Political Correctness

[mustafur]

Whilst it is looking like blanket statements context is important, does she think a bad Muslim is someone who doesn't follow everything perfectly or something else?


Does she believe Muslims can be in Western society without percecution(if say she was in charge)or does she disagree with the ideolgy but not the individuals right to freedom.


If this is all she had to say on the subject it could be used as information but without more context it's pretty useless to understand her position fully.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The APA report was published in 1996, and I've already linked to a massive volume of far more recent peer reviewed papers that debunk that notion utterly and repeatedly.

You're also ignoring every single piece of critical peer review carried out on 'The Bell Curve' itself, which to be blunt odd given that it undermines utterly the legitimacy of the 'study' (and given that it wasn't peer reviewed prior to publishing or published in a know journal is a generous term to say the least).

You see the 'at present' bit you quoted? That was 22 years ago, a good deal of research has been carried out since then that does change it. Well, unless I'm 26 again and writing this via dial-up.

Edited to add that you also missed the other issues and unanswered questions they had with the book.

1. Differences in genetic endowment contribute substantially to individual differences in (psychometric) intelligence, but the pathway by which genes produce their effects is still unknown. The impact of genetic differences appears to increase with age, but we do not know why.
2. Environmental factors also contribute substantially to the development of intelligence, but we do not clearly understand what those factors are or how they work. Attendance at school is certainly important, for example, but we do not know what aspects of schooling are critical.
3. The role of nutrition in intelligence remains obscure. Severe childhood malnutrition has clear negative effects, but the hypothesis that particular "micro-nutrients" may affect intelligence in otherwise adequately-fed populations has not yet been convincingly demonstrated.
4. There are significant correlations between measures of information processing speed and psychometric intelligence, but the overall pattern of these findings yields no easy theoretical interpretation.
5. Mean scores on intelligence tests are rising steadily. They have gone up a full standard deviation in the last fifty years or so, and the rate of gain may be increasing. No one is sure why these gains are happening or what they mean.
6. The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.
7. It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense and social sensitivity; there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we know very little about them: how they develop, what factors influence that development, how they are related to more traditional measures.

Now in scientific terms unanswered questions call for hypothesis, not conclusion (and conclusion is what the book does - hence the reason in the last 22 years peer review has ripped it apart). In the last 22 years many of these questions, and specifically the genetic ones, have been answered, and the answers don;t support the hypothesis or (incorrectly framed) conclusions of the book.

Cherry picking from one part of the APA report isn't a great idea when the material is in the public domain, and analysis of its key points include:

As for specific assessments of The Bell Curve, the findings of the task force can be summed up in three points:

• Much of the book's data are accurate, especially when addressing the fundamentals of intelligence and IQ testing. One of the stated purposes of the book was to serve as an introduction to the topic, and in this respect the book succeeded. Stephen Ceci, Ph.D., said that despite Herrnstein and Murray's political agenda, they have been "the clearest and most comprehensive writers" on the topic to date. (6)
  
• However, much of the data are also wrong, and analysis of it severely flawed. Halford Fairchild, Ph.D., who led one of the panels assessing the scientific accuracy of the book, summed up their conclusions this way: "The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (7) Indeed, some of the errors were so large as to be attributable to non-experts attempting to write in the field.
  
• The policy recommendations suggested at the end of the book do not follow from the book's own arguments on genes and IQ. On this point the task force was emphatic: it called The Bell Curve a "political" work, not a "scientific" one. (8)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm



However feel free to ignore 22 years of peer-reviewed work, the professional body of 8,000 US geneticists, and actual science because it doesn't support the conclusion you want.

TL;TC;DR So after all that, are you saying that there is no IQ difference between white and African Americans or there is and it can be explained by other factors? Do you have links to studies that show IQ's are equal across the socially constructed races?

 

[mustafur]

TL;TC;DR So after all that, are you saying that there is no IQ difference between white and African Americans or there is and it can be explained by other factors? Do you have links to studies that show IQ's are equal across the socially constructed races?

Taking IQ out of the equation, you would think evolution generally would make differences naturally between humans that historically have not mixed, and that would not just be limited to skin colour a body shapes.

