I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning? — T Clark

Yes.

Yes. — Jamal

Thanks

That was a bad move, but thanks for hte clarification.

I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning? — T Clark

Yes. — Jamal

Aren't there multiple studies showing that, for example, Asians have a higher mean IQ than other races? Wikipedia catalogues the general issue of race and intelligence.

Aren't there multiple studies showing that, for example, Asians have a higher mean IQ than other races? Wikipedia catalogues the general issue of race and intelligence. — Leontiskos

As I noted, I’m not interested in starting a discussion on this issue. I had a specific question I wanted an answer to and I got it. I’m done.

Fair enough.

This is a rather pervasive cultural issue. An acute example of it was the conversation between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein that I have referenced. The issue is becoming more pervasive because a goal of "colorblindness" is being abandoned within the culture for various different reasons.

It's just not very philosophical in any way, shape, or form. Evolution (or any other form of physical being) is set in stone. Sure, maybe I'm taller than you, maybe I'm not. Okay. And? All that can be derived from there is a pissing contest. At least, that's all it ever devolves into. Can you not see that?

Aren't there multiple studies showing that, for example, Asians have a higher mean IQ than other races? — Leontiskos

It may be the case that at a given time, one race performs better on "x" measure of quality -- income, # of patents, height, IQ, longevity, etc. IF we use some measure to determine who is superior, I believe we will find different groups of people at different times and places performing at superior levels. Who's up and who's down will change.

However, the whole topic of racial superiority is out of bounds on this forum -- and that's a good thing because we who are superior don't want to waste time discussing the matter with you who are inferior.

Whether I was wrong to do so, I interpreted @T Clark to be referring to innate racial differences.

Whether I was wrong to do so, I interpreted T Clark to be referring to innate racial differences. — Jamal

You understood me correctly.

Banned @daniel j lavender for refusing moderation. His recent discussion was a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet and has been removed.

He returned after years missing only to be banned. This is what I call a real "plot twist."

He told me to "ruck off". So, I suppose he lost his temper, but I grant him the decency of some self-censorship.

He told me to "ruck off". — Baden

Are you sure you didn’t just ban Scooby Doo?

Very appropriate. It was trying keeping up with the many non-properties of nothingness.

Well done.

His recent discussion was a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet and has been removed. — Baden

He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Maybe there should be a thread for new invitees where people post with similar enthousiasm, because as everybody's high-fiving in the "Bannings" thread, no one seems to notice this forum has been a stagnant pond years.

@daniel j lavender wasn't a new member per se.

He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Belly laugh!!

no one seems to notice this forum has been a stagnant pond years.

I was just getting ready to start discussing the pro’s and cons of Everythingism versus Nothingism with him. I’m not sure that would have enriched our experience much.

My only comment would be that he was banned for the wrong reason. The OP was rubbish, and the discussion did not improve on it.

You guys... :grin:

I banned @Harry Hindu, partly for low quality, and partly for obnoxiousness.

I want people to know there's no room here for that kind of crap any more.

I want people to know there's no room here for that kind of crap any more. — Jamal

"That kind of crap" needs to be defined. What did he do? What are we not allowed to do?

After @Lionino's banning and the sudden closing of the "Bannings" thread, I PMed a mod. This is part of that exchange:

Lionino was banned because of the application of a concept, and the application of that concept was being discussed. The relevance should be obvious.

"At the same time, I don't expect a forum to be perfectly objective, and TPF is better than most. What is needed though, is a clear line so that the bias has a measure of transparency" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945638).

I.e.: "Racism" and "Homophobia" must be defined if Lionino's banning is to make sense. — Leontiskos

If TPF has a rule against something, then they should say what the rule means. My interaction with the mod ended with something like, "Lionino was banned for breaking a rule, and we refuse to say what it means to break that rule." The mod suggested that I make a feedback thread inquiring into what it means to break that rule.

Again, TPF can have a bias, but that bias needs to be transparent. In ' thread we saw users and mods making odd claims to the effect that every form of critique of the homosexual movement must be "bigotry" or "bad faith." That could be a possible candidate for what the rule means: "Anyone who says that homosexuality is in any way inferior to heterosexuality will be deemed a 'bigot' and will be banned." That seems like it would be a poor rule, but at least it would provide this vague notion of "homophobia" with a bit of clarity. The same holds with "transphobia" and all the rest of the "phobia" pathologizations.

What does the rule mean? How does one break it? How does one avoid breaking it? If these questions continue to be avoided then there is a fairly severe problem regarding impartiality.

(I think TPF needs to be more transparent. It needs to say, "We are a philosophy forum where certain topics are allowed and certain topics are not allowed; where certain positions are allowed and certain positions are not allowed. The topics that are not allowed to be discussed are A, B, and C. The positions that are not allowed to be taken are X, Y, and Z.)

Stop posturing Leon.

I want people to know there's no room here for that kind of crap any more. — Jamal

Could you describe the nature of the crap?

I did. Low quality and obnoxious.

Part of Harry's last comment (now deleted).

The big mistake you make is not to catch that this is the trick that is going on. You are caught in the Cartesian representational understanding of what it is to be a mind... — apokrisis

Blah blah blah blah-blah bl-ba-blah blah. — Harry Hindu

Jamal, I have to admit, I also find the rules lacking clarity. It seems like there is a lack of checks and balances within the admins. I am not sure how you guys have it setup, but I would appreciate it if you could either explicate or refer me on the forum to what constitutes a banworthy offense. These reasons you give are super vague.

Does the offender get a fair reprimanding warning before banning them?

Likewise, can we implement a notification system for censored posts? I know you've silently censored some of my posts and it would be greatly appreciated if the mods gave them a notification of offenses committed and authoritative actions done to resolve it.