It’s a tone thing. Because really, I think what gets people modded isn’t so much their policies as their tone. If somebody says, “Blacks are all genetically subhuman”, they run the risk of moderation, while if they say “A study by Racist Scientist X published in The Journal of White Supremacist Medicine shows that on average, American blacks have an IQ 10 points lower than whites and says there’s a genetic basis”, probably won’t be.
Likewise, saying “Republicans all hate women and want to see them suffer” runs a risk of being modded, while “The positions of the Republican Party seem to be consistently hostile to women, from their strict anti-abortion stance, to their hostility towards insurance coverage of contraceptives and other female health issues, to their opposition to equal pay legislation.” probably won’t be.
“Blacks are subhuman” and “Republicans hate women” are pit talk, while the others above are more Great Debatey.
I disagree with this. It’s very true for all posters (as well as for all people IRL, BTW).
I also disagree with the implied claim that since you are yourself a moderator that you have a more definitive opinion about matters of this sort. You would obviously have more insight as to what you and other staff are consciously thinking, but as regards to the overall dynamic, you would have less insight, if anything.
No one likes to think of themselves as being influenced by bias or other non-rational influences, but they exist nonetheless, and an outside observer is better positioned to assess them.
There’s a difference between such claims about offensive inflammatory subjects and such claims about neutral matters.
What you’re describing is not a “tone thing” but a difference in ascribed motivation.
Not surprising. I didn’t think you’d be able to quote one.
You know, that is exactly the technique that Ann Coulter uses when asked to give specific examples.
Q: In your new book, you say Democrats are Traitors. Which Democrats do you mean-- can you give an example?
A: All of them.
Q: No, give me a name.
A: Well, there are so many, I don’t know where to begin.
Q: Pick one. Give me one name.
A: I’m trying to, but you keep interrupting me.
And so it goes.
Take that into consideration if you want to understand what is going on here.
DT is correct that there have been several threads at least on the subject of whether blacks are on average of lesser intelligence than whites for genetic reasons. I’m not sure whether you’re unaware of all this or are making some subtle distinction.
[Personally, I think there’s a huge difference between saying that Group A is on average less intelligent than Group B and saying that Group A is of subhuman intelligence. The latter formulation is more offensive and also something that no one has claimed here, to my knowledge. Specifically, no one is claiming that such differences as may exist put blacks, on average, outside of normal human intelligence.]
As at least some of these threads involve people extrapolating “Group A is on average less intelligent than Group B” out to “…and that’s why they have more crime/poor school results/fewer technologicial achievements/less great literature/etc”, it’s a little more than such a commentary on a statistical anomaly. Plus, as the context is virtually always about genetic differences where Group A (and indeed Group B) is not remotely genetically similar, it all gets nasty very quickly.
I asked for a quote where someone posted that blacks were “genetically subhuman” and they didn’t get mod’ed. That was the claim. If there area so many, then quote one. It should be easy.
Does anyone see any difference between the following -
[ul][li]Here is a cite showing that, when you correct for SES and parental education levels, group X tends to score somewhat lower on SAT tests. Is it possible that part of this might be due to genetic differences?[/li][li]The great majority of US citizens kill brown people for fun[/li][li]Anti-abortionists want to kill women with clubs.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
To put numbers on it, suppose someone claims that the average IQ of whites is 105 and the average for blacks is 95, purely for genetic reasons. And that this difference results in more crime etc. etc. That’s still not the same thing as saying blacks are genetically subhuman, because a 95 IQ is not a subhuman IQ level.
The ones targeted by DT are not asking “is it possible that part of this might be due to genetic differences”, they are saying “black people, on average, have inferior genes for intelligence”. And some even say “black people, on average, are genetically inherently more inclined to crime/violence/aggression”.
This is different than the way you characterize it.
I was only addressing your indication of confusion and your claim that “DT is correct”. That is factually incorrect. Honestly, your 2nd paragraph didn’t make a lot of sense in light of the first.
Nonetheless, do you understand the difference between “here is a topic for debate” and “X group is evil and wants people to suffer and die and I hate them”?
They (some of them, anyway) are stating outright that one group is inherently inferior, on average, in qualities like intelligence, due to genes.
Nonetheless, I try to avoid attacking or assuming motives. I think, basically, DT would avoid any of this trouble if he just didn’t attack anyone else’s motives. It’s not hard to attack positions without attacking motives.
DT is correct that there have been several threads at least on the subject of whether blacks are on average of lesser intelligence than whites for genetic reasons. I’m not sure whether you’re unaware of all this or are making some subtle distinction.