Be more charitable in your reading of that comment. If you’d prefer, interpret it this way:

“These studies can be socially controversial, and so authors must be especially careful in the way they conduct their research and present their conclusions.”

At a certain point, demanding empirical evidence for a clearly observable societal zeitgeist becomes disingenuous or obtuse, regardless of how well-intentioned the request is. It stifles discussion that can otherwise proceed.

I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom.

I don't think the poster needs charity. Clarity is more like it.

I think what you're asking for is unreasonable. Labelled racist by who? How do you count 50%? Does it matter if only one fringe group labels it racist? Or does it have to be called racist by a group with political capital > X.

It also leaves any potential of discussing "chilling effect" like things. You're measurement does nothing to gauge the overall zeitgeist of the time, which would clearly influence the outlook of any researcher who didn't have balls of steel and bulletproof funding.

I agree the author needs more clarity. And the clear thing to say is that "one could easily imagine this type of study in the United States causing problems for the author due to possible accusations of racism".

I agree with your "labelled racist by who, how do you count, etc" questions. But that just throws the meaninglessness of the original statement into starker relief: it's simply an empty expression of unsupported complaint. Your finishing formulation, is unfortunately simply more prolix.

I do not see those sorts of comments as up to the usual standards of HackerNews. Perhaps to be expected on an article like this, but still they should be discouraged.

>I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom.

What you're asking is not just uncharitable, it doesn't even make sense (even if it was possible).

It's also irrelevant to what the parent said, which is not a quantified claim that such studies are "labelled racist more than 50% of the time", but a casual "usually labelled racist".

In casual conversation "usually" doesn't mean some hard 50% + c, any more so than "often" and "a lot of times".

No one is asking for a specific "hard 50% +c". Just more than 50%. "Usually" most emphatically does not mean "often" or "a lot of times." This sort of dumbing down of dialogue and tossing about of opinions is the opposite of what HN should be.

Your question was fair. The phrasing comes across as uncharitable.

"Do you have any references for this?" might be less strident.

That’s the opposite: Stephen Pinker’s opinions are not scientific just because he’s a scientist, and nobody’s opinions are free from criticism – especially criticism for being presented as science-y but not measuring up to the standards of actual science.

How could empirical science be labeled "racist". Is there some kind of official science police ?

There are numerous examples which come to mind from circa 1939 - 1945, particularly certain central-European and east-Asian government-sponsored activities.

Though that's hardly the only place or time.

SPLC maintain a set of references on more current instances.