Re:Online activists are silencing us, scientists say
by tomp on Wednesday March 13, 2019 @11:20AM
(#19379526)
> The purpose of your circumlocution is to remain ambiguous enough to fall back to a less controversial position when called out. Just say what mean, which is that skin colour correlates with IQ.
No, parent is rightfully pointing out that it's IQ in general, not any specific trait X. X could stand for race/skin color, but it could also stand for ancestry (e.g. Askenazi Jew, which IMO have same skin color as the rest of Europeans), or sex, or maybe other things as well.
Re:Online activists are silencing us, scientists say
by llamaz on Wednesday March 13, 2019 @11:29AM
(#19379634)
You're right, maybe I should have said race instead of skin colour and added sexism to my list of accusations.
Re:Online activists are silencing us, scientists say
by alexandercrohde on Wednesday March 13, 2019 @12:11PM
(#19380085)
What I said was pretty well-worded, I think it's much larger than the example you're thinking of.
For example, any of these studies would drive the internet angry (if they found a strong result):
- Midgets vs IQ
- Attractiveness vs IQ
- Attractiveness vs Likelihood of birth defect
- Wealth vs Emotional Stability
- HN vs Autism Spectrum
- Eye Color vs Empathy
The formula is (visible trait) x (valued trait) x (has this trait already been historically used to justify atrocities).
I hate it when your ilk make race vs IQ seem like an edgy new opinion that is being suppressed. It used to be mainstream globally, but we moved past that through dialectics. When the "bell curve" book was published, we resurrected the debate, then we moved passed it.
It seems to me that you have to go out of your way to bring up race and IQ. That's why, whenever the debate is brought up, one of the parties is accused of having an agenda.