NationStates

Is the Right infighting? What did I miss?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote: What exactly did you say?

Some guy said Nazis were going to rise up all across Europe and create a tidal wave, and I said in response I was game for WW2 2 Electric Boogaloo. When someone asked if I meant violence, I said yes, the kind where you put on a uniform and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

I don't have a hate boner towards moderation, but the looser the rules, the more 'in sync' the enforcers need to be to consistently apply them, and that's not really possible with a team of volunteers who took up the job on a lark.

Idk man, I mod a discord server with several thousand users and we're all volunteers and we never have many problems. I know it's not exactly the same thing but it's far from impossible to have a good mod team. I think a lot of the problems stem from most of our mods being active in some way and as a result developing personal animosity or bias towards certain figures or sides and skewing a bit older and not being able to keep up with internet culture.

Moderation is like the Athenian law courts in that it relies on public prosecution, things will only be punished if they are reported; but likewise is ruined by some of the main flaws in the Athenian system—that is, sycophants, who report anything from players they either dislike or that touches upon some issue they are fanatical about: which the Greeks were open about, stating their hatred for their adversaries, but we are supposed to hide.
It is worth mention that some sub-communities of the site have looser standards of conduct than others, and usually injustice occurs when two such groups overlap.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I do not intend to be rude, but I think that claiming there's a correlation between feminism and communism, true or not, isn't a reason to go DEAT someone, regardless of post history.

You're literally debating with people that took a month to decide whether it's okay to beat and rape your wife. However, they literally just warned someone for saying Communism, an ideology that literally calls for violent revolution and historically killed tens of millions, is destabilizing for society.

I think it's safe to say its pointless for arguing with people with no sense of morality.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:It's not really an appeal, just to complain at the incredibly obvious bias which depicts statements that communists threaten virtuous social order as "trolling". For the one thing, I doubt they'd be so discerning on similar statements about fascism, and for another, it is completely true. Communists want to overturn the current social order, and most things that are virtuous are religious or traditional and we know what communists think of that!

Dunno about that, I got a warn for saying Nazis were bad before. Moderation is pretty scattershot; I don't think it has the consistency for a coherent bias.

Indeed. And I've heard others on the left say that if there's any bias on moderation, its in favor of the right.

So, the right says moderation is biased towards the left, and the left says moderation is biased towards the right.

Both can't be true unless moderation is simply inconsistent and people aren't paying attention to the times when moderation works in their favor.

Totally Not OEP wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I do not intend to be rude, but I think that claiming there's a correlation between feminism and communism, true or not, isn't a reason to go DEAT someone, regardless of post history.

You're literally debating with people that took a month to decide whether it's okay to beat and rape your wife. However, they literally just warned someone for saying Communism, an ideology that literally calls for violent revolution and historically killed tens of millions, is destabilizing for society.

I think it's safe to say its pointless for arguing with people with no sense of morality.

It may be pointless, but it's better than nothing.

Moderation decisions are inconsistent enough that it's more or less sticking a pin into a globe blindfolded and hoping to avoid water. Works sometimes, often doesn't.

As moderation is generally reactive rather than proactive some of the lean comes from what gets reported - in terms of positive action the best thing people can do is get gud at reporting the other side even if that's uncomfortable ideologically.

The mods aren't going to get extra resources to do wholesale proactive sweeps and the left-libs aren't going to stop doing what's working for them - so it's either this or ineptly clutching at pearls.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote: What exactly did you say?

Some guy said Nazis were going to rise up all across Europe and create a tidal wave, and I said in response I was game for WW2 2 Electric Boogaloo. When someone asked if I meant violence, I said yes, the kind where you put on a uniform and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

I don't have a hate boner towards moderation, but the looser the rules, the more 'in sync' the enforcers need to be to consistently apply them, and that's not really possible with a team of volunteers who took up the job on a lark.

If anything, the rules need to be looser tbh.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Moderation decisions are inconsistent enough that it's more or less sticking a pin into a globe blindfolded and hoping to avoid water. Works sometimes, often doesn't.

As moderation is generally reactive rather than proactive some of the lean comes from what gets reported - in terms of positive action the best thing people can do is get gud at reporting the other side even if that's uncomfortable ideologically.

The mods aren't going to get extra resources to do wholesale proactive sweeps and the left-libs aren't going to stop doing what's working for them - so it's either this or ineptly clutching at pearls.

What have the left-libs been doing exactly?

As much as I cringe at Torra’s childish "no u" style of debating, I don’t actually see her as being malicious or doing this out of spite.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Moderation decisions are inconsistent enough that it's more or less sticking a pin into a globe blindfolded and hoping to avoid water. Works sometimes, often doesn't.

As moderation is generally reactive rather than proactive some of the lean comes from what gets reported - in terms of positive action the best thing people can do is get gud at reporting the other side even if that's uncomfortable ideologically.

