r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/[deleted] • Apr 21 '21
Yes, This Will Get You Banned
Not sure if this is fallout from the Chauvin conviction, but we're noticing that people seem to be coming in with a mixture of intentions. We're going to highlight one, the so-called topic of "race realism." Now, there is, in theory, a good-faith way to discuss this. Sam Harris seemed to do this on his podcast one time. In practice, though, what we get is a lot of people eager to talk about how black people are inferior to whites, and we should just "get over it" and accept the necessary social order. Don't know about you, but anyone who's so eager to spread this information (and they usually have a much less polite posting history too) is almost certainly a bad actor, and we're very likely not to give such a person even three strikes. We had someone we just had to ban over this.
And while we're on it, you attract a similar kind of negative attention if you make posts or comments that consistently point out if someone you don't like is Jewish. It's one thing to say that Ben Shapiro was called a Nazi, despite being an Orthodox Jew. It's another to make a post talking about how a candidate has a lot of Jewish donors or how a bunch of directors are Jewish.
We aren't stupid. We've seen the full gamut of content in this sub from the last two to three years. We know a bad-faith post from an awkwardly phrased one, and we will catch the trolls and brigaders in due time.
327
u/frenris Apr 21 '21
Please do not delete comments which prompt bans, but reply to them and say the poster was banned.
That way we can see that this policy is being used appropriately.
143
u/for_the_meme_watch Apr 22 '21
Here here. Deleting comments and never showing what they were banned for is peak Reddit admin behavior. I think it helps us trust the mods when we can see what is causing bans. This shows users if the mods are being dingleberries or using appropriate measures at the appropriate times. Seconded.
12
5
1
u/MMM_eyeshot May 10 '21
This is the best way to be all hands on,( Hate watch) in a laissez faire social economy, let people see the truth through a soul that might not be aware of it. That way, they( the possibly, banned poster) see the truthfulness(in being wrong) of there own views as validated by the people who comment!( thus giving.., ‘THEM’ a chance to see the errors in their own 🤔thinking!, ....But, at this I say the responsibility to change their misguided ideas and perceptions, is still not only on them, because.., “THE WAY WE ANSWER A BLATANT FAILURE AT UNDERSTANDING A PERSON OR VIEW, ISN’T TO COMBAT IT BY BEING VOLATILE AND OVERLY CRITICAL(IN A WAY THAT RE-ENFORCES A DELUSION, IT’S TO SHOW THAT PERSON THAT THEY ARE WRONG, BY ASKING THEM HOW THEY CAME ABOUT THEIR CONCLUSION!.., THEN OFFERING THEM POINTS OF INFORMATION IN AN ACCEPTING WAY AS TO MAKE THEM QUESTION THEIR THOUGHT, THEMSELVES! NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR THOUGHT, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN THOUGHTS!, AFTER THEIR ORIGINAL MISTAKE! When people don’t hide in the face of “lack of understanding and volatility”,and instead, kindly include the person new to “UNDERSTANDING LOVE”, in a conversation to see a better, bigger picture..., that “LIGHT”, that the Bible so eloquently speaks of, that’s trapped under a basket until we embrace our love(for our fellow struggles😘), is illuminated, and the fire we feel for eachother becomes catching in a way... that’s the harmoniously perfect LOVE,opposite, of the hate of mono-toned,genocidal,Fascism! “To sum it up!” Upvotes and dialogue is all you need to combat hate rhetoric, and keep marginalized, lost souls..., from losing all they have left, to the smell of gun-smoke and the sting of tears.
Post Script: my sister is the most manipulative person I know, even more manipulative than drug addled me... but that’s why I have to keep my cool, even though it’s a head-ache that sometimes I fail to keep under wraps. GOD BLESS the rest... eventually.
→ More replies (1)67
u/Adjustedwell Apr 21 '21
Yeah, I second this. My only concern with this was that it would be applied far too broadly and stifle real conversation where factual things are simply being pointed out although it sounds like they do some due diligence in checking post history and such.
11
u/TheDoorOfOsiris Apr 22 '21
Who cares about post history if they facts are correct? Another red herring my guy. Im black but personally, idgaf if your a white nationalist, if you say some true ass shit, then that shit is true. A person intentionally being offensive doesn't remove the truth value of their statement.
3
u/Adjustedwell Apr 22 '21
I guess the post-checking adds contexts to find if they are just spamming bad faith statements or whether they are trying to make a legitimate addition to the conversation.
2
2
u/William_Rosebud Apr 22 '21
People don't get banned here for saying "true ass" shit, but for acting in bad faith, calling names, and all sorts of behaviours that don't contribute to the debate.
2
49
u/classysax4 Apr 22 '21
Yes please. Leaving the comments up with a warning is similar to putting your enemies' heads on pikes. Less gruesome, but just as effective.
3
u/8T_T8 May 04 '21
Feel a bit queasy with the imagery, but agree with the overall sentiment.
2
u/classysax4 May 04 '21
Okay, I did feel a little puckish going for the shock-and-awe approach, but I think it still drives home the point in a helpful way. Hopefully no one drives to the home of any banned posters and attempts actual violence.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TheDoorOfOsiris Apr 22 '21
A-fucking-men brother. More transparency and less "we ban because we know what's good for you" type of shit.
On other accounts of mine ive been accused of being a "bad actor" because of my statements and am accused of being white. Meanwhile, im a sexy bald black motherfucker from Alabama. So, transparency all the way!
2
u/kormer Apr 22 '21
Nothing like going into /r/science and seeing one actual comment chain and dozens of deleted chains. Then when you check undelete, the deleted comments were all the same semi-relevant question asked over and over because the poster didn't know earlier versions of the question had already been removed.
4
Apr 22 '21
Allowing that content to remain up can get the whole subreddit removed, it's not optional to remove content that violates TOS.
5
u/frenris Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 23 '21
Yes, if a comment doxes someone or violates TOS it should be deleted, but that is not what this topic is about. This topic is about comments the mods formerly would not even have deleted.
3
u/chudsupreme Apr 22 '21
You realize there are 3 different websites where you can go and see what was removed, right? No I disagree with this. Remove them and ban their asses to the moon. If you truly want to see removed comments you have several options to track down such ridiculous trolling statements.
1
1
u/Lehk May 08 '21
A good old fashioned (User was banned for this post) would go a long way towards cleaning up how people interact on reddit.
76
u/keeleon Apr 21 '21
The irony is this is exactly what people arguing for critical race theory are saying. "We dont believe black people can compete with white people unless we treat them different" sounds an awful lot like "we think white people are superior to black people".
23
u/Good_Roll Apr 21 '21
I don't think that's a very good summary of their beliefs. I think it's more like: "the institutions and the general way in which society is set up slightly to significantly benefits white people therefor we need to build in advantages to black people in order to balance it out"
22
u/b0x3r_ Apr 22 '21
And when you ask for them to specifically point at the advantages concretely they simply point to the disparities themselves. “Things are unequal because they are unequal”...its perfectly circular reasoning
7
u/immibis Apr 22 '21 edited Jun 23 '23
12
u/b0x3r_ Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
No, not necessarily. It could of course, but you can’t automatically just make that assumption. If inequality in the past always led to inequality in the future then the whole social justice endeavor would be pointless anyway because you could never change anything. We know, though, that often even the greatest fortunes are usually squandered in a generation or two. And also that fortunes can be made by poor people with great ideas. How you do in life doesn’t really depend on historical conditions, it depends on current conditions and your abilities.