I mean you can point to most of Earth's wildlife and see examples.

 

[G.T.Ace]

TL;TC;DR So after all that, are you saying that there is no IQ difference between white and African Americans or there is and it can be explained by other factors? Do you have links to studies that show IQ's are equal across the socially constructed races?

Maybe do "R" before asking questions like that.

 

[Dobermann92]

There is no moderate Islam and the only good Muslims are bad Muslims, is how the following page of the interview looks to me. She may not be jailing or killing the moderates whose existence she denies but it sounds like they wouldn't have the right to worship if she were running things. It sounds like a pretty hardline stance.

Islam as an ideology is the target, which she see as harmful to society. It is more like muslims who are following a moderate view of Islam isn't real muslims in her opinion. She is sorta right, because if a believer in islam fully follow their religion according to the Quran then they must use jihad to propagate the religion which includes taxing or killing the non-believers. Me, as an atheist would be stoned to death alongside LGBT+ people. Most of the muslims aren't following these very barbaric rules, which means they aren't true to the book. I don't agree with her in this, but I think islam still needs a serious reform, because without that we cannot stop radicalisation.
People fought wars several hundred years ago for religious reasons, but we noticed that we could be better if we cooperate with our neighbours, and so we developed the universal human rights. These rights should be accepted by the muslim countries.

In the end, I would agree with her on the notion that a world without any religion would be the best for humanity (which she hints in the interview) but if I had to choose a religious community to live in it would be modern christianity (who accept old Earth, evolution and so on).

I've watched several videos of her and read several articles about her and she isn't a terrorist or anything like that, she is more likely scared about her life thanks to the fatwa on her and the murder of her best friend and because she knows how some of the most radical islamic believers (who isn't always terrorists or jihadists, just regular people) think and act in their non-secular states.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-152#post-12610075

 

[Johnnypenso]

Taking IQ out of the equation, you would think evolution generally would make differences naturally between humans that historically have not mixed, and that would not just be limited to skin colour a body shapes.

I mean you can point to most of Earth's wildlife and see examples.

IQ is what I'm enquiring about. If there are IQ differences between the socially constructed races, why is it there? Can it be erased? Given that it is there and significant, what effect should it have on public policy. IQ scores are one of the best predictors of economic outcomes. It's an important metric if it has predictive value even if it's both flawed and limited.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911002984

One of the most consequential parts of Richard Lynn’s work is the establishment of a comprehensive data set of “national IQ” for nearly all countries in the world. The present contribution demonstrates the use of this database for the explanation of two economic outcomes: (1) economic growth and level of attained wealth at the country level; and (2) income distribution in countries as measured by the Gini index. The results show that high IQ is associated not only with high per-capita GDP and fast economic growth, but also with more equal income distribution. These outcomes are not mediated by educational exposure.

 

[Scaff]

TL;TC;DR So after all that, are you saying that there is no IQ difference between white and African Americans or there is and it can be explained by other factors? Do you have links to studies that show IQ's are equal across the socially constructed races?

The sources I provided cover this, I'm not sure why you didn't read them?

IQ is what I'm enquiring about. If there are IQ differences between the socially constructed races, why is it there? Can it be erased? Given that it is there and significant, what effect should it have on public policy. IQ scores are one of the best predictors of economic outcomes. It's an important metric if it has predictive value even if it's both flawed and limited.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911002984

One of the most consequential parts of Richard Lynn’s work is the establishment of a comprehensive data set of “national IQ” for nearly all countries in the world. The present contribution demonstrates the use of this database for the explanation of two economic outcomes: (1) economic growth and level of attained wealth at the country level; and (2) income distribution in countries as measured by the Gini index. The results show that high IQ is associated not only with high per-capita GDP and fast economic growth, but also with more equal income distribution. These outcomes are not mediated by educational exposure.

So your quoting an author who's work in the field has not only been repeatedly debunked, but is also the assistant editor of a white supremacist publication and sits on the board of a white supremacist think tank!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Oh and also supports the debunked link between race and IQ, and has been widely criticised in peer review for his bias towards this assumption (and was cited a number of times in The Bell Curve).

