I’ll ask again- why was Inbred Mm domesticus given a warning yet the same thing by Really Not All That Bright is ignored? Favoritism?
If those were the only two choices you’d have a point. But they’re not. Surely you know that so i’m surprised you’d even imply that they were.
Believe me, I’m just as surprised that anyone could read that post and infer that I’m implying any such thing. Would you mind rereading the post and seeing if you can find any other possible interpretation of what I said?
If I say I mistrust the members of ISIS, does that make me an anti-Arab? (Anti-Moslem?)
Garden path.
That may be true. It won’t change anything however.
I have to wonder why Scandic’s thread got moved to the Pit tout suite, when scientific racism threads can linger in GD basically forever…
I mean, I don’t want to think that there’s something, some special quality about Jews, that us poor genetically retarded Africans don’t get to share, that means they get the ability to have free rein on antisemites, but we have to put up with the GD language restrictions. But recent mod actions don’t dissuade me.
Give the martyr complex a rest.
I moved that sucker because there was no debate occurring. It was nothing but mockery and that belongs in the Pit. As long as there’s - polite - debate threads stay in Great Debates.
I would not have worded Dibble’s post the way he did, but honestly I don’t see how any any reasonable person who’s familiar with the history of this message board could find his suggestion of a double standard objectionable.
We’ve had at least one mod, Dex,say that he’s more than willing to mod statements about Jews that he wouldn’t about Muslims.
We’ve also had at least one poster who claimed Jews had a dream tendency to engage in terrorism which got him an immediate warning that was promptly upgraded to an instaban.
Muslims of course are subjected to numerous such statements without even having a mod note, and mods insisting such posts while objectionable aren’t in violation of the rules.
Can you really blame Dibble for wondering?
Beyond that, on a more serious note, as someone who does sincerely respect you while disagreeing with you and even butting heads with you.
There are posts to accuse posters of engaging in “martyr complexes”. There are posts to proclaim the need for “polite discussion”.
They aren’t the same post. And FTR, I’m hardly a role model where such is concerned.
If you guys don’t want to give attention to these alleged Scientific Racists, just don’t engage with them. As long as you do, they’re going to be here. It’s only 2 or 3 posters here who bother.
Or, if you just can’t resist responding, open an omnibus Pit thread, and whenever they post, refer them to that thread.
Heh.
“alleged Scientific Racists”.
True, I don’t know why so many Jews get butthurt over that “alleged” Holocaust Denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I’m sure they would react well to my telling them to get over it and their response wouldn’t be something along the lines of “that’s easy for you to say”.
Granted, I’m sure that you’re outraged by my suggestion that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust Denier, which to your mind, if you’re intellectually consistent, is a huge insult and “name calling”.
I think it’s important that such claims be challenged – their minds probably aren’t going to change, but it’s important that others who don’t know about the issue should see the weakness of such arguments, in my view.
How many times is it “important” to challenge the exact same guy on the exact same issue with the exact same cites?
And… there are different ways to “challenge” someone. Some keep his ideas out there, others don’t.
I don’t know. Perhaps until posters we respect are able to acknowledge that said posters are “racists” rather than “alleged” racists.
Sadly, some people just don’t get it.
Then I guess you’ll be doing this for a long time. Good luck!
I’m sorry Jonathan, but this is terrible moderating. It puts the power in the hands of people – who I agree with – who want debates moved to the pit.
There was a very brief period, maybe six or seven years ago, when a few anti-gun types tried the same tactic. A technical discussion about guns would show up in GQ they would pollute the thread and it would get moved to the pit.
Right now, with what you just said, my take-away is that if I, or Dibble or LHOD or whoever, doesn’t want to see scumbag racists pretending that science supports them, I should mark them until the thread is moved to the pit where they can properly be called the racist douchebags they are.
And if I can’t do that, why can people do it to anti-Jewish threads?
I am Jewish, and I’m glad the thread was moved. But there really does seem to be a double standard.
This would be the insult-free moderation replies we’ve been told are the order of the day in ATMB, then?
No real debate occurs in the scientific racism threads, it’s the same tired (and personalized!) argument by CP.
Hey, here’s a suggestion - if we’re not allowed to call CP a racist in GD, how about you ban him from using “egalitarian”, which he uses in exactly the same way, even when he’s been asked not to by those he’s applying it to.
And** John Mace**, you may notice I haven’t actually responded to Chief’s “points” in a while. I realized he was just repeating himself in that same thread, like some kind of one-topic 'bot. Usually he only loops around that blatantly in the next thread. iiandyiiii has a lot more patience for that than I have.
It is of course quoting the dictionary definition, the italics. I am comfortable that itis indicative enough and highlighted the logical contortions of the moderation decisions even if one is very foolish or deliberately obtuse to take a dictionary definition narrowly.
iiandyii has given enough proofs that behind the indirection, it is the motivating analysis. Otherwise his positions make literally no sense at all. the conclusion has come first, and everything else is fitted to it.
there was no mistake, I am very comfortable with the analysis that the persons who makes the statement that an entire religion is bad but then adds in the camoflaguing langauge of the Good Jew etc. is merely engaging in either a self deception or as likely engaging the discourse of the plausible deniability that is the typical strategeme of persons pushing extremist and/or socially unsanctioned ideas.
For the political tribalist, of course unless the statements wear fly the obvious colors of the Klan or whatever, there is always the cover to deny.
confusion of the politics as the usual for political tribalism and the fundamental position.
There is no contradiction or necessary connection between support of such a policy and belief that a race is inferior, although without doubt in the american politics the racist position on one side helps support the dislike of the policy.
of course this is again true that for a political position that has many different drivers and reasons, that there it is likely to be almost always the name calling, if we mean in name calling using the nouns with the primary intention merely to damage. It is to me different than when it is the direct discussion of the genetic qualities of asserted races and when one sees again and again rhetorical games
the strange contortions of the Ebola conversation with the avoidance of admitting any competence by the black medical staffs, the avoidance of the european data - like the united kingdom education testing data of two generations of africans that make nonsense of a reliance of the American education testing data to draw strong conclusions about a genetical basis of testing gaps… these all are things that have shown this to anyone who has followed.
Even his use of the statistics and asserting the statements about average - one can feel he knows better than the bad analysis when talking about a population simple average that by its inputs is very likely to have very skewed distributions of the traits and of the expression…
But since the simple direct noun for the phrase of what is clear is forbidden and his own rhetorical game of egalitarian goes by, and the moderation remains in its own perfect closed reasoning, then it is best to follow the same method as CP. It is the appearances that count most.
For me, at least, as long as someone posts wrong stuff, I’ll be fine with challenging it (and even mocking it, sometimes).
If you are comfortable making false statements and refusing to back them up (because they are false), then that’s unfortunate.
Regards,
Shodan