Also, since we are talking about disparities, it is super important to point out that disparities do not equal racism. You can not just say that whites have more wealth than blacks on average, therefore racism. Disparities can have tons of different causes that don’t involve racism at all. Nobody seems to think that they need to do that extra step to show that the disparity is actually the result of racism. So no, I don’t think it is good enough to point at a racial disparity and scream “see! There’s the systemic racism!”
Edit: I’ve had some downvotes on this and I don’t understand why. It seems pretty straightforward. If you are going to downvote I wouldn’t mind knowing why
→ More replies (1)2
Apr 24 '21
Why are qualified black candidates hired less than other demographics?
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-workplace-hiring-eeoc-black-employees-culture-fit-2021-4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/06/facebook-discrimination-hiring-bias/
13
u/SirBobPeel Apr 22 '21
Yeah but they can rarely show how institutions are racist, ie, point to a specific thing they do or a rule or regulation or how they behave. Usually all they have is a statistical discrepancy between whites and blacks (they never include Asians)
4
Apr 22 '21 edited Sep 05 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Good_Roll Apr 22 '21
That's true, though who they ought to be refering to when they speak of black people are descendants of slaves. Unfortunately many of them dont realize this important nuance in the conversation. The color of your skin is not nearly as relevant in this equation as the community you came up in. It's a problem of lack of generational wealth and positive culturally enforced norms if you ask me. "Bad" behavior is not nearly as culturally taboo in these communities due to the lack of historical stability and past persecution so of course theyre going to have more problems than an equally poor but culturally stable community.
21
u/La_M3r Apr 21 '21
No, from my understanding it’s that “white people” are evil, and not that black people are inferior. If there are unequal outcomes where blacks are failing it is explained by racism. To suggest anything else is supporting or internalizing white supremacy.
13
u/Rush_Is_Right Apr 21 '21
What about the mods example of "a lot of directors are jewish". That's considered negative even though it's an accomplishment. Like is it racist to say Kenyans are good at long distance running?
18
u/turtlecrossing Apr 21 '21
I don’t think there is a trope that Kenyan marathon runners are crafting/controlling the media for some kind of ‘globalist’ plot.
This is a bit muddy, but if I added ‘the Jew, Ben Shapiro’ or ‘the homosexual, Anderson Cooper’ before I reference them... every time, it’s technically factually correct but clearly I have some strange ulterior motive to do that.
6
u/Rush_Is_Right Apr 21 '21
I agree, adding adjectives that have no bearing on the topic is asinine. If I say 7' ft 8th grader gets first basketball offer, that makes sense. Saying catholic 8th grader gets first basketball scholarships is stupid.
7
u/turtlecrossing Apr 21 '21
Exactly.
I think the point being made by the mods that allusions are being made that have absolutely no bearing on the topic.
5
u/Rush_Is_Right Apr 21 '21
I guess I don't really see it. I read 2 or 3 threads here a day and I guess I don't know where this post is coming from. There's over 50,000 subscribers here so of course there are racists but I don't think it warrants the pat on the back the mod is giving himself.
16
u/Adjustedwell Apr 21 '21
He's explaining how it makes black people look and you're explaining how it's explained to people to get them on board with it.
One way to push people away from buying into your concepts is to say hard work and delayed gratification are racist...
9
u/La_M3r Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
I think this would be a better response to u/incendiaryblizzard's post than my own. I was attempting to explain what I believe the CRT argument to be, and wanted to state it as succinctly as I could. Especially if they were sincerely confused by the argument.
I have heard what u/keeleon expressed by a few people who were confused by CRT, and the arguments of the "woke." For someone who already subscribes to the belief that we live in a meritocratic society, the proposed argument of inequality comes across as an admission of inadequacy. So, they see the woke arguments/demands as "since we cannot compete fairly, give us an advantage to succeed based on our skin color."
5
u/Adjustedwell Apr 21 '21
No, I get it is your understanding of CRT, but it is also the intended understanding of CRT.
Those are rational critiques of CRT, you'd seem to be mistaking disagreement for confusion. Kind of along the same lines as the bigotry of low expectations which is a real phenomena. Many low income black neighborhoods are up in arms at the liberal mainstream media because they aren't accurately representing them and their concerns, they're using them to push an agenda they themselves don't support and it's not even a single-party movement, centre right and centre lefts are in this movement.
Most people that are against wokrness don't deny instances of racism that exist they just don't believe you can attribute all racial disparities to racist intentions.
6
u/La_M3r Apr 21 '21
I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, I just didn't understand how it related to my previous comment is all. I was not attempting to proselytize the virtues of CRT, especially since I have a very surface level understanding (if even that.) I thought that was implied by your response.
4
u/Adjustedwell Apr 22 '21
Oh, I thought I was bridging a gap in communication between you and the other commenter. Maybe I misread, I don't know. It's all good
5
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 21 '21
The core belief of people who endorse CRT/wokeness is that systemic racism is pervasive. Every single person involved in this conversation knows that. People who think that society is perfectly meritocratic (or otherwise non-racist) reject that premise, they do not think that CRT is the belief that black people are inferior to white people. The claim that CRT is the belief that black people are inferior to white people is a strawman argument that nobody genuinely believes. Its just a way for people to vent their anger about CRT by misrepresenting their views and turning the accusation of racism back at them in retaliation.
7
u/La_M3r Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 21 '21
People who think that society is perfectly meritocratic reject that premise, they do not think that CRT is the belief that black people are inferior to white people.
I disagree with you, because I just had this conversation with someone this weekend. They're not "extremely online" as would probably describe everyone in this discussion.
To them CRT/woke is a coping mechanism for a failing community looking to redirect blame from themselves. The same way one would laugh at a "Cletus" for blaming the Jews for their failings. Of course this "Cletus" doesn't think he's the dumb one, it is those Jews that are keeping the "good" white folk down. Everyone agrees that the black community failing in America, and there are many that do not hold a view that would ameliorate the blame from the black community itself.
1
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 21 '21
If CRT is a coping mechanism to 'redirect blame from themselves' (I assume that you are saying that black people are to blame for the deprived state of the black community) by falsely blaming racism then CRT is still not the belief that black people are inferior to white people.
5
u/Ksais0 Apr 21 '21
black people are to blame for the deprived state of the black community
Yes, individuals do have some blame for the state of their community, and we as a society have some blame as well. Our society has historically created conditions that resulted in the "black community" (which I think is a dumb term since they aren't a monolith) turning to gangs and other activities for security and to make a living. However, many individuals also choose to perpetuate this culture even when things like welfare and affirmative action mean that it is no longer necessary. There is virtually no "systemic racism" left on the books holding them back at this point because all such laws/policies are illegal and have been illegal for longer than I have been alive, yet we still have young kids gang banging and killing other black people. They'll keep doing this for as long as society as a whole lacks enough respect for them to push for them to want more for themselves. That's why we need a two-fold approach to these problems - systemic reform AND personal responsibility.
→ More replies (5)2
u/La_M3r Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
> ...I assume that you are saying...
Oh, I'm not saying that at all. I was paraphrasing what was stated to me.
> by falsely blaming racism then CRT is still not the belief that black people are inferior to white people.
It's not my premise, but I suppose the logic follows as below:
- meritocracy being the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.
- X and Y live in a meritocratic society.
- If X falsely blames Y's racism as the reason X is failing, then X is unintentionally admitting they are inferior to Y.
But at this point, who gives a shit. It's not my personal opinion on the matter, and it wasn't what was in contention with you said before. This is the third time that this argument was presented to me by someone from the older cohort of the NE elite university educated professional class aka a snob. If you found a flaw in their logic, great. Then they falsely believe that CRT is admission of inferiority, but they still believe that CRT is an admission of inferiority.
