[flagged]
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
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.
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.
Apparently he does not. You haven't produced a quote to show that he does.
> I'm not interested in debating phrenology
Correlations between ancestry and IQ have nothing to do with phrenology. If they exist, they are not racist. Facts just are what they are.
That's not how it works.
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.
OTOH there are those who protest too much that "it's just science".
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.
Calling his output research is abhorrent.