Where was the "flamewar"? I don't see much traction in this thread.

This is an absurd performative exercise given that you've demonstrated straight offense to a mere inquiry about race being a relevant control when studies are undertaken. You know, a mainstream scientific position that is held by pretty much anyone authoring a study.

If single-sentence remarks that spark conversation were banned from this website, you'd be unable to post them. That post was within the character minimum parameters of the website. Rather, it's pretty clear that your line has been drawn regarding the content I raised, which is irrespective to either the intellectual curiosity of the inquiry or the brevity of my question.

Once again, your mold re: "internet warriors" isn't a good fit. I replied to every specific point raised in contention rationally, with serious philosophical and scientific rigor. I made compelling, rational arguments that weren't addressed.

I flamed noone. I, in the spirit of actual intellectual curiosity, brought up a very controversial position and reasonably defended it. This is the very essence of genuine curiosity -- serious discourse that isn't constrained by social acceptance. The notion that curiosity is synonymous with social acceptability is exactly the type of laughable self-adulation that I've called you out on prior, a fake HR version of what intellectualism consists of.

Now, you could claim that I am being unkind (which is open to fiat of interpretation by HR), but I definitely wouldn't agree. This is simply how disagreements in my culture are undertaken.

You might get better traction by claiming that I am in violation of the rules regarding posting about divisive topics, but this is a rule in direct contradiction to the spirit you yourself and the rules outline -- intellectual curiosity. After all, it doesn't quite have the same ring if you say "intellectual curiosity... unless it offends someone". It takes some reverb from the back-pats.

I want to emphasize a basic point: my post being a "race war", i.e. merely MENTIONING race is a ridiculous, offensive, egregiously anti-intellectual position to take. It shows that you allow your emotions to cloud your judgment. Even at the very basest level of inquiry, scientific research, race is considered a valid control that is regularly undertaken in any legitimate study. You don't need to get much more fancy than that.

This is a very stark failure of the moderation style I sense that you think you embody; a sort of Norwegian penal approach to these interactions, which do not remove from contention the fact that the Norwegian authorities still exercise full control of the situation, but merely launder punishment with good feeling. I suggest you re-analyze the failings of your engineering solution that produce an outcome whereby your core values are actually compromised by your inability to delegate your rationality and emotions where they appropriately fit. A classic failing, of course, not just your own, but one that you haven't even begun to have a solution for, despite what I perceive to be earnest efforts to the contrary.

Just to note, I checked the other poster in this thread's post history, and, aside from the he/they pronouns on his page, I found numerous statements of his that I consider highly controversial with nary a whimper from moderation. I'm okay with someone moderating an online discussion board explicitly as a sounding board and echo chamber for anti-intellectual silicon valley ideology, but the self-service of it all really just drives me crazy.

In summation, I expect an apology, of course, Mr. Soprano.