If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.
For example, I 'own' my sidewalk, but anyone can protest there. A lot of public space is privately owned, but can still be used for protest.
The internet is the new public square. It can be privately owned, but still forced to recognize the rights of the public.
I'm leaning towards the idea that platforms with no barrier to entry should be treated as public to some degree, while those with a sign-up process more involved than email and password are still treated as private.
In most cities, the land owner even in downtown will own the sidewalks, but there is an 'easement' that says it's a public right of way. However, it's a public space, and anyone can protest or say what they want there. Their freedom of speech is protected, even though the land is private. The land is certainly private because the landowner is responsible for upkeep and can generally modify it so long as the sidewalk meets certain requirements.
Here's an example in New York City where the Occupy protests took place: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/the-21-million-sidewalk-how...
All this is to say is that we have a model for privately owned public space -- spaces where private interests have certain rights and obligations and ownership but where accomodations for the public must be made.
Here's another example in London and Portland: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/public-space-battle-playing...
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...
In San Francisco at least -- only using it because I'm most familiar -- certain buildings are required to have public spaces, and you in general have a right to be in this space for free. There are even some beautiful rooftop decks that are privately owned but have been made public to meet the requirement -- like the deck on one kearny.
As it stands, Google+Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit (1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th most popular websites in the country) currently have the power to ban, or worse, guide, all discussion of any topic they wish, with no accountability whatsoever. That is a frightening amount of power to have, and one that I don't believe the free market is equipped to deal with its abuses.
This latter problem is something I'm legitimately surprised more people are not concerned about. Just because they're using this power to target something you don't like doesn't mean it won't be used for more nefarious purposes in the future.
It all comes down to what is popular and unpopular--which is fine in a marketplace. That's exactly how marketplaces are supposed to work.
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eydDN55Vyc&=&feature=you...
This is just two quotes from one appearance. There are many more: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
To clarify, what exactly is it that you disagree with, that the statistical observation in question exists, or that if it does exist, it doesn't necessarily imply that the racial phenotype in question must be "superior" or "inferior"?
What I originally said was;
"it does exist, it doesn't necessarily imply that the racial phenotype in question must be "superior" or "inferior"?"
So the contrapositive to that would be that it does imply that racial phenotype differences must also necessarily imply superior or inferior.
To give you credit though, that does not seem to actually be what you're saying at all though. Breaking down what you do actually say;
> Because there is such overwhelming evidence that all humans belong to a single genetic legacy
Has nothing to do with what I said at all. I never claimed that racial phenotypes imply a separation in species.
> one single race
Appears to deny the existence of racial phenotypes by interpreting the term "race" to mean "species". That doesn't mean that racial phenotypes don't actually exist.
> we therefore must reject the entire premise that started the statistical inquiry.
Putting aside the question that this assumes that the entire premise that started the statistical inquiry in question is well known and completely accepted already, and regardless of what we do to the premise that started the statistical inquiry in question, we still have the results of the statistical inquiry in question to contend with.
This doesn't actually answer any questions.
> Instead, we are obligated to realize that IQ is not correlated with some mythic "g" number
I should hope we are not obligated to realise that at all, because as a simple question of correlation, g factor and IQ is indeed highly correlated, so any such obligation would make us willfully ignorant. In fact the way some IQ tests have their efficiency measured is to observe that correlation. To say that again for emphasis; it is the very way in which many of the tests in question are given validity.
> instead correlated with socioeconomic status and quality of education.
There's no "instead" here. IQ scores correlate statistically on all three measures (amongst many others).
Frankly, the way people address this entire issue desperately trying to make it something other than what it clearly is, when what it clearly is doesn't necessarily imply that it is thus somehow acceptable to persecute racial minorities, or view a specific racial phenotype as "inferior" or "superior" actually does favours to the racial tribalist perspective.
If there's an observable undeniable widespread campaign resulting in the continuous deplatforming and vigorous persecution of all the people in the world who dare to point out that the sky is blue because some of the people who claim that the sky is blue also claim that therefore all people that aren't blue should be killed, and that there's a conspiracy to suppress the fact that the sky is blue, that puts them at definitely correct regarding two of three points, and silencing everybody who claims simply that the sky is blue and nobody should be killed as a consequence of it removes the visibility of the most compelling argument for why the narrative that all non blue people should be killed is ridiculous.
