Reza

Exactly right. Borders were not set by God, but by men. They change all the time, and their utility is transient. Yet they are over-sanctified. The nation-state as we understand it is very recent in human history. Even so, with globalization and improved technology, borders and nations will be diminished. Some are fearful of this, especially in conservative tribalistic circles, but it’s a futile fight. The struggle will be over the nature of the global order, not the nature of fragmented landmasses. Which btw makes Trumps border wall very archaic, appealing to those whose minds are in the same 19th century the idea came from. “Iraq” has had its name and shape changed so many times in the past, and will in the future. Why should there be affinity for this current configuration over any of the others?

But the question is not what comes first or second. The question is what does the Muslim World quantitatively need more personnel for, obviously assuming both already exist in some capacity. You don’t need as many philosophers to get the job done, but you need a lot more scientists to work with ever complex data, as I said above. Otherwise the Muslim World will continue to lag, and become vulnerable to invasion, misery, and regression.

Every ayat begins by mentioning Allah’s mercy. Humanity was created for paradise, which surely means the majority of humanity will reach it, as per our design. Otherwise, what was the point of creation? To send most people to hell? Clearly the concept of justice was not intended to be compartmentalized into an absolute dictum that can be artificially and cleanly separated from mercy. We are incapable of simultaneously grasping justice and mercy together, so people fall into the trap of oversimplifications.

Scientists, definitely. The question isn’t necessarily about what is “more important” (as if that has an answer), but what the Muslim World needs more of. One of the key reasons why the Muslim world is suffering compared to the rest of the world is a lack of scientific advancement, which is vital to maintain leverage and improve quality of life (which opens people up for subsequent spiritual pursuits) Science is more collaborative, while philosophy is (more or less) a solo endeavor. Science requires lots of data, and lots of people to collect and analyze it. Philosophy can be handled in fewer hands. For every one philosopher, we should have thousands of scientists. People need to think practically. Easiest poll question we’ve had in a while @wolverine

Mods must be the most civilized wild beasts ever. Then be part of the solution. We don’t function on pure predestination in our faith. We have the power to elevate our destiny. The biggest drain on this site is not the loss of a couple banned members, but the huge numbers of inactive members who can’t put in even the tiniest amount of participation. That’s just a small sample for you on the kind of stuff we deal with. If you like, re-send it again by PM to staff and it can be re-reviewed. While the rules are firm on insulting personalities, there is also flexibility. To quote directly from the guidelines: “The Shiachat.com team does however reserve the right to keep such threads open granted that it is put under heavy moderation and all parties engaged in the debate maintain a certain level of respect and maturity.” Interesting reminder. Mods receive many complaints and reports from many of you calling for the banning or disciplining of members. When mods don’t comply to these requests, they are called insensitive, supporters of corruption, betrayers of Islam, betraying their duties etc. When mods do ban, they are trigger happy tyrants and vicious beasts with a sadistic agenda. Looks like mods can’t win either way.

