Yo, Tyrannical!

[Robert_S]

I thought this was the subforum to bitch about other forums

Maybe we should add a note?

[Strontium Dog]

When I was modding, I (and others) would always defend you if a report or action seemed inaccurate or unjust, and I'd like to think that I certainly wouldn't stay silent or protect any mod that blatantly abused their position to carry out a personal vendetta against you. It may be the case that you've just been the victim of some tough 50/50 calls that didn't go your way, but all I can say for certain is that all of your complaints, reports, and actions taken against you were taken as seriously and as fairly as possible. If mistakes were made, it certainly was not the result of any systematic bias, and I know that a number of mods would feel that it would be a loss to the forum to lose you (if it ever came to that).

I hope this is the case, and maybe I was just unlucky to cadge a one month ban for taking a thread slightly off topic. However it felt like a bit of a coincidence that I had had no mod attention for months since accruing three warnings, only to cop a ban after making a qualified defence of several persona non grata.

I never supported people when they suggested that Tyrannical should be banned and defended him on a couple of occasions, but I don't think it could be argued that the mods didn't have any grounds for banning him. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, he had enough chances to simply stick to supporting his racist arguments through (his interpretation of) logic, science, or political opinion, but instead continued to try to use RatSkep as a platform for racist promotion and propaganda.

To repeat the point that got me a month long ban, I would certainly like to know why one isn't permitted to promote "hatred" against certain groups yet hatred against specific individuals is absolutely fine.

[rachelbean]

It would be good if we could/can make a subforum to bitch about other forums so that we can choose to opt out of it...because I could definitely live without it

You mean this subforum?

Personally, I tend to avoid the noise I don't like just by viewing my own posts, and just browsing to other forums and threads as the mood strikes.

I do too, but I thought if anywhere was good to complain it would be here

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It would be good if we could/can make a subforum to bitch about other forums so that we can choose to opt out of it...because I could definitely live without it

You mean this subforum?

Personally, I tend to avoid the noise I don't like just by viewing my own posts, and just browsing to other forums and threads as the mood strikes.

I do too, but I thought if anywhere was good to complain it would be here

"I never travel without my diary reading my own posts. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."

[Tyrannical]

Scientific skepticism doesn't imply that you have to allow anything in a discussion, and given the amount of evidence that suggested that Tyrannical wasn't going to change his behavior to suit the rules of the behavior, one could argue that the empirical evidence was collected to satisfy the criteria for scientific skepticism in that decision. Tyrannical was not prevented from discussing racial issues (look at his threads on the existence of racial categories, the intelligence of blacks, etc), and he was never sanctioned for his thinly veiled racist opinions on immigration - he was only denied using RatSkep as a platform for racist promotion (e.g. linking to white nationalist websites in his signature). I never supported people when they suggested that Tyrannical should be banned and defended him on a couple of occasions, but I don't think it could be argued that the mods didn't have any grounds for banning him. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, he had enough chances to simply stick to supporting his racist arguments through (his interpretation of) logic, science, or political opinion, but instead continued to try to use RatSkep as a platform for racist promotion and propaganda.

I don't think we ever had any issues between our selves. You were a fair moderator and I followed the rules, though of course we disagreed on some points. I was not moderated in the more "scientific" themed racial discussion topics because the sub-forum moderation staff was a more knowledgeable of the facts.
Sure some of my beliefs were no secret, and would be in violation of forum rules if spoken aloud, but I followed the rules much to the chagrin of some.

But what were the particulars when I was flagged with a rule violation

"Certain more radical Muslims" (and their families) equated to "racial" discrimination.
Then I "guessed" that someone living in Australia might not be a citizen based on race, which is a valid point given the age and the White Australia policy of previous time.
I forgot the rest, though someone will be sure to remind me of my other RatSkep transgressions. I once posted a picture of a kettle calling a pot black in one of 914's bitch topics, though that may have just been an advisory.

Of course my worst sin was espousing that racism was natural, and it is only to be expected that racial groups favor their own over others. Blood is thicker than water as the cliche goes. Anyways, anti-racism is solely a Western mostly White phenomenon, and it is silly to think that racial equality is some accepted fact.

