I was recently temp banned by a mod after posting content in NVG that was deemed racist. The post in question was a straightforward and dry statement of uncontroversial facts that were linked to, as I recall, by three inline text links. The sources I linked to were without fault and I would be happy to back that up against anyone who would argue otherwise.

As stated in my correspondence with the mod in question, I recognize the right of twoplustwo management to run its business however it sees fit, without qualification. But there should be transparency in the community standards of any honest company that trades in information. What's more, from what I've read by them, I believe that Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth would both very likely agree with that statement.

If racism is a bannable offense, then we should have a common definition to work off of. If certain subjects are to be recognized as taboo, and the forum is not a place for free inquiry, then it should be known what those taboos are. Let's codify it, anything else isn't really transparent or honest.

If NVG would like to ban all discussion or even mention of race, that's absolutely fine. But it is only fair to be transparent about it so that those reading can make the mental adjustment that such a benighting blind spot requires. Lying by omission, after all, is far more egregious than speaking outright falsehoods because it is so much harder to detect.

That's even truer for subjects that are systematically lied about, because many readers simply lack the tools to discern reality. And it was the gradual correction of this that was precisely the point of the post that got me banned.

LOL.

Probably best to stick to the facts in a post where you want to talk about honesty and transparency. Or do you actually believe that post is uncontroversial?

lol

Holy racist ****post Batman.

For universal definitions, we can start with #1: if you blame the entirety of a very complex problem that affects the entire country on a single race, your post is probably super racist.

Or we could use the old pornography definition "I know it when I see it."

Lol indeed.

Not sure if "uncontroversial" means what you think it means.

Steve Sailer is open as a 'race realist.' If you're linking to him you're not allowed to claim you're not racist.

That seems sorta racist imho.

Looks you sucked bad time, op.

Not reading all that, don’t know what thread it’s from, but is OP blaming the black menace for the Vegas shooting? Or is something else going on there?

And there was also this:

So I gave you 6 days. A pittance.

Next time you are probably gone for good.

He's blaming all gun violence on blacks and mexicans.

Not true. (To a much lesser extent) Central Americans are also to blame, in his opinion. He's also blaming (white) childless urban progressives, but I'm not totally sure for what.

That which is racially insensitive. Not limited to exploratory diatribes that are aggressive, or deflect to another source.

Isn't this true? With Trinidad winning and Mexico losing, people were shooting other people left and right last night.

Oh wait, I forgot, Americans don't care about soccer. Never mind.

I could have worded this thread's OP more clearly, but the uncontroversial facts I was alluding to were the ones in the (two) inline links regarding race - the reason given for my temp ban and the reason for creating this thread.

While the first post contained speculation about the events in Las Vegas and strident descriptions of left-leaning blue city residents, the second post, which, as I understand it, was the one that basically got me banned, was a straightforward description of sociological reality in the U.S.

There's very little in the way of substance so far in the responses. Here's the creme of a failed crop.

From what you're saying, it follows that Steve Sailer is racist and that anyone linking to or restating positions that could be construed as race realist is also racist, and anything they write in that mode is also racist.

Ok, that's not a great definition, but it's the best one offered so far in this thread. Can I assume this is the definition we're using, since no one else even really bothered to answer the question asked in the OP?


Cool. But that makes you a tyrant quoting a kritarch.

You may recall from elementary school that it's bad form to use the word or concept being defined or any variant of it in its own definition.

But if you still want to go with that, it's not substantially different from the argument quoted above. What happened with that case, anyway?

******************************************

Could you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?


I'm in the bad habit of occasionally drunk posting strat here. You would probably be doing me and a few other people a big favor.

Yeah be careful because I hate bad strat.

Stay safe.

It's strange how we managed to get this far in a thread where a clear and serious question was asked and there's not yet a single straight answer.

Let me ask it again. Can I have a clarification of the NVG rules regarding racism, since it is apparently a bannable offense?

You can publish our whole exchange if you want. I gathered your opinion wasn't much different from the anti-porn activist's above.

I guess the non-answer from all the green posters here is itself a sort of answer.

Little tyrants quoting play kritarchs it is then.

The answer is in the second post of the rules sticky:

Not sure what kind of clarification you're looking for. No one's going to be able to provide you an exhaustive list of what is or isn't racist.

Can you provide a working definition of what constitutes racist posts, or would you have to resort to the brute force of exhaustive lists?

Come to think of it, you know who needs to resort to brute force? Pirates and hackers.

That's not a coincidence. Maybe if exhaustive lists are the only way you could possibly justify your stance, your stance isn't all that coherent.

Yeah Judge we are not going to write a paper on racism for you.

I will do this. A rule just for you.

The rule for you is that if you ever speak of race in NVG or post what I feel is a racist comment you will be banned for a long period of time and you will be forever banished from posting in NVG.

Ok, little tyrants quoting play kritarchs.

There's a serious question here though. Do you think this furthers the public discourse? Or are you just a little play Torquemada using a Barbie-doll breaking wheel, with some unfortunate, albeit limited, real world collateral damage?

Do you want me to quote you a definition of racist? Where are we going with this? We both know that determining if a post is racist is always going to be somewhat subjective.

Nope. Just wasn't sure if that's what you were looking for.

Um, OK.

I ate a sandwich for lunch today.

OK. They aren't, and I'm not justifying a stance, but thanks for the tip.

I've seen you post this twice now, and it makes no sense to me. Care to explain? Seriously. You used a variation of this a third time, so I assume you think it's quite clever; understanding it would mean this thread provided some value to me.

Since racism is a bannable offense we can conclude that it is commensurate with a sort of misdemeanor crime. A definition that is as clear as the way in which any misdemeanor is defined would be a decent standard. For example, malicious destruction of property is a misdemeanor with both a legal definition and understood context. Transgressions, public or private, should ideally be defined with enough objectivity so that any reasonable person of good character would tend towards the same course of action when faced with the circumstances where the opportunity to commit the alleged offense arose.


Sure. Master3004, someone who is obviously quite ignorant on this subject, to put it charitably, proposed that a good definition of racism is "I know it when I see it." He was alluding to Associate Justice Potter Stewart's decision in Jacobellis vs Ohio. I was not familiar with the outcome of that case and asked the question as to its resolution innocently, though I suspected what it looked like.

A Kritarch is a judge who rules a people by judicial decree. A kritarchy is the rule by judges. It is a particularly odious form of tyranny because a diffusion or a class of judges is not responsive to the people in the way that a genuine tyrant would be.

Duly noted. Knowing one's audience, even if overestimated in good faith, is a prerequisite to effective communication.