3 ms·

You seem to be suggesting that because these ideas are contrary to the "common" understanding - and I'd encourage you to examine _who's_ understanding this real

You seem to be suggesting that because these ideas are contrary to the "common" understanding - and I'd encourage you to examine _who's_ understanding this really is - that they are deceptive and worthless. This is a criticism of the way these views are presented. This is not a criticism of their content. I find it increasingly strange that three commenters have spoken very loudly in this thread about how they feel this is a divisive attack, yet not one of them has engaged in good faith with a single idea of that field or otherwise demonstrated an understanding of it.

raxxorrax 6y ago
Maybe it is a criticism of the presentation indeed. But also of the consequences of policies grounded in conclusions in those views, because these are used to justify discrimination by skin color, the "common" understanding of racism I am referring to. Two wrongs don't make a right is a pretty straight forward type of criticism in my opinion. If you propose discrimination by skin color and that is obviously the goal here that even made its way into policy, I don't need to engage in good faith with you. It is intellectually dishonest and a plump divide and conquer spiel. There is no scientific background that warrants criticism, it is pure politics and racism. That would be my primary criticism of the content.