Moderation Questions
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.
If you think there is a reproducible and documented biological gender difference on interest in ancient empires, feel free to link this hoard of academic brilliance.
Other than that, you seem to forget that a) your rhetoric didn't allow for exceptions and that b) you were the one who went from generalities to one specific individual.
That's the price of hyperbole and listening to influencers.
What's the breakdown in male/female undergrads selecting history as a major?
data up to 2014 shows a systematically lower preference for history vs other humanities for women
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indica...
in order to avoid jumping to rapid conclusions I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates
data up to 2014 shows a systematically lower preference for history vs other humanities for women
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indica...
in order to avoid jumping to rapid conclusions I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates
To make this absolutely clear:
Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individual.
He should provide references and articles for this claimed "well documented and reproducible" phenomena of brain differences in regards to interest in ancient empires, and he should also show how it allows for inferences about individuals.
Of course, some might be tempted to go "He just said there was brain differences, this should allow us to conclude that observed differences are brain differences".... then just no, that's crap pseudoscience that isn't even worth typing out. To make hard scientific claims about the brain should require hard scientific evidence about the brain, nothing less.
[QUOTE=Luciom]I suggest women comparatively dislike history because they dislike numbers more often than men do and history has a lot of dates[/QUOTE]
I’m so thrilled to be at the point in my life where posts like this amuse me more than anything
To make this absolutely clear:
Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individual.
He should provide references and articles for this claimed "
I think he claimed well documented and reproducible sex differences in interests in general exist, that their are biological in general and not cultural, and from that he moved to the particular case of ancient empires.
we don't know if they would have won anyway without the lend lease, we don't know if they would have won anyway if the UK had made a deal to stay out of the conflict and the USA had never entered, and we don't know if the good guys (us) would have won anyway if the USSR had been destroyed and occupied by Hitler
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
This has been explained to Victor multiple times, including a lengthy discussion in this very thread not long ago. You are talking to a brick wall.
There is also this unfortunate thing where they entered a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany and then allied with them in all but words for the invasion of Poland.
And they kept that going for a two years while France got wiped out and Britain hardly won a single battlefield victory on the continent, but still refused to yield.
The Soviets' contribution to WW2 should not be discounted, because they had numbers that were integral to the final victory. However, they were not the bulwark against Nazi-Germany. the UK was.
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
this is called shifting the goalposts. nobody is denying it was helpful. but USSR would have won regardless. they stopped the Nazis outside of Moscow with very little help from lend lease which had hardly shipped anything by 1941.
There is also this unfortunate thing where they entered a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany and then allied with them in all but words for the invasion of Poland.
And they kept that going for a two years while France got wiped out and Britain hardly won a single battlefield victory on the continent, but still refused to yield.
The Soviets' contribution to WW2 should not be discounted, because they had numbers that were integral to the f
ask the Czechs if the UK ever did the non-aggression thing with Germany.
the funny thing is that Stalin begged the UK for years to ally with the USSR.
To make this absolutely clear:
Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individual.
He should provide references and articles for this claimed "
I'm no expert and don't know the details as it relates to one taking an interest in history, but he's probably right. There's a variety of differences between male and female brains, a major one being that women tend to have more evenly balanced activity/interaction between the hemispheres, and men are more left-brain dominant. Since these differences exist, they're going to play a role in the kinds of things individuals take interest in.
To make this absolutely clear:
Dunyain hasn't merely stated that there is merely a gender difference in historical interest. He has stated that there is a biological difference in the brain between the sexes that causes this, and he has stated that this is well documented and reproducible. He then uses this general claim to infer conclusions about the brain of a single individual.
He should provide references and articles for this claimed "
we've hit peak virtue signaling
Unless the history book was written by Stalin himself I doubt any history book is downplaying the importance of lend-lease. It’s the equivalent of over 600 billion dollars of no strings attached military aid. That’s not even counting the money we spent on the war in our own military capacity. Russia received the equivalent of 165 billion dollars, again no strings attached.
idr if it was victor before, but this isn't the 1st time i'm sharing this in direct response to someone saying lend lease didn't matter recently
I dont have any data to back it up, so dont ask, but my intuition is that participation in internet arguments over whether Russia or the Allies were more responsible for defeating Nazi Germany (and I have no doubt there are A LOT of such arguments floating around the interwebs) skew 99:1 male to female.
Men might just have more interest in war because their bodies are more suited to war and men tend to be the ones that get sent to war. Also, it’s easier to see yourself in war heroes as a man, I mean probably for good reason too.
I think history would skew less male if we didn’t have humanities like gender studies, ethnic studies, or anthropology, as those tend to be where women end up rather than plain history.
On the "right wing" X inter webs, there is actually this whole sub community that discusses group and individual psychology, mainly focusing on the history of western civlization, in the context of Nietzsche. I haven't read any Nietzsche myself, but some of the discussion is very interesting.
Generally, Nietzsche argued that the Roman Empire (and the Muslims during their conquests FWIW) had a master morality; as opposed to Christianity whic
Then again his obsession was with how post Christian societies would maintain law and order without that moral framework to underpin them, and set about writing his magnum opus which was to be a new moral framework for the West, determined to save the west from its inevitable speedy decline into nihilistic violence and chaos.
It didn’t seem to go very well because, beset by mental health issues triggered by romantic rejection all that remained of his magnum opus is a few scrappy notes overwritten by a shopping list.
As for the post Christianity West, it seems to be doing ok, so although I enjoyed reading Nietzsche in my youth I wouldn’t take him too seriously.
