone. You can violently take aware their right to post
Unless you’re arguing that they are consenting to have their right to post taken away?
Aside from the fact that it sounds a lot worse for foreigners speaking English than to natives, perhaps because many languages don't have the singular they (and English had basically abandoned it by the time we got to learn it, so we weren't taught about it) , i am not sure if you get the idea that the hard part is being forced to comply to marxist ideology and to learn it well enough to know that you need to default to they if in doubt.
It'
A disenfranchised Dem referred to the Dems as Marxist recently and I was like "Wow, I thought only the Nazis thought that!"
Turns out he had been on a particularly toxic Right Wing deep dive. "Oh, I was right"
Other than the utterly, horrific, immoral requirement of pronoun usage, have you provided any proof that gender theory is false? Because all I have ever read from you is that you donÂ’t believe in it.
No one cares to read repetitive posts that you think it is Marxist and it is an affront to your fragile belief system.
Gender theory makes the social domain more chaotic while at the same time distracting from individuation. In other words, gender theory is branded as “progressive” but is actually morally regressive.
Moral progress is not dependent on some imagined perfect social system. Moral progress depends on being unsatisfied with the social reality and individuating.
Lol i don't have to "provide proof that gender theory is false", given it's a non-provable theory based on unprovable assumptions. It starts with "the soul" (gender identity) exists in the way they define it (arbitrarily) and moves from there.
Gender theory is based upon the belief that subjective self identification is truth about reality, and that cannot be proved (or disproved).
Good, that should conclude your need to comment any further on it. Your position is stated in the record. Your argument starts and stops with it not existing.
There is no reason to risk being banned.
Luciom, while I disagree with a lot of your positions, I personally think you are a net positive around here. I would hate to see you get banned over this nonsense. Just give it a rest.
Luciom, while I disagree with a lot of your positions, I personally think you are a net positive around here. I would hate to see you get banned over this nonsense. Just give it a rest.
Well here I am discussing rules I really hope I don't risk a ban for doing that in the appropriate thread.
Gangstaman gave you the answer. The mod team is acting with one accord regarding this issue. Please stop now. Thank you.
A disenfranchised Dem referred to the Dems as Marxist recently and I was like "Wow, I thought only the Nazis thought that!"
Turns out he had been on a particularly toxic Right Wing deep dive. "Oh, I was right"
Dems aren't Marxist on all axis.
As described at length, the current iteration of Marxism is about cultural issues where they truly touch mao genocidal horror (in their thinking process) while leaving material (IE economic) issues largely untouched to the dismay of actual 1.0 material Marxists like jalfrezi and others.
Btw Tucker Carlson and JD Vance (and people like them) have a touch of Marxism as well in their talking and thinking, it's not exclusive of the democrats.
The rightwing justification for tariffs is classi material Marxism 101 which is why Sanders said the same things for decades.
Other than the utterly, horrific, immoral requirement of pronoun usage, have you provided any proof that gender theory is false?
It's self-evidently false in claiming that a novel social and psychological belief system, devised and propagated by American academia, has biological warrant, which it doesn't.
When it comes to the idea of “misgendering” someone by using bio-sex-gender pronouns, you are biased on this issue one way or the other. There is no neutrality.
The fact that the mods, who are clearly biased toward the woke religion, are still willing to allow pushback against the claims of trans activists, shows at some level an awareness that their bias is based on shallow sentiments. This should be encouraging rather than completely demoralizing.
When it comes to the idea of “misgendering” someone by using bio-sex-gender pronouns, you are biased on this issue one way or the other. There is no neutrality.
The fact that the mods, who are clearly biased toward the woke religion, are still willing to allow pushback against the claims of trans activists, shows at some level an awareness that their bias is based on shallow sentiments. This should be encouraging rather than comp
Sounds like religion is a bad thing, and we should have less of all flavours of it. Agree?
Dems aren't Marxist on all axis.
As described at length, the current iteration of Marxism is about cultural issues where they truly touch mao genocidal horror (in their thinking process) while leaving material (IE economic) issues largely untouched to the dismay of actual 1.0 material Marxists like jalfrezi and others.
Btw Tucker Carlson and JD Vance (and people like them) have a touch of Marxism as well in their talking and thinking, it's no
you have Marxism backwards btw. they dont care for the wokeism and identity crap of the Dems.
