If the facts about heritable human differences are to be ever taken seriously, it needs to be extricated from such utter nonsense, as well as from the mean-spirited sentiment.With all due respect (and I have a ton of it for the guy, who I've had the chance to get to know not just on an intellectual level but also on a personal one), Jayman is new kid on the block. He's an exception to the rule--a welcome one with great voice, subject matter, flow, and eloquence in his writing--among the first of hopefully many, but at this point in time still an exception all the same. He's an exception because people who share his cultural attitudes and political persuasions tend to find the mere thought of human biodiversity blasphemous; the sort of thing not merely entertained by a misguided mind, but by an evil one.
HBD and the Dark Enlightenment that has grown out of it has made tremendous strides forward over the last decade, from the unrecognizable to the unthinkably disreputable to the overly exaggerated and cherry-picked half-truth to, in some quarters, begrudging acceptance, or at least the initial stages of flirting with such acceptance. During this trial by fire, it was the disagreeable, unapologetic, uncouth, dissident right that indefatigably carried the banner forward, absorbing relentless projectiles fired its way, picking up adherents of lesser intestinal fortitude--if greater thoughtfulness--in the process.
Here's to hoping Jayman continues to successfully 'raise awareness' of HBD in the minds of those previously closed to the notion that rather than stopping 10,000 years ago, evolutionary pressures on humanity have actually accelerated greatly with the onset of agriculture. But it seems a bit supercilious and self-serving to simultaneously start sharing in the spoils and denigrating those who came before because of their unfavorable interpretations of the data you've recently discovered.
Parenthetically, Jayman quotes a commenter named misdreavus, who offers that :
Surely there was a time when people actually tried to research certain topics before launching a slurry of half-baked and inchoate opinions with an audacious (and entirely unwarranted) degree of self-confidence — not so much because people were any better informed in yesteryear than they are today, but because certain structural barriers posed an impediment to the crazy and incompetent expressing their ideas in lofty places.When I started blogging back in 2005, intent on maintaining a tight empirical grounding in all that I wrote, I choose the moniker Audacious Epigone to mockingly preempt exactly those sorts of strawmen and attendant ad hominem attacks misdreavus levels above.