Moderation Questions

You either clicked the wrong link or didn't look at the excerpt thoroughly.

No it's Dunayin who provided a different source for the banned books which didn't immediately show the most egregious pics of the most banned pornographic book we were discussing

Brian james and schlitz mmm have received 3 day tempbans for insults In the jan 6 thread.

I had a post arguing with Luciom about the definition of racism deleted in the Trans thread. Why wasn't that derail moved elsewhere if people want to talk about it?

Are mods trying to dictate what we can and can't discuss?

I dont know if you had seen the post I put up explaining that before you asked but basically the problem with discussions about what is and isnt racism is that one side usually ends up repeating the racist remarks, or expanding on them in an attempt to justify the original comments. There wasnt anything wrong with your post per se. I deleted the entire conversation in order to not have people feel like they have to reply to each post. Everyone wants to get the last word in, and so once it gets going its hard to stop. And you often end up with the "its not racist to say X race is better than Y race if its true" type racist stuff, compounding the problem.

And yes, part of a mods job is to moderate what can and cant be discussed IAW site policies. The supposed superiority of one race over another is one of those things.

And Jamaicans at sprinting. And bobsledding.

When a ruling is explained, your first response shouldn't be to find the exact edges. They don't exist, and you weren't planning to post these things anyway.

I've been doing this my whole life lol...not stopping now. You psychiatrists might even have a term for it.

(and Armenians do make the best babaganoush-- you never know when a middle eastern food discussion is going to pop up and knowing the ground rules is important)

Personally I was interested in jalfrezi definitions, how he frames discource on race and whatnot; I feel he was as well with me.

Because (I can only talk on my side) I actually respect him even if we dont share too many values so I keep open the possibility he might be right, or at least coherent enough to deserve proper intellectual respect, on some topics.

Making it impossible to have these conversations makes it impossible to build bridges or at least mutual recognition of our positions, that's something that increases polarization

Yes that's true, and I don't feel it's anyone else's business to stop posters from having an honest discussion about it.

But mods are all the same really, always.

The problem is, how does one have an honest discussion about racist comments with someone who doesnt believe his comments are racist, without the discussion becoming the very debate that is not allowed? In order for him to get you to see his side, he would need to, in effect, expand on the racist remarks and provide more info justifying his position.

I suggest you carry on that particular discussion over PM.

But why is that debate not allowed.

Why is a debate to define what is racism not allowed basically? Why should you assume people agree on the definition, it's one of the most loaded and abused words in English language.

Given in particular in the USA (and many other countries ) racism as defined on this forum IS NOT A CRIME why not simply allow it in full? Personal insults could still be banned from the conversation.

Why is it allowed to insult a political group and not an ethnic group, why does a forum need to have protected groups?

And why is something that isn't even an insult (like an attempted ranking of historical contributions to science of ethnic groups) banned from the conversation lol.

And why are you allowed to claim a set of political ideas is horrible but not a religion?

Race isn't even real is the thing.

As best all you can say is that some clusters of genes are better at some things than other clusters of genes. (like making baba ganoush)

I used their definitions *I don't not agree with* ("whites", indicating i don't agree to use that as an ethnic reference group), it was still considered banned speech.

There are websites that not only allow, but encourage discussions as to why whites are superior to other races. They are filled with pseudo science bs trying to justify their hateful positions. Others use bible quotes. Others just plain disinformation.

Not every website forum wants to be associated with that stuff. This is one of those. You are free to go express your opinion that if it werent for western (aka white) technology that everyone else would be living no better off than animals over there. But not here.

Doesn't all the best technology come from Japan anyways?

If I want good smelling soap or some nice shoes I make sure they're from France or Italy but if I want a nice computer or camera it should be Japanese. (admittedly I do have a German car but the Japanese make some nice ones as well).

The debate is not disallowed. Making white supremacist posts is disallowed. If you can't separate the 2, or if you feel you can't understand how the mods are separating the 2, then I'd suggest just not posting on the subject.

I mean regardless of what you want to think his underlying motivations might be, arguing that white people contribute the most to GDPs isn't the really the hottest of takes.

As a non-white person who does as little as possible to contribute to GDPs I'm not too offended.

If claiming that whites (as defined currently in the USA, which is a silly definition) ancestors did basically everything worthwhile in human history is white supremacy, then western history books are white supremacists (which btw is something a tiny minority of radical leftists actually claim).

The ancestors of Europeans and Jews developed 90-95% of what we now call science and technology.

Claiming that obvious historical truth is true isn't white supremacy.

I don't see why you consider it to be white supremacy.

I don't see why anyone would.

But you did so please can you explain that to me?

Whites wrote those books though.

Not even to present GDP (Asians in the USA do more proportionally), I was talking PAST contributions to technological advancement lol, the most vanilla of basic truths

I can't find a way to answer this, that wouldn't be considered white supremacy given the interpretation of forum rules (which I didn't find saying that) I have been told

Is that objectively best or subjectively?

If you gave a 100 people a blind taste test and 70 of them rated the Armenian variety better then you tell me.