Anyone who frequents our comment sections can hardly have failed to notice that several of our serial commenters are profoundly collectivist racists who like to call themselves ‘race realists’, whilst at the same time affecting implausible pretensions to be supporters of liberty. Fortunately this does not seem to fool anyone if the reactions of other commenters are anything to go by. A person may hold whatever prejudices they wish but when they make it clear they value their notions of the good of some collective volk over the rights of individuals to pursue inter-racial relationships, and would use the state to give those notions the force of law, it should be clear that person has little conception of what ‘liberty’ means.
Now as this blog is private property, we can delete comments and/or outright ban people for no better reason than the editorial pantheon simply feels like it. Although we do not use pre-publish comment moderation, just as a newspaper editor can publish (or not) whatever letters are in keeping with the mores of the publication in question, we too have that right post-publish and we do indeed occasionally exercise it when we delete unwelcome comments from spammers or blogroaches.
However although we are within our rights to handle our comment section as we wish, we dislike excluding contrary views to those expressed in our articles unless we see a very good reason to do so. Whilst reader comments are an optional adjunct to blogging (many highly successful blogs do not have them at all), at Samizdata.net we do indeed appreciate the contribution commenters make and thus are loath to over-manage what they write, provided a reasonable degree of civility and topicality to the article are observed.
However when collectivist racists start using Samizdata.net to consistently promote an agenda, and are condescending and misogynistic to boot, it is time to show them the door without insincere regrets. Now I realise that given the personalities involved, this will be seen as proof of the irrefutability of their positions regardless of the fact they have repeatedly had the sand kicked out of them intellectually on many occasions by some very insightful people. To put it bluntly, I am not unduly concerned and a certain Monty Python episode comes to mind.
For me as editor the final straw was hearing that one of our contributors was loath to write on certain topics because of the near certainty that the discussion would be immediately hijacked with the same flawed but stridently put arguments that had been convincingly demolished time and time again in earlier comment threads. Although I always urge our contributing writers, the Samizdatistas, not to actually write with comments in mind but rather what is on their mind, this for me was intolerable and more or less mandated action on my part. Henceforth comments by the people in question will be summarily deleted from the blog.
As you might surmise, I am not writing this article for the people who are being banned from commenting but rather for other readers whose opinions (and disagreements) I value more highly, and also for the Samizdata.net contributors as both an ex cathedra editorial policy statement and a not uninteresting discussion point on the nature of blogs such as Samizdata.net and internet discussion generally in its varied forms.
You certainly have the support of this editor! Although not one to fall back from a good fur fight, I do find it tiresome. All who know me are well aware that I view racists and MCP’s as something close in substance to that which I wipe off my boots with distaste.
They are free to believe what they wish, and I hope they do not get to terribly lonely in their cave in the mountains…
This reminds me a bit of a novel I read as a child that first introduced me to some ideas that later brought me into the libertarian fold. Eric Frank Russell’s “The Outward Explosion” told a story of an Earth ship visiting colony worlds that had been settled centuries before. One of them was capitalist anarchist and many folk wore buttons (or something like that) with “MYOB/IW” on them.
It drove the statists from Earth batty because there was no leader and they could not organize one. The slogan stood for
“Mind Your Own Business” and “I won’t”, the two founding principles of the society.
How does this relate? Well, in that society, if someone was obnoxious (or a criminal or whatever), anyone was free to *not* associate with them. Or allow them in their store. Or sell them food.
If you were a real prick, you ended up living in the wilderness on your own.
Enjoy your cave guys!
I think the men who have been discussing woman’s “natural” place in society are the ones who are devolving. Resisting new thought demonstrates that they have made up their minds and refuse to avoid attaching their bias to everything they read.
However, I would much rather discuss issues than to simply criticize opinions, since I think I understand where their ideas come from, though I disagree with them. Isn’t that another idea of liberty? That they can have their racist opinions?
They may certainly have their racist opinions, and my own view is that they are free to establish their own website to propogate those views.
(There are plenty of people who disagree with that view, but that is by the by.)
However, this blog is private property, and the owners/editors have every right to do with their property as they wish.
Basically, when you comment on Samizdata you get free access to some of that property. There are two assets that a reader who utilises the comments facility gets, namely, the bandwidth to publicise those views, and secondly, the propogation of their ideas to Samizdata’s readership.
