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.
So you’re glad the SSC crowd did the rational thing and disingenuously circled the wagons around Scott as they realized institutional incentives precluded any sort of good faith discussion?
Do they actually know they're doing that? The fact that they're so smugly proud of themselves suggests to me that they don't have any secret guilt about doing one thing and saying another.
I don't accept the race/IQ hypothesis, but even if we stipulated it, is your premise true? Why couldn't liberalism survive that revelation? If the problem is to accommodate an uneven distribution of luck, what ideology would be better able to solve that than liberalism?
wait, you mean innate differences right? racial differences as in right now, thats already out there
That's only true if the core purpose of modern liberalism is economic redistribution. It isn't. It is redistribution of status on the basis of group identity. The constant freakout about the idea of HBD should suggest that the above, as crazy as it may sound, might be correct.
they (scientists) cant even agree on a definition of what IQ is though
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
