Topic: Racism on the forums

[pandamonium]

If you have a complaint about the way we moderate, feel free to air it through the appropriate channels.

This is an honest question: what are the appropriate channels for us to air our complaints that you continue to allow this sort of blatant racism to be posted on this board?

PM Beleth or another global mod. Starting threads isn't a good way to go because we might not see them.

[Paddyjack]

(click to show/hide)

Am I given to understand that some people here are claiming that racism and the "Matthews Effect" are mutually exclusive?

Of course the Matthews effect may in part be caused by racism, but what it was said in the OP is the following:

NIH director Francis Collins said it would take action to address the potential for "insidious bias" in the grant process.


Mr Collins said it was possible that reviewers could guess the race or ethnicity of an applicant by looking at names or where they trained.

He said they would look at reviewing grants on the basis of scientific merits alone, without requiring information about an applicant's qualifications or background.

While what I am saying  is that QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND are more likely the problem here, and it's a deeper problem that "bias from reviewers".

Clear enough?

More importantly, institutionalized racism may be in part caused by the Matthews effect.

Why do you assume that qualifications and background are more likely to be the problem?  After all, bias does not have to be conscious to have an effect on the literature.

Do you have a cite for your statement?

Well I could cite the comments from reviewers I received from my own grant applications

Typically, there are several aspects that reviewers look at, obviously the quality of the application but also the feasibility of the objectives. And one important part of that feasibility is, "do you have the expertise to carry this research through, and if not, do you have the collaborators to help you through". And since the competition in grant applications is very high, the Matthew effect will certainly factor in in favor of researchers with better background and experience, and against those that had it less easy right at the start.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really support your claim that other biases are less important.  Do you have a a line of reasoning that shows the data presented in this paper are mainly due to lack of expertise or good collaborators?  Because I don't see it.

No no, you misunderstand me I'm not saying that is the only explanation, it *is* possible that some reviewers are biased in favor of whites, but what I am saying is that there is other possible explanations and they are not really going into them at all. They recognize the possibility of  the Matthew effect (although not named that way) only at the end of the paper, in a two line sentence. The consequence is that the press release (link in OP) presented it like it's all the reviewer's fault. And seeing the reaction from people in this thread, most went into that direction too, probably because they only read the press release. That is what annoyed me

I think what surprised me the most in the numbers presented is the 1.5% of applications are from blacks compared to 70ish% from white. That is very low, but they don't go much into that since their hypothesis starts at the moment the application reach the second stage, when it managed to get scored. However, IMO they should consider it because with such a difference on both side I would expect a bias right away since there is a very good chance that there will be more quality applications on the white side just by the sheer difference in numbers. They don't go into that direction too much either. But I guess they feel confident with their numbers since other ethnics like asians score almost as well as white, even though their number of applications is also lower than whites.

[Beleth]

If you have a complaint about the way we moderate, feel free to air it through the appropriate channels.

This is an honest question: what are the appropriate channels for us to air our complaints that you continue to allow this sort of blatant racism to be posted on this board?

PM Beleth or another global mod. Starting threads isn't a good way to go because we might not see them.

Yes.  PM me especially, and spell out what rule is being broken or how the Intent ("to provide an intellectually challenging environment for rational, polite discussion") is being violated.  If I agree, then I'll discuss it with the other mods; if they agree, I'll bring it up with the Panel; if they agree, we'll change the rules.

Do not bring it up with the Panel directly.  All they'll do is toss it over the wall back down to me, and you'll have annoyed both them (for bothering them) and me (for not trusting me to handle it the right way).

A big part of skepticism is allowing your beliefs, whatever they may be, to be challenged.  What chelovek is saying isn't popular, granted, but it's being presented in a (mostly) polite, rational, intellectually challenging way, and that's all I ask.

[thelatinist]

I have to say that I don't want to be part of a forum that welcomes racist posts, no matter how well rationalized they are.  I do not think that there is merit in such statements as "I'd like to walk around an American city without getting robbed, shot, raped, or attacked by a mob of (black) people," or in calling people of different races or creeds "savages," "culturally inferior" or "defective." If the rules do not prohibit such posts, then the rules need to be changed.