These things are not small beer to Samizdata.net’s owners. I do not think Perry is being unfair or unreasonable on this matter- after all, the comments box come with the health warning:
In reply to Alex’s point of view:
I rather gather that you have only recently begun to read this blog, but for long standing readers, such matters have been rehashed far enough, and it is time for them to move elsewhere. This site is about liberty, after all.
I rather wish you’d quoted specific comments that you felt crossed the line. Do you feel, for example, that anyone who opposes women in combat is beyond the pale? Or do you have to say that women should not be allowed to own shoes since they have no reason to leave the home in order to run afoul of the editors.
It’s entirely possible that you’re acting reasonably with respect to the commenters you have in mind (and as you’ve demonstrated, it doesn’t matter whether you’re acting reasonably, since this is your joint), but it’s somewhat discomfiting not knowing what the rules are around here.
It was not a specific post but the net effect of the numbers of misogynist racist collectivists camping here which was the ‘casus belli’. I have no problem debating the merits of women in combat at all and even saying “that women should not be allowed to own shoes since they have no reason to leave the home” will just get you pounced on by sundry sharp toothed members of the commentariat… however saying that over and over again regardless of how soundly the proposition has been beaten to death will indeed eventually get you shown the door. I think this is not unreasonable.
Hear, hear!
I’ve been pondering this problem of blogroach comments and other undesirable comments. I no longer run a blog, and when I did I never had occassion to want to remove a comment (I didn’t get very many). But no matter how bad the commenting got I would be loathe to remove a comment, simply on pirnciple. (What principle, exactly, I can’t say. I just seems wrong.)
So an alternative solution occurred to me. What about having a two-column comment section. Comments would automatically be posted to the left-hand column. However, at the discretion of the blog owner(s) they could be moved to the right-hand column (though still “in line,” chronologically) — a sort of blogosphere dunce corner. That way, comment readers can easily avoid the comments that are deemed “over the line” by the blog owners, but all comments are preserved and no-one can make accusations of censorship.
(Okay, there are those who will say they’ve been “censored” for being moved to the right-hand column. You can’t help some people.)
Get lost, tiresome OT spamming not welcome. If you want us to promote your otherwise acceptable site, kindly ask first.
I, for one, am grateful. It is quite hard enough work to make coherent comments without knowing that the use of certain trigger words will yank the discussion from its course. I’m not short of obsessions myself, but is all so painful to read these screeds again and again and again. More so, if one feels the points are so pernicious they have to be answered again and again and again.
Which was was?
I assume you are banning Charles Copeland, but who else as well?
As a traditionalist conservative I’m all in favour of opposition to open borders immigration and state enforced multiculturalism. I’m also in favour of creating voluntary culturaly and religiously conservative enclaves within a free society. So I’m probably off-side with Perry on these issues. It would be sad if traditionalists were not allowed a voice here at all, but I dont think, hopefully, that is what he is saying.
But I cannot for the life of me understand this obsession with race. What the f**k is “race realism”? Does this term even have any objective meaning? It strikes me as a load of psuedo-intellectual bollocks.
While I do think culture is important, race is not. It is irellevant. Race does not determine a persons culture or anything else of importance for that matter. If it did I would not be the person I am, a person with Cajun/Creole/Cherokee ancestory, a conservative convert to the Orthodox Church and a believer in the value of Western culture. I have less “White” blood in me than anything else. But this does effect my cultural views nor my moral views nor my loyalty to the West. The whole argument about preserving the “White race” is a dangerous red herring.
And the related argument about interracial marriage is just as absurd. I would rather my daughter marry a black man who was a good Christian and a freedom loving patriot than a white man who thought Michael Moore was an intellectual genius and America was the root of all evil.
You get the racists & misogynists commenting if you fail to put enough clear blue water between libertarianism (or minarchist-capitalist liberalism) & conservatism (or The Right). The principal influences on my politics have been successively Popper, Nozick & any interpretation of Randian Objectivism that avoids its founder’s all-too-frequent strident subjectivism. I have no patience with the Tudor- & Stuart-era Whig & Tory political traditions, the “One Nation” concept, or any other clearly conservative ideas from either Britain or the Continent. Just because I am anti-socialist I do not feel that I can be considered to belong to the Right – & the same is probably true of nearly all of your contributors. Doctrines aligning themselves with the Bad Old Days, when women were confined to Kinder, Kirche und Küche & Blacks to the plantations, clearly are right-wing or reactionary – we should be doubly careful to dissociate ourselves from them.
Race realism just seems to be a reaction to those who hold the creed that “Genetic differences between humans are of no importance and have no influence on behavior.” Some of the people who dont hold this opinion get fed up with being unfairly called racial supremacists, racialists and so on, so had to rebrand themselves to even discuss the topic.
