Whereas I would say that what makes Bob's thread bannable is not that it is "essentialist" (because many progressive readings of race, sex, gender, etc.are also essentialist in many respects) but because it is a (facile) argument in favor of the reasonableness of racism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That may have been the case 100 years ago, but certainly not now. But you have said "essentialist" in quotes so maybe you mean something different.

Either way such discussions can be taken up in the forum proper.

His framing of the term 'bad' and 'moral' were strange to say the least. — I like sushi

Strange? It was bigoted and stupid. It would have been one thing if Bob had been intellectually honest, but arguing with him was like talking to smoke.

I think perhaps if the take is "its bigoted and stupid" that probably isn't the reason someone was banned. Equally, the guideline section quoted in the thread itself is... censorious, despite it's claims.

In any case, Jamal did a great job of laying this one out, and as with T Clark, it's a shame but not totally unexpected. It wasn't legitimate work here.

He was banned specifically for being bigoted. "We have been very tolerant, and Bob was warned many times, but he persisted in advancing racist, homophobic, and transphobic positions."

You may want to read my next point :) I think that's overly broad, and dumb. What Jamal laid out in full was far more to say than that would have me think.

While what you say might be so, it remains that the common thread in Bob's justification of racism, homophobia and transphobia was a form essentialism that he took to derive from Aristotle and Aquinas. None of that rescues Bob’s position, because the problem is not essentialism simpliciter, it is the specific way essentialism is being used.

His essentialism was unfalsifiable by design. Counterexamples were dismissed as “pathological,” “deformed,” or “non-natural,” while conformity were treated as confirmation. That is not an epistemology; it is an immunisation strategy. An essence that cannot be contradicted by any actual instance is doing no explanatory work.

His appeal to Aristotle and Aquinas was selective and anachronistic. Neither thinker held that every natural tendency grounds a fixed social role, nor that deviation implies defect in a moral sense. Aquinas in particular is careful to separate natural inclination from law and from virtue. Bob reads later ideological commitments back into scholastic metaphysics.

Tim is correct that racism is not wrong because race is unreal, and that essentialism alone is not the issue. But it remains true that Bob’s justifications for racism, homophobia, and transphobia rely on a misguided essentialism that illegitimately converts descriptive generalisations into normative constraints while insulating itself from criticism.

I haven't had many discussions with Bob Ross, but in the few I did, it seemed he had a bit of a "comprehension problem", the kind that many people do, especially self-taught "philosophers". That is, they tend to mix up their interpretation of the words on the page with the words on the page. Trying to talk to them is very tedious and time-consuming.

In his case, I think it's actually philosophical inexperience and a measure of incompetence, rather than malice.

While what you say is mostly correct, his views were in the end small and nasty.

small and nasty — Banno

Like my dick!

Like my dick! — bert1

I laughed at this more than I should have. Really out of the blue lol