Moderation Questions

That sounds like something King Spew would do for sure

I think to glean an understanding of trolly’s motivations, we should probably just look at his screen name.

He actually has a forum that is moderated more to his supposed tastes, and he doesn’t even post there.

At some point we should just accept he is here to troll good faith posters, and just ignore the trolling.

lol he doesnt even post there now? maybe the dude just travels the internet and tries to get anyone who doesnt worship the Democratic party banned.

The discussion has been race science adjacent in my opinion, until my most recent post, which is just summarizing the current scientific consensus.

Expressing scientific consensus isn't taboo. Being a random moron on the internet and questioning scientific consensus to push an agenda is taboo

You are directly challenging his assertions while the other mod is literally threatening to ban him if he responds.

This doesn’t strike you as unfair play?

No, Luciom has been warned and banned about race science multiple times. Spew just has less patience for it today than I do

You are missing the point.

You aren’t telling him the topic is taboo. You are actively engaging him in the topic while telling him his viewpoint is taboo.

That is just viewpoint censorship. Which is fine. Just own it.

Spoiler alert....they won't

I think you are arguing semantics.

The taboo topic is saying that black people are genetically inferior (or any people really).

You can have a viewpoint that grass is purple but you are just wrong. Thats an innocuous example of being wrong

Aggressively trying to paint black people as inferior is not innocuous but is just as wrong

If a geneticist made the argument Lucium was making, would you tell them “don’t try to be a geneticist”?

The problem is you are saying his viewpoint is taboo because it is morally wrong. Which is not a scientific position, it is a moralistic one.

But you also went to selectively promote scientific evidence that supports your moral inclinations, while censoring scientific evidence which doesn’t support them.

If you have decided it is Immoral to disagree with you anyways and doing so will be censored on these grounds, what is the point of continuing the conversation and making appeals to science as you and others have done?

reminds me of this where norm gets absolutely lambasted for stating that black people are poorer than whites and then eventually he explains that those are the basic facts and if you want to solve a societal problem you first need to recognize it

ie you can't solve black poverty and crime unless you first acknowledge it exists

and fwiw, if you eliminate race and instead break down by income, crimes are basically committed at the same universal rates - there's just a disproportionate amount of certain ethnic groups existing in the demographics which are most likely to commit crime

there's also cultural conditions - people who grow up in extreme poverty in public housing etc tend to recognize things like "toughness" and "being a badass" as a mark of achievement because that's the most realistic option to prove manhood, not something like going to a good dental school like it would in the suburbs

9/10 times there's a bully at the poker table trying to intimidate people etc they grew up in a neighborhood of extreme poverty

No, I'm saying his viewpoint is factually wrong based on scientific consensus

If a geneticist submitted a high quality study supporting Lucioms view then the scientific community would ingest it, debate it, and we would move forward from there. Thats what scientific communities do

Unsurprisingly, there have been studies submitted supporting Lucioms view and they all get evicerated by consensus

my "view"is that measurable genetically determined differences exist between human groups linked to who their ancestors were and it's an uncontroversial claim (= the consesus agrees with me).

propensity to specific diseases, skin color, hair type, weight, bone structure, height and so on (all traits that are partially genetically determined and different among different ethnicities partially for genetic reasons) and a zillion other things (blood type, milk digestion and so on)
vary measurably among ethnicities.

IE some races have some blood type more often than others ok? this is uncontroversial and the absolute consensus of geneticists. except some dislike the word race but whatever word they use, is the same concept: having different sets of recent ancestors predictably influences your traits for genetic reasons (some more than others ofc).

there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on this kind of stuff.

do we agree this is actual science and uncontroversial, so we can move on from this?

just to understand what you mean with "race science", would the claim that ethnic Norwegians almost always have the ability to digest milk (break lactose) as adults while ethnic Koreans almost never do be "race science"? because that's an uncontroversial, consensus claim about 2 different ethnicities objectively having dramatically different digestive capabilities.

I hope you don't need sources for the claim (it's an incredibly well known fact) but if you need them I can provide them ofc.

are you saying there's no racial nor regional differences in IQ test outcomes?

Hair color, skin color, height, etc are all biologically observable traits. Nobody is claiming that discussion is racist.

But when you abstract that to complex behavioral traits, you have breached the boundaries of racial pseudoscience, which is against the rules of this subforum.

Yes, some traits are heritable and vary across populations. These are largely determined by alleles and clear genetic mechanisms. Behavioral traits, however, are multifactorial and context-sensitive.

Let me be very clear: There is no credible scientific basis for claiming that entire racial or ethnic groups are more "naturally violent" due to genetics. Racist posting will not be tolerated here.

Luciom will be back in a week.

If he argues this point or does this again, it will be 2 weeks. Then a month, then a year, then forever. It will escalate until you’re done here, and this goes for everyone. Because we are done tolerating certain flavors of bullshit here, and this is one of them.

This is fine; but if this is the case mods shouldn't be selectively pushing scientific data which confirms their biases, and saying it is morally taboo to respond with data that doesn't support their biases.

I’m not aware of anyone who claimed that. Is that what Luciom got banned for?

We should go a week with every account being anon to see if and how long it takes to figure out who's who.

interestingly the asians tend to put their issues with dairy and alcohol up as evidence they are a superior race

dairy - they were settled people not the nomadic barbarians we were hence why we had so much dairy from our herds whereas they focused on more productive farming

alcohol - they were smart enough to boil their water to disinfect it, europeans never figured that out and instead added alcohol to their water in order to make it safe to drink

same with lack of body hair and body odor - they view themselves as more evolved whereas we are closer to stinky/hairy animals

spoken like a true eugenicist

yeah were some posts deleted?

I say we ban rickroll for making me read schizo asian supremacist propaganda

That is nothing. You should read how Chinese describe white women’s vaginas.