don't you understand, the sciences are BAD bc they treat SES as a confounding factor rather than something that needs to be explained away in the name of [squints] political neutrality
-
-
Replying to @adornofthagn
The dogmatic assumption that SES is a genetically independent variable IS leftism.
2 replies 6 retweets 29 likes -
How is it dependent?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Because social outcomes are predominantly genetically conditioned.
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Even if strong genetic determinism is true this only applies if you take the range of available outcomes to be fixed or natural (which IS rightism?) The point of anything any dogmatic leftist said in here, however, was to establish an independence of SES and T, not SES and genes.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Strong genetic determinism is false.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I know, if only bc human environments are themselves evolving
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @Race__Realist and
also, because language is a virus. please do go on though, Nick Land having to deal with a comprehensive critique of genetic determinism by someone called RaceRealist is pretty much exactly the sort of content I'm on this website for
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
"RaceRealist" is an HBD-denialist troll. You'll probably like him.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
An hbd blogger disagreeing with me? Must be a troll! The amount of bad faith says quite a lot about which side of the debate is actually committed to a dogma
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Oh, look what @Biorealism found: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6994
Turns out the "bad faith" and "dogma" was a functioning perceptual system.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.