I'm also very comfortable calling g him a eugenicist, mainly because he is one. Publishing a book in support of it (attempting once again to assert a link between genetics and IQ).

Here is just one example of his views on race:

"I think the only solution lies in the breakup of the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in the Southwest, the Southeast and the East, but the Northwest and the far Northeast, Maine, Vermont and upstate New York have a large predominance of whites. I believe these predominantly white states should declare independence and secede from the Union. They would then enforce strict border controls and provide minimum welfare, which would be limited to citizens. If this were done, white civilization would survive within this handful of states."

I think its safe to say that even if we didn't have volumes of peer review debunking large amounts of his work, that he carries a rather large bias.

What surprised me more was that you hadn't bothered to check the author of a piece you cited as a rebuttal to see if they were creditable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The sources I provided cover this, I'm not sure why you didn't read them?


So your quoting an author who's work in the field has not only been repeatedly debunked, but is also the assistant editor of a white supremacist publication and sits on the board of a white supremacist think tank!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Oh and also supports the debunked link between race and IQ, and has been widely criticised in peer review for his bias towards this assumption (and was cited a number of times in The Bell Curve).

I'm also very comfortable calling g him a eugenicist, mainly because he is one. Publishing a book in support of it (attempting once again to assert a link between genetics and IQ).

Here is just one example of his views on race:

"I think the only solution lies in the breakup of the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in the Southwest, the Southeast and the East, but the Northwest and the far Northeast, Maine, Vermont and upstate New York have a large predominance of whites. I believe these predominantly white states should declare independence and secede from the Union. They would then enforce strict border controls and provide minimum welfare, which would be limited to citizens. If this were done, white civilization would survive within this handful of states."

I think its safe to say that even if we didn't have volumes of peer review debunking large amounts of his work, that he carries a rather large bias.

What surprised me more was that you hadn't bothered to check the author of a piece you cited as a rebuttal to see if they were creditable.

Can you quote directly where your sources say that IQ is equated across the socially constructed races?

 

[Scaff]

Can you quote directly where your sources say that IQ is equated across the socially constructed races?

Why would I quote them saying something I've not claimed and nor have they.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yep lots, and the American Society of Human Genetics actually put out a debunking of it, along with links to the peer reviewed material that debunks it.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(18)30363-X

But the second citation listed (I couldn't check the first it was a dead link) in that link says the genetics follow the ancestry and geographical migration of groups, specifically looking at African, European and East Asian population groups....

Given that intelegence based on race is pretty much one of the cornerstones of eugenics, I don't have a major issue with it. I have far more of an issue with it being referred to as research (as its that poor), and the utterly misleading Spectator article (which is no major surprise from the publication that published a piece in praise of the Whermarcht).

But where has he said one race is superior or that there should be promotion of specific sexual reproduction to enhance the gene pool?

That it's being challenged in court as it has no place.

I want to know why you think the university consistently ranked the best in the world is setting different standards for entry based on race if it's so widely and indisputedly known that all races have the same average for intelligence.

EDITED in "average" instead of "capacity". I personally think anyone has the capacity to be a genius but Watson was talking about averages.

Further to that... in a long discussion with @HenrySwanson in a previous incarnation a lot of evidence was raised about damage to potential IQ levels in malaria zones, something which has been far more well-understood in the last twenty years. Exposure to malaria has significant long-term effects on childrens' development.

As in exposure to the subject when they were a child or effects passed on by epigenetics?

 

[TenEightyOne]

As in exposure to the subject when they were a child or effects passed on by epigenetics?

I'd have to go back to the source but as I recall it was exposure in infancy and had no heritable effect.

 

[PocketZeven]

Can you quote directly where your sources say that IQ is equated across the socially constructed races?

Now I am curious. What do you believe?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Now I am curious. What do you believe?

This always gets me, and the reason I posted in the first place.

Why is this such a personal issue?
If I were to talk about a risk of a medical condition or muscle strength specific to races would the responses be "Well, what do you believe"

Why is intelligence so taboo?