Instead all that remains for the neutral disinterested observer is a massive chorus of people claiming that all blue people / non blue people should be killed and that the sky is any colour other than blue. All under a blue sky. Is it any wonder they throw their hands up and go crazy?
Once upon a time I would've said I don't understand this seeming stupidity, but being older and more cynical now I can't help but suspect it's simply a desperate attempt to throw more fuel on the divide and conquer bonfire by entrenched political elites so the underclass can be kept at each other's throats over table scraps while the aforementioned political overclass gleefully continues looting the vast majority of global wealth.
But hey, I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, now continuously rate limited for my evil wrongthink, so whatever.
I'm disgusted with, and tired of this place.
I've been here eleven years now and I've watched the quality, slowly at first, and with increasing rapidity in more recent years, decline and the minds that gather here spew thought terminating cliches in progressively more shrill chorus as time has gone on, and writing this now I realise that I just get nothing whatsoever out of engagement here anymore, so this will be my final post.
Best of luck to anyone who intends to stick around and see if it pulls out of its decade long nosedive, but I'm done.
Now there is an organisation in the USA that has recently started to use the Antifa Branding. It's called Torch Network or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Racist_Action but that one, too is not related to Germany 1931 or to Stalinism.
Same with Cultural Revolution in China or Khmer Rouge. Same with Nazi Germany - I seriously doubt Hans Sixpack hated Jews or Slavs all that much. In a way, Fascism was too "lifestyle branding". Germans, down and out after WW1, were sold this grand vision of Third Reich and Lebensraum stretching shore to shore on the Eurasian continent. Oh, and if you're against it, not only you'd get "canceled", you'd get shot by the nearest ditch. We're a few years out from that at the moment. In terms of tangibles outside lifestyle branding, BTW, Antifa at the time wasn't that different from fascists themselves. They wanted a communist authoritarianism, hammer and sickle and everything, while fascists wanted more of a capitalist version. Any sort of "democracy" wasn't even up for discussion.
Same with communism. Why wouldn't a "working class" Ivan Sixpack want to "own" the factory he works in? It did not occur to Ivan to think about what that'd actually mean in practice. 5 years later Ivan dies of starvation, 15 years later his extended family ends up dying in Gulag, for being "counterrevolutionary element". He did not end up improving his condition before he kicked the bucket either: the factory is now owned by the state, and it's illegal to not work there. Ivan was a useful idiot, and he outlived his usefulness. Don't be like Ivan.
> The FBI says antifa uses social media to organize, but there’s no specific organization or leadership structure.
To me it looks like a very loose group of "anti-parental-authority" youth on the left fringe, which mostly idiolises fantasy-feelgood-anarchism, mixed with some older anti-klan streams that are special to the USA. You can't just claim that is the continuation of the paramilitary wing of KPD 1931 halfway across the planet, then also claim it is basically Thälmanns KPD, which is basically Stalin himself, because all things loosely related are the same thing. I call bullshit.
Those far fetched stories about how revolutionaries have found themselves abused by some autocratic authoritarian putschists are nice and true, but they do not give any substance to your claim that current Antifa USA is a stalinist organization. Your argument seems to be "all leftist revolution must end in stalinism, therefor they are all stalinists", which is so ridiculous, there should be some Godwins law variant for that.
That democracy you speak of is based on the believe in pluralism, yet you deny the existence of pluralism in the vague field that spans from KPD and Antifa 1931 to todays USA. You somehow completely ignore the 1980s hardcore anarchistic punk scene, 90 years of history, and instead you throw in some "cancel culture" and "maoist culture revolution". You have nothing backing your claim that it is a stalinist organization except matching symbols on anti-capitalist merchandise sold for $5.99 and a generalized red scare.
Now i agree with you on warning about the dangers of totalitarian authoritarianism. On that part we are fine. But you are crying wolves because of a freaking chihuahua! Yes that thing is related to wolves, and it is annoying, but you are the idiot for thinking they are the same. Freedom and Liberalism are not attacked by some rioting teenagers in downtown Seattle. Those who make encryption illegal and want everything on the net monitored by the Ministry for State Security for signs of domestic terrorism, those are the wolves.
This is a wonderful theory, but the past couple of years (Centuries, in the case of racial equality) of political discourse in America has shown that it does not match reality.
There are plenty people who have no problem arguing for racism, or for fascism, and thanks to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, those people have gained both a lot more influence and a lot of, to put it charitably, allies of convenience - or, to put it uncharitably, true believers.