The Operator

I thought it was clear. Are you sure you're just not just upset when people call out massive selfish Jewish interference with money ("anti-Semitism")? Accurate criticism isn't "anti".

Yes she should have added several pages of supporting evidence in her tweet.

https://www.wrmea.org/1992-december/january-1993/the-complete-unexpurgated-aipac-tape.html

Because there's no correlation with behaviours, or because it's socially fashionable?

Not taking appropriate precautions against types of people who tend to exhibit certain types of behaviour can be damaging to you.

Accurate stereotypes aren't "anti" anything.

Nobody thinks race groups are homogeneous. This is just a strawman argument. Members of races overlap on traits, everybody knows that. You have to resort to this ridiculous strawman? And look how I compare salamander DNA with human DNA, irrefutable right? But you're concerned about Asian income levels. Ridiculous. You're just a fake science goon. I'll see myself out.

Isn't your subjective social "context" the whole problem here? You're worried that describing reality (science) will make people be mean to blacks (politics). That's exactly a moralistic fallacy. And that's without even going into whether your preferred "equality" position screws whites.

Isn't this the moralistic fallacy?

Considering we can divide non-humans like this, could we do the same for humans?

How is it defined? Is it possible to have subspecies within subspecies? Can we reasonably divide continuous or clinal variation, such as that we see in ring species?

Hi I'm The Operator and I have some semblance of an education in AI, evolutionary biology, and linguistics.