Moderation Questions

yet soemone no-one cares when the targets were people not approved of. Weren't many of us reasonable, tone policing, water carrying aresholes about.

It's been much better it that regard now. I dont think we should go back to it.

you didn't tell me to stop posting. King spew did. You just gave your opinion and we discussed as normal. King spew wrote in that thread that i had to stop posting "racist bullshit": i clear threat of banning when written by a mod. So not what happened wasn't the conversation with you at all. And btw 8 of the top 9 states in the list ,republican led, have fewer asian (that decrease the average) and more blacks and natives than the national average. So it does back up my claim very neatly. *i couldn't answer in the thread because of king spew threat*

"race science" isn't racism. Racism is hating people and wishing them bad because they are members of other races. *if there is no ill intent to damage people of other races, there is no racism at all* (for normal people).

Identifying if/when some races have worse outcomes is never racism EVEN IF (and i didn't do it), you inculpate those people for their worse outcome (culturally).

I gave obesity rates, but another variable in freakdaddy list was mortality at birth, and ... that as well(again, as basically everything) correlates strongly with racial makeup of the population of an area (in the usa).

It's not the perfect phrasing but I was officially informed that I'm not banned (from the precursor site). Obviously many people are simply not banned.

I think the old boss was eventually run off so I probably would be now. Keeps me up at night crying.

Well, I defer all things to King Spew so if he wants you to stop posing on a subject I will support that. I never had an issue with the way Crossnerd modded things either, though I obviously mod more lax than either of them.

So more to everyone than specifically to you, I don't have to agree with every mod decision that gets made to support the mod team.

(1) Ask yourself, can censorship of racism eliminate racism entirely?

(2) If no, then your aim is to contain racism.

(3) If containment is the aim, then having a hyper-sensitive zero tolerance policy is not consistent.

If containment of racism is ultimately unacceptable to you, I’m with you on that.

But then, censorship can’t be the strategy unless you believe censorship can eliminate racism. And why would you believe that at this point?

Luc,

You ARE a racist based on your whole body of posts on 2+2... so I particularly read your posts that tiptoe along the line.

It is not banable to be a racist.

It is banable to post racist BS..... even if it only tiptoes near the line.

That might be yours but it's not the standard definition, which is to ascribe faults or failings to people based on their "race" or perceived "race" and not socio-economic circumstances.

Racism can't be eliminated but indivduals aren't some fixed amount of racist. Beliefs change in strength, minds change.

The catastrophic change is if they start to identify as racist.

You're missing that many people will reevaluate their attitudes and values on having their racism shown to them. If after that someone says "Yeah so I'm a racist so what?" (which I've heard in person) there was never much hope for them in the first place.

and what would the "tiptoe" be if i just say that a locality has worse measurable outcomes in obesity (and income, and mortality at birth) because it has more blacks and natives in it (wwich uncontroversially have lower income, higher mortality at birth, and higher obesity)?

Be clear to yourself that containment is your strategy then and implement containment strategies rather than elimination strategies.

It's typically disingenuous of you because the causation is from poverty and social conditions, not race.

do you realize many people moved to the right because they fully disagree with your side definition of racism, and with the idea of being criticized for what they think about race that for them isn't racism at all but for you it is? leftist sanctimony on the topic does move people to the right on the topic.

When it becomes racist to list measurable race differences in outcomes we already passed that line a long ago.

It is not given the context was "mississippi political leaders are terrible, look at their death at birth rates". My answer "they are 36% black vs 12% nationwide".

There is no need to even discuss WHY blacks have higher mortality at birth, but we should all agree Mississippi death at birth rates aren't caused by local politics, rather by the fact they have a lot more blacks than the nation average.

Especially, i repeat, if blacks in democrat-governed states have higher death at birth rates as well (which they do).

Now say, if blacks in california weren't poorer than whites, while blacks in republican governed states were, NOW THAT would be a nice point for the left to make about the possibility republican led states did stuff that hurt blacks more than whites.

Except blacks and natives in democrat governed states have the same gaps in outcomes than in republican led states. That doesn't tell us anything about federal policy (it could still be causing that, or not). BUT it tells us *for a certainty* those gaps aren't caused by state policies, as they exist everywhere in the nation. It fully objectively disculpates local government from that.

See how it works?

Your post would obviously be allowed in a containment situation, which why it’s maddening when mods are implementing a hyper aggressive elimination strategy.

The outcomes aren't related to race, they're the result of socio-economic factors, so why do you keep ascribing it to race when accurate would be saying "poor people"?

Easiest answer ever.

The amazing thing about this when it happens (which is a lot because a lot of people are racist) is that it would never even occur to me to blame it on race. There is no causal agent there. There is nothing inherent in any race that would cause them to be more obese on average. There are OBVIOUS causal agents that correlate with race due to other (often rooted in racism themselves) factors, and for some reason, they are consistently glossed over or completely ignored in favor of pointing the finger right back at race.

It is GLARINGLY obvious, and I don't know if they are in denial or if they think they're being slick. Probably different answers for different people.

Are these measurable race differences also measurable in a sample of only rich blacks and rich whites? Because if not, I'd posit that all you're measuring is that blacks are disproportionately poor.

I stand by every single one of your temps and I’d have temped you for your most recent foray into racist stereotypes too were I so inclined to open the mod panel.

But the weather is nice and I feel like staying on vacation a while longer ♥

This is completely wrong and demonstrative of exactly how you’re a ****ing racist.

Ok actually, ya know what? Bye.

I favour a progressive appraoch. Plus law

and most importantly, not ****ing everything up.

If only Lucy had access to an LLM, then his conspiracies could be put to bed.

I'm definitely not missing the bolded bit. That is part of what we generally should do.

The later bit is bollocks.

Asians in the US tend to come from higher-class, more educated and privileged backgrounds than black people, so they're less likely to be obese, which is an indicator of consuming mass-marketed junk food.