Maybe parent was referring to the studies by Lynn, a self-declared "scientific racist".
I think that despite lower IQ scores on average South Korea has been consistently beating Japan in go in the recent years, and more importantly they get rid of hanja (Korean version of kanji) from their writing system.
Nobody here is defaming Lynn. You can disagree with the appellation (though I find a number of fact-checked publications claiming that he does describe himself that way), but I don't think it's reasonable to call the argument libelous.
Calling someone a racist is one of the most defamatory statements one can make. People get cancelled for less. Instead of name calling, people should focus on the empirical question (is there a positive correlation between East Asian ancestry and IQ?) not on trying to undermine the reputation of someone.
While I don't agree with any of that, at all, we don't even reach the question, because the point of my comment is that he calls himself that. The SPLC has him in primary source quotes.
I don't think you're going to have an easy time of un-cancelling Richard Lynn. As it stands, your argument comes across more as trying to launder his most inflammatory claims back into the conversation. I'm not interested in debating phrenology, only the more specific question of what terms are and are not reasonably to apply to this person. That's a question we can actually answer empirically with sources available to us.
For whatever it's worth, that was literally what David Duke said. I'm not saying you're David Duke, just that the rhetoric you're deploying isn't persuasive.
You accuse someone of saying X, but can't provide evidence they ever said X, then there is no reason to believe you. The burden of proof is on your side.
"Apparently he does not" is a positive claim ... it does not follow even if you were right about not providing evidence--but you're not. And they can and did provide evidence, you simply ignored it. There are plenty reasons for honest people to believe it. Meanwhile, it's an empirical fact that Lynn is a racist, as well as most "race scientists" and their defenders. I won't comment on this further.
> And they can and did provide evidence, you simply ignored it.
That's simply a lie. They didn't. Nowhere on that website was Lynn quoted as describing himself as a "scientific racist".
> Meanwhile, it's an empirical fact that Lynn is a racist
What would be the evidence for this claim? There could in any case be an association between IQ and East Asian ancestry. Whether there is, is an empirical question, and an empirical hypothesis can't be racist, it is just true or false, or supported/unsupported by the evidence. In the source I provided, Lynn references statistical evidence that supports it.
Calling someone a racist is actually nearly never defamatory, since it’s almost always an opinion based either on disclosed facts or an opinion based on nothing.
Do you expect him to tatoo a word "racist" on his forehead (in kanji)?
That you even dare to quote this pseudo scientific crook is just mind boggling.
Relevant quote:
What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples.
I think that despite lower IQ scores on average South Korea has been consistently beating Japan in go in the recent years, and more importantly they get rid of hanja (Korean version of kanji) from their writing system.