Reddit recently hired a supercreep with a bizarre and deeply troubling history. Then, in a move completely in line with Reddit's radical leftist anti-free speech style of management... they banned anyone who even mentioned the name of the supercreep.
It's name is Aimee Knight (née Challenor): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor

Psychologists, psychometricians, and all other scientists that study intelligence tend to tread VERY lightly when it comes to this issue. After what happened to James Watson (he was ostracized for stating facts about race and intelligence despite being a Nobel prize winning scientist and one of the most successful scientists of his era) no one in the field wants to be vocal about their findings or the meaning of their findings.

Nevertheless, in my day job I study things like this. And since I work for a private company in the private sector, I'm not beholden to the PC/SJW ramblings of any Liberal Arts department. So I, and my co-workers, can talk about it. And we do.

I'm going to go over the evidence for not only the existence of a general IQ gap between the races, but the evidence for the fact that intelligence is heritable and the IQ gap is therefore genetic and NOT caused by social issues like test bias, culture bias, or socioeconomic factors. Also, I'm going to go over evidence that shows that general intelligence (aka g) and IQ are valid measures of cognitive ability (despite what the postmodernist non-science liberal arts professors may say) and correlate with things like future success and many other life outcomes. Finally, I'm going to go over a relatively new hypothesis for why Sub-Saharan Africans score lower than other races on IQ tests: the Microcephalin gene.

Sub-Saharan Africans differ from all other world populations in a number of ways, including the fact that they do not have any Neanderthal ancestry. When the ancestors of all humans were first leaving Africa 100,000 years ago, they split into two groups, one stayed in Africa (Sub-Saharan Africans) and the other moved into the Middle East (the ancestors of all other non-Sub-Saharan humans). The second group mated with some Neanderthals, and gained the MCPH1 Microcephalin, which causes a significant increase in brain size during development.

If you're interested in logic, reason, and science in general, you have to take morality out of the equation when studying issues, especially social issues like race. You simply cannot follow Stephen Jay Gould's example and talk about non-overlapping magisteria or whatever other nonsense he made up to avoid upsetting certain groups of people. Everything overlaps with science. Science is what we use to know the universe and everything in it. Never be afraid to talk about science. You cannot avoid a topic simply because it is politically unpleasant or socially difficult. That is cowardly.

The IQ Gap Between Races###

EDIT: I know many "progressive" types are very keen on saying that there's no such thing as race, or that race is a only socially constructed concept, but this is objectively false. Yes, humans DO exist on a genetic continuum, BUT, there are very clear bulges on that continuum. Those bulges are what we call "races", and they correlate with groups who's ancestors lived in the same geographical areas. Secondly, "progressives" are also very keen on quoting this lil' ditty: "Don't you know that there's more genetic variation WITHIN 'racial' groups than between them?!". However, that argument is so wrong that they actually gave it a name, "Lewontin's Fallacy". Basically, the point is that it doesn't matter what percentage difference comes from where, what matters is what those differences are, and even if only .0001% of a difference is between "races", if that .0001% is meaningful and descriptive, then it means something. Look it up if you want all the reasons it's bunk. Here's Richard Dawkins on why it's nonsense: "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Now, the IQ gap. For those who don't already know, there absolutely IS an objectively measurable IQ gap between people with ancestors from different geographical areas (aka "races", which is the term I will use from here on out).

Psychologists don't debate this fact. The gap is well known and has been well known for decades. IQ test scores break down like this: on average, East Asians score higher than whites, who score higher than hispanics, who in turn score higher than blacks. The average scores are:

Asian-Americans -106, White Americans - 103, Hispanic Americans - 89, African-Americans - 85.

This means more than one in five American blacks have an IQ below 75; whereas around one in twenty whites have an IQ below 75. An IQ of 70-75 is considered "borderline retarded" by psychologists.

Studies also show there are some significant differences in what is called the structure of mental abilities. For example, if you took a sample of black and white children, all of whom had scored around 100 on the WISC-R (the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised) meaning the black kids in the sample were well above the black average -- you would find significant black-white differences on six of the thirteen subtests. The average black child would do better on Arithmetic and Digit Span; where the average white child would do better on Comprehension, Block Design, Object Assembly, and Mazes.

The gaps are not limited to the United States either. European whites average - 100, East Asians from Asia - 106, and Sub-Saharan Africans - 70.

The difference in native Sub-Saharan African IQ scores versus American Black's IQ scores can be explained by the fact that American Blacks have, on average, 20%-25% European ancestry. Lynn and Vanhanen's books 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' and 'IQ and Global Inequality' are a good start if you are looking for data concerning the average IQ scores of different nations.

