Having naughty views on racial differences is not inherently genocidal. Most of those who fought to end slavery in this country -- including Abraham Lincoln -- had views on racial differences which would be considered double plus deplorable today.
Which by definition is being as open to the naughty view as the PC view.
Steve Sailer's "What if I'm right?" essay is also apropos. There is a difference in believing in racial differences and using them as an excuse to persecute. Sailer is even open to a bit of affirmative action.
I don't see how hereditarianism necessarily leads to a far-right point of view. The degree to which it's correct is a matter of factual discourse, not moral foundations. This should be obvious, but I guess people are blinded to basic philosophy when they get emotional.
I'm for first trimester abortions, environmental protections, liberty to LGBT people, some government-funded healthcare and lots of government-funded research, and the legalization of drugs and prostitution. (I am also want to cut most entitlement programs, crack down more on crime, cut most regulations, restrict migration, end DEI, and reinstate freedom of association, though.)
However, even when I leaned Democrat, I was long leaning towards inherent differences existing between groups. I don't see what policies would necessarily have to change. Even DEI, which I do think Democrats should drop, could theoretically be justified on grounds of likely genetic disadvantage and wanting to give people a leg up. This has already been argued for DEI when it comes to disabilties.
I don't know. To me it seems dumb to get hysterical over an area of scientific inquiry. It wouldn't crumble their whole worldview, and even if it did, a worldview that can't be justified based on reality shouldn't be held so dearly.
Would it be a circle to square? There's already acceptance of individual differences and even the ones between men and women in some left-wing circles.
It's a factual question, not one of political alignment.
I fully support the Decker army turning their pitchforks against Erik-like woke puritans of Mason Uni, if they succeed in their crusade I might join you as a Dem after the pruning
Spot on
Having naughty views on racial differences is not inherently genocidal. Most of those who fought to end slavery in this country -- including Abraham Lincoln -- had views on racial differences which would be considered double plus deplorable today.
My point was that Yglesias doesn't profess views. He professes agnosticism.
Which by definition is being as open to the naughty view as the PC view.
Steve Sailer's "What if I'm right?" essay is also apropos. There is a difference in believing in racial differences and using them as an excuse to persecute. Sailer is even open to a bit of affirmative action.
I don't see how hereditarianism necessarily leads to a far-right point of view. The degree to which it's correct is a matter of factual discourse, not moral foundations. This should be obvious, but I guess people are blinded to basic philosophy when they get emotional.
I'm for first trimester abortions, environmental protections, liberty to LGBT people, some government-funded healthcare and lots of government-funded research, and the legalization of drugs and prostitution. (I am also want to cut most entitlement programs, crack down more on crime, cut most regulations, restrict migration, end DEI, and reinstate freedom of association, though.)
However, even when I leaned Democrat, I was long leaning towards inherent differences existing between groups. I don't see what policies would necessarily have to change. Even DEI, which I do think Democrats should drop, could theoretically be justified on grounds of likely genetic disadvantage and wanting to give people a leg up. This has already been argued for DEI when it comes to disabilties.
I don't know. To me it seems dumb to get hysterical over an area of scientific inquiry. It wouldn't crumble their whole worldview, and even if it did, a worldview that can't be justified based on reality shouldn't be held so dearly.
I think there's a huge difference between professing agnosticism and trying to square the circle between hereditarianism and leftism.
Would it be a circle to square? There's already acceptance of individual differences and even the ones between men and women in some left-wing circles.
It's a factual question, not one of political alignment.
*I also want to
Tbh I'm pretty sure you're a left winger trolling.
I fully support the Decker army turning their pitchforks against Erik-like woke puritans of Mason Uni, if they succeed in their crusade I might join you as a Dem after the pruning