Why haven‘t you shared this fiscal nugget before?
{{Piper goes off to click on the top 12 threads in each forum that he’s not read.}}
So we’re clear, you think holocaust denial is merely an unpopular position?
It’s a question of percentages isn’t it? What are the odds that someone wants to have a genuine discussion about scientific racism, versus pushing some kind of racial superiority rhetoric? If they want a genuine discussion, then they’ve got a burden in relation to other threads. They need to read the old threads and convince a moderator they’ve got something new to add. Or if there’s new information, such as a scientific breakthrough, then the hypothetical OP would just need to run it by a moderator. For that matter, hard science should be able to be discussed even if it has a tired topic implication. If scientists discover a new genetic mechanism through which intelligence is inherited, that’s easily a standalone topic. A moderator might need to issue “Keep it on Track” notes, but I don’t believe the intention is to halt genuine discussion. The problem is that the chances of a discussion of a tired topic being genuine are quite low. Having a barrier-to-entry to prove a new thread is a diamond and not coal seems reasonable.
While we’re at it, are men’s rights activists the same as holocaust deniers? If I want to argue that in our society, men are disadvantaged unfairly in certain areas relative to women, like child custody and alimony, or the fact that men can be drafted to fight in wars and women can’t be, will my thread be labeled an MRA thread and shut down? MRA is most certainly not the same thing as male chauvinist.
The new rules say -
It is not clear if “somehow” means “in certain areas” or “overall”. Given this -
it might be a good idea to email a mod before either starting a thread. or espousing a position, that men are disadvantaged in certain areas. And then see what the response is.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t that exactly what’s in the rules? If a poster thinks they’ve got a point of view on one of those subjects that could be worthy of debate without inspiring the same pain in the ass for the moderation staff then PM a mod with a proposal. We’ll discuss it and get back to you fairly quickly.
With regard to “tired topics”, couldn’t we add more things to that list? Abortion, Religion, Donald Trump… all these things have been discussed to death, people have very firmly entrenched opinions that don’t usually change even after thousands of posts discussing them.
What I take away from the rules is this. There’s one dogma, one Sacred Cow that can’t be disturbed on this board: the belief that there are no innate differences between human beings. The official position of the board seems to be that the “blank slate” view of human nature is the correct one, and anyone who says otherwise is not welcome.
I think that’s a pretty drastic misinterpretation. I don’t think anyone’s saying that individual humans don’t vary from birth, or from before birth, or even from conception; let alone that anyone should be prevented from saying the opposite.
But to say that individuals vary is a very different thing from saying that differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. both are primarily innate with little influence from environmental (including social) factors either before or after birth and on top of it that they can be neatly, or even somewhat messily, allocated according to skin color or eyelid structure or continent one’s ancestors were born on.
Okay, but there are mountains of evidence pointing towards differences between men and woman. For example, the murder rate for men vastly exceeds women’s murder rates. Not just in the USA, but in all societies across the globe where data has been gathered (if anyone can find an example to the contrary, I’d be greatly interested in seeing it). From my point of view, it seems implausible to argue that biology has nothing to do with this.
Why don’t male and female professional athletes compete on the same playing field, instead they compete separately from one another. If men and women were exactly equal in ability, why would we need to do this? Denying that there are differences between men and women is just as absurd as climate change denial.
ISTM that this applies mostly to groups, especially socially defined groups like SIRE. The ban is on arguing that there could be any genetic or inherent factor that, on average, differs in incidence among groups.
The MRA ban seems to me to be more problematic. If it means only “men” and “women” as the terms apply to gender, that’s one thing. If it means applied to biological sex - XX and XY, cismen and ciswomen - that is not really a socially defined group. Yes, of course there are outliers and edge cases, but does that mean we cannot debate if men are more likely to be engineers because they are better, on average, at math (as well as more subject to developmental disorders and schizophrenia)? Not necessarily that they deserve to be engineers, or that engineers deserve to be in charge, or that being better at verbal skills means that you are inherently inferior - just that different jobs tend to reward different skill sets.
Yes, that’s true. It’s also different from saying that those differences are primarily innate. There are lots of things that are affected both by nature and by nurture. It is possible both to reject the tabula rasa and genetic determinism.
Regards,
Shodan
The physiological differences between men and women are not listed among the Tired Topics which cannot be discussed.
You are, thus, arguing something should be allowed that is still allowed.
I can see value in keeping threads separate and not omnibus, but that’s overkill. All three of those would contain the same information. I’d even expect that, if all three threads were live, there would be people who would post the same post in all three threads. Who he is will include information he gives in debates, and his debate performance will be reflected in what happens in the polls. They’re too intertwined.