 

[PocketZeven]

This always gets me, and the reason I posted in the first place.

Why is this such a personal issue?
If I were to talk about a risk of a medical condition or muscle strength specific to races would the responses be "Well, what do you believe"

Why is intelligence so taboo?

I have had a lot of discussions with @Johnnypenso in the past. So I am genuinly curious about his postition.

And in my opinion this whole discussion is BS. There is no such thing as human "races". Genetically we are all the same. There are ethnic traits however that have direct relationship to the environment certain ethnicities originate, but thinking there are human "races" (which is incorrect) only opens the discussion if race A is better/worse then race B.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm pretty prehistoric when it comes to this so when "race" pops up it should read "ethnicity". All I know is that when it comes to listing my ethnicity in applications I leave that box unmarked since I want to be judged on my merits and failures as a person rather than accepted to interview because of a quota.

 

[Scaff]

But the second citation listed (I couldn't check the first it was a dead link) in that link says the genetics follow the ancestry and geographical migration of groups, specifically looking at African, European and East Asian population groups....

All of us started in Africa if you go back to the origins of man, and as we spread as a species we have carried on sharing genetic traits across the populations.

From the second citations conclusion.

But where has he said one race is superior or that there should be promotion of specific sexual reproduction to enhance the gene pool?

My view, I didn't expect you to agree with it, I did however hope that you would address the other points rather than ignoring them.

I want to know why you think the university consistently ranked the best in the world is setting different standards for entry based on race if it's so widely and indisputedly known that all races have the same average for intelligence.

EDITED in "average" instead of "capacity". I personally think anyone has the capacity to be a genius but Watson was talking about averages.

Does being the 'best' mean its infallible?

This always gets me, and the reason I posted in the first place.

Why is this such a personal issue?
If I were to talk about a risk of a medical condition or muscle strength specific to races would the responses be "Well, what do you believe"

Why is intelligence so taboo?

Because medical conditions are not the same as intelligence.

Nor is it infallible when it comes to medical conditions, as the paper the second citation discussed above makes quite clear, assuming you read it fully its surprising you would use this as an example.

Once again from the papers conclusion.

That's without discussing the fact (and its been discussed in pretty much every source I have cited) that measuring intelligence itself is a flawed and much debated topic, with no clear cut universally agreed measure. As such your comparison between medical conditions and intelligence and 'apples and oranges'.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm pretty prehistoric when it comes to this so when "race" pops up it should read "ethnicity". All I know is that when it comes to listing my ethnicity in applications I leave that box unmarked since I want to be judged on my merits and failures as a person rather than accepted to interview because of a quota.

Race suggests that Race B is different (potentially superior/inferior) then Race A. Ethnicity suggests we are the same, but I come from a different place. I still hope this will be corrected soon in the English language. I cringe everytime I hear "race" on the news etc.

 

[novcze]

Genetically we are all the same.

we are some 99.9% the same and we are all humans

 

[Joel]

Why is intelligence so taboo?

Because of the obvious historical implications of accepting a definition of race as a neatly defined category that maps on to skin colour, and accepting as given that intelligence is a measurable quality and that there are substantive differences between populations based primarily on genetics. There is no global history of justifying genocide and chattel slavery based on a population's susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. This is not me saying that you believe in a racial hierarchy, it is me saying that unless you are in the interest of justifying a racial hierarchy there is little value in accepting an (incorrect) definition of race as a genuinely existing and important biological factor or in accepting IQ as "intelligence" that can be mapped by race.

To expand on that, there are three main parts to this idea that I take issue with. Firstly, it implies that intelligence (usually using IQ) is a measurable quality and that IQ tests or other standardized college acceptance tests are legitimate measures of "intelligence" - however that may be defined. Neither IQ nor standardized test scores are particularly useful measures of a generalized intelligence because there is always a cultural bias or factor baked into the test itself, and a bias in terms of what defines intelligence in the first place. The classic example is a now removed SAT question that asked "as a Runner is to a Marathon, an Oarsman is to a ________ (Regatta). I certainly would not consider a high school student unintelligent for not knowing what a Regatta is.

