The article is a poorly written attack piece that tries to equate anyone that asks race related questions with 'Eugenics'.
Well, the title certainly is terrible, hence my abbreviation of it. While I agree that the author does attempt to smear anyone who asks race-related questions, I think they did a pretty poor job of it. While presenting the other sides point of view I think she ended up writing an interesting piece that, in my eyes, tends to support the other side more than hers.
It's pleasing to see that scientific articles based on race-related questions are apparently becoming less taboo. Of course it all depends on the articles themselves: if they are of reasonable quality and data based then all good. The author does have a point about poor papers getting published and prejudices tainting the process, however in the academic climate she presents, it seems more likely that those prejudices will work against quality race-related science. @Justintoxicated
The article is a poorly written attack piece that tries to equate anyone that asks race related questions with 'Eugenics'. It sees no difference between someone who asks if biology and race are related, and a Nazi.
That's typical of The Guardian.
Some of that shit is racist, some of it is not. The truly racist stuff is mostly outliers that don't represent any significant numbers.
The stuff that is 'creeping into mainstream' is people taking an honest look at reality. We're not all the same. That is not a judgment of worth, or value, but there are clear genetic based differences. How is science supposed to progress if they can not acknowledge that because feelings. An example from the article:
Is given as an example of a racist comment. But that is a known fact, not racism.
I'd like to see the facts speak for themselves also, but believing in facts means you're racist.
Even believing in race makes you racist.