Hijack from Do you think moderators are a bit harsh sometimes when closing a thread?

[Samantha Priss]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Some call them "spurious reasons", others call them "the rules you agreed to when you joined".

Where in the rules does it say "departure from strict racial-Marxism in human biology will be labelled "bigotry" and discussion closed"?

I noticed the scientific refutation was absent, so I can understand why name-calling has to be used as a "reason". But let's not pretend there's any science about that.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Samantha Priss

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Samantha Priss said:

Where in the rules does it say "departure from strict racial-Marxism in human biology will be labelled "bigotry" and discussion closed"?

I couldn't find that. 

Rule 2.1.1 states: "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited." If that happens in a thread, the member gets a warning. If it happens a lot in a thread, or if the OP is the one expressing bigotry, the whole thread gets closed.

[Samantha Priss]

Just now, Phi for All said:

I couldn't find that. 

Rule 2.1.1 states: "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited." If that happens in a thread, the member gets a warning. If it happens a lot in a thread, or if the OP is the one expressing bigotry, the whole thread gets closed.

Nonsense. The threads I saw had nothing to do with "prejudice". They were trying to establish group differences. Ironically it's evidence free equality ideas that are "prejudice" and "bigotry". Those words have meanings, they don't mean "departure from racial Marxism". They mean believing things without evidence. The hilarious part is that if you honestly applied your rules you would need to ban yourselves.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I couldn't find that. 

Rule 2.1.1 states: "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited." If that happens in a thread, the member gets a warning. If it happens a lot in a thread, or if the OP is the one expressing bigotry, the whole thread gets closed.

It amazes me how often someone wants to bring up racial differences as a topic.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Samantha Priss said:

Nonsense. The threads I saw had nothing to do with "prejudice". They were trying to establish group differences. Ironically it's evidence free equality ideas that are "prejudice" and "bigotry". Those words have meanings, they don't mean "departure from racial Marxism". They mean believing things without evidence. The hilarious part is that if you honestly applied your rules you would need to ban yourselves.

It's a really good thing you discovered this before you wasted a lot of time here! Thanks for stopping by, and good luck elsewhere.

[Samantha Priss]

Just now, StringJunky said:

It amazes me how often someone wants to bring up racial differences as a topic.

Well the entire postmodern (anti-white Communist) academic establishment seems to constantly want to bring up "white people are to blame for black failure" as a topic, and play it 24/7 on their bought media. So it's hardly surprising people react to that.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

It amazes me how often someone wants to bring up racial differences as a topic.

And then want to claim they're the victims of prejudice. It's so SAD!

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Samantha Priss said:

I notice any threads about how races are not exactly equal get closed by swansont for spurious reasons like "bigotry".

You've made your observation, but the thread this was from is not for litigating prejudice, making it a hijack.

Bottom line is that 

1. My actions are often made in consultation with other moderators, and

2. It's not your call to make.

Your participation here is voluntary.

[Samantha Priss]

1 hour ago, Sayonara said:

‘You rules are fake’ is a meaningless proposition.

Not all. Define "prejudice".

[iNow]

Fake != Subjective

[Sayonara]

34 minutes ago, Samantha Priss said:

Not all. Define "prejudice".

This site has been developed over many, many years and it has worked very well indeed for thousands of members without the benefit of your semantic impositions.

Nobody here has any obligation to defend the rules of the site to you. Again, if you want to engage here in a discussion that interests you, then you’re going to have to operate within the rules of the platform while you do so, regardless of whether or not you appreciate or agree with those rules.

[beecee]

55 minutes ago, Samantha Priss said:

Not all. Define "prejudice".

Coming to a science forum which operates under the scientific methodology, with an obvious political agenda and baggage, which knowingly may conflict with the far more reasonable political stance of the scientific methodology.

[MigL]

Some people don't seem to realise that this is a club, not a democracy.
If you wanna be a member, abide by the rules.

Membership has its privileges.
( just like AmEx )

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Samantha ended up being a sockpuppet of other accounts that joined just to complain we aren't doing it right, and our rules are fake. Since they've been banned, I'm going to close this. 

 

For what it's worth, outside of medical advice, I don't think there are any issues we can't discuss within the framework of the site's rules. Introducing such issues into somebody else's thread will always be treated as a hijack, so make sure to start a separate thread. The moderators, if given some notice, can help you keep a discussion on a narrowly focused track (which should be firmly expressed in the OP). It's often necessary when discussing controversial or emotionally charged issues. We can also help keep a leash on semi-professional agitators like Samantha Priss/Taxonomist/The Operator and keep them from tracking mud all over our house.