Should pseudoscience like pic related be allowed to be published?

Is punching people who might have certain political beliefs which would cause them to be confused with people who in the past under certain circumstances which I cannot possibly hope to cover here were by others whose political stance I'm sure we all are aware was influenced by a certain group that typically has the power and means to influence everything considered "nazis" per se an act of free speech?

How many of the people discussing this book, people who either agree or disagree with its thesis, have actually read it? The book is about how IQ is becoming more pertinent to success now that people are better tested and fields that require a higher-than-average IQ are blowing up (it was written during the beginning of the tech revolution). Only one chapter in the book is about race.

fuck off i will hate whoever i want did you even think abou what you said

Which authority decides upon the alleged "hatred and intolerance" of the books you're talking about or is that as arbitrary as your sheltered outlook?

It's like you're implying it is a bad idea to teach people not to fall for everything they read

You can't legislate against emotions, only actions.

report all non-literature threads

not only that, it literally says that we should be agnostic about the origin of the difference of the black-white gap.
Literally nobody reads this book.
The only less-read book I know of is Bailey's book on autogynephilia.

Society at large decides it
we have moved past racism and intolerance; it has no place in the public sphere

You could have a completely homogenous community of middle class wh*Tes. A nice town with almost no crime, an all round good community. However because of the weakness of the wh*Tes all it would take to destroy this community is one BLACK bull?

Just imagine, it's a nice sunny Sunday afternoon, imagine the bustle of this 100% wh*Te town until suddenly a couple of BLACK bulls walk up. Women would feel more attraction to these superior, strong bulls infinitely more than their pathetic wh*Te husbands. Every woman would be begging, grovelling to be impregnated by these overlords, the new kings of the town who earned this position with nothing but their superior presence. And these bulls wouldn't stop until every girl was carrying their children, the wh*Te women's original children would probably be neglected. Who the fuck would want to raise these inferior children? They are only going to turn out like their fathers.

The Men? The men would flee after realizing how futile their attempts at winning back their wives attraction would be. They would flee to Japan where they will try to win over FAS looking ugly Jap girls because they are the only things disgusting and lonely enough to accept them. Many would probably be rejected after the Japs hear of their shameful and dishonorable display, even they probably would have killed themselves to avoid the shame.

Back home in the once nice town, every woman will be raising their BLACK children and will be queuing up for their second or maybe even third pregnancy. They wont stop until they hit menopause, because they know deep down that their purpose is to populate the world with superior BLACK bulls who will then move on to destroy other towns. This is REAL colonization. You can't take over a place without winning the attraction or respect of the people, that method will always collapse.

t. black homosexual in denial

What do you even get out of it?
You're nothing.

Then surely society at large can be trusted not to be ensnared by what it deems to be racist or intolerant rhetoric.

It's beneficial to allow these voices to be heard and laughed at than censored completely. Unless you don't trust society at large to be able to make those decisions for themselves.

>... The State has an obligation to protect readers from dangerous ideology, even more so when it also goes against progressive values and supports either scientific racism, intolerance, anti-semitism or toxic masculinity

WRONG

Government should not pick "unacceptable" speech to censor. We, the people, should get off our communal ass and refute such speech.

>conservatives have so little to offer in the way of genuine ideology that their only hope of gaining more support is through petty, over-the-top false flags like this one
absolutely pathetic

>over-the-top
no

also
>implying every single barely political thread on Veeky Forums isn't bombarded with even more petty, over-the-top falseflags by /leftypol/tards

the b-but i'm just promoting both sides and the intolerant liberals are shutting me down crowd were already btfo'd

currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious

archive.is/do0Ol

if I could redraft the constitution people like you wouldn't be considered human

You're both terrible. Where are my pan-cosmic animistic shaman centrists at?