The ‘obsession with race’ is that mass immigration is being rammed down the throats of all western countries.
Just because if there were genetic differences between individuals, Is it such a problem that differences could exist between groups on
average as well?
Shawn, I guess you are a subscriber to the ‘what of race’ idea as is many of the samizdata collective from what I have seen.
Well you know that the use of population groups as proxies for race or whatever can be useful in diagnosing hereditary diseases(a non trivial difference).. that the domination of different groups in different sporting events is no accident of culture and merits at least comment(a somewhat trivial difference). But the main sore point is that many here I fear to believe cant bear the thought that groups may differ in intellectual capacity, through either nature or nurture, the notion that immigration be restricted to those of a reasonable IQ is taboo. It is those peoples failings that are wrong; that they equate intelligence with ‘the good’ and dont view all people as equal under god.
Those also who resist the importation of foreign cultures are smeared because culture and race have a fuzzy correlation as you should know. tHis shoudl be avoided.
If the banned people are who I think they are, then good riddance to them. Their sin was not so much what they said (although it was fairly nasty stuff) as that they had become deeply tiresome. As to which writer had grown reluctant, that’s up to the writer to volunteer the information (or not).
Well done Perry. In the end of the day it is private property and you are entitled to tell the various humourless trolls, racists and sundy other bores to take a hike.
When one of the Samizdatistas told me about his concerns with the collectivists polluting our comments, my initial reaction to banning them was hesistant. After all, we do not mind opinions differing from ours. However, we criticise the manner by which they are arrived at and object to the way they might be spread (captive audience, hijacking discussions etc).
And because Samizdata.net is private property, it did not take long to convince Perry that the time has come to protect it against those who use it to propagate their loathsome views. After all, we are not a public service and the fact that someone can abuse our hospitality in such a patronising and persistent manner just pisses me off.
Agreed. I am a fairly new reader here, but I looked back on the link provided here, and the arguments seem to have worn themselves out.
I just had to post a comment to see if my long and doubtless tedious anti-anarchist comments in the Charming Highwaymen thread got me banned.
As an advocate not of anarchy but of a (strictly) limited state, I am sometimes in two minds concerning the expression of racist or misogynist viewpoints. On the one hand, freedom of speech. On the other, it is a part of human nature to exclude to a greater or lesser extent those whose person or view are found offensive to majority taste.
As for “race realism”, surely it is unreal – and if you delete the “real” part you’re just left with racism. Some cultures are without doubt a menace to others – militant fundamentalist Islamism, for one – but that is nothing to do with the ethnicity of the majority of the people within either culture.
EG
Stephenf: the Emperor has no clothes. Race realism is racism… indeed it is racial supremacism re-branded. Don’t waste your pixels because no one is fooled.
There are certainly genetic factors regarding susceptibility to disease but there is no gene for intelligence, which is an emergent property, or a gene for moral worth. I know plenty of stupid people with smart parents (or vica versa). The ‘science’ behind racism is as scientific as phrenology.
However this thread, as the article indicated, is not about race, which is as intellectually void an issue as the theory that the earth is flat. It is about the nature of discussion on the internet in hosted venues.
Shawn: I think it have made it clear what is and is not appropriate. Discussions of traditional values is just fine by me. Disagreement per se is not the problem as what is the point of having a comment section if it is just filled with an ‘amen chorus’? However when the comments degenerate into intellectually sterile trench warfare that continues in thread after thread, long after the questions being debated have been answered again and again and again, then it is time to drop the big bomb.
As I said to Shawn, I think I have made it clear what is not being tolerated. As for censorship, it is censorhip only in the sense that preventing someone spraypainting slogan of the outside of your house is censorship. I am not denying people the right to hold their views, just the ability to express them here.
“There are certainly genetic factors regarding susceptibility to disease but there is no gene for intelligence”
Most research indicates a significant genetic component to most measures of intelligence. There is no “one gene” for intelligence – few traits are determined by a single gene. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not intelligence is impacted by genetic factors.
“which is an emergent property, or a gene for moral worth.”
Moral worth is a subjective judgement, unless you want to start invoking various metaphysical entities. (It is impacted by genetics, however. Most people ascribe high value to those closely related to them, everything else being equal.)
“I know plenty of stupid people with smart parents (or vica versa).”