The mods aren't going to get extra resources to do wholesale proactive sweeps and the left-libs aren't going to stop doing what's working for them - so it's either this or ineptly clutching at pearls.

I'd rather have uneven moderation than a report war.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Moderation decisions are inconsistent enough that it's more or less sticking a pin into a globe blindfolded and hoping to avoid water. Works sometimes, often doesn't.

As moderation is generally reactive rather than proactive some of the lean comes from what gets reported - in terms of positive action the best thing people can do is get gud at reporting the other side even if that's uncomfortable ideologically.

The mods aren't going to get extra resources to do wholesale proactive sweeps and the left-libs aren't going to stop doing what's working for them - so it's either this or ineptly clutching at pearls.

What have the left-libs been doing exactly?

As much as I cringe at Torra’s childish "no u" style of debating, I don’t actually see her as being malicious or doing this out of spite.

I get on quite well with Torra and I see no need to personify the problem. Basically I'm talking about a tendency of some posters to drop a persistent stream of low level bait, get some back and forth banter going in which both sides tickle the edges of politeness, and then suddenly boomerang out of it and report the first thing they can spot that's a micro-violation of the letter of the rules.

I don't want a "report war" as Xeno puts it above, it's just people maybe need to be smarter when people report and provide the overall context of the conversation and the little things the reporter did that broke the rules, even if we don't find them offensive, so a rushed mod doesn't default to assuming the reporter is right. As is, people just tend to blow up when something is reported and warned unduly, and in the process they often say something way out of bounds that then plays to the narrative they deserved it.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Moderation decisions are inconsistent enough that it's more or less sticking a pin into a globe blindfolded and hoping to avoid water. Works sometimes, often doesn't.

As moderation is generally reactive rather than proactive some of the lean comes from what gets reported - in terms of positive action the best thing people can do is get gud at reporting the other side even if that's uncomfortable ideologically.

The mods aren't going to get extra resources to do wholesale proactive sweeps and the left-libs aren't going to stop doing what's working for them - so it's either this or ineptly clutching at pearls.

What have the left-libs been doing exactly?

As much as I cringe at Torra’s childish "no u" style of debating, I don’t actually see her as being malicious or doing this out of spite.

My shitposty banter is pure and innocent in its stupidity, and I'd never use whatever minor back-and-forth that slings from that to spite-report or whatever, because that's utterly fucking stupid, petty, and a waste of time. :3

Obviously I wouldn't put more major or assholish shit under that same umbrella though.

Torrocca wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
What have the left-libs been doing exactly?

As much as I cringe at Torra’s childish "no u" style of debating, I don’t actually see her as being malicious or doing this out of spite.

My shitposty banter is pure and innocent in its stupidity, and I'd never use whatever minor back-and-forth that slings from that to spite-report or whatever, because that's utterly fucking stupid, petty, and a waste of time. :3

Obviously I wouldn't put more major or assholish shit under that same umbrella though.

Imagine having ever filed a moderation report tbh.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
My shitposty banter is pure and innocent in its stupidity, and I'd never use whatever minor back-and-forth that slings from that to spite-report or whatever, because that's utterly fucking stupid, petty, and a waste of time. :3

Obviously I wouldn't put more major or assholish shit under that same umbrella though.

Imagine having ever filed a moderation report tbh.

Ever got a compliment from an NSGer for apparently being a level-headed person to talk to?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Imagine having ever filed a moderation report tbh.

Ever got a compliment from an NSGer for apparently being a level-headed person to talk to?

Um, I think so, at one point or another. You're pretty level headed yourself. Why do you ask?

To clarify, I was joking with that post. I don't actually think anyone who's ever filed a report has done wrong.

Torrocca wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I won't deny, the 50s were oppressive times for a lot of people, but simply posting a picture of the 50s doesn't mean you're okay with the oppression. And I didn't notice the male emphasis.

I just noticed it was edited.

The original was in here, caught by this post:

Yusseria wrote:Our decline started right around the time we let feminists diminish the importance of the nuclear family and idolize single mothers.

Family is the basis of everything.

All the same, the whole implication of ND's post revolves around this idyllic representation of the 1950s, and to present that, he only bothers to show an image that idealizes white nuclear families and literally nothing else. It ignores literally everything else to present this image that things were okay because white people had it good.

I swapped the images out because the first one didn't convey the idea I was trying to discuss. Apologies in that regard.
The 50s set the groundwork for what could have been a far greater American society, and like every decade that preceded it, there were obvious flaws (most of which still exist). The idealized version of it is something to strive for.