This is bait.
-an sjw

I know this is a troll post, but for any of you lefties out there who think he is serious and/or correct, that is bordering on thought crime levels of insanity. You don't actuaslly want an authoritarian faux-utopia where you aren't allowed to question the state or what is forced on you as acceptable, do you? Watch THX 1138.

some art show downtown

>youre serious

This was decent bait but I got really disturbed when I remember some people share the stupidity you're feigning

>read a shitpost on Veeky Forums
>exhale slightly
>read the exact same thing on friend's facebook page
>sinking feeling
will our society continue down this path forever
it feels like something's going to snap

We went too far in this direction; it stands to reason we'll either keep going or swing equally as hard in the opposite direction

it's perfectly fine to disagree with /pol/'s neurotic race fixation, but the notion that there are no intellectual differences between populations geographically separated for 10s of thousands of years is absurd on its face.

the only arguments against this self-evident position are rhetorical sleights of hand that would be obvious to any nonbiased observer if not for the cradle to grave brainwashing from the media and academia which typically equates all nonegalitarian thinking with the holocaust, slavery, and the assorted horrors of european imperalism. it's really embarrassing how facile the anti arguments are. for example, it's not uncommon to hear otherwise educated people attempt to refute the notion of population differences by pointing out that all human beings share 99.9% of the same dna. but even ignoring the fact that we share about about 96% with chimps and 60% with bananas, the obvious issue here, to anyone not blinded by ideology, is that despite sharing 99.9% of the same dna, there are vast and obvious intellectual differences between individuals. issac newton and a literal retard are both human and therefore share 99.9% of the same dna, and yet there are vast and obvious intellectual differences between the two. one would think this obvious fact would occur to these people and prevent them for presenting such a ridiculous argument, but it doesn't because they are, for understandable reasons, desperate to ardently believe the thing that puts them in the good graces of society and to just as ardently disbelief the thing that would make them more or less an untouchable.

from what I understand, the maximum difference in IQ from genes we have identified is about 10 points

>the state for one has an o ligation to interfere in the ideological debate of the public
no, we should just all use the tools we have for scrutinizing bad ideas. If you want thought police, lobotomize yourself. There is no difference.

h*ck off OP

>it is that Murray and Herrnstein use IQ, an arbitrary test of a particular set of abilities (arbitrary in the sense that there is no reason why a person’s IQ should matter any more than their eye color, not in the sense that it is uncorrelated with economic outcomes) as a measure of whether someone is smart or dumb in the ordinary language sense. It isn’t, though
Aaaaaaaand it's trash.
How come every single time someone tries to debunk this type of claims they always resort to science denialism? They always say either that people can't be divided in populations solely by analyzing their DNA; or they pretend IQ doesn't exist/is meaningless, or they deny basic findings of behavioral genetics.
Never, ever, do you find someone that accepts all of those three things and then offers some actual good argument.

Some of the last few articles the author has written:
>Who Are The Real Nazis?
>Let’s Just Stop Writing Long-Form Profiles Of Nazis
>Socialists Are Winning The Battle Of Ideas.
Pic related, it's him.

outstanding argument

What argument? I didn't make one there, I pointed out here that he doesn't know the relevant science at all, so what argument do you want me to make?
"the ordinary language sense of intelligence is reflected in IQ scores"? It's implied by what I said. He doesn't know that because, given the type of articles he writes and how he writes them, he's a zealot who learns about this stuff only inasmuch as it supports his ideas.

>zealot who learns about this stuff only inasmuch as it supports his ideas

The ironing is palpable

regardless of whether the ideaology is harmful or not, it is even more harmful to be banning it. in a sense, that is playing right into the hands of those you seek to stop by drawing ttention to it. either way, the restriction of any ideaology from public view simply contradicts the positive ideaologies you would promote in its place

Outstanding argument. Feel free to point out what relevant facts I'm ignoring.
You probably can't as you in all likelihood know nothing about this subject but still, let's try it.

Do you actually expect me to engage in conversation with you, or debate you on the internet? On a Lithuanian Pigriding Enthusiast Forum? Kek.

>Do you actually expect me
Nope, I expected you to do exactly what you did.