Yes, and if you knew anything about how the passing down of genes work, you wouldn’t be surprised. (I.e. – it is more likely that the children of very smart parents are less intelligent than that they would be more intelligent. Regression to the mean is a bitch sometimes…)
“The ‘science’ behind racism is as scientific as phrenology.”
Racism is an ideology, and a potentially very dangerous one at that – and indeed, most racist claims have little truth value. That, however, does not mean that there is no reason to study population genetics.
“oops!-post” follows:
Clarification:
“less intelligent” should be “less intelligent than their parents”
Dob; Racism is an ideology, and a potentially very dangerous one at that – and indeed, most racist claims have little truth value. That, however, does not mean that there is no reason to study population genetics.
And given that the issue at hand is racism, not the study of population genetics, what does that have to do with anything? In reality, the people in question only discuss genetics in order to justify calling for collectivist actions, not for any other reason. Discussing genetics is simply not the issue.
Perry: It was this line that I was thinking about: (Should have quoted the whole thing…)
” is not about race, which is as intellectually void an issue as the theory that the earth is flat. ”
I don’t agree with the notion that “race” is meaningless or “void” – it is a consequence of genetic bottlenecks, which in turn results in humanity being subdivided into genetic clusters.
If you want to call these clusters “race” or “population groups” or whatever, I don’t really care about, but I do believe that the quoted line wrongfully equates investigations into the issue of race with racism – something that just isn’t the case.
dob: sure, that is in theory true but the reality is otherwise. I have yet to have a conversation with, well, almost anyone on-line about race which did not segue into a conversation expressing views that are simply race-collectivist (i.e. racist). That should not be the case but that is indeed my experience. Whilst I am willing to admit to the possibility of a discussion of race without racism, the empirical evidence suggest that if I assume anyone who brings up the subject of race, is a racist, I will rarely, if ever, be proved wrong. Sure, if I was to find myself chatting academically with a genetic scientist, that may not be the case, but otherwise…
Bravo, Perry!
I wish I knew what “collectivist” meant. 🙁
At last
race realism – real racism, surely?
Fine by me. If the racial collectivists want to publish their views on the web, they can always start their own blog.
People often cite disease as an example of genetic traits being passed down a race. A good example of this might be those indigenous to South America, and the evidence provided might be that huge numbers died of western diseases.
This, however, would be very wrong.
The Aztecs and co. died because they lacked the antibodies, either developed in youth or not passed down through breast milk.
This means that an example cited by racial realists is actually an example of how little 60,000 seperate years of evolution may matter. Intelligence again can surely be determined more by ‘menes’ and enviroment than genes.
The supposed bottlenecks simply have not existed long enough to justify claiming significant differences, what is 60,00 years in 2 million of evolution?
My guess is, a collectivist racist with a more respectful attitude to the management would’ve enjoyed a longer run. Copeland’s addiction to tail-twisting and piss-taking ‘swot done him in the end.
Well done Perry, those cretins were pushing the tolerant attitude here to the extreme. It is a good that you are not ending your comments as several other bloggers have done, like Harry. I find a blog with no comments rather pointless to read. There are posts which rate a comment but don’t rate blogging. This is especially the case for those of us that try to keep a limit on the amount of posts that go up in any one day.
While you are at it, could you do something about this bloody annoying and laggy turing code system. It no longer accepts a comment then first time through, then when I hit post again it asks me for another code. Surely there is a better system than this?
Even worse than racism saying that races are seperate genetic groups, is socialists saying we are all the same (and therefore justifying all manner of jealous coercion to punish the succesful individual and reward the unsuccessful).
I think a large percentage of the problem with immigration is because it is effectively subsidized. There is a great demand to work and live in the UK, and states are not implementing market solutions to extract revenue from these immigrants for entering the country. It is from this state run immigration that gives the snakehead gangs their market.
For instance take the number of Jobs advertised take away the number of unemployed then divide by 12 and AUCTION that level of immigration, or work visas. Asylum to be wholly funded by voluntary charity.
I beleive the above scheme would balance the benefits of immigration against the problems of downward wage pressure . It would also at a stroke end benefit tourism, as the market would price those state benefits into the cost of entry.
S. Weasel: You are mistaken. For a long time I have skipped their comments. We decided to ban them only after one of our contributors alerted me to a) his reluctance to post articles on topic that he knew would be hijacked and b) the realisation that they were getting wider audience for their pontifications than they deserved by abusing our hospitality to commenters.
Good call – it seemed like every thread recently would descend into the kind of rubbish mentioned after a while. Samizdata will be a pleasure to read again.
