The PM you're referring to - about insults - was sent four days ago regarding your interactions with other posters in other threads, and has nothing to do with your recent histrionics. Feel free to check its time stamp. Your recent post was deleted with consultation with at least one other mod. That's all I've got to say on this.

Your opinion that the tone of my feedback post (above) was "histrionic" is not only unwarranted but is also, ironically, insulting in its own right (?) I might , in similar fashion, voice my opinion that most of your own posts on this forum are typically meandering, luke -warm pieces of tedious, quasi-meaningful postmodernist drivel, but naturally I would never be so rude as to actually do so. In short, I charge you with intellectual cowardice and that charge still stands. My feedback post was, in any case, addressed to Baden and not yourself.

Your Cordially

John

I think this is a personal axe grind on your part and this type of confrontational and unproductive attitude was also apparent in your OP, which contributed to it being deleted, a decision I am fully behind.

By the way, Feedback posts should be addressed to the mod team as a whole or no-one at all. If you want to talk to one mod or admin in particular, you can PM them.

Why does that not surprise me.

I wish it was because you weren't oblivious to how you come across. But I doubt it. Complaints are always a negotiation. You come in throwing grenades, you're unlikely to get very far. Anyway, your post was deleted due to its content and tone, not a vendetta.

Baden...philosophy is not a frivolous game; not a kindergarten playground for humanity's faint- hearted, sensitive plants. A true philosopher must always strive to have the courage of his convictions and never shrink from "calling 'em as he sees 'em" in his search for (the) truth. If that means ruffling a few prim and proper feathers, or jarring a few delicate sensibilities , or fracturing a few fragile egos then so be it. Neitzsche, if I recall, was an inveterate and most prolific hurler of "grenades" throughout much of his career in philosophy. He made lots of loud complaints and did not tend to view them as being "negotiable". Despite this, his books continue to be widely read today and will, -I have no doubt at all- still be widely read for centuries to come? So bang goes your theory, Baden.

It's not a theory, it's how things work around here, Zarathustra. Get used to it.

philosophy is not a frivolous game; not a kindergarten playground for humanity's faint- hearted, sensitive plants. — John Gould

Ah, poor John, did Nursey take your favourite rattle?

Jokes aside, John, it's simple psychology: come with good intentions, leave with good results. Be as strident as you want with your philosophy (within reason and considering the subject) but if you want a decision changed in future, try dismounting your high horse.

I came here with the intention of throwing a couple of grenades myself in the name of liberalism, but was instead converted by the mods. Just to be sure, if the post's message was "hey, I found this disturbing study, any thoughts?" instead of "this study confirms the inferiority of niggers", it wouldn't have been deleted?

I refer you to the given reasons as to why the initial post was deleted. The first reason alone, by the way, qualified it for deletion as far as I was concerned.

Silence fool ! Enough of thine blather and bumbulum ! (Lest I let flee a fert in thine general dyrection).

Actually, I find your views quite in line with most scientific views expressed on this forum, they are aligned, except you haven't learned to espouse them in a more scientific manner. With a little tweak, you'll be fully embraced. "Survival of the fittest", works well, just as a suggestion. Really, all you are doing is putting in bold science's efforts at dehumization.

John,

If it is as I recall, I deleted the thread advancing the view that whites are smarter than blacks. The reason I gave was that it violated our anti-racism rule and I asked for a confirmation that you'd adhere to the rule, even if you disagreed with it.

My role was to enforce the rule, not debate its wisdom, although I do find it wise. It is entirely irrelevant to me whether your argument that one race is superior to another is empirically supportable or the rantings of a lunatic. In either case, it's racism.

While we could also debate the question of whether we'd have been better off had Hitler have won the war, citing statistics and all sorts of other data, we can also decide, as a private website, to prohibit such discussions as being terribly offensive and unproductive.

I suspect there are many wonderful websites where rigorous racist, neo-Nazi, and other progressive ideological debate is encouraged, and I invite you to explore those mind broadening sites if you feel overly limited here.

I'm not sure where the sense of entitlement comes from where you think you have the right to insult entire races of historically oppressed people on a privately owned website and then ironically call others cowards. If you feel so bold, take your views to the public square instead of your courageous position behind your keyboard.

If you feel so bold, take your views to the public square instead of your courageous position behind your keyboard. — Hanover

Of course, we're all here behind our courage-granting keyboards. But yes, PHILOSOPHY FORUM is akin to the Mall of America or Lenox Square in one respect: it's private property and they do not allow demonstrations or organized airings of opinion not consistent with the rules of the property owners.

By the way, what the hell is this thing at the Mall of Georgia? Some sort of weird chiropractic appliance?