This is just the most basic low-hanging fruit, beyond the test itself SAT results often correlate with attending expensive SAT prep/coaching classes, and a similar relationship exists with IQ tests and family levels of income and/or social class. If a researcher is administering an IQ test in a country where English is the second language (or even administering the test in a different regional dialect) that will impact results. Furthermore, IQ tests generally don't measure creativity, social skills, or other elements of what could reasonably be called intelligence. That's just the test side of the equation, family income, parental level of education, childhood nutrition, prevalence of disease during childhood, etc are all large factors that influence how prepared someone will be to take an IQ or another standardized test even if we assume all cultural bias factors have been removed from the test itself.

Secondly, denoting "race" as correlating to ethnicity and/or skin colour is flawed to begin with and "race" doesn't really exist as a biological factor. Another simple low-hanging fruit example would be that less than a century ago Irish and Italian people were considered to be racially inferior to "white" people, but are today considered white. Amusingly, while 20th century studies argued the British were racially superior to the Irish due to higher IQ's, at the time Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans had higher IQ's than either (due to higher incomes). If race is so mutable and defined by social changes that the definition of "white" can be expanded to include two ethnicities within a century (not to mention Slavic peoples who were categorically not considered "white" a century ago) how confident can we be in even measuring who is part of which race to begin testing intelligence by "race"?

Thirdly, I reject the unspoken premise of the idea that IQ or intelligence is linked to race: that IQ or another measurement of intelligence measures the worth of a person or people. Again, that is not me saying you believe this or are arguing this premise, it's me saying that unless you are interested in promoting a racial hierarchy of the world I struggle to see the value in defining intelligence by "race". This is a topic where there have been so many studies and competing hypotheses and I have little interest in getting into a detailed statistical argument about how strongly XYZ factor correlates to intelligence vs ABC factor. Ultimately I reject the underlying premise that IQ measures intelligence, or that even if it did measure intelligence there would be value in determining racial intelligence and ranking intelligence by race.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Danoff]

Furthermore, IQ tests generally don't measure creativity, social skills, or other elements of what could reasonably be called intelligence.

In fact... it seems that more and more it is the case that these alternatives to what was classically considered intelligence will turn out to be the only thing that really matters. In the past, a really sharp memory and the ability to do mental math was highly valued. That's gone the way of the dodo now thanks to the computer. We still value the ability to abstract, identify patterns, and learn sophisticated models, but more and more that is also going the way of the dodo thanks to the computer.

In 50 years, I imagine we'll all be singing the praises of creativity and denigrating what's currently considered intelligent as being something you just plug into a computer. IQ is a relic of the past.

 

[UKMikey]

So your quoting an author who's work in the field has not only been repeatedly debunked, but is also the assistant editor of a white supremacist publication and sits on the board of a white supremacist think tank!

It sounds like intelligence is a bit of a dick measuring contest to Lynn...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why would I quote them saying something I've not claimed and nor have they.

My point was that the IQ's were not equal across the socially constructed races. You posted a long rant which did not disprove that in any way. I was just wondering if you left something out in your response.

 

[PocketZeven]

My point was that the IQ's were not equal across the socially constructed races. You posted a long rant which did not disprove that in any way. I was just wondering if you left something out in your response.

That claim is wrong. The whole notion that one's IQ is higher/lower then another "race" is BS. As i preach everytime, we are genetically all the same. IQ tests as established are relative.

 

[TexRex]

We have a 6-year-old Aussie named Sage. She's a lover and she cracks us up, particularly when she's excited and she does something I like to call "squaddling", where she squats down on her belly and waddles forward with her tail wagging.

It's nice to think of Sage as an intelligent animal too, and we can attempt to support that notion by the fact that despite her having demonstrated an inclination to also jump up when excited, she will not jump up unless commanded to do so, even if she's been tempted with a treat held too high for her to reach when seated but not so high that she can't reach it if she does jump up. See, Sage knows that jumping up won't necessarily result in her getting that treat.

