What’s the difference between “Blacks are stupid” and “Blacks are innately intellectually inferior”? Surely you don’t think “blacks are stupid” is allowed by the rules, do you? At a minimum, it would be saying that poster here, who happen to be black, are stupid.
I don’t think any of those refutes an argument - they are simply namecalling. As an example, if someone advances the argument that poor people are poor because God wills it, I think that’s a pretty crappy attitude. I can go on about lack of evidence, counterfactuals, etc. to rebut the argument. But really, I think that’s a pretty assholic view. Should I be able to just call them an asshole? It doesn’t rebut anything in the same way calling someone an antisemite rebuts anything. It’s a label that describes a set of behaviors or actions, but it doesn’t address the substance of anything.
Ok, allow me to clarify. It hurts the ability to be consistent. Sure we can say that calling people a racist is allowed, and then simultaneously moderate them for doing so, but I don’t think that’a good practice.
I’d have to see it in context, but I’d be fine interceding if that were the statement. I could see some version of that being okay - like, are there differences in intelligence levels by region, Florida vs. California? I think that would be inane, but I think that type of question wouldn’t run afoul of the rules. If we extrapolate to other geographic comparisons, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind.
I think it’s possible. People who have held racist views have renounced them. I think more importantly there could be readers/lurkers who are swayed by persuasive arguments, or are dissuaded by poor arguments. Shouting down people with distasteful views doesn’t allow that to happen.
That’s the nature of moderation. When there is a judgment call, it’s the judgment of the moderation team that carries the day. Not that it matters, but whether the moderation staff is mostly white doesn’t seem to be relevant to whether something is namecalling or not. Is it your assertion that calling someone a racist is not a personal insult or name calling? It also shouldn’t matter one bit, but I’m not white.
I have no problem moderating racism. Just the same with misogyny, or other hate speech. I think I am willing to let things play out a little bit to be sure. There are several posters who I am familiar with who have done enough to earn closer examination of all of their posts and for those I do so.
I’d have to see context, but I doubt I’d countenance an assertion that black people are fundamentally intellectually inferior. See this as an example.
Am stupid.
Wow. Talk about a target rich environment for a moderator! 
I don’t think there’s a difference, but from my memory, assertions of (or very similar to) “… inherently intellectually inferior” have been allowed in GD, while “blacks are stupid” (or “low iq” as per the thread Bone just linked) would not be.
I’m guessing that’s because you equate the two phrases I compared in post #99. They are not the same.
It would be very odd if every population of humans had the exact same mean for “intelligence”, if we can even measure such a thing. But it’s not racist pseudoscience to debate that.
Not inherently, but pretty much every proponent of this idea comes to the Dope with the same tired pseudoscience. It’s not like we have fresh and new debates on race and intelligence. It’s all the same old bullshit.
Then it’s easy to just refer them to the last time you tirelessly debated the topic and just ignore them afterwards. Maybe someone else wants to engage with them, though. If no one engages with them, the thread drops off the radar. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the mods to save us from ourselves.
And if we start closing thread because “we’ve done this before”, we won’t have many threads here at all. Maybe we can just start numbering our responses. “Oh yeah? Well I have #6 to say about that!” 
And in the mean time we might be losing a lot of potential readers and posters of color who don’t want to join a community that tolerates their routine rhetorical denigration and dehumanization.
I’d hardly characterize what we do here as “tolerate”. Posters like that are typically argued against, and argued against fiercely, and then Pitted where they are rhetorically tarred and feathered.
We get those race realist threads maybe once or twice a year. Once in a blue moon we get a flurry of them. I don’t think significant numbers of people are turned away from this board by those threads, but if you have some data to show otherwise, I’d be open to changing my mind. Frankly, I’d be more concerned about the larger group of existing (and potential) posters who would be turned away from a site that is too cowardly to take on certain topics.
I don’t have data - it’s just anecdotal. I’ve heard from other posters and other people in general that, considering all the shit they get or have gotten in their real lives, they want to join online communities that are welcoming to them, and that reject any hint of white supremacism. And I’d happily trade every “blacks are dumber” poster for a single one of them.
“Blacks are dumber” posters don’t last very long here. What you are describing sounds too much like the “safe spaces” provided by some college campuses today. I think a large number of posters here don’t want this place to become like that. We could do a poll, but it wouldn’t be scientific.
It is interesting to compare this to the other thread, where a clearly racist comment was made but no warning.
In both cases the Mods have said it wasn’t the post, it was the history, thereby admitting warnings are pretty much arbitrary & capricious.
Exactly
FTR this is why I’m asking for input from other moderators. Because this series of events - warning me, missing the far more direct insult beneath (which I did report, so he definitely knew about it) until badgered about it here, missing just how fucked the thread had become by post 22 - is so off-base that I feel like it reflects really poorly on him as a moderator.
I think a safe space is very different – far, far more than just “don’t spout white supremacist pseudo-science”.
I can think of at least 3 who are still members in good standing. Or do you just mean that specific phrasing.
Much like their racism…baddum-tish
I meant that specific phrasing or something like it that referred to all blacks and wasn’t some statistical phrasing as I noted in post #99 of this thread.
This is the correct analysis…To the “Red Pill” refers to metaphor where Neo chooses the “Red Pill” as opposed to the “Blue Pill” to become aware of what’s actually going on. To me this has nothing to do with groups that have co-opted the term for their own purposes.
I was responding to a “Matrix” reference with a “Matrix” reference here’s the exchange…
Note that I got a warning for the last quote for making a personal insult.
You bumped a four and as half month old thread for this?
Lol.