Jolthig wrote:

North German Realm wrote:I mean. Yeah. Dividing India into rump states with cores in the old Mughal Empire, Hyderabad, Burma, Baluchistan, etc. etc. would be smarter than dividing them by religious lines. Even recognizing the two-nation theory was a mistake and one that the Indian People are suffering for even to the day.

The two nation theory definitely led to many problems and actually, I recall the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community warned against the creation of Pakistan which could lead to suffering. Basically, the British created a semi-theocracy that now persecutes my community, and is unfair to other minorities.

Why not just keep India as a whole? At least make it a federation of some kind. Granted, today's India is already like that, but it could've really brought everyone from each faith and culture together and to work together for a better country.

Only problem is, now they hate each other and both have nukes. So helping India stomp Pakistan into the dirt is gonna be a pain.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
I just noticed it was edited.

The original was in here, caught by this post:



All the same, the whole implication of ND's post revolves around this idyllic representation of the 1950s, and to present that, he only bothers to show an image that idealizes white nuclear families and literally nothing else. It ignores literally everything else to present this image that things were okay because white people had it good.

I swapped the images out because the first one didn't convey the idea I was trying to discuss. Apologies in that regard.
The 50s set the groundwork for what could have been a far greater American society, and like every decade that preceded it, there were obvious flaws (most of which still exist). The idealized version of it is something to strive for.

The idealized 50s weren't the actual 50s though. Anyone who wasn't a straight, white, and at least middle class man was a second-class citizen. It wasn't all bad, but when the motherfr*cking Soviet Union of all countries gets to call you out for denying people their constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights, then there's a problem.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
I just noticed it was edited.

The original was in here, caught by this post:



All the same, the whole implication of ND's post revolves around this idyllic representation of the 1950s, and to present that, he only bothers to show an image that idealizes white nuclear families and literally nothing else. It ignores literally everything else to present this image that things were okay because white people had it good.

I swapped the images out because the first one didn't convey the idea I was trying to discuss. Apologies in that regard.
The 50s set the groundwork for what could have been a far greater American society, and like every decade that preceded it, there were obvious flaws (most of which still exist). The idealized version of it is something to strive for.

Exactly. Really “the 50s” is more 1953 to 1963, sudden massive changes do not necessary happen on years ending in 0.

But anyways we cannot magically turn back time to 1960 and then lock it in 1960 forever.
Nor would we want to.
The 50s had serious flaws, like any era, but had good aspects as well, and saw massive improvements.

The point is not to recreate the 50s as they were, but more make the present closer to what they envisioned 1980 could be. (Not what they thought 2019 could be really as they grossly overestimated technical progress.). Or create them as they should have been, rather than what they were.

Considering desegregation was making massive steps forward, people of the time could imagine a future without segregation. The good parts of the 50s and desegregation were not mutually exclusive. Rather they were part of the same process.
You cannot remove the Civil Rights movement from the 50s.
Expanding civil rights was a critical part of the 50s.

Asherahan wrote:Is the Right infighting? What did I miss?

Is the Right ever not infighting?...Lol

Here's a question for everybody: From the Right-Wing Point of View, which Communist Regime was best?

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
I just noticed it was edited.

The original was in here, caught by this post:



All the same, the whole implication of ND's post revolves around this idyllic representation of the 1950s, and to present that, he only bothers to show an image that idealizes white nuclear families and literally nothing else. It ignores literally everything else to present this image that things were okay because white people had it good.

I swapped the images out because the first one didn't convey the idea I was trying to discuss. Apologies in that regard.
The 50s set the groundwork for what could have been a far greater American society, and like every decade that preceded it, there were obvious flaws (most of which still exist). The idealized version of it is something to strive for.

Reconstruction America best America

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Asherahan wrote:Is the Right infighting? What did I miss?

Is the Right ever not infighting?...Lol

Here's a question for everybody: From the Right-Wing Point of View, which Communist Regime was best?

Yugoslavia, Tito a best!

Conserative Morality wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Is the Right ever not infighting?...Lol

Here's a question for everybody: From the Right-Wing Point of View, which Communist Regime was best?

Yugoslavia, Tito a best!

Czechoslovakia under Dubcek, perhaps?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Is the Right ever not infighting?...Lol

Here's a question for everybody: From the Right-Wing Point of View, which Communist Regime was best?

Yugoslavia, Tito a best!

I agree (for once). Tito was best by far.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Asherahan wrote:Is the Right infighting? What did I miss?

Is the Right ever not infighting?...Lol

Here's a question for everybody: From the Right-Wing Point of View, which Communist Regime was best?

North Korea.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I swapped the images out because the first one didn't convey the idea I was trying to discuss. Apologies in that regard.
The 50s set the groundwork for what could have been a far greater American society, and like every decade that preceded it, there were obvious flaws (most of which still exist). The idealized version of it is something to strive for.

Reconstruction America best America

CM, you are truly a man of higher culture.