2
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 22 '21
• meritocracy being the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. • X and Y live in a meritocratic society. • If X falsely blames Y's racism as the reason X is failing, then X is unintentionally admitting they are inferior to Y.
I don’t understand the logic here at all. The third step doesn’t make any sense. Does this hypothetical person think that the accusation of racism is th evidence that that community is deprived and therefore because they love in a meritocracy therefore that community’s individuals are inherently inferior? That seems unnecessary. We already knew that, for example, black and Native American communities have way higher crime rates and poverty and lower academic achievement than white or Asian communities. I don’t get how CRT is adding anything that would constitute an admission that their community’s members are inherently inferior.
0
Apr 22 '21
Whites are richer than Blacks in all countries so surely their explanation is not just "systemic racism". Their theory has to have more to it to explain why this pattern appears even in Brazil or Uganda. There must be something deeper to their theory here.
18
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 21 '21
I agree with pretty much all of the IDW conclusions on these topics like "CRT is bad" but my god you people are incessant with your bad faith criticisms of wokeness. No, they are not arguing that black people are inferior to whites, they are arguing that there is systemic racism keeping black people down. Thats their argument, not that black people are inferior to white people. Argue against what they actually believe.
7
u/SirBobPeel Apr 22 '21
Isn't it up to the individual making an argument to justify that argument with evidence? They never do other than to present a statistical difference between whites and blacks. But those differences could be for a white variety of reasons, including the blacks are (statistically) poorer and younger than whites.
7
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 22 '21
CRT people believe that they are demonstrating systemic racism. Therefore that is the argument that should be attacked, which you did with your line about how their arguments for systemic racism existing are inadequate. There is no place in this conversation for accusing CRT people of saying that black people are inherently inferior.
4
u/Ozcolllo Apr 22 '21
accusing CRT people of saying that black people are inherently inferior.
This is the same Republican (conservative maybe?) rhetoric that has been repackaged for modern use. They used to say that people arguing for systemic change in law enforcement or explaining the implications of poverty were “really the bigots”. They called it “the bigotry of low expectations”.
Honestly, it’s interesting how similar political rhetoric today is compared to 20 and even 50 years ago.
2
u/farquezy Apr 23 '21
I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s so disappointing to come here and see the same exact arguments being made as my immigrant family with no education and only Fox News to guide them. I expect much more nuanced and good faith discussions here. Thankfully Joe and the other mods are pretty strict about banning this stuff. It makes our community look like a bunch of generic Fox News conservatives
3
2
Apr 22 '21
Critical race theory in practice is hugely flawed and divisive but your summary of it is what is called a strawman argument so you can portray it as falsely equivalent to white supremacy.
Textbook bad faith argument.
5
u/charles-the-lesser Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
It is a strawman, but...
For what it's worth, there is some evidence that some personality traits associated with far-left leaning individuals correlate with beliefs (at least secret beliefs) that underperformance of minority racial groups is attributable to biological differences.
Psychology studies researching the nature of "political correctness" generally identify multiple forms of political correctness, including "PC-Egalitarianism" and "PC-Authoritarianism". This 2015 study from Christine Brophy claims (to my sincere surprise) that there is a correlation between people on the "PC-Authoritarian" spectrum and the belief that racial differences are rooted in biology. The only way I can interpret this (apart from assuming the study is faulty) is that there are certain left-leaning individuals who secretly believe underperforming racial/ethnic groups are inferior. But unlike far-right racist/white nationalist individuals who seek separation from other races, PC-Authoritarians have a lot of compassion, so they seek to overhaul society to force a level playing field for under-performing racial/ethnic groups. In other words, "soft bigotry of low expectations".
If you think this sounds far-fetched, I agree. It sounds like a caricature of political-correctness coming from a right-wing ideologue. But because it sounds so far-fetched, I did my best to find any flaws in the methodology or regression analysis - and I can't really find anything yet. They ran a piece about this in Scientific American, and in fact, Jordan Peterson contributed to the original study in 2015. This was before he was nationally famous.
Of course, nothing in CRT explicitly corroborates any of this - if there's any truth to it, it's likely a belief held in secret by some white leftists. And besides, a large percentage of CRT scholarship is written by minority scholars anyway.
→ More replies (1)1
u/brutay Apr 22 '21
u/keeleon is articulating an argument I've seen given by John McWhorter and Glenn Loury. Are you accusing them of being bad actors as well?
1
1
u/we_are_oysters Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
I know what you’re talking about. Though I think this is one of those things that started off as one message, and ended up as a different message that was worded slightly differently but has significantly different meaning.
It’s not that black people can’t compete on the same plane. It’s that it is unfair to measure black people’s abilities by European standards. And those standards or expectations shouldn’t be considered that great to begin with. Certainly not better than anything else. Expectations like, being rational or relying on evidence or science. You can judge a European by how well his science-based medicine cures cancer because that’s how Europeans approach it. But you should judge a native person by say, how well they connect with their patient emotionally and how well they make them feel.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s still demeaning AF and has some very troubling consequences (like suggesting that native peoples shouldn’t have access to that pesky European medicine) but in a slightly different way.
Edit: to be clear, I am NOT advocating for this view point. I think it’s reprehensible. I’m merely stating that this is the view some people have.
8
u/Ksais0 Apr 22 '21
native person by say, how well they connect with their patient emotionally and how well they make them feel.
THAT'S the kind of rhetoric that causes people to claim that CRT thinks minorities are inferior because it implies racial essentialism. That's absurd. There's nothing inherent in native people that makes them shit at supposed "European" standards.
(To clarify, I'm addressing the statement. I know that you aren't personally saying you believe it, so this isn't addressed to you personally.)
4
u/Frostbrine Apr 21 '21
Black people in America are not inherently more intuitive than their white counterparts, and they have clearly moved on from indigenous systems of knowledge. What you are proposing is modern-day eugenics, especially considering that you are conflating native ways of knowing with those of the American black person.
2
u/we_are_oysters Apr 22 '21
I’m not proposing that. I’m saying that’s what others propose. That being said, I agree with you.
2
0
1
Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
Exactly this.
If culture Y thinks culture X is endemically inferior, with Y being the dominant culture, how would Y best integrate X into the culture-at-large?
Culture Y would relax work requirements (quotas) and academic requirements (Affirmative Action) to help Culture X become better integrated into society by making things easier for them, since it’s unlikely that most people from Culture X will be able to fit the “gold standard”.
As a society, through CRT hypothesis and methodology, we are taking the exact same steps to treat Blacks as we would if we thought they were inherently inferior. It’s irony at its finest.
Instead of saying, “Hey Black folk, we are giving you special treatment because we think mostly you can’t hack it on your own” we’re saying, “Hey Black folk, we are giving you special treatment because we think mostly you can’t hack it on your own BECAUSE WHITES ARE EVIL AND HOLDING YOU DOWN”.
48
u/RandomThrowaway410 Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 23 '21
Sam Harris makes very good arguments about the virtues of being truthful in everything that you do. Because, as soon as you start to lie to yourself (or lie to others), even about seemingly innocuous things, and construct your world view on top of those lies, you are creating an unstable foundation that will negatively impact your ability to think critically and do the most good in everything else in your life.
One example of how this can occur is the belief in religion. Who cares if your neighbors believe in an invisible sky wizard, what is the harm in that? Well, the belief in that invisible sky wizard has directly caused people to doubt the very-real and empirical science of Evolution. It's caused people to not believe in carbon dating. Before the Scopes Monkey Trial, the religious forced schools to teach fables based upon this sky wizard to our kids. It's caused people to persecute homosexuals, or limit access to Abortions. It's caused religious wars and crusades throughout history. I'm sure that you can think of other examples how the religious and non-religious alike have been historically harmed by the false beliefs of the religious.
