[brsg]

That's fair! I think I may have confused you with the OP that responded as such to the moderate point.

For what it's worth, I think you may be surprised how much you can discuss on this topic without crossing "the line" for most people. I think that if partisanship wasn't as divisive as it currently is than you'd be able to discover a lot more common ground with people.

.... though definitely not online.

[another_sock]

I definitely agree with you on that. Most people are far more likely to have a productive discussion when at least one party goes out of their way to be nuanced and careful in how they word things as well as the discussion not taking place in a performative environment (online or in front of other people.) It is definitely a lesson I have learned over time and through my own biases and misbehavior causing myself unneeded problems that were/are quiet foolish in hindsight.

With that said, all of these topics are not worth getting too into, since even 100% agreement on HBD or esoteric human rights philosophy topics doesn't really accomplish much. I have arrived at a sort of internal understanding that it doesn't matter if most people would disagree with me on this stuff. Also, if I find the common perspective to be ridiculous or stupid that doesn't really matter or entitle me to pressing the issue when it doesn't matter. What genuinely matters is finding common humanity/shared goals that are mutually beneficial and not getting bent out of shape over stuff that doesn't really matter, which in this case is trivia pertaining to generalized (which is practically useless individually) racial outcomes. Hopefully I've explained myself clearly and shown that I don't have any ill will intended towards you or anybody who has different opinions or may even hate or take offense at how I see the world. Have a nice Sunday :)

[brsg]

Of course, I hope that you didn't take too personally the snark in my original reply =).

At most other points in human history, our discussion probably would've been a cordial trade of livestock for bread and there would never be a reason to fear ill will. It's bummer of the 21st century that this time it was meta discussion about politics on the internet.

[another_sock]

Don't worry, I don't take much personally and this was not one of those times. The little back and forth that may or may not be sharp is what makes these discussions fun (for me at least) in the first place. I think the added danger and possibility for severe personal consequences might end up being a net positive for everybody in the long run, as you can see in Eastern Europe where Stalinism and its restrictions on free speech resulted in a group of people who generally play things close to the chest by nature but have a very rich inner life and are able to contemplate serious or emotionally charged subjects in a way I find most Americans and first worlders in general lack.

New negatives in environments always come with new positives in the environment's survivors, and I am hopeful that we will all end up with a more thoughtful introspection similar to that which came from "oppression" (I hesitate to call what we are experiencing oppression due to how minor it is compared to gulags.) Some of the world's most beautiful literature as well as brilliant scientists have come out of Eastern Europe, I am optimistic that something similar will be the fruits of what is now underway globally with the advent of social media and its soft tyranny over social relations.