I think he really really wanted a place where intellectual debates could happen between people who disagree, and that desire is vulnerable to people who can be impeccably polite while saying that some people are subhuman.
-
-
Replying to @WomanCorn @arthur_affect
I don't think he agreed with their position, just that he was extra vulnerable to their gambit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WomanCorn
He considered himself a "left hereditarian", it wasn't subtle, he said so
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Where was this? I don't remember seeing that. (Obviously an archive link will be needed.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Did he ever actually use the term "left hereditarian", or is that your gloss on what he said in that post? Because what he said there looks about as far away from "race science" as you can get without going full blank slate. The quadrant here is labeled cooperative/pessimistic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Just to clarify, you think he's motte-baileying between <some things are heritable> and <black people are inferior>, right? This is the standard HBD motte-bailey, right? I want to be sure that I understand your position.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WomanCorn
I don't actually care, the "motte" of IQ realism and believing in the g factor is bad enough by itself
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
So, we're now a long way away from <didn't ban Sailer, therefore an HBDer.> If you want to motte-bust IQ and g, well, I'd love to read that article, but a random Twitter thread is not the right format, for sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
He didn't ban Sailer because his own opinions are on the spectrum of "hereditarianism" You know, the kind of people who lump everyone else in the world into "full blank slate"
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.