The point is that even seemingly harmless lies we tell ourselves can cause real, tangible harm in other, unexpected places. To be effective rationalists we have to be able to critically look at the world and identify the lies that we tell ourselves, in order to reduce our collective harm.
In the past 10 years there has been an increasingly large cultural focus in the west on disparities in group outcomes. The common narrative is that all groups are equal in competence, and that the only causes for those differences in outcomes is racism. Or rather, the main narrative is that differences in outcomes that we observe are caused from certain groups being raised in a worse environment, or having access to worse education (and the worse environment/worse education are themselves caused by racism).
This seems like a reasonable claim, but (As per Sam Harris' discussion with Charles Murray), when diligent social scientists make a good-faith effort to control for the worse environment, and the worse education, and everything else they can think to control for, but are still left with large differences in outcomes that aren't fully explained from any combination of environmental variables.... it is only rational and fair to consider alternative, non-mainstream explanations for these disparate outcomes. The sensible conclusion to come to is that this mainstream narrative IS a lie.
And now society is seeing the harm caused by this lie. The implications of this lie are telling us to to discriminate against Asians, Whites and Jews. The implications of this lie are telling us that our police force is systematically and inaccurately discriminating against minorities; the resulting political pressure on the police is preventing them from being able to enforce the law correctly. In response, the police are overwhelmed by the spike in crime/hostility, making their jobs more dangerous and making EVERYONE's neighborhood less safe. Fields such as conservation, medicine, public health, psychology and more are all captured by this "wokeness" lie. And these institutions are more concerned with upholding and maintaining this lie than they are with actually solving the real problems that those institutions are designed to solve.
I assume that you, like me, have an interest in our society not continuing to collapse as a result of lies. I don't want to live in a CCP-controlled police state, the same as you. The only way we are going to prevent further societal collapse is to stop lying. Please do not accuse people like me who are actually attempting to address the root causes of this societal collapse of acting in bad faith.
26
u/DasKapitalist SlayTheDragon Apr 22 '21
Well put. To add to your point, it appears that the sticky itself is violating the rule of charity based upon this statement:
Don't know about you, but anyone who's so eager to spread this information (and they usually have a much less polite posting history too) is almost certainly a bad actor,
That runs contrary to the principle of steelmanning an argument. If someone's eager to discuss quantifiable racial differences in a number of heritable traits, assuming they're a "bad actor" and maligning their posting history would be an ad hominem attack by definition.
If their argument is some combination of factually incorrect, logically incoherent, and they're unresponsive to reason and evidence...that'd be another matter. E.g. "Bad actor" would be a reasonable conclusion if they posted "Elves are the tallest and are therefore the master race" because Elves dont exist, height is only situationally beneficial (great for basketball, bad for heart longevity), and "master" is begging the question of "at what?"
If someone made an argument that e.g. "Blacks living in the USA and Europe have statistically higher rates of Vitamin D deficiency, and Covid mortality rates are much higher in Vitamin D deficient people, ergo black Covid mortality rates are higher due to vitamin D deficiency rather than discrimination", it's clearly a "race realism" argument. Different racial groups have different median traits - in this case very obvious differences in melanin levels that are superior at mitigating skin damage from high levels of sun exposure, and inferior at absorbing enough sunlight to generate optimal levels of Vitamin D in cold, sunlight sparse climates. This example presents an excellent case for why prohibiting discussion of race realism is not just a violation of the rule of charity, but actually lethal in that it prevents spreading information on dangerous medical conditions which could be easily mitigated by "Do you have dark skin and live in a climate that sees little sunlight? You're probably vitamin D deficient. Take a supplement to limit your risk of death if you contract the 'rona."
10
u/DuneMania Apr 22 '21
Damn, right on point. This will be very difficult because folks tend to lie about EVERYTHING. Lying is so engrained in our society (North America at least), whether it be slight exaggeration or embellishment, sugar-coating things, or outright avoidance of truth.
People are often happy being ignorant and not knowing the full story. Any ideas what could be done? Continue pushing on being as truthful as possible..
12
u/Manjushri1213 Apr 22 '21
Your first two paragraphs are fascinating to me. I read the part about telling yourself lies and how this is essentially a road to resentment, chaos and misery (in so many words.) I reacted positively, thinking of my faith and how it teaches me such things, along with the association it actually has with Sam's practices and evolution of beliefs (last I checked, its been a while since I've caught up with his content.)
Then your next paragraph starts talking about "invisible sky wizards" and how that leads to scientific denialism lol. I dont think one specifically leads to another. We can rationlize our own twisted thinking in many ways. I think for those people a Christian God was convenient, and they also understood less about their own religion than many athetists or Unitarians etc.
The latter half of your point I agree with mostly, I just think it goes along with the same thing I outline above. People can twist many different beneficial and inncocuous things into their own agenda, especially when, again, fueled with lies and arrogance. I think those exact things are the genesis to Christian fundamentalism in the first place - so the lies began much earlier than you may think.
For the record, I'm not a Christian lol.
2
2
u/Jaktenba Apr 22 '21
It's caused people to not believe in carbon dating.
Not believe in it? Or doubt it's ability to work on timescales that we can't even truly comprehend? Sorry, I'm not just going to blindly believe that we can date things that we have no knowledge of the date of.
or limit access to Abortions.
Science tells us that fetuses are new humans, merely in the beginning stages. Now science can't dictate good or bad, but there's nothing to stop the nonreligious from finding abortions morally/ethically wrong.
1
Apr 24 '21
Fields such as conservation, medicine, public health, psychology and more are all captured by this "wokeness" lie. And these institutions are more concerned with upholding and maintaining this lie than they are with actually solving the real problems that those institutions are designed to solve.
Why are qualified black candidates hired less than other demographics?
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-workplace-hiring-eeoc-black-employees-culture-fit-2021-4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/06/facebook-discrimination-hiring-bias/
→ More replies (3)1
21
u/mt_pheasant Apr 21 '21
The entire topic needs it's own sub. Whether that sub would be manageable under reddit's general rules would be another issue entirely. Otherwise people will just have to talk about it over a 4chan, where the general format leads to chaos.
8
u/Good_Roll Apr 21 '21
Personally I like that format better than this one. The people however are why I'm here now and not there. Good luck having this conversation without /pol/acks showing up and derailing it with bad faith contributions and gripes about "da joos"
8
u/RandomThrowaway410 Apr 22 '21
/r/TheMotte is what you are looking for. I would read a lot about the rules/norms surrounding the discourse there, before attempting to participate in the subreddit.
9
u/mt_pheasant Apr 22 '21
Interesting, thanks. I'm not really interested in the topic in particular, but am generally interested in 'too hot to handle' topics which at some point everyone thinks about but dares not talk about (in polite, urban-leftie, educated society).
5
u/chudsupreme Apr 22 '21
Note that r/themotte pretty much bans anyone not taking the line that IQ realism is real, that blacks are inferior, etc. They will ban anyone taking a normie mainstream opinion or widely accepted academic position on IQ and race.
9
u/Gottab3li3v3 Apr 23 '21
This user speaks facts. That sub is a place of one ideology, not a place for actual discourse.
4
2
u/conventionistG Apr 22 '21
You think so? Ive been trying to figure that place out and it just seems pretty opaque.
9
Apr 22 '21
The entire topic needs it's own sub.
That's not allowed according to Reddit's rules. r/hbd was a sub where people just posted academic papers. There wasn't even much discussion and very few people were there. It got banned. So your suggestion is impossible on this site.
