I understand why you disagree. I understand that you believe that discussion of intelligence and race is of a different kind than other issues and should be suppressed. I don’t agree that it is so different from other kinds of discussions that it must necessarily be excluded.
It seems to me that you also believe that I am unable to understand your position because of my race and culture (and neither can anyone else who does not share your own race and culture), which is rather ironic under the circumstances.
Is Race A taller than Race B?
Does Race A have more upper body strength than Race B?
Is there something about Race A that makes them faster runners than Race B?
Is Race A have a greater risk of Disease X than Race B?
Doe Race A have higher levels of melanin than Race B?
Is it possible that Race A has better spatial reasoning than other races?
Can Race A’s apparent inferior performance on tests compared to Race B’s be attributed, in any part, to genetics?
I agree with you. I think all of these are perfectly fine topics to discuss. And, of course, if one does feel offended by any of them, they’re free to not discuss it, as well.
Necessarily excluded, no - there is possibly a place for a reasonable discussion about such subjects. One that starts with a foundational text that fraudulently claims “Africa is a continent of retards” is not that place.
Yes, I do.
This is not true. I don’t believe I share a race or culture with, say, Ramira or Ibn Warraq, but I can well believe they understand my position. Doesn’t take shared race or culture to have a shared experience.
I fail to see the irony - empathy can only take you so far. It’s a common characteristic of privilege, that it thinks it can know the unprivileged. You see it in men speaking for women, hell, there’s even a neologism for that. And this is similar - I’m here, telling you you don’t know how I feel, that you can’t, and you’re telling me that’s not the case. And you can do that, because you have the power to. That’s privilege.
ETA - and the most telling thing was when you raised the existence of African-American mods, as though that were a get-out clause for this issue. Hell no - my own experience of African Americans is that they’re the worst offenders when it comes to that kind of Western privilege. You just have to look at Nzinga’s last post in the other current thread to see that cultural sensitivity doesn’t matter to her at all. And that’s my common experience of African-Americans who come to South Africa, too.
You really know very little about me except that I am a white American. You are drawing conclusions based purely on your personal biases about that.
I wouldn’t consider my background privileged (although it appears you believe privilege must be based purely on skin color and nothing else). I grew up on public assistance; my father was unable to work and I was one of six kids. I was the first male member of my family to graduate high school. My Bronx neighborhood wasn’t an easy place; my next door neighbor and childhood playmate went to prison for murder (he beat a neighborhood drug dealer to death) and a number of my siblings’ friends were gunned down in the streets within blocks of our house.
But that is presumably because of their race, skin color, or culture, even if it’s not the same as yours.
If that’s the case, I’m afraid there is no solution to your problem. You want to moderate the board on the basis of the opinions of a tiny minority of our membership. I don’t see why we should do that.
So, all we need to do is get more black posters (of any nationality but I suppose American would hold more weight since this is an American board after all) and we can finally get consistent moderation on topics of our intelligence in correlation to our race?
in the GD they tolerate this type of discussion if it is said in a fashion that is flowery enough, with just a hint of the plausible deniaibility but citing the very sources like Lynn who says it directly.
the manner this is treated is absurd.
I would not shut this down. But the moderation that warns someone for stating in a direct fashion:
this I find grotesquely hypocritical. An analytical statement. The same statement only not using the forbidden noun gains no warning which we know as there is the evidence as I did it . if you replace only the forbidden noun with the definition sentence copied from a dictionary goes without any comment.
the idea that somehow the mere use of the noun in this fashion is terrible is absurd - of course it does not preclude the moderating actual use as abuse and insult.
According to MrDibble even that wouldn’t be sufficient. They would have to be both black and non-American (actually I think from the developing world as well). If you are African-American he feels you are too privileged to be capable of making judgments on the issue.
I don’t really care what he thinks (no offense, MrDibble). You more or less said that since there’s large number of Jewish posters, you moderate on their behalf when it comes to hate speech. If we had more black posters saying that “race realism” in GD is hate speech, then it seems to reason that moderation on those topics would be more consistent. I agree with Ramira that all this pedantry is just tilting at windmills, but would really prefer if those topics got tossed to the Pit. At least there black posters can rightfully give our proper opinions on those topics if we choose to engage.
That’s a bit insulting. Attack the post, not the poster. You are expected to be reasonably civil and polite towards your fellow posters in ATMB threads.
Laughable. If this is true you really need to read more carefully.
Does not compute. I’m for more discussion, which means I’d be against language and tactics that tend to derail or end it. Like calling someone a liar or other insults do do similar damage to the discussion.