[pandamonium]

I have to say that I don't want to be part of a forum that welcomes racist posts, no matter how well rationalized they are.  I do not think that there is merit in such statements as "I'd like to walk around an American city without getting robbed, shot, raped, or attacked by a mob of (black) people," or in calling people of different races or creeds "savages," "culturally inferior" or "defective." If the rules do not prohibit such posts, then the rules need to be changed.

This should be PM'd to a mod, not posted in a thread that's about something else entirely.

[Caffiene]

A big part of skepticism is allowing your beliefs, whatever they may be, to be challenged.  What chelovek is saying isn't popular, granted, but it's being presented in a (mostly) polite, rational, intellectually challenging way, and that's all I ask.

I wasnt going to post because I didnt want to sidetrack things again, but while the thread is on a digression anyway...

For the record, I didnt like the posts in this thread either and would have liked action taken, but not because they were unpopular. My problem was that they were off-topic in addition to being unpopular. If you look at the first "problem" post, it essentially states outright "I dont care about this topic, heres a vaguely related one I care about more".

The combination of off-topic and controversial has a huge potential to drown out the actual discussion of the thread topic. IMO (I dont expect the mods to necessarily have to agree) it promotes discussion much better to have that sort of post split to a seperate thread.

[Jeremy's Sea]

A big part of skepticism is allowing your beliefs, whatever they may be, to be challenged.  What chelovek is saying isn't popular, granted, but it's being presented in a (mostly) polite, rational, intellectually challenging way, and that's all I ask.

I wasnt going to post because I didnt want to sidetrack things again, but while the thread is on a digression anyway...

For the record, I didnt like the posts in this thread either and would have liked action taken, but not because they were unpopular. My problem was that they were off-topic in addition to being unpopular. If you look at the first "problem" post, it essentially states outright "I dont care about this topic, heres a vaguely related one I care about more".

The combination of off-topic and controversial has a huge potential to drown out the actual discussion of the thread topic. IMO (I dont expect the mods to necessarily have to agree) it promotes discussion much better to have that sort of post split to a seperate thread.

Thank you! See I'm not totally crazy... 

[pandamonium]

What I've read so far (and other people can disagree with me) has been "that's racist, mods do something," not "that's off-topic, mods do something." I agree - off-topic should be split - i'd do it but for being on a cellular phone device - but those aren't the complaints I've been hearing.

[mkultra]

pandamonium, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, and I apologize if this is not the correct way to go about complaining about the behavior of posters, but I'm not sure why the salient issue is whether other posters have specifically complained that chelovek's posts in this thread have been off-topic.

The main question in the OP was along the lines of "Do black researchers get less grants because of a lack of mentoring or because of racism?" and almost immediately chelovek went waaaaaay off-topic to chime in with "address the fact that over 50% of violent crimes (and nearly 100% of violent hate-crimes) are committed by blacks... then perhaps I'll care about possible, slight discrimination in science-funding."  Besides the fact that this post was unrelated to the OP or any follow-up posts, chelovek already knew this statement was bullshit , yet made the inflammatory claim anyway.

On top of that, he or she has clearly gone out of his/her way to antagonize other posters in the past by posting a video of black people and calling them chimps, stating that Muslims are stupid and should be sterilized, claiming that the terms "Muslim" and "idiot" are somehow interchangeable, and instead of making points (rational, rhetorical, or whatever) against the arguments of other posters, simply insulted them.  Some examples of these ad hominen attacks include crybaby, bigot, and idiot (at least twice).

Couple that with the fact that any guests who come here and read any of those non-factual and offensive posts see that chelovek is labeled a "Valued Contributor."

It seems like the main problem here is not with any individual post that members might flag, but rather with a pattern of posts that go far beyond spirited discussion and into abusive, disruptive, and insulting trolling.

[Bunsen]

Couple that with the fact that any guests who come here and read any of those non-factual and offensive posts see that chelovek is labeled a "Valued Contributor."