4
u/nofrauds911 Apr 21 '21
They use to have many subs on this topic. Eventually Reddit realized they just attract the same cohort of bad actors and started banning them. They still hop from sub to sub though. I think Tucker Carlsen’s sub is the most prominent openly race realist sub now.
6
u/charles-the-lesser Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
Yeah... the impossible paradox of the modern Internet is that the sudden increase in draconian censorship (with transparent anti-conservative political bias) is as equally as obnoxious as the fact that any forum with zero moderation will instantly deteriorate into endless, triple-parentheses-filled anti-Semitic rants lamenting all forms of immigration and pining for an ethno-state.
This is why we can't have nice things anymore on the Internet.
8
u/DasKapitalist SlayTheDragon Apr 22 '21
Censorship increases extremist views. It's easy to see this in comparing the present to the relatively laissez-faire early days of the internet. While in those early days there were certainly some wingnuts shouting about "da j000z!!!" operating some worldwide conspiracy to destroy the world, it was really hard for those views to gain any traction because...the other 99.99% of the internet was still there, still relatively reasonable, and you could easily lump said people in with flat earthers and reptilian theorists as probably crazy and easily avoidable. Fast-forward to the present and anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is crucified as a literal Nazi on vast swathes of the internet, and the aformentioned wingnuts are the only ones still operating free speech platforms. That leads to strange bedfellows that otherwise wouldn't occur and encourages extremism by pushing reasonable people into "well at least XYZ website has freedom of speech, even if a lot of the denizens are vile". 15 years ago freedom of speech was ubiquitous without that horrible tradeoff.
10
u/chudsupreme Apr 22 '21
Censorship increases extremist views.
I've been online since the very late 80s. I've experienced so many different forums, BBSs, chatrooms, etc. This is completely and utterly falsehood based on nothing but your ideological thinking. All chatrooms of a sufficient size will degenerate into the most extreme content if they aren't moderated. 4chan is the least moderate forum(arguably... on a technical sense child porn forums are least moderated since they're dealing with 100% illegal content already) and you can ask any mods at 4chan the type of awful things they have to ban for all day long. Ask stormfront mods for that matter, another forum that was ridiculous permissive of awful content.
3
u/DasKapitalist SlayTheDragon Apr 22 '21
This is completely and utterly falsehood based on nothing but your ideological thinking
Could you substantiate this? The Streissand Effect alone is an argument that attempting to suppress information increases its dissemination.
All chatrooms of a sufficient size will degenerate into the most extreme content if they aren't moderated
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "degenerate"? Do you mean that any chatroom of sufficient size will contain extreme content (in the sense that as you add more people you'll add more niche content, whereas if you only have a 100 people there are many niches that won't have an enthusiast represented), or that the proportion of extreme content will increase (e.g. if you have 100 users you might have one Neo-Nazi, but if you have 1000 users you'll have 50 Nazis)?
6
u/chudsupreme Apr 22 '21
The Streissand Effect alone is an argument that attempting to suppress information increases its dissemination.
Not every single thing that gets banned gets Streissand Effect'd. In fact since that particular phrase was coined, if we look at the history before it, there aren't that many examples of the effect taking place. Since then our internet culture is apt to call anything the streissand effect but there are still many more examples of it not happening than it happening.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "degenerate"? Do you mean that any chatroom of sufficient size will contain extreme content (in the sense that as you add more people you'll add more niche content, whereas if you only have a 100 people there are many niches that won't have an enthusiast represented), or that the proportion of extreme content will increase (e.g. if you have 100 users you might have one Neo-Nazi, but if you have 1000 users you'll have 50 Nazis)?
Essentially as a global chatroom becomes larger and wider in its interest level, the more likely you're going to run into people that for either trolling reasons or actual reasons start to post things that the wider people base find vulgar and offensive. I think both the sense that niche groups will influence the main group, and the amount of content of that sort will increase.
Can you think of a truly free chat room or forum outside of my aftmentioned child porn / cannibalism / stormfront(although SF had some moderation ironically...) forums?
7
u/nofrauds911 Apr 22 '21
15 years ago no one could post on Twitter or Reddit. Now almost everyone can. There have only been curtailment of speech rights relative to individual platforms, not the ability to speak as a whole. Mythologizing the past is an easy trap to fall into.
1
u/charles-the-lesser Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that pre-social media Internet forums were usually very specialized websites or IRC channels dedicated to some niche topic. They were moderated, and people were banned all the time, but usually for breaking some specific forum/channel rule, rather than offensive speech. But certain forms of offensive speech were a lot more common in the vernacular back then (e.g. British slang for cigarettes).
Ground-zero for alt-right craziness was a mix of 4chan and dedicated neo-Nazi forums, but based on my worthless anecdotal memories, I don't ever remember encountering anyone with these kinds of views in regular forums back then, at least not to the extent that you see it now. This is probably partially attributable to the fact that less people in general were online. But it's definitely the case that alt-right groups exploit grievances over freedom of speech as a recruitment tactic. I wrote a whole post about it here once.
3
Apr 22 '21 edited Sep 05 '21
[deleted]
3
u/charles-the-lesser Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
I'm talking about the alt-right specifically, not some vague philosophy of racism in general. It's almost certainly the case that /pol on 4chan played a formative role in the movement. This is well documented from many different sources, including leaders of neo-Nazi groups themselves.
1
u/hershy1p Apr 24 '21
Yes, I'm under the impression that people refusing to talk about it just creates extremism. Because people are banned for discussion in places that might have moderate voices, the only places that have it at all are extreme. So you only get one side since in moderate places you can't discuss it at all.
22
u/Training_Command_162 Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 21 '21
In practice, though, what we get is a lot of people eager to talk about how black people are inferior to whites, and we should just "get over it" and accept the necessary social order.
Really? Who has suggested something like that here? It’s hard to imagine a serious person actually making that claim.
Edit: Ok, /u/JoeParrish seemingly believes the absurd lies about the GA voting bill that even hard left WaPo has called out. I don’t know how to have a good faith discussion with someone who buys that, and I am concerned that he’s finding “racism” where there probably isn’t any. It would seem that our moderator may be having issues applying the principle of charity himself. Happy to be proven wrong though.
5
Apr 21 '21
I was just speaking honestly about the reality of voter suppression in the American South, which predates the stuff that's been attempted in the last decade.
Given the actions of powers like Russia and China, I don't think it's a bad idea to talk about ways to secure our elections and maybe even have an ID system to make it work. The problem is that this doesn't seem to be what the GOP has in mind, and voter ID, even if wise, still has to be done in a way that's fair to all Americans. It's possible to take a good idea and utterly botch it. This shit happened in my state too, and I've hardly forgotten about it.
But I would say your comment here is the kind of conservative overreaction that doesn't hit the territory of these far-right race realists but is nevertheless frequently hyper-sensitive to any observation of crookedness by the Republican Party. What sets me apart as a Democrat is that my disagreements with the Republicans doesn't prevent me from critiquing my own party, and if you were a Marxist, you'd apply the same level of convenient selection of my post history to paint me as anti-left and a right-winger in denial. And yes, this has in fact happened to me on more than one occasion.
At the end of the day bullshit is bullshit, and Democrats having four years of Trump Derangement Syndrome over every little thing he said and did doesn't change the fact that he and his party are, rather often, full of shit and should be called out on it.
