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.
Can confirm lots of this going on. Not so much discussion of Nietzsche's criticism of anti-semitism.
-Here is a sample post of the type of discussions going on. Like I said, there is actually an entire "right wing" X niche dedicated to the discussion of Nietzsche, and the Roman Empire comes up a lot (which is why I started this tangent based on the Roman Empire talk).
Americans ( at least a large vocal slice of them) have been obsessed with the Roman Empire since the NeoCons proclaimed the USA the heir to it. LOL
That's really all it is.
What the hell is happening ITT this time?
I am not a Nietzsche scholar. My lay opinion is that he wasn't particularly focused on predicting the future about anything.
Right. As I wrote, he spent the last productive period of his life agonising over what he thought was the inevitable collapse of Western civilisation in a post-Christian world.
We were talking about creating a shitposter containment thread, which gradually morphed into a discussion of ancient Greece, then differences between male and female brains, now Nietzsche and antisemitism, and if you leave it a few more hours no doubt a discussion of how much he influenced Hitler and the Nazi movement.
So, Godwin's law in action.
D2 did this with his Socrates joke and is now pointing fingers :p
And you have to be careful not to read his sister versions of his books/writings which are actually nazi
The Will to Power is a collection of a various notes that his sister compiled after his death. Everything else was published before his breakdown. She had nothing to do with the majority of his work.
You're not going to find a single study on that, because it is a diverse topic that exists in the crossover between biochemistry, molecular biology and neuroscience.
If you are interested in the topic you can start here, which describes the work of the Shah Labaratory of Nirao Shah, a professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and of Neurobiology at Stanford University. There is a a tab there for articles, which range from easy to grasp to very technical. There is also a tab for press articles, which should be very easy reads.
Shah represents somewhat of a break with what used the be the reigning view on sex differences in the brain, in that he has come to the conclusion that there are more such differences than previously held. So it should be a good starting point for those who live in fear of being led astray by virtue signalers and other cultural horrors.
That said, not much of this work has been carried over to explain complex human behaviors, because... well... it is complex. It can be fairly easy to explain why someone would run from a bear, but it is a lot more difficult to explain why some people like model trains.
You're not going to find a single study on that, because it is a diverse topic that exists in the crossover between biochemistry, molecular biology and neuroscience.
If you are interested in the topic you can start here, which describes the work of the Shah Labaratory of Nirao Shah, a professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and of Neurobiology at Stanford University. There is a a tab there for articles, which range from easy to gras
That comment was satire. I deleted it because it was too snarky, but I guess you were already responding.
That said, not much of this work has been carried over to explain complex human behaviors, because... well... it is complex. It can be fairly easy to explain why someone would run from a bear, but it is a lot more difficult to explain why some people like model trains.
I agree that it's not easy to zero in on which brain functions predict specific behaviors, but given that there is increasingly clear evidence that significant differences do exist between the brains of the sexes, it logically follows that those differences will affect behaviors, even if those behaviors are somewhat dependent on the cultures in question. Differences between the sexes can and often do vary from culture to culture, but differences, nonetheless, still emerge, and there has to be a reason that that occurs that precedes culture itself.
I agree that it's not easy to zero in on which brain functions predict specific behaviors, but given that there is increasingly clear evidence that significant differences do exist between the brains of the two sexes, it logically follows that those differences will affect behaviors, even if those behaviors are somewhat dependent on the cultures in question. Differences between the sexes can and often do vary from culture to culture, but di
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the above comment says the same thing twice, just worded differently. Anyway, when it comes to this issue, I've never seen the argument that wiring is a result of behavioral differences, though I do think there's some back and forth there since I believe in free will.
You believe in free will? What on earth are you doing here?
Okay. That's pretty good.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the above comment says the same thing twice, just worded differently. Anyway, when it comes to this issue, I've never seen the argument that wiring is a result of behavioral differences, though I do think there's some back and forth there since I believe in free will.
I phrased my point rather inartfully, thereby failing to highlight the circularity. I'm saying that the conversation I see ITT is along these lines (paraphrasing, obviously):
Q: Why do men show more interest in the Romans more than women do?
A: Wiring.
Q: How do we know it's wiring?
A: Because the wiring is different and they're more interested in the Romans. What else would it be?
Q: Ok, but are we sure that men show more interest in the Romans than women do?
A: Yes, they're wired to, we've shown that already.
The causality is not bidirectional (behaviour causing wiring and wiring causing behaviour) but the reasoning is. It's more subtle than the toy exchange above, obviously. We "establish" that men show more interest in the Romans due to wiring, then we use wiring to explain differences in behaviour that has parallels with showing more interest in the Romans.
I think the issue is more with the circular reasoning: we observe differences in behaviours and conclude they are the result of differences in wiring. We then use differences in wiring as an explanation for differences in behaviours. That is not valid, logically.
it's not circular because we observe TH SAME differences in behavior in wildly different cultures and across time which is how we know for a certainty it's not about time or culture
it's not circular because we observe TH SAME differences in behavior in wildly different cultures and across time which is how we know for a certainty it's not about time or culture
It's circular because we're assuming that A (a specific "male" behaviour) is caused by B ("male" wiring) then we're using B to explain A and C and D (other specific "male" behaviours), but our only evidence for B causing A is (some) correlation.
I'm actually playing devil's advocate here, I'm on the "wiring" side of the argument. I'm just calling out what I see as a logical fallacy.
It's circular because we're assuming that A (a specific "male" behaviour) is caused by B ("male" wiring) then we're using B to explain A and C and D (other specific "male" behaviours), but our only evidence for B causing A is (some) correlation.
I'm actually playing devil's advocate here, I'm on the "wiring" side of the argument. I'm just calling out what I see as a logical fallacy.
it's not "some correlation", it's the same happening everywhere you measure it
The cultures are also not as unanimously in agreement with each other as some would have you believe. Some cultures even have the females doing the hunting and the men doing the child rearing.
The data becomes more revealing as we get beyond the need for child rearing and hunting. They impose roles.
We're barely beginning to scratch the surface of how differently inate male/female nature manifests when we can all do whatever we want.