Regards
Proper tolerance of other people’s opinions doesn’t mean resigning yourself to pacifistically letting their boot grind in your face. It means that you give their ideas every due consideration and that you use your best judgment in deciding what your reaction should be.
The Samizdatistas went even farther than that. They showed actual forbearance. But when it came to the point that their “letting live” was interfering with their “living,” they quite naturally defended themselves, as is their right.
Bravo you guys.
There’s another troll that lurks in Peter Cuthbertson’s comments. He keeps banging on about ‘ZOG’ to the general discomfiture of the less spittle-flecked commentors.
I’m not sure that ‘race’ is a meaningful concept (culture, on the other hand, clearly is). I’ve heard it said (Dawkins, River out of Eden?) that if a sailor stepped of a boat in North Africa 500 years ago and got a local girl pregnant then the whole of Europe is genetically linked to Africa by now. And there was another snippet, which I can’t source or verify, that some huge number, 50%-ish, of relationships in Southern England were ‘interracial’. This can only be a good thing, if for no other reason than the ire it arouses in the Alf Garnetts of this world. It’s certainly true to say that the genetic diversity of dogs, for example, is vastly higher than that of humans, and there is more variation within so-called racial groups than between them.
[…]that some huge number, 50%-ish, of relationships in Southern England were ‘interracial’.
If that was the assertion, it’s a particularly barking one, as a little reflection on sock-drawer logic will show. However, it wasn’t being wrong, or even crazy, that was objectionable to the undear departed (as I understand and share it). The disagreements are what make commentaries interesting. But a even a drunken shouting-match over the barbecue is impossible if there’s a tank with a PA system mounted on it going up and down the road and liable to drive onto the lawn at any moment.
As Chruchill once said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and will not change the subject.” Good riddince to bad rubbish
I have a few on Dodgeblogium who are convinced that I am an agent of Mossad, a closet Jew and et al. I get a few of the long rants by people convinced that ZOG runs everything as well. Once in a while that can be amusing but the consistent cretins PdeH has banned are a bit much.
For that to be possible, racial minorities would have to make up at least 25% of the population.
The statistic I heard (from a TV documentary, I think) was that about 50% of black men in southern England were in a relationship with a white women, and a similar proportion of black women in their 20s and 30s are single.
..The implication being that those black men ought to have dated within their race first before looking outside. What a load of rubbish! It is interesting to see an issue which unites racists and some single black women: The notion that there is something wrong with a black man being in a relationship with a white woman.
There should be nothing remarkable about 50% of black men being in a relationship with a white woman. If these men were truly colour-blind the figure would be even higher, there being significantly more white women than black women in the SE, perhaps five times as many.
Who was implying that?
…Those who juxtapose the statistic of 50% (presumably heterosexual) black men with white women and 50% (presumably heterosexual) single black women, i.e. the documentary’s producers.
What possible relevance is the comparison, other than to imply that if it wasn’t for all those black men “defecting”, those black women wouldn’t be single? The relevant comparison to the 50% would be the proportion of black women who were in relationships with white men.
You obviously didn’t see the documentary, because it implied nothing of the sort.
As far as I remember (it was about 5 or 6 years ago, I think), all it was was one of those fly-on-the-wall type of documentaries, portraying the everyday lives of some mixed race couples and some single black women.
It made no attempt to draw some moral lesson from the statistics. The closest it came to explaining them was that black women tended to be rather more demanding than white women in what they expected of a relationship – that was from black men’s comments about relationships they’d had with black women.
I didn’t infer any suggestion that what the black men were doing was wrong. On the whole, the programme was quite optimistic in tone.
By the way, if you are talking about black men who are having relationships with white women, it isn’t really necessary to describe them as “presumably heterosexual”.
Andy,
Now that you mention it, I think I did see the programme and this is why I reacted the way I did. There is this confluence of interests between some “racist” single black women and white racists in bemoaning interracial relationships between black men and white women. This is also shared by the cultural enforcers in the media who prize cultural conformism as “authentic” and decry those who choose not to conform as “selling out”. Witness all the huff and puff expended about such a trivial item as straightening of afro hair.
This programme, or at least the one I saw, featured some single black women making disparaging, racist comments about white men, black men and white women, asserting some sort of implicit first refusal on available black men. The women interviewed appeared to think that any black man who had a white girlfriend had failed in his duty to the race/community. This was presented non-critically and few sweeping assumptions were challenged.