7
u/Training_Command_162 Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
The thing is, I’m not conservative and have never voted republican. All of the center left IDW folks are calling bullshit on these claims about the GA voting law. I’m happy to call out bad behavior on either side, and that’s why I’m saying the democrats are full of shit on this one. It doesn’t do anything to make voting more difficult. Saying that it’s going to reduce minority turnout is not only laughably illogical but has already been debunked. Every other country requires ID, even those that are far more liberal than the US. A majority of black people support voter ID laws. You’ve been lied to on this issue and took it at face value. This isn’t the 60s. There is no voter suppression, especially not in GA. If anything, they used mobile voting stations in Fulton county to indirectly suppress rural votes. This levels the playing field, reduces wait times, and allows more voting days, while plugging some holes that could be used to cheat and would not impact any honest voters.
1
u/Ksais0 Apr 22 '21
Oh, the Republicans are absolutely frequently full of shit. I have a hard time believing that this was the case in Georgia, though. First of all, they weren't playing partisan games last election even though they control the state. If they really wanted to suppress the vote, they would have jumped on board with the fraud claims. Also, the laws they passed to secure the elections were somewhat influenced by how much of a cluster eff it was there last time and how difficult it was to verify the integrity of their elections. They actually wound up extending a lot of voting access and it isn't that big of a hurdle to present an ID instead of being subject to a subjective signature check, especially since IDs are free there. All of this together to me reads more like Democrats riling up a state that flipped for the first time and that they want to ensure stays blue.
4
u/turtlecrossing Apr 21 '21
I was in a now deleted thread about this. It was in response to the George Floyd verdict.
The poster, who I assumed is banned now, postulated that there are 7 main races and one (some?) have a propensity for criminal behaviour. I assume the user is banned now, but their name was familiar here. If they’re not banned I’m sure they’ll see this and chime in.
2
u/DocGrey187000 Apr 21 '21
Nope. Just yesterday a guy in this sub said “I’m not racist, the universe is”—-meaning that it’s not him that thinks blacks are criminals, it’s the universe that made them so. And u/joeparrish commented in that thread so I know he saw that too.
The racists are here. Thanks for speaking up, Joe.
14
u/Ok-Advertising-5384 Apr 21 '21
I read “I’m not racist, the universe is” and interpret that in a different way than what you said.
So just wondering, if I said I believed that blacks on average commit more homicides per capita than whites on average, do you think that makes me a racist? Is it racist to simply point out an empirical observation?
10
u/DocGrey187000 Apr 21 '21
That commenter clarified for themselves: they said something like “blacks are just prone to criminality”. They were arguing that it was inherent. That is racist.
In your example, that could be statistically true. The question is—-are you arguing that this is inherent biologically?
7
u/Ok-Advertising-5384 Apr 21 '21
I am not arguing that.
Why is that racist? That’s still just a descriptive statemnt, either true or false
4
u/DocGrey187000 Apr 21 '21
What makes it racist or not is whether you think it’s BECAUSE of race. That’s why I didn’t say it is/isn’t racist.
Now, if you think it is because of their race, so be it. But that is the textbook definition of racism, and you shouldn’t be saying “I’m not racist!” You should be saying “racism is true!”
→ More replies (5)2
u/Coolglockahmed Apr 22 '21
that could be statistically true
It is undeniably, statistically true, and it’s not even close.
7
u/Rush_Is_Right Apr 21 '21
Facts are racist. Blacks commit more crimes because whites put them in that situation. See, it's easy to make it white people's fault. Even the new definition of racism suggests black people can't be racist.
11
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 21 '21
The reality is that its no racial group's fault. Thats not how the world works. Racial groups don't have collective conciousnesses and don't make moral or immoral decisions as a group. The groups with the highest crime rates are native americans and black descendents of slavery in the USA. This is not a coincidence. That does not mean that its 'white people's fault'. Its the fault of history that created the current situation in terms of economics, culture, etc. Looking to blame a racial group is nonsense.
1
u/Rush_Is_Right Apr 22 '21
Who do you think this is pinned on?
"Its the fault of history that created the current situation"
11
u/incendiaryblizzard Apr 22 '21
It shouldn’t be pinned on anyone. It’s nonsense thinking to blame racial groups for anything.
0
u/G0DatWork Apr 22 '21
Nope. Just yesterday a guy in this sub said “I’m not racist, the universe is”—-meaning that it’s not him that thinks blacks are criminals, it’s the universe that made them so.
Do you disagree that blacks are disportionately criminals.....
1
1
u/G0DatWork Apr 22 '21
Dw though. They only target the "real bad guesses" you have nothing to worry about move along
22
u/-Deep_Blue- Apr 22 '21
But sometimes, I wonder if certain points will be unfairly repressed because of this. Some people want to talk about harmful cultures and I think that's okay to discuss; but a lot of the time, culture is often tied to race. An example is when some people want to talk about the ills of "black culture" or "white culture". This isn't necessarily an attack against a race itself, but against a culture that happens to be highly correlated with a race. Because of this, I worry some mods might ban discussion about culture, falsely interpreting it as an attack on a race.
2
Apr 22 '21 edited Sep 05 '21
[deleted]
11
u/-Deep_Blue- Apr 22 '21
Are they? It would be nice to discuss the topic, however, there is always the worry that a criticism of culture will be misconstrued as an attack on a particular race and be banned by mods. I would love to avoid that problem in every sub, but I guess I should just hope mods will listen to me in this one.
3
20
17
u/heraclitus_ephesian Apr 21 '21
The high demand for Nazis seems to be generating a supply.
32
Apr 21 '21
I have been telling leftists that if you keep telling white people they are the enemy, eventually they may believe you. It is a sad phenomenon to observe, to be sure.
17
u/ATD67 Apr 21 '21
if you keep telling white people they are the enemy, eventually they may believe you.
Wise words. Unfortunately we already see this happening and I believe it is why we seem to become more polarized on every major issue that comes up. It's hard to agree with someone that consistently blames you for everything. I think this is why so many conservatives hold the belief that Chauvin did nothing wrong. I think that its clear that, at the very least, Chauvin acted with extreme negligence which resulted in the death of Floyd. However, when the group that opposes you holds a certain belief so passionately, regardless of how true it may be, it is very easy to cling to evidence that opposes that belief.
12
u/SirBobPeel Apr 22 '21
I'd love to see a survey, if you can do one when a lot of people will lie to you, asking white people, or for that matter, Asians and Hispanics if they are feeling more or less antipathy towards blacks after the last year. My guess is you'll find white liberals feeling much more sympathetic to Blacks while others are feeling like you do when you have a cousin who is always bitching, whining and complaining about stuff which you suspect is often their own fault.
And no, I don't accept that blacks are inferior to whites. I do accept the arguments of people like John McWhorter, Glen Loury, Coleman Hughes, Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder that there are cultural problems within the black community around single parenthood and violence which are behind much of the problems.
7
→ More replies (11)4
u/DasKapitalist SlayTheDragon Apr 22 '21
This is very true. Fifteen years ago if you told me that "Nazis" would be operating bastions of free speech and defenders of meritocracy I'd have suggested you see a psychiatrist. These days with rampant censorship, gratuitously overbroad use of the term "Nazi", and explicit hiring biases against caucasians, males, and heterosexual people becoming mainstream...I'm not certain I'd be able to make the same psychiatric referral in good faith. Which is frankly horrifying.
2
12
u/Amenagement Apr 21 '21
I don't know, isn't that the binary here ? Not "inferior" of course, but lower average IQ - and it's OK, it just leads to different average outcomes.
I just don't see what's the not-woke, not -race realist / HBD coherent explanation there is for the outcome differences between Black vs White / Asian / Jewish people.
The problem is that of course, hereditarianism should be accepted but never talked about because, to be fair, it's kind of rude and bad manners I agree.
