Sometimes you have to allow discussion of it because the fact X said Y is itself important. Sometimes you dont. Eitehr way PC should apply imo which imposes appropriate restrictions on it.

This appraoch can go beyond PC. For example, I dont give a **** about what is said about the royal thingies but media regulation has to cope with the recent approach of pure bilge about one of the royal thingies under the guise of 'this is what someone else said'.

Indeed. Your ability to be wrong about absolutely everything is quite uncanny.

As previously observed, that is one of a hell of a compliment. Sadly undeserved.

You are also entirely free to say it imo. No PC restrictions

Id prefer that more people took your route - becuase its already so goddamn obvious after sifting through posts of that bullshit. Its more enjoyable having a dialog with someone like you or vic.

If PC as it seems to be the case means to lie about something which is factually true because people could "get the wrong idea from it" then I super disagree about it.

Because especially in this age, the facts will all come out. If you deny basic truths (even for "noble lies" reasons), people will know you did that and then you lose them forever.

That's literally what happened with COVID vaccines. Instead of limiting the claims to the incredible, actually demonstrated, efficacy in reducing lethality and severity when infected , the "noble liers" decided to lie about 100% chance of not getting COVID if vaccinated for months. And other lies we all know about.

This gave antivaxxer all the arguments to declare everything said by the noble liers a lie, forever. We lost a generation of people (or more) because of that who will never again believe public healthcare counsels.

The funny part is that if the negative trait could be demonstrated to be genetic (at least in part), then you could exculpate people, because they don't choose their genetics.

Instead, if you claim 100% is cultural then worse outcomes are entirely caused by the choices of the group which actually allows and justifies more hatred toward the failing group.

Ofc they try to claim 100% environmental because "oppression" but everyone knows that's objectively false , so the noble lie does it's thing

I'd agree but it absolutely isn't the case.

In fairness, liberals assume bad faith actors would immediately hijack the discussion for their own nefarious ends, and they are probably right.

These bad faith actors, Kel, are they in the thread with us now?

I don't think this is necessarily true, but I also don't see any way it can result in positive outcomes, so I don't see the point of doing it.

But you never prove anything of the sort. Your failure here is what makes the conversation useless.

They are getting the special suits cleaned and boots polished as we speak.

If you had a speck of intellectual dignity, you would try to reread what you are answering about.

There is no claim I have to prove ITT because there is no claim I used to make any argument.

The whole discussion is about what would be allowed in this forum if actual claims were made.

And in this specific case one of the corners of the discussion was about chezlaw defense of lies and censorship to avoid exposing the public to some factually true notion, because of the nefarious consequences he foresees if that happens and every serious person admits the facts are actually true.

My only claim is that IF, IF, do you understand a conditional? IF some objective fact with negative connotations about a group was then found to be explained by innateness and/or events completely outside control for that group, THEN it would be easier to exculpate the group.

Moreover american obsession with race prevents you from thinking about groups divided over non ethnic lines, but the same framework applies to everything with negative moral implications.

For example very fat/obese people, the more we can prove it's genetical, the LESS criticizing them is sensible and viceversa.

Perhaps this less controversial example clarifies it for you.

Notice how I don't have to prove anything about fatness and genetics to have this conversation.

Now the same applies to group intelligence and all it's consequent outcomes, and everything else about any group under ethnical lines or any other line (sex, age, education, religion and so on and on).

If a group has a lower income ("gender income gap" for example) if you can find genetical explanations for that you have fewer reasons to criticize the lower income sex and viceversa.

Remember that "genetical explanation" doesn't require genetic determinism. Even a 5-10% genetical contribution makes a huge difference when you compare groups

I made no defense of lies.

then i misunderstood, was it only about omissions? wat did you mean with PC, for example when we talk about obesity, do we have to deny a significant role of choice in obesity for PC reasons? maybe i misread your PC comment then

You'll have to give me more idea what I said that you misunderstood.

You've confused me with soemone else if you think I dont openly embrace 7 pints of fine ale and a vindaloo as a great choice.

You already have zero reason to criticise a group for their lack of intelligence or income, so finding out that the reasons for that are innate cannot possibly reduce the reason.

uh really? even when welfare is proposed?

do you think people predisposition to help strangers doesn't depend at least in part on whether you think the stranger has problems cause by himself vs caused by misfortune?

you do realize most countries subsidize fat people yes, significantly so (given they subsidize healthcare in general and being fat is very detrimental to health?? and there are calls to try to reduce that?

take the "sugar tax" attempts, do you realize how different your take on that can be depending on whether you think obesity is a choice or not?

Do you even have any idea what you say?

bad actors will use whatever is being discussed in "bad ways" but it's not like they don't act anyway no matter what the rest of the people do.

Take the sex income gap, bad actors will claim women are biologically predisposed to stay at home and cook and stuff like that, no matter what we actually do know about different biological propensities for behaviour for the sexes, because they want to make claims about their cultural preferences necessarily having a biological basis.

That will happen regardless of whether "liberal" allow the actual biological propensity discussion to happen or not.

And the actual biological propensity discussion would be based on the fact that women biologically tend to prefer activities that in the current state of our economy pay slightly less, and that fewer women are super-workaholic/monomaniacal about work for biological reasons as well, and that keeps the average down. Then there is lower risk aversion and lower propensity to get into strongarming for higher wages with employers.

Point remains that whether or not the latter discussion is allowed, or demonized, the bad actors will go their own way anyway and i don't see why discussing actual biological differences that can justify some portion of the wage gap (especially when the wage gap is measured in generic average of income, and not per hour worked in the same job) would help the bad actors in that dynamic.

The same is true for comparison of groups with very different cultures, ethnicity, religion and so on.

of course

whats sent you into helpless confusion this time?

No, I don't see how any of these issues are changed by criticizing a group for their intelligence or obesity.
Those things always vary more within a group than between groups, and the programs you mention aren't targeted on one particular group.

Fat people *are a group* defined by their BMI.

Group doesnt have to mean ethnic group as i repeatedly tried to tell you guys. It's the american obsession about race that makes every discourse about groups a discourse about ethnic groups.

Fat people are a group and one discussed under the lens of personal responsibility vs innateness a lot.

And there the left realizes fairly easy that the less it's about choice, the more fat people can be helped/subsidized/exculpated by society for their condition even if it's a terrible one.

Which is why discourse about genetic predispositions to obesity, about companies making food that work somewhat like a drug in terms of addiction and so on, is allowed by the left.

This makes no sense when you define the group by the traits of its members. "Trump supporters" are a group whose members support Trump. There is no variation there.

I think you discount how effective liberal gate-keeping really is. Just because there are "race realism" discussions going on in Twitter or Rumble, they are nowhere near reaching the level of societal impact where they would affect policy or civil rights law. And liberals are determined to keep it that way.