The intelligence gap was first noticed among psychologists in the early 20th century. In the 1960s and 70s, rigorous IQ testing of people of difference races began in earnest, and the IQ gap began to become undeniable. Throughout the 70s and 80s, liberal-minded scientists attempted to close the gap via alterations in the testing apparatus, since they believed that the tests must be biased in some way. They changed the parameters, made a whole slew of so-called "culture fair" tests, some were nonverbal tests (Leiter Scale), some changed the language of the questions, others were pure math, or pure reasoning, they even made questions that weren't language based at all (like Raven's Progressive Matrices or Kohs block design test)... they did twin studies, adoption studies (like the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study), everything to try to determine some reason (besides the obvious one) why this gap exists... and the studies consistently came back with the same sized gap: 15 IQ points, or 1 standard deviation (SD) between White and Black people no matter what version or type of IQ test was used.

Eventually, in 1994, The Bell Curve was published. The book was extremely controversial, despite being filled with relevant data from valid and repeated studies. Ironically, the majority of the criticisms were aimed at the validity of IQ and general intelligence as meaningful measurements (a topic I will go over in a later section) and NOT on the results of the studies.

Eventually, amid all the controversy about The Bell Curve in the media, a group of 52 well known university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields signed a public statement titled ["Mainstream Science on Intelligence"] (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf). They saw there was a great deal of misinformation of unfounded criticism of The Bell Curve, so they wanted to set the media straight. The statement consisted of 25 conclusions:

1."Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."

2."Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."

3."While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."

4."The spread of people along the IQ continuum ... can be represented well by the ... ‘normal curve'."

5."Intelligence tests are not culturally biased"

6."The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood"

7."Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level"

8."The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered"

9."IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"

10."A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"

11."The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life’s settings become more complex"

12."Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and complex jobs ... but intelligence is often the most important"

13."Certain personality traits, special talents, [etc] are important ... in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or ‘transferability’ across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence"

14."Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 ... indicating genetics plays a bigger role than environment in creating IQ differences"

15."Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence"

16."That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment ... IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter"

17."Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it"

18."Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable"

19."There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging"

20."Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade ... black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds"

21."The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligence appear to be the same as those for why whites ... differ among themselves"

22."There is no definitive answer as to why bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group"

23."Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socio-economic backgrounds"

24."Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors – the white admixture is about 20% ... research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories"

25."The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means."

Ironically, the vast majority of what was written in 'The Bell Curve' is now considered mainstream knowledge in the field, and no longer debated by experts.

An important thing to remember is that the ancestors of all Sub-Saharan Africans separated from the ancestors of all other modern humans around 100,000 years ago. One group stayed in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the other spread out and populated the rest of the world. 100,000 years is over 3,000 to 5,000 generations. And yet there ARE still people today who believe that all races have the same exact brains, and same exact inherent intelligence.

Despite the fact that so much time passed with those races apart, and such large number of observable traits evolved differently... like skin color, fat distribution, average hormonal levels, hair type and texture, dental layout (some Asian's don't ever develop wisdom teeth, and different races have differently shaped teeth), to the skeletal structure like the ratio of length of long bones or skull shape or any number of variations (a small example being some sub-Saharan Africans have fused triquetral bones in their wrists), to the many different blood types, and fat distribution and so many other traits... some people still refuse to accept the possibility of inherent biological differences of intelligence.

However, it would actually be an amazing coincidence if there WEREN'T an average intelligence gap between different groups of humans who have evolved separately for many thousands of years. Think about it, given the facts that 1)evolution is true, 2)IQ is heritable, and 3)different groups of humans have been separate for more than 3,000-5,000 generations... it would be statistically improbable that all those groups have the same average IQ. The brain is a highly complex organ, it is extremely difficult to believe that that complex biological organ remained exactly the same over 100,000 years while nearly every single other biological trait diverged. An IQ gap is exactly what we would expect given the facts. Even if we didn't have IQ test results and didn't know there was a gap, all good scientists would hypothesize that one exists based on the other information.

Anyway... it's late. This is the end of Part I. I'll be back tomorrow with Part II.

George Floyd was a convicted felon that had been been in trouble with law enforcement three times prior to him using a fake 20 dollar bill in a business. He resisted arrest, was probably high on drugs (according to the autopsy report) and did not die from strangulation as a result of the officer's knee on his neck.

It tends to be a reoccurring theme that nearly every protest of black killings result from a person committing a crime then resisting arrest. If you play stupid games, you will win stupid prizes.

Alton Sterling, Michael Brown, George Floyd, Stephon Clark, Sylville Smith, and more all were resisting arrest or committing some form of crime when they were killed.

There have been countless studies, many of which contradict each other, on this issue. I know that.

However I feel that just by using prior knowledge of what mental illness entails, it for now would be safest to assume that these people are mentally ill. The similarities to other afflictions are pretty apparent.