The new system lets you see a list of topics from multiple subforums (or even the whole site), all on one page, all at once. Makes it much easier to browse new topics. In the old system, you had to open each subforum one at a time, either clicking the back button constantly, or having multiple tabs/windows open. It was horribly inefficient. The only appeal of the old system was its familiarity, definitely not its functionality. Admins and mods are usually well standing members of the site who can be entrusted with sensitive information, and to collaborate in maintaining rules. Although usually selected by other staff members, somebody is unlikely to become a mod or admin if they are controversial and aren’t in good standing with the general community. Although the “election” format was tried, do you think there’s a huge spring of eligible, qualified, motivated candidates? Ones who who don’t disappear for a few months? And are willing to do lots of tedious work? We have lots of big talkers, but not many who can handle the seat. Originally, in the “good old days”, there were 40+ subforums, navigated by the inefficient system described above. Because of this, many were abandoned ghost towns. It has since been reduced to around 25, which admittedly is still quite high. We’re open to ideas to reducing this, and if you have specifics on which subforums should be merged or changed, let us know. The reaction emojis are still a work in progress. Data is gathered on how often each are used, and whether they are appropriately used. They can always be added/changed/removed. That’s the goal. You’re complaining that is time consuming, but clicking on 40+ subforums one-by-one was fine? For this reason, many new topics in the old days were lazily placed in “General Discussions” (even though they really belonged elsewhere), because it was easy. Today, with the new system, members are better at placing topics in appropriate places. That’s a good thing if we care about organization. The current layout (the “fluid” style), is similar to the style used by Reddit, Facebook newsfeeds, news sites, etc. That’s better designed for those with low attention spans. Of course, the process can be even easier with reducing the number of subforums, which again, we’re open to specific proposals. This nostalgic sentiment is common, and I’m convinced it has more to do with remembering our younger days, when the internet was more fresh and exciting in our minds, and we had more free time to hang around. As we get older, we lose that wonder, and we often blame the site, rather than our own weariness. Objectively though, there’s really little inherently better about the past than now. Good topics and members existed then and now, but if you dig deep in the archives, you’ll see a lot of junk. That’s exactly the point. The old system was s nightmare to find new topics, unless you had the patience to open each subforum one at a time. Thanks a lot, we appreciate it. Running the site is serious business. Changing management “for fun” is not wise. Also not sure what “tradition” you’re referring to. Mods typically change after long inactivity or quit for other reasons. It’s an important job, and uses skills that develop over time, which is why long term stability is important. Changing mods is difficult, because it takes a while to “catch them up to speed” with a radically different site interface and experience. Only those who have done it will understand. As someone who works with the mod team frequently, I can assure you there’s no widespread “abuse” of any power. Actions are taken for a reason, often after team consensus. Mistakes in judgment are made, which only underscores the necessity of maturity and experience. The site is not hierarchical by most standards. Unlike many forums, we don’t have paid premium members, and most site features are accessible to everyone. Whether people stay or not is up to that individual, for whatever reason. Likely more outside personal reasons. I can assure you, mods do the best they can, and I trust their actions are always in the best interest of the site. We have that covered already. That’s mostly what is done historically. The previous election was a experiment. It’s clear to me, as most members have a limited understanding of the full scope of mod responsibilities, they may not be the best to make penultimate decisions on staffing. As somebody who participated in it, I can understand that feeling. To be fair, it was a first time experiment, and it had its positives and negatives. It generated excitement but also escalated grudges and factionalism as well. But overall, it ended on a good note. That’s appreciated. I believe this is only nostalgia talking. As I stated above, there’s virtually no advantages of the old system from a functional POV, and it was more tedious. The new system may have a slight learning curve for some, but overall, it’s made the site a much more pleasurable experience. That’s an important point. Mods are diverse, with varying levels of time commitment, expertise, and style. Bluntness is fine, as long as it’s within the rules. Of course, sometimes bluntness in bad taste is counterproductive. For me at least, to regret is an important part of the learning process. I definitely regret some posts I’ve made in the past. You make us sound like the Gestapo or SAVAK. Chill dude. Generally, members aren’t banned by the whim of an individual mod, but by consensus among the mod team, typically after long discussions, and only after multiple prior warnings, suspensions, mod previews, and a million chances to correct rule violations you guys don’t see. For me, it took only one click. Not sure who on the team fits these descriptions exactly. The amount of time you spend here is your personal choice. On one end, people don’t show up, but then complain the place is dead? And then pretend these are not mutually exclusive occurrences? Agree x 1000%. Also agree 1000%. Mods are still members, and are allowed to express their opinions and biases on topics as they wish, just like anyone else. It is up to an individual mod to determine how they participate. From an action taking standpoint, the consensus style of moderation lessens vigilantism. In fact, individual mods who get caught up in a contested public discussion are more likely to seek consultation with other mods to ensure a fair outcome, in my experience. Different interpretations of the rules exist, and those mods who are most active usually will direct the course of action. Any mod action can be appealed privately, and the team will discuss it and will either reverse or confirm the action. Having devoted, stable people who think beyond themselves is all we can ask for. We have lots of backseat talkers who will go as soon as there’s nothing in the site for “me”. More like it highlights the fact that mods are unpaid volunteers who can’t devote 24/7 to reading every post in the forum. And also they have certain information that you don’t have, which often explains the discrepancy between how mods see a member and how an unknowing public sees that member. Also, interpreting laws and guidelines is a difficult task, which is why people get years of high education to do it. But mods try their best. Hi Not sure what time you are referring to. I can assure you as well, in our present time (can’t speak for the past), “irritating” mods is not a criteria for getting a ban. Many members are irritating, but they don’t get banned. In fact, we have quite a high tolerance, and are far from “trigger happy”. With all due respect, how can you have an opinion on the validity of any ban without all the corresponding facts and knowledge (especially what’s behind the scenes). Relying solely on what you see publicly paints a very incomplete picture. There’s many misconceptions that need to be addressed. Firstly, members aren’t banned solely for their viewpoints or opinions, unless it’s overt blasphemy (which is rare, and banning is generally uncontroversial). Members get banned because of repeated breaking of rules, both publicly and privately (especially by PM). Finally, permanent banning is rarely the first step, and often many warnings and temporary measures take place first. All after mod consensus of course. Mods only enforce rules the best they can, and mistakes are made. To say mods are inherently vengeful is silly. The banned members thread was created for transparency, exactly to allievate your concerns. Banned members are a very tiny fraction of the site. A much larger portion (and of much more significant impact) of this site are voluntary inactive members (like yourself, as you’ve admitted).

