All discussion in Less Wrong 2.0 is seen explicitly as an attempt to exchange information for the purpose of reaching Aumann agreement.

Aumann agreement only works with ideal rational agents, i.e., not actual human posters. Attempting to do Aumann agreement without ideal rational agents results in the agent least willing to update on evidence, e.g., a rock or the human most resembling one, "winning".

However, this is not a license for arbitrary rudeness. Offensive language is permitted only if it is necessary in order to point to a real disagreement about the territory.

The problem is that a lot of people's definition of "offensive language" includes expressing opinions they find uncomfortable. Based on previous comments, you appear to be one of those people.

The comments are still banned, so it's unclear what you are talking about (maybe they were banned, unbanned and banned again?). If the account's posting rights were previously revoked and then given back, it's implausible Eliezer could be the one giving you the posting rights, right in the middle of this post. It's strange how the parent comment got 40 upvotes (and 20 downvotes), seems too many for a sane manual sockpuppet farm. Anti-moderation faction?

Anyway, banning the copies of banned comments posted as The_Lion2. Neutral on the original moderator's decision, but against such workarounds.

Update: Hell-bad revoked. Thanks, Eliezer.

First, 42 million includes children for who I doubt there is a public criteria we can agree on as proxy for intelligence. Second, I'm not sure IQ > 130 is .13%. Wikipedia suggests 1%.

Since those cut in opposite directions, let's pretend they wash out. I am comfortable asserting there are more than 60k black folks in the set of:
- senior military officers (colonel or greater)
- highly successful national public intellectuals (eg Powell, Coates, Rice)
- highly successful lawyers (Clarence Thomas is top 1% of lawyers)
- highly successful MDs & research PhDs (eg Neil DeGrasse Tyson).
- highly successful media/entertainment personalities (Sean "Diddy" Combs, Oprah, etc).
- highly successful technocrats (mayors / police chiefs / school superintendent in large metro areas)

My description of men's rights activists is usually used as negative. First, it implies they are losers, i.e. low-status, which for most people means that their opinions are not worth to consider seriously. Second, it implies that they merely generalize from their personal issues, which against means that they are biased, and that people who don't have the same issues can ignore them.

To put it in a near mode, imagine that you are at a lecture where someone speaks about men's rights, and then someone in the audience whispers to their neighbor "this guy had a nasty divorce recently". Is this remark meant to make the person who heard it treat the lecture more seriously, or less seriously?

His Wikipedia article is rather vague on how he made his wealth,

He is or has been a director of a lot of companies; you can find a substantial background on his directorships over here. Given the salaries that high-end directors tend to receive, it;s no wonder he's built up that sort of wealth.

So is being one of the worst presidents in US history something to be proud of?

I'll admit, my knowledge of US history is very poor, as I do not live there. All I really know about Obama is that he seems to be a substantial improvement on Bush; I have absolutely no basis for comparison with anyone further back than that.

But becoming US President is, I think, something to be proud of in and of itself. It can't be something that's easy to do.

Let me know when you make it to the end of the sentence in gjm's comment that I quoted.

Whoops, my apologies. Thanks for noticing. Corrected

I haven't looked at the evidence with enough care to have a strong opinion. I certainly don't think the "race realist" position is impossible in principle. (Some versions of it, anyway. I'm sure there are stupid versions that are obviously wrong, but there are stupid versions of everything that are obviously wrong.) On the other hand, I'm not impressed by the quality of some of the research I've seen cited to support it, and the startling rapidity of the Flynn effect seems to me to give good reason to think that performance on IQ tests is more affected by cultural and/or environmental factors than everyone would like them to be. On the other other hand, while the relevant evidence is pretty shitty there does seem to be quite a lot of shitty evidence pointing the same way. On the other other other hand, most of the people making noise about the aforesaid evidence show signs of really genuinely being horrible racists, which is maybe what I'd expect if the evidence were crap and people only believed it because it suits their prejudices. On the other^4 hand, that's also roughly what I'd expect if the evidence were perfectly OK but it were socially unacceptable to say such things, as in fact it is.

So, all things considered, I'm buggered if I know, and getting to the bottom of it seems like it would involve wading into a swamp of horrible racism on one side and kneejerk social justice on the other, filled with research that's crappy because (1) doing decent research on this stuff is really difficult and (2) for very understandable reasons hardly anyone actually wants to work on it. Which sounds like a lot of No Fun.

So I'm reserving judgement and leaving that particular cesspool well alone; it occasionally makes itself slightly useful by encouraging people whose brains have been fried by one sort of politics or another to reveal themselves as such by shouting obnoxiously about it.

(My political prejudices incline me to the "it's all bloody nonsense" side. My prejudice in favour of things with sciency-looking studies backing them up inclines me the other way. I try not to be pushed around too much by my prejudices.)

To clarify, there are 4 embarrassing/disgraceful/noteworthy things happening here, which are embarrassing to different people in different ways.

First, the fact that The_Lion thinks this way is a disgrace for The_Lion.

Second the fact that his comment is heavily upvoted is due to the fact that he has sockpuppet accounts which he uses to upvote his posts. It is slightly embarrassing for The_Lion that he chooses to interact with the internet in this way.

Third, the fact that The_Lion has not been banned despite making comments like this one and generating upvotes in violation of the site's policy is a sign of how woefully undermoderated LessWrong is. It is actually worse than it appears from this one example, because The_Lion is the fourth account by a person whose first 3 accounts were banned for similar abuses of the karma system. But after each account is banned, he makes a new account, continues to act in the same ways, and doesn't get banned again for several months.

Fourth, the fact that many people are responding to The_Lion as if this was a serious discussion, despite how transparently false and odious his comments are, and despite (many of) them knowing The_Lion's four-account-long history, shows how badly LessWrong as a community has failed at the virtues behind "don't feed the trolls" and avoiding "someone is wrong on the internet".