I guess I am a contextual high-decoupler.

I am not going to do the "by x I don't mean y" foolishness that folks on this platform do, which allows them to hint at immoral ideas publicly without actually talking about them.

But in certain spaces, high decoupling is OK.

(1/7)

I can see myself speaking with a geneticist, a historian, and a sociologist I trust about "race" while sipping some coffee.

In that space, I can imagine going over the *if* this *then* that scenario of their being rigid races and charting the implications.

(2/7)

But I consider that kind of conversation irresponsible on a public platform or classroom given that those ideas are fringe and people looking for reasons to be racist will take any hint of that idea and run with it.

That is just free propaganda for racists.

(3/7)

An analogy here would be to me speculating about a neighbor possibly maybe being a pedophile.

I am not going to carelessly drop that and his name on a public platform, but I would talk privately with loved ones.

(4/7)

It is unfathomable to me that folks who are supposedly so "rational" cannot chart the implications of their ideas.

I mean, if you want to talk openly about, say, women not being able to reason as abstractly as men what do you *think* people will do with that?

(5/7)

This is why I am not giving those high-decouplers the benefit of the doubt.

They, being all smart and all, *must* know that their ideas have damaging implications and they *must* broach these things with care instead of broadcasting damaging ideas haphazardly.

(6/7)

So when a person, says "by x I don't mean y" or "just asking questions" I am must either assume they are stupid, naive, or actually racist/sexist/etc.

As I don't talk about decoupling like, ever, this rant was inspired by comments from @caitlinmoriah

(7/7)