I had a non-Muslim friend who argued that Muslims (and religious people in general) are the ultimate materialists, because they only do what they do to “get something out of it” (i.e paradise), rather than simply being moral “for its own sake”. I claimed that desiring something eternal and infinite is not materialistic. Many of us can’t grasp when the rules change.

People have claimed this in every generation and era past. We can see if a it’s well founded worry or not. The mechanisms of expressing values and morals will evolve and adapt to a given age (preindustrial, industrial, postmodern, virtual, etc). Ethics and laws will encompass new realities. The innate principles guiding those values, including the decision to express them, still relies on the human factor, whose fitra and intuitions rise above the peculiarities of a specific age.

Guess we won’t know until we get there (hopefully inshallah).

Automation gives people free time to pursue arts, literature, philosophy, cultural pursuits, etc. Humans will not simply “lounge around” forever, eventually they will pursue greater aims, since there won’t be the distraction of excess physical work. That’s a human tendency, often beaten out of people by our capitalist system. Also, this concept is not new. Thousands of years ago, when farming output increased with better tools, and a surplus of food beyond bare survival was collected, not everyone had to farm anymore, and some could pursue other professions. That’s what elevated civilization. Thats what will happen now. New professions, new jobs, new roles will evolve with the technology, and will adjust humanity’s “baseline”. Today would be considered a paradise for individuals centuries ago, where there was extreme inefficiency, hard labor, and people died at 30 years old with simple, treatable diseases. So paradise is always a relative term. Which is why we’re born into this world first and not placed into eternal paradise directly. There has to a vantage point for comparison, otherwise the very basis of paradise ceases to function.

If the Republicans keep control, then Trump will say it’s because of his popularity. If they lose it, he’ll give the typical victimization/conspiracy theory narrative (left wing mobs, liberal media conspiracy, etc). He’s got this covered, and a script ready for either scenario. He’ll find a way to come on top either way. If the Democrats take over, Trump may just bypass the legislature and give executive orders. The Democrats are a weak opposition party, they’ll fold over like they always do, whether in power or not. The Trump agenda won’t be curtailed by electing Democrats, especially with their weak, corporate compromised leadership.

Netflix has some great stuff. Great documentary films, children films, action movies.

Chocolate

Bolsonaro is a madman. But the world political climate favors them. The soft, boring, technocratic, liberal types aren’t appealing anymore.