And thus ends my concern with this matter. Thank you for the clarification, Marley.
Seems like a good call to me.
It looks like the difference between “Nation A had been going on a trajectory that involved X, Y and Z before European involvement and Nation B had evinced phenomena 1, 2 and 3. So, from that we can extrapolate that…” and “It’s because black people are intellectually inferior.”
The fact that it’s also spammed across numerous threads puts it outside of the realm of good discussion and into hijack territory.
Thank you, and my apologies for the snippiness. I thought it was evident I was only talking about the subject being off-limits for that thread, but that last note was not clear.
Actually I think we are. “If there were no imperialism, what would happen in Africa?” So in that sense you are predicting an outcome.
Doesn’t that speak against the idea that it was a hijack? If people ignore the majority of the post in favor of reacting to the smaller part, that is not New Deal Democrat’s fault.
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
Today is not my best day for explaining myself. The post New Deal Democrat was responding to was primarily about the geography of Africa. Malthus posted about African geography and how it differs from the geography of Eurasia, (#59 in the thread) and New Deal Democrat (in post #61) answered that Africans have lower intelligence. This is part of the problem here.
OK, and that makes more sense in considering it a hijack.
Although as a stand alone point, I still think it is a valid topic of discussion.
I appreciate your willingness to be flexible, and your responses in general.
Regards,
Shodan
One might observe that “Conservatives are less intelligent than liberals”, and produce a certain amount of evidence to back it up, but doesn’t make it relevant to every discussion of American politics.
Or does it?
Just wanted to pop in to say, like MrDibble, I’m satisfied by the ruling. Who knows, maybe these posters will take time to reflect and change their behaviour.
Sadly, Orcenio, I’m much too obstinate for that. My significance is not tied to the SDMB, so while I enjoy it, there isn’t much “threat” to banning me.
The SDMB is a pleasant distraction for me. It’s a free playground and I enjoy learning from as well as contributing to it. Sometimes I take the time to create a long and complicated answer for someone with a medical question; sometimes it’s a dip into a debate I either care about or think my opinion is relevant. Sometimes I’m just bored.
If any moderator here decides I need banning, I’ll just move on. It’s their board; not mine. They are are the ones who decide who gets to participate, and whether the board will be richer or poorer without any given participant. I will try to remain courteous in how I render my opinions without watering them down. What I won’t do is censor my posts. I’ll say exactly what I want to say, and if that gets me banned, I’ll pick up my toys and go quietly home.
In this particular case, the moderator is dead wrong to issue a formal warning. It reflects his anxiety and bias over the opinion, not a violation of SDMB policies about not being relevant and therefore a hijack. It’s an opinion central to the topic. In the same way that a given poster might continually have the same reply (“George Bush is an idiot”) every single time a topic of Iraq comes up, I have the same opinion everytime the topic of Africa’s failure to develop comes up. Stop asking the same question and you’ll stop getting the same reply. Don’t like the opinion? Offer a contrary one or ignore it.
Many threads go on for pages with various posters spouting their same mantras over and over. Surely you remember some of the conspiracy threads, or political threads, or AGW threads. On any religion thread, Der Trihs is going to post his mantra that Christians are warmongering fools responsible for most of society’s ills. The average response is to ignore him.
I may have missed it, but the OP did not complain about being hijacked. **Marley23 **stepped in unilaterally because he was irritated. And he was irritated because he didn’t like my explanation for the idea that Africa would have remained underdeveloped without outside intervention because they do not have the capacity to develop themselves. At bare minimum it would be reasonable to ask the OP if the OP thought the thread was being hijacked. I don’t see anyone complaining about **even sven’s **persistent delusion that Africa’s failure to develop is the fault of naughty white conquerors. But of course perhaps Marley23 likes that opinion regarding the topic.
Just another example of the idiotic over-modding of this board. If Marley23 had the brains Zeus gave a common housecat, s/he’d be ashamed of her/himself.
Checks forum: :rolleyes:
Such commentary is not particularly useful in evaluating this decision or considering how to improve my performance as a moderator. But suffice it to say I’m not the least bit ashamed of myself and I plan to continue enforcing that ruling in the future.
Nah, don’t you know that there is a handy little exclamation point icon on the upper right corner of a post that is used by others to report posts?
Other people complained about the hijack.
[Moderator Warning]
Rand Rover, insults are not permitted in ATMB. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
Moderator
Cheap shot, and not even close to being on target. Marley’s generally a pretty reasonable dude…for a lefty. Not a bad mod, either. He’ll listen, even when he’s…receiving focused feedback…and will sometimes change his mind. I’d give him the nod for “Most Improved Mod Since the Snuggly Puppy Rebellion”.
Hijacking only happens if you let it. If this comes up all the time, just say your piece and be done with it. Or better yet…ignore it!
I don’t know why this an issue. Is it because you didn’t like one of the arguments? If you want to ban for derailing and baiting, I guess that’s your prerogative. But since the people in that thread chose to go “that route”, why bother?
The Africa/race/intelligence hoopla was a little more interesting than the constant “Jesus is love” fight. At least the former were…well…trying to add some science.
Ignorant psuedo-science doesn’t scare me. I’m confident enough that I can handle a conversation about race (and perceived falsehoods) without having a coronary. Since the “Reason X” group wasn’t harassing anyone - just debating their points - I don’t understand this.
If you’re of the cough real science group, then you should be baffled as well. Telling people that they’re ignorant and leaving it at that doesn’t do anything. I think there’s a merit in debating psuedo-science. If people were worried about it going OT, a spin-off could have been made before the mods intervened.
I, too, raise an eyebrow at the fact the OP used the word “white” in their question.
All that being said, I completely disagree with the Reason X folk and I would have preferred a “soft science” debate over junk science. But since no one took the initiative to stop what was happening, then clearly that’s how the conversation was supposed to go.
shrugs Plenty of topics on SD to go around, folks. Just stay out of it if it annoys you.
Why refer to it as Reason X? Why not simply say “Black Inferiority”, which is obviously what you’re referring to? If you’re going to hurl mindless racism, don’t hide behind the skirt of a euphemism.
Indeed it raises questions about the erudition of those doing the telling.
Euphemisms are resorted to when violations of political correctness are likely to be punished.
Shodan was employing a euphemism to avoid some of the emotion that is involved in this issue, but he would not have been punished for just mentioning what the argument is about. (Shodan also did not “hurl mindless racism,” although he may mistakenly believe this argument is more valid than it is.) You weren’t “punished for violating political correctness” either; you were warned for ignoring instructions from a moderator.