The difference between your two takes appears to be a Motte and Bailey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo

The difference between your two takes appears to be a Motte and Bailey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy The question isn't whether abeppu's stance is valid, the question is: does their stance fully encompass the argument. elefanten appears to be suggesting abeppu's stance is a Motte - that they're arguing a more defensible position (you shouldn't be able to publish research claiming one race is superior to another) rather than the real Bailey (anything deemed "harmful" can be filtered from scientific literature). The difference between these two arguments is pretty significant.