Now suppose we invite our neighbor's high-energy Lab (Maisie) into our home as we do on occasion because our neighbor doesn't have a pool and this dog loves to swim--so much so that she bolts for the water as soon as she's through the gate, regardless of command. Like Sage, Maisie is an absolute sweetheart, but there's no getting her out of the pool for a good ten minutes once she's in there.

The two dogs demonstrate both similar and different behaviors, but are these behaviors indicative of individual intelligence or a lack thereof? Are these behaviors indicative of intelligence or lack thereof across their respective breeds? I mean...Aussies are commonly thought of as smart dogs and Labs are often considered goofy and a little dim, so surely these behaviors are demonstrative of those respective perceptions.

Plot twist: Sage has been trained to not jump.

 

[PocketZeven]

I could also claim that religious people are less intelligent. Just for the fact they believe in an entity that can not be proven to be real. And because of their upbringing face a wall to either embrace science or just deny it.

 

[Scaff]

My point was that the IQ's were not equal across the socially constructed races. You posted a long rant which did not disprove that in any way. I was just wondering if you left something out in your response.

My point was (and got dismissed as a rant) is that point itself remains unproven.

Show me a peer reviewed report that corrects for all forms of intelegence, that corrects for changes in differing intelegence measures (IQ for example get its baseline reset upwards on a regular basis), that ensure the tests are corrected for language and cultural differences and (as was not the case in The Bell Curve) that the same test was used on all subjects.

Provide that and we can discuss.

Until then, what's claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Because of the obvious historical implications of accepting a definition of race as a neatly defined category that maps on to skin colour, and accepting as given that intelligence is a measurable quality and that there are substantive differences between populations based primarily on genetics. There is no global history of justifying genocide and chattel slavery based on a population's susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. This is not me saying that you believe in a racial hierarchy, it is me saying that unless you are in the interest of justifying a racial hierarchy there is little value in accepting an (incorrect) definition of race as a genuinely existing and important biological factor or in accepting IQ as "intelligence" that can be mapped by race.

So there's no point studying intelligence and ethnicity because to start the study you have to have an interest in justifying a racial hierarchy?

Simply asking the question means you are looking to prove an assumption?

My point was (and got dismissed as a rant) is that point itself remains unproven.

Show me a peer reviewed report that corrects for all forms of intelegence, that corrects for changes in differing intelegence measures (IQ for example get its baseline reset upwards on a regular basis), that ensure the tests are corrected for language and cultural differences and (as was not the case in The Bell Curve) that the same test was used on all subjects.

Provide that and we can discuss.

Until then, what's claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

But you liked a post saying that anyone who attempts to prove that is only doing so because they want to justify a racial hierarchy. As such I don't see any evidence coming along soon.

In fact... it seems that more and more it is the case that these alternatives to what was classically considered intelligence will turn out to be the only thing that really matters. In the past, a really sharp memory and the ability to do mental math was highly valued. That's gone the way of the dodo now thanks to the computer. We still value the ability to abstract, identify patterns, and learn sophisticated models, but more and more that is also going the way of the dodo thanks to the computer.

In 50 years, I imagine we'll all be singing the praises of creativity and denigrating what's currently considered intelligent as being something you just plug into a computer. IQ is a relic of the past.

I think this is a good point, but I still think IQ or subjective intelligence tests will still have a role in screening.

As it stands currently there are 2 main tests you can take for entry to a UK medical school - the UKCAT and the BMAT. The UKCAT tests abstract thinking, decision making, mathematical ability and situational awareness while the BMAT is more traditional in testing logic, scientific thinking and also (interestingly) an essay section. Universities use the results in different ways, with some imposing a cut-off for scores and others putting more weight in a personal statement or your performance at interview. The fact remains however that everyone sits one of the tests (graduates may have to sit a harder test) and I don't see that going in the future.

 

[Scaff]

But you liked a post saying that anyone who attempts to prove that is only doing so because they want to justify a racial hierarchy. As such I don't see any evidence coming along soon.

I like posts for a range of reasons (and I'm sure occasionally by accident when browsing using my phone).

As such attempting to assign a specific meaning to a like is akin to attempting mind reading. It's not going to work and you may end up looking foolish when attempting it