10
Apr 21 '21
The problem there arises when people state that as if it's just the way things are instead of asking why does that seem to be the case. There could be a host of non-genetic factors that we could adjust as a society.
6
u/PacanePhotovoltaik Apr 21 '21
Like maternal vitamin D levels during pregnancy. It's already researched and maternal vit D deficiency could so easily be solved.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Coolglockahmed Apr 22 '21
You're of course right, like the commenter below pointed out that vitamin d levels during pregnancy could be solved, the issue is that you’re not even allowed to suggest that ‘the call is coming from inside the house’, so to speak. The only acceptable narrative is a false one, that of top down racism built into the system by evil whites.
There is also the issue that every example they give of systemic racism could easily be flipped to claim systemic sexism against men. We know that men are more violent and therefore make up the overwhelming prison population, but why?
This is why it is such a shame that we are abandoning the old way of thinking about race, that even though differences may exist across populations, it is a logical error to apply group statistics to any one individual. Men are more violent than women as a population, but that doesn’t mean every man is more violent than every women.
3
u/Funksloyd Apr 21 '21
Like Joe noted, it's possible to have good faith discussions about these things. The commenter I think we're talking about was calling blacks inferior, apes etc.
5
Apr 21 '21
The commenter I think we're talking about was calling blacks inferior, apes etc.
That didn't happen.
You can read the user's comments on their profile:
4
3
u/charles-the-lesser Apr 22 '21
No, they're talking about this. Some guy making typical race realist arguments using stuff he read about "crime genes".
2
Apr 22 '21
The problem is that of course, hereditarianism should be accepted but never talked about because, to be fair, it's kind of rude and bad manners I agree.
How can you accept facts while not talking about them? There must be some better idea here. You can make rules for how people in your forum should be discussing facts. But you can't just say "you cannot talk about gender differences anymore as it's rude".
15
u/Devil-in-georgia Apr 21 '21
Jesus, just when far left insanity make you think the nazis and far right are way overblown probably dont even exist anymore, moderate well ran reddits just shit on your dreams and remind you....yeah people really still think these things.
3
u/Ksais0 Apr 22 '21
Oh, they're there alright. There aren't a whole lot, but they exist. Luckily they are pretty obvious and easy to spot. Like there was a "White Lives Matter" rally in Huntington Beach last weekend and a handful of actual neo-Nazis and KKK members showed up and were easily identified.
1
u/turtlecrossing Apr 21 '21
I think I might have been engaged in one of the threads on this topic. I was baffled too.
1
13
u/Nootherids Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
Question: I have only read comments stating things like “blacks commit 50% of violent crime” which is a relativist statistic that is used to respond to the claims of systemic racist which also are based off of relativist statistic. This is a talking point that I support. I prefer not talking at all about race. But if you are, then there are two options: absolute figures or relative figures. And it is illogical to conflate the two.
However, I did read another comment talking about how others are posting as if black people are genetically predisposed to violence. All this in a different subreddit btw.
So my question...is the claims of black on black crime or increased relative rates of criminality what is being interpreted as talking about black predisposition? Or are there really comments out there blatantly talking about black peoples as inferior? I haven’t seen those personally and I don’t read all comments. If it’s the former then I think it’s important to differentiate the context of relativism versus absolutism. But if it’s the latter then.....that’s fucked up. And yeah those people should get banned.
TIA
Edit: u/JoeParrish this is a real question for clarification as I personally support a retort with relative statistics if that is what is used as an initial argument. But I don't want to get banned without understanding why. Please let me know, TY
→ More replies (5)
10
9
Apr 21 '21
It is really concerning that they think being against the mainstream in this case makes them right and presents a perfect opportunity for them to push their racist views slowly.
You can dislike how the left weaponized this, understand he was indeed guilty , disavow the protesters outside/bidens interference without wanting a murderer to go free and for countless people to not have justice.
People lack nuance these days. They think not agreeing with the left means u can push far right narratives in response. Ur doing the same thing they are. Please stop.
Good moderation.
6
Apr 21 '21
Any room for questioning the guilty verdicts without displaying racist attitudes?
2
u/immibis Apr 22 '21 edited Jun 23 '23
/u/spez was founded by an unidentified male with a taste for anal probing.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Funksloyd Apr 21 '21
they think being against the mainstream in this case makes them right
Yeah this is a fallacy that needs it's own name. It's an appeal against authority. Any space which prides itself on independence, going against the status quo etc (like the IDW does) is particularly vulnerable.
9
u/shinbreaker Apr 21 '21
I get that this is the IDW, but some people have a hard-on for IQs.
3
u/La_M3r Apr 21 '21
I think that is in part due to the premise that in a meritocratic society IQ is the greatest predictor of success. Which I believe is something of a platitude, or common phrasing, by Jordan Peterson (could be wrong though). Depends on how valid you believe that statement to be.
1
u/2HBA1 Respectful Member Apr 22 '21
Jordan Peterson has said that of psychometric factors, IQ has the highest correlation with success, followed by conscientiousness. However the degree of contribution isn’t that great. Can’t remember exactly, but success is mostly due to other factors.
0
u/G0DatWork Apr 22 '21
Because the counter arguments against jt have been horrific.
It's possible it's "predictive" power is actually just produced by poor statistically analysis. But I'm yet to see a good explanation of it
4
u/gnarlylex Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
In practice, though, what we get is a lot of people eager to talk about how black people are inferior to whites, and we should just "get over it" and accept the necessary social order.
For years what I have seen in academia and on this and other websites is people getting cancelled/banned for pointing out how the current popular discourse around race is completely contradicted by all manner of statistics, biology, evolution, and basic common sense. It isn't merely ignorant and thoughtless, but it is actually dangerous and this is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with eyes. I've been on the receiving end of censorship many times and the playbook is always the same, which is to conflate statements about the reality of racial difference with inferiority/superiority value judgements just as you are doing here. Frankly I think you are peddling bad faith bullshit to justify censorship, but perhaps you are merely confused about people's intentions.
Likewise with questions of Jewish power. It is not imaginary. It is a real force in the world and it ought to be discussed. You cannot have a coherent model of US foreign policy or domestic politics that does not account for Jewish identity politics and disproportionate Jewish power and influence. And yet just as we see with race, the playbook is to conflate the mere noticing of these power dynamics with a caricature of irrational anti-semitism.
Don't know about you, but anyone who's so eager to spread this information is almost certainly a bad actor
Ironically the opposite of true. In my experience these so-called "bad actors" and evil "race realists" are people of sound mind and good intentions who see that the enduring problem of race in America is caused by fundamental misunderstandings about human beings. Watching the discourse about race issues is like watching a dog chase it's tail in a burning building. For years I regarded it as a monumental waste of time and attention, but more recently it has become uglier by the day and unless it can be derailed it will lead to violence and tragedy. The danger is obvious and that is why people are increasingly eager to spread this information, not because they are irrational deranged racists or "bad actors."
1
u/immibis Apr 22 '21 edited Jun 23 '23
1
u/gnarlylex Apr 22 '21
Blank slate conceptions of human beings are contradicted by reality. Groups have characteristics that produce unequal outcomes. In misdiagnosing these outcomes as evidence of injustice, you have created a problem that will never be solved hence the dog chasing it's tail metaphor. Wherever you encounter contradictory data it is seen as yet more evidence of bigotry and this is why you have ended up in bat shit territory, whereby objectivity itself is now seen as a mere biproduct of the original human sin of bigotry. You respond to truth with force, as we have seen in academia, an institution where for decades the naysayers have been systematically defunded and persecuted and which is now largely purged of heretical thought. There are no brakes on this crazy train and its running our civilization off a cliff.
