It's as relevant as at least six posts on this page, including the one right above mine.
A Blunted Sickle - Thread II
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
Its rather off topic and resulted in a ban so forgive us if we don't feel like getting back into the topic.
Quite. The last thing I want is for this thread to get locked because of people crayoning all over it when I'm feeling too crap to write updates.
On the plus side once I get through the next week of hell (group level audit in Paris, presentation to the CEO in the UK and presentation to a government funding agency on consecutive days) things should improve a bit and I might be able to finish off the next update over the week after when I'm on holiday.
That doesn't seem like a reason for a Republican president, necessarily, to me. The Democrats won five presidential elections in a row in 1932-1948. Previous to that were streaks of 3, 2, 5, 1, 1, 1, and 6. Later on, between 1968 and 1988 Republicans won 5 of 6 elections. US Presidential elections often have long periods of one party at the helm.
There's a reason why newspapers were convinced Dewey would win in 1948 but he actually lost, handily. The US voting public in the 40s generally preferred the policies of the Democratic party to the policies of the Republican party. Particularly the less affluent parts of that voting public.
CalBear, I would like to make a public appeal on behalf of Eric S. Raymond for you to reverse your decision to ban him. He has been a long-standing member of this thread and has made many useful and cogent contributions that are appreciated by many members of this community.
First, I would like to say that no one should be banned from this forum without being given a formal warning from a moderator, in his official capacity, that a specific topic is off limits and that further postings on said topic would result in a ban. You failed to do that. Indeed, your earlier posts on the topic seemed to suggest that your were engaging in a debate on the topic as a participant of this thread rather than putting someone on notice as a moderator.
Second, in your post announcing his banning, you seriously misquoted him. Nowhere in his posts did he say, or imply, that Africa (or anywhere else) was populated by "profoundly mentally challenged people." His statement that some populations may have "low average IQs," whether true or not, doesn't come anywhere close to the position that you attributed to him.
Thirdly, while I will not engage you in debate on the validity or invalidity of IQ tests, I will note that the topic is still subject to serious studies published in academic journals. Although certainly controversial, it is not a topic without any scientific backing. You may be justified in seeing that this topic has no place on this forum, but you are not justified in banning a person for simply bringing up this topic, regardless of how distasteful you may personally find it. A simple, and polite, official warning to Eric for him not to continue posting on this topic would have been sufficient.
This forum is populated by many people from around the world with diverse and varied backgrounds. Due to this diversity, we will not a priori all agree on the proper social norms to be followed. We may not even fully understand the positions of others on this forum and why they might take offense to something said. But in your role as a moderator, your need to appreciate that while the diversity of this community may occasionally cause bruised feelings, we are all here to share the same joy of participating in discussions on alternate history. As such, you should use a gentle hand to steer the conversation to a welcoming environment for all.
I hope that you take this post as the gentle chastisement intended and reflect on how your should regard your role as a moderator in the future.
I gave his an opportunity to clarify his position. I even built him an off-ramp when I pointed out the almost lockstep relationship between literacy rates (i.e. formal education) and average IQ scores).
Instead he doubled down. Anyone who took his advice and looked at the list of average IQ scores by country would immediately see exactly what he was implying. He was pointing at sub-Saharan Africa and stating that the population there were profoundly mentally challenged (that is what an IQ of 60 is meant to indicate, assuming you see it as a reliable gauge of actual intelligence, which is beyond dubious).
BTW: If one looks at the way that IQ scores are used to to categorize, you will find that groups with the "low scores" he pointed at are considered to be profoundly mentally challenged.
Any further discussion of this needs to be done in the Kick/Ban Forum.
Thanks. No promises, but things have to get better from where they are at the moment. If nothing else I've been told that within the next week or so I'll be formally appointed as the Chief Engineer for the political hand-grenade of a project I'm leading, rather than being formally a technical advisor to one of the sub-system leads. That'll make trying to do my job quite a bit easier.
Truman had a number of advantages in 1948 that any Democratic candidate in 1944 is unlikely to have (being the sitting President for a start), and from what I've read Dewey didn't campaign nearly as effectively in 1948 as he did in 1944 despite the fact he was taking on a wartime president. I think this means that Dewey is more likely to win than any Democratic candidate, but it isn't a given and I haven't written the election yet so it's still up for grabs.
Thank you for pointing out the proper channel for appealing your decision. I have posted my request there.
Anyone who wants a real summary of the state of the art in IQ research can download it in a survey article from scientist Richard Nisbett here.
Italy has already secured it’s influence in Yugoslavia and Romania. A sensible man might quit while he is ahead, but Mussolini has rarely been accused of being sensible.Mussolini isn't exactly known for self-awareness though
If he starts demanding concessions from Austria in the post war years he might wear out what little patience the Entente nations have left.
Maybe, but Italy already has troops stationed in Romania and no incentive to remove them. I don’t think we have an idea of the forces stationed there but it must be enough to deter the Soviets from further aggression. Romania might decide it is better not to rock the boat at this stage.
We will see, but France must not be too happy about Italy messing in it's traditional sphere of influence.
As for the Soviet them not being ready to intervene in Germany will probably piss off Staline. I wonder if he'll find a scapegoat for that? Maybe his paranoia will get the better of him and think the logistic issues the soviet army have are active sabotage.
Counting the Entente as one power, as of the end of the war, there will by 5 powers: Entente, USA, Italy, Japan and the Soviets. Japanese and Soviet agents found will be shot, American agents found will be spanked and sent home, Italian agents, decisions will have to be made by higher ups.
The reason the Italians are a headache is that they are next door neighbors, put their (relatively) limited ambitions on another slice of the planet, and they'd be less of a headache. And make no mistake, the Italians are the least powerful of the five.