My first ban was over my criticism of how a kotaku article on sexism was hypocritical (
https://www.resetera.com/threads/kotaku-at-e3-soulcaliburs-objectified-women-felt-like-a-relic-of-the-past.50090/page-12). I might've been strawmaning as I didn't read the article in depth but rather skimmed it, so I accepted this ban without much thought, and reflected that it wasn't a high effort post on my part. Whatever.
Next came the topic of whether Sam Harris/Maher was a "bigot." As a longtime listener of Harris I put up a defense I thought was reasonable, explaining why he wasn't a bigot (
https://www.resetera.com/threads/guardian-sam-harris-and-bill-maher-are-bigots.51740/page-2). I was again banned, initially for one week pending review. I know the topic of race IQ difference is sensitive, but I also thought my post was a neutral explanation of how that topic was address by Harris in previous podcasts and articles. I emailed the mods about the ban asking for an explanation, and pointed out that even Ezra Klein, who debated Harris on the subject and who is a full-throated social justice advocated, agreed that Murray's theory is indeed a possibility. Here is the email I sent:
-----------------------------------------
"Hello, I was hoping for a deeper explanation of my current ban (username arkage) so hopefully this email can get passed to the mod team. I believe it was because I said the following in my post defending Harris:
"[Ezra and Harris] make legitimate points revolving around the race/IQ debate. Ezra thinks the history of slavery and discrimination has a strong systemic impact on IQ results. Harris thinks the data may or may not be impacted by slavery/discrimination at this point in time and that one should be able to argue for either side without being called a "bigot". Neither of them claim to make decisive, absolute claims or know for certain why racial IQ differences exist."
I pointed out that Harris takes a neutral stance of the causes of the race-IQ gap, as he clearly states in the podcast with Ezra Klein, and that he believes Murray's theory may or may not be correct. This is me "rationalizing racism" in the words of the moderator. To counter this, here is part of the rebuttal Ezra Klein wrote to the podcast Harris originally had Charles Murray (
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve)
"This is also, notably, Reich’s conclusion in the op-ed Harris enthusiastically promotes and uses for his jab at me. “Whatever discoveries are made,” Reich says, “we truly have no idea yet what they will be.” If that had been the tenor of Harris’s conversation with Murray — if they had simply observed the existence of a racial IQ gap (that has already closed substantially over time), hypothesized that advances in genetics might one day reveal group differences, and then cautioned that no one knows anything yet — there would be no controversy."
Had I typed this word for word I imagine I would receive the same exact ban since "genetics might one day reveal group differences" implies it's a possible theory, just as Harris believes. Ezra is confirming that nobody can confirm if the racial-IQ gap is purely genetic or purely environment or a mix of the two. Murray's theory isn't what Ezra took issue with - it's that Murray then wants to enact social policies based on the currently incomplete data that may further disenfranchise black people if turns out to be wrong. Harris agrees that social policy shouldn't reflect Murray's theory, and remains skeptical of why Murray would research the topic in the first place. This can all be heard and confirmed in the podcast they had.
I understand the mods don't have to time for deep dives into these kinds of topics, but banning me for a week outright for something like this seems like a slip back into the old days of moderation. Thanks for your time.
---------------------------------------
This was resetera's response:
---------------------------------------
Hello, thank you for reaching out. This is an extremely sensitive topic which has a great deal more potential to hurt other members than it has potential for valuable discussion. Our best advice is to simply avoid such topics in the future if you're uncertain about how your argument might be received.--------------------------------------
The night of this response, my ban had gone under review and was increased from one week to two weeks. The warning message when I logged in read that a further infraction would result in a "severe" consequence, which I could only interpret to mean a permanent ban. I sent another email:
--------------------------------------
"Thank you for the reply. My ban was just extended from one to two weeks after review. This is despite me clarifying that Ezra Klein, a leading voice of social justice in the IQ debate, confirms my neutral description of the theories in play. I understand the topic is sensitive and I'm fine not bringing it up again if this is now forum policy, but this topic was clearly ok to debate during the Ezra Harris thread from April in which I and other members made this same exact argument in much greater detail without even a warning let alone a ban (
https://www.resetera.com/threads/vox-sam-harris-charles-murray-and-the-allure-of-race-science.32416/page-6). What I don't understand is why I'm being banned for two weeks. If this is non negotiable I'd prefer a permanent ban, as it's clear my account won't survive much longer in such a now ideologically driven forum who's mods are unable to recognize the difference between a clearly neutral theory description that I already previously made in detail a month ago (as did others) and..... "rationalizing racism."
------------------------------------
The final two responses in this exchange:
-----------------------------------
While your request for a permanent ban is unfortunate, we respect it and have granted it.-----------------------------------
(my final response) Unfortunate? The 2 week ban warned I would suffer "severe" consequences if there was another incident. Save the sanctimony for those deemed worthy by the mods.
------------------------------------------
In all, I think Resetera mods are still.... OK. For example, there are people literally still arguing in the Harris thread I was banned in, advocating the same exact position I was, specifically Ralemont and Thales Targaryen (
https://www.resetera.com/threads/guardian-sam-harris-and-bill-maher-are-bigots.51740/page-12). I feel rather that my account had become singled out as a type of "trouble maker" and that-was-that as far as any explanation goes. I'll be heading back to neoGAF despite it having a lower population at this point, and I'll likely be arguing against conservative positions most of the time rather than extreme liberal ones as I did on resetera. But in the end, I view this as a total failure of the moderation team to take responsibility for their own misunderstandings on a controversial subject, and to play favorites with those who they appreciate being there and those they don't. But that is their right. And it is my right to bitch about it wherever I can. I could've done a final bomb on their off-topic bitching about them, but I'm too old to schedule my time around an ideologically driven shit fest.