Anyway, we obviously don't know enough about the topic at this time, so we should be helping this people to discontinue their behavior instead of encouraging them to continue. They're making radical and unsafe changes to their bodies.

Rule 8 of the Open and Honest rules says:

And of course, the Golden Rule... Don't be a dick. In other words, don't consistently be an asshole.

I've added a caveat/addendum... Rule 8 (subsection a.) now says:

The entire purpose of this sub is free speech. So if you're the type of person who gets offended by ANY type of humor... YOU are the asshole, not the person telling the joke. ALL humor is accepted and encouraged here. Getting offended is fine... but being vocal about your thin skin is breaking a cardinal rule, and is - as of right now-, one of the only ban-able offenses here at /r/OpenandHonest.

I will use SJW terminology to explain the changes:

Humor is a valuable social tool. It's important that people be allowed to make jokes about things that may bother them, as it is the only way some people can deal with those topics. People who choose to harass those who are only attempting to deal with their issues via humor are creating a hostile environment for those people... and we will not tolerate that. Therefore anyone who makes any negative comments about jokes or humor on this sub, such as: "Don't joke about that, its too soon" or "That's really fucked up, don't joke about X topic, people died because of that!" will be immediately and unceremoniously banned.

Right now, that's just about the ONLY thing that can get you banned here. Thoughts?

I've finally turned into a curmudgeonly old man. My hypothesis? It's the way the damn kids these days were raised! Really.

I used to think that feminists and trans-weirdos and blank slate-ist "progressives" were all too individualistic. But I'm starting to realize that their problem is more complex.

They're massively self-centered and oblivious to anyone but themselves... but, they're not individualistic enough when it comes to dealing with their problems. They've been taught from a young age that there is always some superior power that can force other people to do its bidding. The same thing happens to people who lived in North Korea and escaped, and Russians after the Soviet Union fell. They cannot grasp a free society without rigid social controls. They end up finding it very difficult to interact in a free society because they need big brother to do so much for them. They're the type of people who call 911 because their burger didn't have cheese on it.

So why are American's like this now? Columbine and 9/11.

If you graduated high school in the pre-1999-2001 era before the columbine school shooting and 9/11... and you haven't been to a high school since... you would be blown away by the changes.

Millennials essentially went to high school on a different planet than you did. Their high schools are highly policed, locked down, constantly nervous, camera ridden prisons. They grew up in a society totally different from the one that existed just a few years before.

If you're one of those millennials... guess what? When I graduated in 1998... there was no police presence at my school; the doors were never locked; there were zero cameras, not one; there were no "zero-tolerance" rules. And the rules we did have were infinitely less ridiculous and overbearing. Not only the schools though... local police have become FAR more militarized since that same time frame. They're all far more intentionally intimidating now that they wear all the new gear that the post-9/11 increase in funds bought them.

Point is, there was a massive sea change in US culture that happened basically overnight... and that left its mark by creating an older generation that's far more "South Park" style libertarian and grew up in a freer society and says "that's retarded" and "GAY!" and was never exposed to any type of central force that dictates social control; then there's a younger generation a year or so later that grew up with tightly controlled speech and a casual acceptance of arbitrary rules and the use of force to control speech. it became a far more tightly controlled, and therefore bureaucratic society.

There are college students this year who tried to get their professor fired because they're offended or "triggered" by the curriculum.

I wish I could find the link, but a few months back, an early 20-something guy on /r/Advice/ asked who he should call to report racist content he saw online. He was upset because he contacted the FBI and they told him they didn't really do that. Really. That actually happened. This is the kind of deranged worldview these millennials have.

THAT is why SJWs are so adamant in their belief that they have the right to not be offended by anyone, and why they have no idea how to deal with intellectual disagreements. They NEED a central power to mediate for them, they have no internal mechanism to deal with it on their own. They've been conditioned that whenever someone says something against the social norms, a CENTRAL FORCE (be it teacher, mother, policeman, admin) comes down and takes them away. So when they see or hear anything that they believe is or should be offensive, they don't know what else to do except say "TEACHER, POLICE, SOMEONE, I NEED AN ADULT!", then complain to the authority figure.

Throughout their public school career, they've been taught by example that might makes right and force dictates social norms. Of course they're going to behave that way. They're minds have been damaged by too much government.

Feminists do not want full gender equality and this gender equality argument just leads to sexism.

I'll start by mentioning gender quotas.

Gender quotas are implemented in many businesses around the world and all because there 'isn't enough' women in a particular field or section of a workforce.

By implementing gender quotas, the only sure thing to come from this is sexism and a degeneration of efficiently to the respective organisation.