[Seth]

Scientific skepticism doesn't imply that you have to allow anything in a discussion, and given the amount of evidence that suggested that Tyrannical wasn't going to change his behavior to suit the rules of the behavior, one could argue that the empirical evidence was collected to satisfy the criteria for scientific skepticism in that decision. Tyrannical was not prevented from discussing racial issues (look at his threads on the existence of racial categories, the intelligence of blacks, etc), and he was never sanctioned for his thinly veiled racist opinions on immigration - he was only denied using RatSkep as a platform for racist promotion (e.g. linking to white nationalist websites in his signature). I never supported people when they suggested that Tyrannical should be banned and defended him on a couple of occasions, but I don't think it could be argued that the mods didn't have any grounds for banning him. Whether he agrees with the rules or not, he had enough chances to simply stick to supporting his racist arguments through (his interpretation of) logic, science, or political opinion, but instead continued to try to use RatSkep as a platform for racist promotion and propaganda.

I don't think we ever had any issues between our selves. You were a fair moderator and I followed the rules, though of course we disagreed on some points. I was not moderated in the more "scientific" themed racial discussion topics because the sub-forum moderation staff was a more knowledgeable of the facts.
Sure some of my beliefs were no secret, and would be in violation of forum rules if spoken aloud, but I followed the rules much to the chagrin of some.

But what were the particulars when I was flagged with a rule violation

"Certain more radical Muslims" (and their families) equated to "racial" discrimination.
Then I "guessed" that someone living in Australia might not be a citizen based on race, which is a valid point given the age and the White Australia policy of previous time.
I forgot the rest, though someone will be sure to remind me of my other RatSkep transgressions. I once posted a picture of a kettle calling a pot black in one of 914's bitch topics, though that may have just been an advisory.

Of course my worst sin was espousing that racism was natural, and it is only to be expected that racial groups favor their own over others. Blood is thicker than water as the cliche goes. Anyways, anti-racism is solely a Western mostly White phenomenon, and it is silly to think that racial equality is some accepted fact.

You have a valid point there. It's observationally true even in the US that self-imposed "apartheid" by racial grouping is widespread. Blacks prefer to associate and live with other blacks. Indians like to band together with other Indians. Arabs like to cohabitate with other Arabs. I think there is also a substantial cultural influence to create insular communities, and since race and culture are closely related, it seems obvious that social grouping by race is a perfectly normal and unremarkable human behavior. And in point of fact there's nothing wrong with it and much to recommend it, and it is an expression of individual liberty that ought not be suppressed in the name of "diversity."

And the real problem is that RatSkep uses an extremely flexible definition of "racism" to begin with. Anything that so much as mentions differences between races, including obvious, notorious cultural/race-based behaviors is defined as "racism" by the asswipe Mods at RatSkep because they are so politically correct, and so paranoid of appearing to be prejudiced that discussing a negative cultural practice (like infibulation) in the context of race (because it occurs to a greater degree in some racial categories) is defined as "racism."

Say "People in Africa practice clitoral excision" and it's perfectly acceptable. Speak a simple truth like "Black people in Africa practice clitoral excision" and suddenly you're a "racist," even though it is an observable and well-documented fact that black people in Africa practice clitoral excision.

The rationalization is, of course, that it should be irrelevant what race the people in Africa who practice clitoral excision are, and that simply mentioning race in connection with an undesirable cultural trait is inherently racist. Of course that's not necessarily the case, but that doesn't stop the patronizing racists who like to inhabit a high moral pedestal from whence they can dispense wisdom to the benighted lesser races while pretending to be above the fray from claiming it is.

But is it irrelevant? Or does race have some effect on the rate of clitoral excision in Africa, and should we be allowed to raise the question, which is a valid one.

Not at RatSkep.

At the same time, RatSkep has no problem with the notion of advocating and defending dependent-class entitlement programs that almost exclusively oppress minority racial groups and bind them to perpetual subservience and dependence on government because the oh-so-white upper crust Socialist intelligentsia are so very kind and charitable to those poor, benighted...blacks, Pakis, Arabs, Gypsies and whatever other ethnic or racial group is being lorded over and patronized by their betters.

That sort of discussion is perfectly in tune with the idiots and moral cowards at RatSkep.

