Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
How does one state that the 100m is always won by black people without running foul of the PC brigade?
Not just black people, but more specifically geographical descendants from a relatively small region of Western Africa. We focus a lot on melanin concentration when grouping people, which makes sense, because we are visual species.
But melanin production seems to be an adaptation that has happened fairly quickly on an evolutionary scale in response to environment; so using this to group people can cause people to be put into the same racial group despite otherwise having dramatic genetic differences (on average) that came about from environmental isolation over a long time period.
Not just black people, but more specifically geographical descendants from a relatively small region of Western Africa. We focus a lot on melanin concentration when grouping people, which makes sense, because we are visual species.
But melanin production seems to be an adaptation that has happened fairly quickly on an evolutionary scale in response to environment; so using this to group people can cause people to be put into the same raci
Maybe the long distance races but not the 100 M
Hope you can find a solution for your phones, LB. Stay safe out there
Ye populations cannot be compared because there is intra-population variance, which is why you can't say oaks are taller than olive trees because many young oaks are smaller than some old olive trees.
You're not comparing average Kenyans though. You have no clue at all how fast the average Kenyan runs.
No. But we were talking people from
Kenya, and a specific ethnic group from that area, with less than 10m members, dominated marathons in particular since the 50s.
And the qualities needed to win short distances are totally different from very long distance running.
The Kalenjin from the rift valley near the border of Kenya and Ethiopia are a very very specific ethnic group with very precise qualities above average which, ofc coupled with extreme training in very dedicated individuals, allow for better results in long distance training that any other human group.
We are talking something like less than 0.02% of the human population winning half or more the International medals in long distance running after WW2.
Genetically speaking their blood cells are simply special on average. Their work at full perfect regime with less oxygen.
Ofc it isn't deterministic, training still plays a huge part and almost certainly a bigger part. But at the very top of the profession everyone dedicates his whole life to training with the best strategies possible.
And if a kalenjin does he has hugely higher chances to be the best (still infinitesimally small for a single individual) than if anyone else does
No. But we were talking people from
Kenya, and a specific ethnic group from that area, with less than 10m members, dominated marathons in particular since the 50s.
And the qualities needed to win short distances are totally different from very long distance running.
The Kalenjin from the rift valley near the border of Kenya and Ethiopia are a very very specific ethnic group with very precise qualities above average which, ofc coupled with extr
Which you chose to categories as "Kenyans", as if running long distances is something the average Kenyan businessman or call centre worker excels at.
Not just black people, but more specifically geographical descendants from a relatively small region of Western Africa. We focus a lot on melanin concentration when grouping people, which makes sense, because we are visual species.
But melanin production seems to be an adaptation that has happened fairly quickly on an evolutionary scale in response to environment; so using this to group people can cause people to be put into the same raci
Actually there is more genetic difference between groups that are all labeled as blacks, than between the average black and most other "races" (under the silly American style labeling).
Blacks have both the tallest and the shortest human group for example (Dinka and bambuti), and calling them both the same race is a disgrace, a mistake and so on.
That's obviously expected for any species in the area it originated.
No as I didn't even posit it was for genetic reasons, check again.
I literally didn't even discuss why the outcome is difference, all it takes is for the outcome to be different and to assume at least of portion of it is endogenous
That's quite an assumption, isn't it?
For any or no reason, but mostly because I don't want to be restricted from stating objective facts by political correctness.
I don't think anyone wants to stop you from stating anything that's objective true. But of all the millions of facts that are objectively true it's odd how often it's the one about black people being better (allegedly) at certain types of running that gets stated. And that it's usually not black people making that observation.
iI's almost as if it's a prelude to something else.
I don't think anyone wants to stop you from stating anything that's objective true. But of all the millions of facts that are objectively true it's odd how often it's the one about black people being better (allegedly) at certain types of running that gets stated. And that it's usually not black people making that observation.
Probably because there is a large group of people out there who seek to make such conversations taboo. Seems obvious that there would be some push back on that.
Given that such "observations" were being made long before the rise of your dreaded "PC", that's clearly not true.
I don't think anyone wants to stop you from stating anything that's objective true. But of all the millions of facts that are objectively true it's odd how often it's the one about black people being better (allegedly) at certain types of running that gets stated. And that it's usually not black people making that observation.
iI's almost as if it's a prelude to something else.
Because it's not all blacks. Not sure how else to tell you that, "black" isn't a race at all. It's not a coherent human group with common ancestors that differentiate them from all other human groups in specific measurable ways.
But in Jamaica there are super proud of their dominance of short distance running, and in the rift valley they are, of their dominance of long distance running
Given that such "observations" were being made long before the rise of your dreaded "PC", that's clearly not true.
Fair enough. Obviously I'm not into the race science stuff, but equally, I'm not a fan of the idea of not being able to make such an observation for fear of offending someone.
Because it's not all blacks. Not sure how else to tell you that, "black" isn't a race at all. It's not a coherent human group with common ancestors that differentiate them from all other human groups in specific measurable ways.
But in Jamaica there are super proud of their dominance of short distance running, and in the rift valley they are, of their dominance of long distance running
Strange how (without looking it up) most of the recent Olympic champions and WR holders in sprinting are the descendants of people taken from West Africa but not actual West Africans.
I don't suppose the reason why East Africans win so many long distance medals but their descendants in the West don't is in any way related to the amount of money that goes into finding young sprinters because of their hugely inflated marketability over long distance runners?
