Emil O W Kirkegaard

Fair enough, BUT that is where the science reform efforts are necessary and getting some (but not yet enough) traction. I think the bigger issue is skin in the game. We just pub stuff, no conseqs if we're wrong. If you're a startup, you better get it right or you go bellyup.

It's reverse skin in the game, actually. If they don't publish more PC findings, or publish unPC findings, they risk their career. The incentive is towards PC findings. If truth is racist, and you can't publish racist stuff, then you can't publish true stuff about these matters.

You are just a bad person. Probably literally Hitler. But we knew that already... OTO more serious H, some of us believe the truth can't be racist. Of course, people can present racist distortions as truth. Sometimes, it is not easy to tell which is which.

And actually your point about reverse incentives looks dead on right to me. You only need a few cases of punishment to create a stigma. Then, after the stigma creators suppress all alternative views, they can and do declare "scientific" victory -- "hey, we have consensus!"