You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The NYT doxxing Scott Alexander for no real reason was wrong, but most of the defenses of SSC that I've read recently disgust me about as much as the original article did because they're all playing dumb: Alexander was clearly sympathetic to the idea of Race-IQ differences.
The modern liberal worldview is large, but cannot survive the revelation that there are racial differences in IQ. Any respectable outlet that indirectly promotes this viewpoint is an existential threat and it is rational for liberals to seek these out and destroy them.
In other words, according to the modern American consensus all published writers adhere to, Metz's attack on a rising threat would be commendable (other than the doxxing). It's only distasteful if you are sympathetic to Race/IQ connections, as most of his defenders secretly are.
The real point is this: soft "HBD" type people like Charles Murray themselves often play dumb about the implications of their work. There is no way reconcile it with liberalism and if liberals were smart they would be doing even more they currently are to wipe it out.
Probably because it's extremely well-grounded in science.
cause its true and everyone knows it they just lie that it isn't
Maybe more than just sympathetichttps://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 …
those are some OG NRx sites. radishmag.
I don't think this is fair. All other things being equal, I don't impute nasty ideas to people unless the evidence forces me. Scott had said he wasn't a HBD guy, so until evidence showed otherwise, I assumed he wasn't a HBD guy. I think it's a better approach than the alternative
Beyond that, agree HBD is an existential threat to liberal society, I think the opposition to HBD was better off before these emails leaked. He's a popular guy, and I'm afraid that this might shift people over to the HBD side. So I don't know ferreting out Scott was prudent
But he also fell for bogus studies that used "matched pairs" of job applicants and agreed with the authors that the results indicated racism, when they did not at all. Economists tore the paper apart. This was circa 2015.
He's willing to (pretend to) believe bad research when it points the way he wants. He was pretty explicit in his most recent essay that he has a "bias" in favor of believing some things so as not to die alone in a ditch.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