[Mr.Samsa]

I don't think we ever had any issues between our selves. You were a fair moderator and I followed the rules, though of course we disagreed on some points. I was not moderated in the more "scientific" themed racial discussion topics because the sub-forum moderation staff was a more knowledgeable of the facts.
Sure some of my beliefs were no secret, and would be in violation of forum rules if spoken aloud, but I followed the rules much to the chagrin of some.

But decisions for reports were made by the moderators as a whole, not just the 'science' mods in science fora, and so on. So if (for example) most of the moderators thought that mentioning any difference between blacks and whites was racism, then you would be sanctioned for those comments no matter what area of the forum you were in (even if the science mods disagreed with it when made in the science section).

I think the main difference is that when you were in the science forum, you were a lot more careful with what you said because you knew you'd be called up to provide evidence for your positions, and (for the most part) you were able to provide at least some evidence to suggest that you were holding a reasonable scientific position, rather than simply spouting hate-filled racist nonsense. In other words, it's the difference between saying, "IQ studies done by X and Y have demonstrated that blacks consistently score less than whites in these tests (Citation, 2005)" and saying, "Those niggers are all as thick as shit" (obviously I doubt you'd say the latter, and I'm sure you don't believe it, but hopefully the point of the illustration is clear).

But what were the particulars when I was flagged with a rule violation

"Certain more radical Muslims" (and their families) equated to "racial" discrimination.

I think the point there was that you were using "Muslims" as a vehicle for a racist opinion - that is, you replaced the term "brown people" with "Muslims" and hoped to sneak it past. The problem was that your position simply was not coherent and did not parse at all when trying to understand it as "Muslims". For example, why would you imprison the families of radical Muslims? If the families were Muslims too, then including them was redundant as your initial comment about Muslims automatically includes them. If you simply meant "young children", then it's just weird to include a section of family welfare in your discussion on dealing with radical Muslims, and it's confusing as to why you'd use the broader term "families". When we look at your comments in context of your history, and given the repeated requests for you to be more careful with your comments to avoid racist implications, it appears to be fair to sanction you for racism as it was the most reasonable interpretation of the available information.

And, if we are both honest here, you proved the mods right when, in your appeal, you claimed that there should be no problem with wanting to send Muslims "back home" after spending some time in their camps. Where is "home" for a religious group? If you meant that we should send them to a country that is more compatible with their beliefs, then you should have send something along those lines as "home" means something completely different to that.

Then I "guessed" that someone living in Australia might not be a citizen based on race, which is a valid point given the age and the White Australia policy of previous time.

I can only vaguely remember the case you're referring to, but I think you made a stronger statement which basically said that he can't be Australian because he wasn't white. I think you suggested sending him "back home" or something, and others pointed out that there was no way to know whether he was a citizen or not based on the way he looked.

I forgot the rest, though someone will be sure to remind me of my other RatSkep transgressions. I once posted a picture of a kettle calling a pot black in one of 914's bitch topics, though that may have just been an advisory.

I can't remember that one, sorry. I imagine 914 wasn't impressed though.

Of course my worst sin was espousing that racism was natural, and it is only to be expected that racial groups favor their own over others. Blood is thicker than water as the cliche goes.

I don't think there was any problem with your comments on racism (and xenophobia) in general being natural, as I think there were a couple of threads on RatSkep that discussed various findings which hinted at that. I think I largely argued against it on two grounds; the first being a methodological criticism of whether the authors successfully separated innate influences from learnt ones, and the second being that even if it were innate, it doesn't mean it is right or should be accepted. But I don't remember you ever being sanctioned for the opinion, and it was probably the least problematic aspect of your racial opinions.

Anyways, anti-racism is solely a Western mostly White phenomenon, and it is silly to think that racial equality is some accepted fact.

No real argument there (except I'd debate the "solely" in your initial claim), and I don't think anyone argues that racial equality is an accepted fact - even in the more civilised and progressive areas of the world. But that doesn't mean that people should be forced to accept racial inequality, racist propaganda, or hate-speech. RatSkep attempts to set up a difficult balancing point, where all discussion of race and racial differences is allowed, and even strong immigration and deportation beliefs are acceptable, but hate-speech and racist propaganda is forbidden.

This way everybody should be happy: intellectual discussion of difficult subjects is allowed without any real restriction, but blind promotion of racist ideologies and hate-speech is discouraged.