I never thought about that.  If I, as a stranger, came to this forum and saw what I thought was an appointed title of "valued contributer" next to the racist, off-topic, inciting hate-speech that chelovek spews, I'd turn and run.

I think we all just see chelovek as a pest, a troll, and a bigot.  External readers might not.

[Karyn]

It's clear we need to have this conversation.  I'm running incredibly late for work at this point, so I can't comment now.  Please make your comments here.

[Belgarath]

Generally I am completely in favor of someone expressing a racist view.  The reason is that we then know how they think.  If you force the person to leave or silence them, then it just hides underground.

If a person came to the forum and expressed strong belief in something silly like astrology, then we would continue to let them speak as long as they were respectful.  I view this the same way, although the views are repugnant.

In the end, I think it's critical to allow someone to express these views, although there are very valid points regarding titles and off-topic.

I think that if we correct the off-topic posts within the thread and correct the titles, it'll be fine.  I see a lot of complaints here, but I don't see a lot of suggestions as to how to correct the problem short of just flat out banning someone for expressing a stupid ignorant and racist viewpoint, which I find almost as repugnant, if not more so, than the viewpoint itself......

[Beleth]

I have to say that I don't want to be part of a forum that welcomes racist posts, no matter how well rationalized they are.

Whoa whoa whoa.  We don't "welcome" racist posts; we simply don't consider them against the Rules.  "Allow" is a more apt word.

I do not think that there is merit in such statements as "I'd like to walk around an American city without getting robbed, shot, raped, or attacked by a mob of (black) people," or in calling people of different races or creeds "savages," "culturally inferior" or "defective." If the rules do not prohibit such posts, then the rules need to be changed.

There are a lot of things that get said here that do not have much merit.    But I know what you're saying.  Let's admit it; statements like those go beyond "meritless" and into the land of "offensive."  But one of the hazards of being intellectually challenged is being exposed to ideas that are currently considered offensive.  Some of these are unsupported opinions, and can be dismissed treated as such.  Some of them are objective statements, and are therefore either true or false.  Determining which, and what to do with that determination, is at the heart of intellectual challenge.

In short, I see an offensive statement as more of a learning/teaching opportunity than a bannable offense.

Being an idiotic douchebag is a bannable offense, of course.  But no one in either this thread or in the parent thread is being one, IMO.  You are all keeping it rational and polite, and I appreciate that very much.

[Beleth]

Couple that with the fact that any guests who come here and read any of those non-factual and offensive posts see that chelovek is labeled a "Valued Contributor."

That's just the postcount title automatically given to members who have posted between 500 and 1000 times.  It has nothing to do with the esteem any poster is held in, although I see how that can be confusing.  Let me come up with a better title.

[Eternally Learning]

I'm kinda with Belgarath on this one.  I've been very outspoken against chelovek to the point where I don't think there's a single thread she's (it is she right?) started that I haven't regretted joining in on.  She's rude, inconsiderate, un and misinformed, racist, unwise in what she chooses to comment on, and has expressed a pleathora of views that make her one of the few people (if not the only) on this forum I would actively work to never meet in real life, but I'm struggling to find a way to justify banning her. 

I was pretty on the fence with Jwaksman's banning but accepted it because it was my understanding that the main reason for his banning was not his behavior in threads but the amount of superfluous reports he made and caused.  As much as he annoyed the piss out of me, him being a jack-ass did not deserve a ban.  Chelovek I think has pushed our boundaries on how much we value free speech and the ability to openly express thoughts and ideas.  I don't think she's quite gone so far as to make her comments pointless beyond antagonization (though it's possible that's her intent) and as distasteful as they are, she usually attempts to back them up or defend them so I will openly stand up and say that I disagree with any attempt to ban her account.

Bottom line, I don't think engendering disgust from other members is a good reason to ban someone.  I do however, think that the point of her being labeled a "Valued Contributor" is pretty valid and suggest that perhaps changing it to something more neutral like "Regular Contributor" is a good idea.  That goes for any other auto-labels which might do the same too.