"But right now in current conditions something like this is needed."
This just seems like a scheme for closeted nazis to publish eugenics articles without criticism. That's never needed, and particularly not right now.
This just seems like a scheme for closeted nazis to publish eugenics articles without criticism. That's never needed, and particularly not right now.
The common faults include:
- paper is good quality, but results are inflated/misunderstood by reporter
- paper examines correlation, misses (seemingly obvious) other explanations. This can get so bad that you get "wet streets cause rain" results.
- paper uses statistics incorrectly or in a misleading manner(example: Data says A is true 8% of the time, false 2% of the time, unknown 90% of the time. Paper concludes that "A is only determined false 2% of the time, which is technically true, but misleading")
- paper uses unexpected definitions - words in common parlance but redefined for its field, definition is localized(legal, cultural), etc. A prime example is rape statistics, where the legal status of rape is different between countries, and many papers examining rape rates also use their own definition.
To go back to the original point - if someone is telling you certain people are inferior because of their genetic makeup, as proven by paper X, this can be wrong on all 4 counts I mentioned - the definition of "inferior" might not match mine, the statistics might be misleading, the correlation may be spurious(especially when generalizing such complex phenomenon!), or the reports might be wildly inflated. Why would you even begin to trust such a paper, before verifying it?
Take for example the incel communities, where they selectively quote parts of research articles to support their views, and use them to reinforce calls to violence which members of that community act on.
Many of these people are relatively well educated. It’s the reinforcement of bad aspects of their belief system which is bad.
That’s one of the reasons I keep posting here, despite the negative reaction. People need to realise that free speech absolutitivness isn’t universally accepted.
I read the article, I thought it was an interesting idea. On the other hand, you (presumably) read the article, came to the conclusion that Nazis must be behind it, and have now voiced your concern that it's a Nazi scheme publicly on the internet for everyone to see. Some people prefer not to have such accusations thrown at them for merely suggesting innocuous not-politically-motivated things.
And you didn’t do it ironically (AFAICT).
“Oh they need true freedom of speech? They are probably Nazi’s”