Read it again then, your entire comment is already answered to above. You can keep trying to switch direction like a weasel, but I could cut and paste the comm

Read it again then, your entire comment is already answered to above. You can keep trying to switch direction like a weasel, but I could cut and paste the comment you replied to and it'd still be accurate because you didn't answer a single point brought up. Let's narrow the foxhole though, see if you can answer yes or no to a few simple questions: > The answer to the implicit question is simple and obvious. The stereotypes that proved accurate were often ones which people, for political reasons, wished to be inaccurate. > A simple example will demonstrate this. There is a stereotype that blacks are stupid. Your comment is attempting to support the stereotype "blacks are stupid" as "accurate but inconvenient". Yes? You must realize it's possible to talk about differences in education outcomes for different races without deciding to frame it in defense of the stereotype blacks are stupid, since you link to an article that does so. Yes? Yet you decided to use it support the stereotype "blacks are stupid". Yes? "Blacks are stupid" is a racist stereotype. Yes? You are supporting racist stereotypes on HN. Yes? You should should keep trying to double down on it? No.