That was the example Moldbug used, claiming that Africans made genetically better slaves than Native Americans. 5F36B5F62640 contended that the groups that were not better slaves should feel unwelcome. This is just the basic logical implication of taking those two claims together.

Rather than attacking me personally, is there something I missed or was incorrect about?

You created a 'should' from a 'would', and therefore implied that 5F36B5F62640 had ill-feelings towards Indians.

I'm not attacking you personally, nor am I speaking to you personally. I am just pointing out to anybody reading this, that you just tried to smear somebody.

Of course, whether you did so on purpose is another matter.

You're grasping a bit on this. Logic does not dictate that there were implied ill-feelings on 5F36B5F62640's behalf. In fact, I can categorically state that from the one post I've read from them I do not believe they have any such ill-feelings!

To restate, then: "Wait, so your argument is that only Native Americans would feel unwelcome in this community?

Is this supposed to be in his favor?"

I appreciate your dedication to accuracy, and I must assume this satisfies your complaint.

It wasn't a grasp. The rhetorical effect of your comment was to imply some sentiment from 5F36B5F62640 on 'what ought to be'.

Yes, that is no longer accusatory; and it is correct: there are other sets of people that would no doubt feel unwelcome in such a community.

I think in a practical sense their fear is overblown as 'Code is law'. However people generally make decisions based on consensus reality.