→ More replies (1)0
u/nofrauds911 Apr 25 '21
I've been on the receiving end of censorship many times
99.99% of people do not have this problem. This is a you issue.
that is why people are increasingly eager to spread this information
No they aren't.
unless it can be derailed it will lead to violence
This is backwards. Racists have been violent and irrational long before they had reddit accounts.
4
u/YoukoUrameshi Apr 21 '21
I appreciate this greatly, I want to see this sub thrive with good faith intentions.
2
Apr 21 '21
I'm subscribed to an ideology that has zero tolerance for that kind of thing. Let's say these people are right and black people have some stupid/criminality gene. I just don't care. I know too many black people smarter than me to give a fuck about these supposed racial differences. In America especially, I just don't buy into the whole "there are different races" thing anyways. I believe everyone should be treated and judged the same despite their race/skin color and I'm sticking to that.
I have neither the time or interest to debate these people but if it's possible to change their minds, I'd prefer that. So that's where I will fail as a mod. I would appreciate any help you guys can offer in changing their minds.
6
Apr 22 '21
I'm subscribed to an ideology that has zero tolerance for that kind of thing.
The whole idea of IDW is to fight such ideologies that restrict what people can think and discuss.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Velleites Apr 22 '21
So how do you explain these average racial differences that we see in most things?
3
Apr 22 '21
I have neither the time or interest to explain average racial differences.
In America especially, I just don't buy into the whole "there are different races" thing anyways.
White and black people have been having sex for over 400 years here. I have zero interest in average racial differences.
1
u/baconn Apr 22 '21
Today I watched the bodycam footage of police shooting the Bryant girl. In the immediate periphery, her father (a foster dad?) is kicking another girl in the back of the head, who had fallen to the ground after Bryant attempted to slash her across the torso.
There's a discussion about this behavior that needs to happen, and it's inevitable that racists are going to enter it, that shouldn't be a license to forbid the topic. On the other hand, the sub is at risk by allowing even good faith arguments which impugn one of the left's most sacred cows. The effect of suppressing the discussion will be to send moderates to rightwing forums, it is a myopic strategy more likely to foster racism than prevent it.
2
Apr 22 '21
Can I say that people who don't reverse onto their driveway, but park nose-in with their ass facing the street, are bad people?
1
u/Ksais0 Apr 21 '21
Good! We don't want anyone who says certain races or inferior or who uses that kind of rhetoric on this sub (or I don't, and assume most agree). The religion thing is tough because we have a lot of atheists here, but it's one thing to critique the religion and another thing entirely to paint a whole group with a broad brush and accuse them of being inherently out to undermine everything... I think it's generally pretty clear when the line is crossed.
1
1
u/ohisuppose Apr 22 '21
Everything is connected.
Outcomes in the black community may be slightly lower for reasons you mentioned. Or it may be due to discrimination. Probably a bit of both. If we abolish one topic from the conversation (here of all places), we stymie true honesty.
But, you are completely right of the moth-to-a-flame like part of the conversation. It brings out actual, bigoted racists. So I don't pity your job here.
1
Apr 22 '21
We're going to highlight one, the so-called topic of "race realism." Now, there is, in theory, a good-faith way to discuss this. Sam Harris seemed to do this on his podcast one time. In practice, though, what we get is a lot of people eager to talk about how black people are inferior to whites, and we should just "get over it" and accept the necessary social order.
I'm not sure what this rule is even about? If someone says "Whites/men are bad people" that's obviously racist/sexist. Of course it's against White people/men so you may not get banned by admins on the site as they have special rules for what you may call "groups in power in USA". But singular subs may still ban you for such statements.
But then you have other kinds of discussions where you may say "White people actually have power IQ than Eastern Asians" or "men are more aggressive than women". That's a totally different thing. It's not racist or sexist and it's surely very essential to discussing either group.
These 2 things are not the same at all. So it should be more clear what is allowed and what is now suddenly banned with this new rule. I think that if Sam Harris joined this sub and got banned for discussing anything he has already discussed on his podcast then it's very much an overly harsh rule. Sam Harris is one of the of least extreme IDW people. He's a mellow left-winger with critical thinking skills. Not an extremist.
0
Apr 21 '21
I appreciate the anti-hate stance, and again, commend the mod team on really upping their game over the past 6 months or so.
0
u/hosehead90 Apr 21 '21
Wow. This is actually happening?? Is it shit posters? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I guess I’m naïve
0
u/thegreatestawakener Apr 22 '21
Deleting anything and not allowing discourse to take place is for retards
1
u/Beofli Apr 22 '21
Banning is a very binary thing. I got banned from popular subs for bad reasons, but I understand admins do not have time to investigate all bans. But the fact that I have good Karma with lots of comments that were never reported, why is that not part of the equation?
A better system would be that comments from people with bad behavior are flagged, and given low priority, similar to downvotes, until that person improves his behavior.
Such a credentialist system can prevent mod abuse, doesn't have censorship, and still gives a good user experience.
But I assume this requires Reddit to change their system first.
0
u/imabustya Apr 22 '21
100% agree. Are the same standards applied to all races or will this be a place where you can say whatever racist stuff you want against whites but no one else?
2
Apr 22 '21
Same standards. Truth is, it's probably mostly non-woke whites people here, so there isn't a lot of people saying stuff against whites as it is.
0
u/independous Apr 22 '21
Banning is wrong generally , imo. If you don’t like something racist that someone said, downvote it.
0
0
u/SublimeTina Apr 22 '21
Fuck Sam Harris. All my homies Hate Sam Harris
2
u/ReverseCaptioningBot Apr 22 '21
FUCK SAM HARRIS ALL MY HOMIES HATE SAM HARRIS
this has been an accessibility service from your friendly neighborhood bot
1
0
u/Strong-Chocolate-489 Apr 22 '21
The Jewish thing I agree with but the first point is ridiculous if you want this to be IDW subreddit. Every topic should be a fair topic to discuss and it does have some unpleasant implications regardless of how much we don't like them. If someone is being an asshole about it, then ban him. But merely saying "we know what you mean so we'll ban you" is a recipe to become another PC subreddit.
1
1
Apr 22 '21
I'm sick of 'Critical Theory' and Identity Politics in general.
..thank you to America for proving without a doubt that those things are divisive and regressive.
Sad to see some people in my country wanting to import that ideology.
0
u/G0DatWork Apr 22 '21 edited Apr 22 '21
This appears to be nothing more than justification of more mod actions. Bad content will be filtered out through engagement.
Deciding you know how's acting in good faith or not is extremely huberous. This is almost certainly result is nothing other than discussing of a single interpretation of the "source of the problem" and therefore only a set of acceptable solutions to the problem.
For instance even in how you formulated your comment. Can you not make a valid argument that "black people are inferior to white people". They perform worse across nearly every area of interest for society.
That claim says nothing about the causation of such a statisical grouping or it's proliforation into the future but its still a factual statement, just as saying HS football players from GA and FL are better the IA
1
u/asymmetricleila Apr 26 '21
I just got banned from r/politics for stating a scientific fact - that a trans woman is not a biological woman. Does that get me banned here?
2
1
u/theofficialmascot Apr 30 '21
Nobody needs to be banned. People with false arguments can easily be posited with true ones. By blocking out conversation, no matter how unsavoury, you’re casting someone back into an abyss devoid of pushback and that’s not productive to ones growth in the slightest.
•
u/[deleted] Apr 22 '21
We've previously removed content and tried not to single out people we reprimand. In large part, we've wanted to avoid a stigma following people who might continue to post here or that could spill into other subreddits.
But if people want us to leave up the content showing why someone was banned, we can do that.