Deletion by Streetlight X of my post on Race Realism and the Moral Fallacy
Dear Baden,
The reason that Streetlight X deleted this post was, in my opinion, purely because he lacked the intellectual muscle to effectly defend his position when it was ( quite rightly) challenged by some eminently, civil, reasonable and rational objections. His claim that I had (seriously) insulted him in this post is arrant nonsense and you can see that for yourself by reading what I wrote. Moreover, If SLX has such a fragile ego that he can't take a little bit of harmless ribbing, then I think he should serioiusly consider finding himself another forum. I do agree that I denounced his ideas as, amongst other things, examples of the moralistic fallacy in action, but I believe I was totally justified in doing so.? In any case, If he disagreed, then he was perfectly free to defend himself from the charge. The fact is he was unable to answer the charge and took the "coward's way out " by expunging my post. What do you think ?
Regards
John
The reason that Streetlight X deleted this post was, in my opinion, purely because he lacked the intellectual muscle to effectly defend his position when it was ( quite rightly) challenged by some eminently, civil, reasonable and rational objections. His claim that I had (seriously) insulted him in this post is arrant nonsense and you can see that for yourself by reading what I wrote. Moreover, If SLX has such a fragile ego that he can't take a little bit of harmless ribbing, then I think he should serioiusly consider finding himself another forum. I do agree that I denounced his ideas as, amongst other things, examples of the moralistic fallacy in action, but I believe I was totally justified in doing so.? In any case, If he disagreed, then he was perfectly free to defend himself from the charge. The fact is he was unable to answer the charge and took the "coward's way out " by expunging my post. What do you think ?
Regards
John
Comments (38)
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.
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.
It's not a theory, it's how things work around here, Zarathustra. Get used to it.
Ah, poor John, did Nursey take your favourite rattle?
Silence fool ! Enough of thine blather and bumbulum ! (Lest I let flee a fert in thine general dyrection).
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.
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?
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.
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:
Quoting 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 !
In his case, it's not ignorance, but rather simply not wanting to admit to certain things based on emotional reasons.
I agree that there are countless legitimate justifications for our rule prohibiting racist posts.
In either case he clearly lacks the kind of dispassionate critical intelligence that is needed to discharge his responsibilities as a moderator of comment on a philosophy forum.
That is without a shred of doubt.
I doubt he'll do either. Which is quite unfortunate, because I don't think he's actually a stupid person. He's just stubborn on certain issues that seem to affect him emotionally.
Edit: As I've now been informed John Gould was warned of a banning by another moderator on the same issue 25 days ago, he has now been banned.
It's not meant to be a character assassination, it's just a fact that one of the moderators has an emotional bias (very likely due to an overindulgence in POMO literature) which doesn't permit him to make adequate (meaning rational) judgements with regards to issues that are sensitive to him. This is something that should be discussed. But to the contrary, the said moderator refuses to discuss the issue and says that it's "below him".
Now can I please have an answer to my question here:
Quoting Agustino
No. That's not the issue. The issue has been explained. Streetlight X provided an enumerated standard which, as the site staff agree, was not adhered to.
There's nothing to discuss with anyone who consistently puts into question not what I say, but the (apparent, projected) reasons for my saying things (I'm 'emotional', 'stubborn', 'overindulges in POMO literature', etc). It's the lowest, most despicable form of argument, peddled only by those equal to it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Okay, (1) is sensible, but (2), (3), and (4) seems over the top. I don't see why the post would have had to "acknowledge the contentiousness of regarding IQ as a purely heritable trait" - if this is precisely what was under discussion. (2), (3), and (4) are issues that would have had to be discussed in the debate.
The main point is that SLX has proven - for example in his debate with me with regards to testosterone - that he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to face up to certain issues.
Quoting StreetlightX
I don't believe in our debate with regards to testosterone I put into question the fact that YOU are saying it. The problem would have been there regardless of who said it.