you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

While your assertion may be true it seems to me that rather than address the content of the message you instead pivoted towards the character of the poster. Ironically, this is like someone on Reddit saying someone should be ignored because they posted on /r/the_donald

I find human biodiversity a rather regrettable reality, but it's still reality. It is by willfully ignoring these differences between groups that we foster an environment ripe for unjust claims of racism. After all, if Africans are just as intelligent as Ashekenazi Jews, why are they poor (on average) while the Jews are rich (on average)? It must be systemic racism and oppression.

I've always found most people have fairly religious views where humans are concerned, although most every biological trait imaginable is heritable. People have no problem pointing out that Somalians are the best runners, or that border collies are the smartest dogs - but mention conscientiousness, IQ, or empathy in a human context; and suddenly we transcend biology and there must be a blank limitless human soul present.

In this magical world an aboriginal from the jungles of New Guinea would surely be one of our top scientists in the future - if only we'd feed, educate, and house him in the west. When he fails to do that - it's obviously because the racists around every corner held him back. What other answer could there possibly be? These riots were predictable months ago - I just didn't know what the excuse would be.

[–]AFutureConcern 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They don't deny human biodiversity because they think it's false. They deny it because they think it helps justify an "oppressive narrative". It's all feelings and "oppression". If some groups are less intelligent on average, and this is due to natural reasons, or in fact any justifiable reason (natural or artificial), then those groups will be justifiably lower on the hierarchy than others. From their perspective, hierarchy is intolerable (and cannot / should not be justified) and so anybody sharing those facts must be "complicit" in what they call "white supremacy" (they call it this even if Asians are shown to have the highest IQ).

Then there are the "useful idiots" who believe the lies the former group tell about human biodiversity not existing. They truly think the Critical Social Justice types are simply complaining about unfair treatment, about prejudiced cops, and that we should strive to erase prejudice, and that we really are all the same underneath. They couldn't be further from the truth. Critical Social Justice activists do not care that human biodiversity exists, they simply want to destroy the narrative that it does. They don't care about "prejudice" because they'll happily pre-judge people if it advances their agenda. They only care about "oppression" which means when any (racial, ethnic, sex) group has more power than any other - and in particular, since white men have more power than other groups, they will deconstruct any narrative that justifies any of that power, regardless of how true it is.