The reason I said “presumably heterosexual” is because there is a significant difference between 50% of heterosexual black men and 50% of all black men. The latter implies greater than 50%.
Perhaps it was the same programme you saw. But I don’t remember being left the same impression of the producers’ motives that you have been. They may have been uncritical of those black women’s racist views, but did they really criticise the black men for dating the white women? Not as far as I can remember. I thought that they had left the viewers to make up their own minds.
And is the difference between 50% of heterosexual black men and 50% of all black men really that great? What proportion of black men are gay?
It makes a small difference.
If it is, as I guess, 50% of heterosexual black males, it means they are evenly split between black and white partners.
If it is 50% of all black males, then the exact percentage gay approximates the “swing” between black and white partners for the heterosexuals. If it is 5% gay, you would have 52.6% white partners versus, 47.4% black.
I thought that they had left the viewers to make up their own minds
Usually when Channel 4 makes a documentary – such as the appalling pair this week, first on abortion and second (slightly less appalling) on the organ trade – they have a pretty good idea which way they’d like you to make up your own mind. My guess is that they wanted to convey an impression, by interviewing these racist harpies, that black women, as a rule, found relationships between black males and white females to be “offensive” and that we should somehow “respect” that view. Perhaps the programme-makers wished white women and black men to “think twice” about their “duty” to the “community” before embarking on a relationship.
I suppose I’d have to see the programme again, but the conclusion I took was some black women ought to be a little bit more broadminded about whom they are prepared to date, and, in time, they probably would be.
I’d have to have a much greater knowledge of the inner politics of Channel 4 if I were to know that your interpretation is more reasonable than mine.
The exact numbers are unimportant – my point was simply that a large number of ‘interracial’ relationships cannot but blur the lines as the second generation grows up, and will eventually lead to the abandonment of the concept by all sensible people. I also confess to a slightly less altruistic motive in being so gung-ho for what used to be called ‘miscegenation’ (horrible word). The female offspring of ‘mixed-race’ marriages have, in my experience, been some of the most jaw-droppingly beautiful women I’ve ever known (think, by comparison, Thandie Newton, Samantha Mumba, Tia Carrere and Halle Berry), and if there’s one thing the world will never have too many of it’s gorgeous babes.
I think we may be missing the other sides of the issue. “Interracial” isn’t only about “white” and “black.” The term actually encompasses many different races. Besides, what if people, without force, choose to find mates within their own race?
Alex.
I’m at a loss as to understand your question: What if [something which happens all the time] happens? I guess the answer is that things would look exactly the same as they do now.
Do you misinterpret David’s point? which is that as interracial relationships continue, even at a minority rate, and they produce offspring, racial distinctions blur. This is not the same thing as saying that “intra-racial” relationships will or ought to become rare.
David:
The female offspring of ‘mixed-race’ marriages have, in my experience, been some of the most jaw-droppingly beautiful women I’ve ever known
I can attest to that: Here’s yet one more gorgeous babe for the world!
Frank,
Thank you for clarifying that. I did miss that. I do have to agree with David about the “jaw-droppingly beautiful” women.
Frank : I rest my case. You’ve provided all the photographic evidence I need. When I say that the girls are gorgeous, of course that means the boys too (it’s unfair what an advantage they have, grrr). Many congrats to you and yours.
And of course by ‘interracial’ I don’t simply mean white and black. You should see what happens when Limeys fall in love with Latinas (I live in Costa Rica). If I were these girls’ father I would be afraid. I would be very afraid. My offspring, when they occur, are overwhelmingly likely to be of ‘mixed race’, and it’s a racing certainty that they’ll cause traffic accidents when they’re eighteen.
i’ve missed most of the race realist stuff; i just assume these people are morons and then move on, but if you’re the editor i suppose you have to deal with them. i dislike the idea of cutting people off but if they’ve said everything they’ve had to say and wont move on then why give yourself agita? 86 them and get on with the blog.
As far as I’m concerned, this blog just got a little less interesting. The “race realists”, as they’re now being called, could be very annoying at times and did exhibit signs of bigotry, but they were also interesting and challenging commenters, and were willing to discuss their views in a reasonable manner. I can understand the decision to cut them loose, but I’m not glad about it.
I don’t know exactly who was banned, and I don’t think a list of names is going to mean anything, but this entire thread, especially the first comment, should explain why some people just need to go away. If you don’t like a post, you don’t have to read it and flame the other commenters. There’s a reason browsers come equipped with a ‘back’ button and an ‘x’ in the upper right hand corner.