Originally Posted by Sini
I am glad we both agree that racial priming theory is a bunch of bunk.


Originally Posted by Sini
Alternatively, Sam Harris could be largely accurate in his criticisms of Islam and it is irrelevant whether alt-right agrees with him or not. It is also very telling that you consider that anything alt-right happen to agree with is automatically wrong and reprehensible. They probably also believe in gravity, does this make gravity a racist oppressive force that keeps minorities down (literally and otherwise)?


Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.

Originally Posted by Sini
Sam Harris, if distilled down to only few interests is known for advocacy of atheism, interest in free will, and relationship between science and religion. Only your first statement is even remotely neutral, the rest is knee-jerk ideology. Considering that you earlier agreed that Islam isn't a religion of peace, why is sudden regression and backslide to political correctness in your critique of Sam Harris? If we all agree that Islam is not a good thing, we only Harris is guilty of wrong-think?


He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.

Originally Posted by Sini

That, and bad statistics, questionable methods, lack of finding correlations for key arguments... and most importantly, the paper doesn't state what fair.org claims it says. It doesn't support their argument in any substantial way.


I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting? I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.

[Linked Image]