Not sure, but I live nearby and will check it out.

What @StreetlightX and @Hanover said is where we are on this officially. Scientific data is one thing and that alone does not breach guidelines; but the manipulation of scientific data for racist reasons is another. And we'll tend to err on the side of caution when judging for the presence of the latter, i.e. if there's any hint of a racist agenda, the discussion will be deleted.

When I pointed this out to Mr "Streetlight X" ( a forum moderator) in a recent post he promptly expunged my comments from the site and advised me that he would not engage any further debate on the matter, full stop. — John Gould

Yes, there is no doubt about that. When I told Mr. SLX that greater testosterone levels make men more competitive and aggressive in general and on average than women, he tried to give me some convoluted pseudo-science based on his favorite post-modernist writers (who are not doctors or medical researchers) that testosterone isn't explainer but explained. I had to provide him with actual studies showing the existence of such biological differences, which are indeed also influenced by social conditions/perceptions but definitely do have a biological source of influence as well. He seems to have begrudgingly accepted it by that point. However, this is one of the reasons why I've said in the past that I think SLX should step down as a moderator. His commitment to a dogma make him unfit to judge posts adequately.

Now, issues of race are difficult to discuss objectively, so perhaps you should have prefaced your previous thread/post by this:

Therefore, let me tell you - first and foremost - that I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with, or sympathetic to, the kind of "racism" that is associated with these groups. I utterly despise and unequivocally condemn the acts of criminal violence and hatred that they continue to incite and perpetrate in the West. — John Gould

That would have made your intentions somewhat more clear, that you wish to have a scientific discussion based on the facts, and not promote some ideology of racism.

Aug, I'd suggest you'd not mistake my general indifference to your posts as 'begrudging acceptance'. Some arguments and people are simply beneath engagement.

Aug, Id' suggest you'd not mistake my general indifference to your posts as 'begrudging acceptance'. Some arguments and people are simply beneath engagement. — StreetlightX

Yes, I think everyone saw in that discussion your inability to accept the facts.

The discussion is here if anyone wants to have a look:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/96965

John,

I deleted your post to me as it was a reiteration of your prior deleted thread. It was non- responsive to my post, which is that racist views are off limits here, even if you believe they are scientifically justified.

I deleted your post to me as it was a reiteration of your prior deleted thread. It was non- responsive to my post, which is that racist views are off limits here, even if you believe they are scientifically justified. — Hanover

This seems to me to be very wrong. This is a feedback thread, you shouldn't delete posts in here, so long as they are not things like threats, etc. Feedback can't be seen to users who aren't logged in anyways.

It was non- responsive to my post, which is that racist views are off limits here, even if you believe they are scientifically justified. — Hanover

Are biological differences between the races racist? :s To me, racism would be a certain type of ideology that encourages active discrimination, not just a look at biological differences between races.

The feedback thread is not an area where deleted threads get to be reposted with impunity. I suppose had the complaint been posed in the abstract (as in, "I think scientifically supportable hypotheses should be open to debate without regard to how offensive they may be), I'd agree with you, but to resubmit the specific argument is obviously not going to be allowed.

The feedback thread is not an area where deleted threads get to be reposted with impunity. I suppose had the complaint been posed in the abstract (as in, "I think scientifically supportable hypotheses should be open to debate without regard to how offensive they may be), I'd agree with you, but to resubmit the specific argument is obviously not going to be allowed. — Hanover

Okay, I don't know his original post, so I can't comment on that.

But the problem with racism - in my mind - isn't that it offends the sensibilities of people, but rather that it is immoral. I would have thought at least that the immorality and cruelty of it (supported by its historical manifestations) are the reason for taking an active stand against it, not just that it "offends sensibilities".

I agree, Augustino. Mr "Streetlight X" stands indicted by his own testimony of intellectual corruption ! I hereby call upon him to either defend the charge immediately or to have the moral integrity to do the honourable thing and surrender his position as a moderator on this forum forthwith.

Ah, the sheer arrogance (and impudence) of ignorance ! It never ceases to astonish me !

Ah, the sheer arrogance (and impudence) of ignorance ! It never ceases to astonish me ! — John Gould

In his case, it's not ignorance, but rather simply not wanting to admit to certain things based on emotional reasons.

But the problem with racism - in my mind - isn't that it offends the sensibilities of people, but rather that it is immoral. I would have thought at least that the immorality and cruelty of it (supported by its historical manifestations) are the reason for taking an active stand against it, not just that it "offends sensibilities". — Agustino

I agree that there are countless legitimate justifications for our rule prohibiting racist posts.