I read it up to a point - past the point where he admitted posting the same thing before, but he was still staying to defend his crackpot theories which IMO moved it out of the realm of pure spamming - we’ve had monomaniacal posters like that here before (selzer-pyramid-dude guy comes to mind, his shit was all over the net) and they’re not insta-banned. No mod intervention at that point, after JC moved it. But I don’t know what went down between that and it going down the rabbit hole. And I’ll never know, now.
The question is, where does a statement like that stand on the continuum between “climate change is a hoax” which is a permitted form of idiocy, and holocaust denial which is a legally sanctioned form of hate speech in many countries? I suppose it would depend on the larger context and what point the poster was trying to make.
All I will say here is that I, too, am glad you’re sticking around. We don’t always agree on the issues but we usually do, and the one time I recall that we didn’t, we had quite a long and entertaining debate. 
…agreed. Don’t go anywhere MrDibble please: the board would be a lesser place without your voice. Kia kaha bro.
I and add myself to those who appreciate retaining Mr.Dibble’s perspective as a poster. The current policy is that the board accepts guests, and paid membership provides some functional bonuses but is not determinant of participation in the conversation, so someone may give it up for any reason or no reason.
I’d like to know where we’re seeing all these scientific racism claims? Every once in awhile, you’ll have some dumbass pull this claim out, but he’ll usually get shouted down as he deserves. Same with any other racists around here.
I take an ACLU position on these matters. Popular speech doesn’t need protection: the rubber hits the road with unpopular speech. Bad speech exists. In fact it can do real harm. But the answer to bad speech is more speech. This board’s mission is fighting ignorance. To do so, we need fresh supplies of the stuff in order to deliver the smackdown.
Furthermore, it’s fair game to question free speech absolutism. Dibble’s position is actually fairly reasonable. There are plenty of democracies with more restrictive codes of expression than the US. I imagine if I was in Dibble’s shoes I wouldn’t storm out, but I’d feel queasy paying a membership fee. So he’s resigning in protest, but I trust he isn’t going to whine about it in every thread. Nothing wrong with that. Quite a bit right about it.
Not really seeing any context or point where effectively saying “blacks are subhuman” is anything but racist hate speech.
And thanks for all the posts of appreciation, guys.
Yep, and the one time I can remember someone actually posting that, he was banned.
You do know what “effectively” means, right?
You do know that someone a few points lower on an IQ distribution isn’t subhuman right? Why are you personally insulting all the dumb people in the world? There are many more out there than black people.
Cute semantic game. But “subhuman” isn’t just a word I chose idly. It indicates a belief in the genetic inferiority of a people as a whole, assigning them the average IQ of a smart chimp.
It’s no more of a personal insult than observing ‘saying “all blacks are lazy” is hate speech’ is a personal insult to lazy people.
Yep. The person I was referring to did not actually use that word, but he used one which was “effectively” the same.
So have unbanned race realist posters. Only more long-winded and couched in scientific language, but effectively the same idea.
What is your definition of “human”, and what does the particular poster in question (we know whom we are talking about) say about blacks that doesn’t fit that definition?
BTW, the poster I had in mind used the term “proto-human”, IIRC.
“subhuman” in the sense I’m using it doesn’t mean literally “not human”, it means “inferior human” - the posters in question have made it quite clear, in the pseudoscience they chose to cite, that they believe that Blacks are, as a group, intellectually inferior human beings. So I’m not saying they’re saying Blacks don’t fit the definition of the “human” group , just that they’re saying Blacks are, on the whole, inferior members of that group in as much as intellect goes.
But hey, they sure can run.
And that’s the last I’m talking about that aspect in this thread, it’s not about re-arguing this point. Hell, I’m happy with it being closed, I’ve said what I want to say.
Well, I’d be shocked if it turned out that every geographically or ethnically defined group of humans had the same IQ distribution, even if it were possible to control for all the contributing variables. You wouldn’t?
And that leaves aside the whole notion of whether or not IQ actually measures that undefinable attribute we refer to by the term “intelligence”.
To be honest what I’d rather see is more consistent moderation regarding what is and isn’t “hate speech” and what is and isn’t acceptable.
As it is, it’s been ruled that claiming that Jews have a “propensity” for terrorism gets an automatic warning for hate speech(later upgraded to a ban) whereas vastly more noxious statements about Muslims don’t even warrant a mod note.
I also can’t imagine you or I getting away with referring to “Kikes” with a mere mod note as was done with “towel head”.
Well said. Or said very well.