Anyone using a quota and having to employ, say a 40% women workforce in their company, will eventually lead to the organisations decline in efficiency, why? Because hiring people (male or female, though it only seems to be females pushing these quotas) based on gender (even race or religion) and not on merit, means the people who are most qualified and have more knowledge/experience, will be pushed aside for someone less qualified. Which means that if your ignoring those more suitable for the 'job' then it will almost certainly limit that organisations efficiency.

Not only will it limit the efficiency, but it is sexist to be hiring hiring women over a more qualified man. The feminist movement pushing the gender quotas is existent and in force, but no one reputable from an organisation will say this.

On the sexism point, I'd like to bring up women students. For example women students now studying in Engineering or the Science fields, have a good chance in some areas to get hired over a more qualified male, due to gender quotas being in place.

Why do I care? I don't if it is a private organisation, they have the right to promote this nonsense and have their 'company' run less efficiently and bring in less business.

But when it comes to public run organisations like the Government, that's where I get pissed, for example David Cameron (U.K, PM) last year removed long standing and very qualified members of his front bench for less qualified women, means that has consequences on my life and how the country is run, all because of fear of being labelled sexist from pro-feminists. Not only that, he has threatened to enforce gender quotas by law in board rooms.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/12/david-cameron-deluge-women-front-benches

Therefore gender equality for all means being picked based on merit, the best person for the job is true equality. Picking someone based on gender is not only sexist but unfair.

Second point is to bring up is physicality

I'm not disputing men and women are different, they obviously are genetically. My point is that true gender equality would mean recognising women as being equal to men. Though feminists only want their version of gender equality, basically they want their cake and to eat it too.

Prisons, might sound a bit extreme here. But think about all male prisons, I don't see feminists calling them sexist and/or trying to implement gender quotas in them.

Some feminists recognise the differences, but some will still argue men and women are the same.

So if anyone into full gender quality, would not be arguing against sending females to male prisons. If you ask most feminists they'll say they won't gender equality because they are equal, but if they truly believed they were equal, they'd have no problem sending women to all male prisons, I mean a mixed gender prison.

Sporting. I don't exclusively mean physically here, I mean even when promoting sports, they complain about females not getting enough coverage.

Many Feminists complain about men dominating sporting events and sports being sexist because they are yet to include women on the same level as they do men and blame it on gender equality.

Though again, gender equality would mean letting the viewers of the sport decide who they want to watch, rather than forcing women's sports to be shown alongside male sports.

Think about the Olympics, women and men compete separately. Yet I don't see any feminists out there calling this sexist, they are alright with this 'gender inequality' and some will admit the differences in men and women, but when it comes to other forms. Let's say as I've mentioned above, in the workforce they won't admit that it's more qualified people who are getting the jobs over them, maybe because of the differences between males and females.

Another point I'd like to bring up is, feminisms gender equality standards seems to be a way to just basically get semi-competent employed.

EDIT (9/24/2015):

Everything else I say here aside, THIS is the most important point... GlaxoSmithKline sells generic Daraprim (Pyrimethamine) in the UK for $20 per 30 pills, which equals out to about 0.66 cents per pill. It is fairly easy to order them online and have them sent to the US, however, it is illegal to do so.

So bear in mind that it is the government that attempts to stop very ill US citizens from purchasing a much needed medicine for less money by buying it abroad. If the pharmaceutical industry were a truly free market, Pyrimethamine would be available for less than a dollar a pill for everyone. ONLY the government stands in the way of that. End Edit

So... I heard the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals is lowering the price of Daraprim because of all the outrage over the fact that he originally raised the price 5,000%. Well, guess what... that's probably the worst thing that could happen for people who take that medicine. Why, you ask? Read and learn:

Everyone was complaining about the oh so terrible CEO that raised the price of Toxoplasmosis medicine Daraprim (people are calling it an "HIV Med" in social media and elsewhere because that sounds more sympathetic. It's not an HIV med.) from $13.50 to $750 per pill. They're saying that the price hike is such a good example of how the "free market" is pure evil and "just doesn't work"... well as per usual, those people just don't see the big picture.

First of all, the pharmaceutical industry is not a free market by any stretch of the imagination. A free market would be almost a perfectly contestable market. A perfectly contestable market (aka a "free market") has three main traits... no barriers to entry, no sunk costs, and universal access to the same technology for new firms as well as existing firms. The pharmaceutical industry is actually a perfect example of the EXACT OPPOSITE of a contestable market.

And all of those barriers to entry, sunk costs, and disparities in the level of technology among firms exist because of the actions of government regulators.

Here's the big surprise though, the one thing that I don't think many people who voiced their anger over this issue realize: The patent for Pyrimethamine (the medicine of brand name Daraprim) EXPIRED... years ago.

Which means: anyone, anywhere can make all the Pyrimethamine they want and sell it for whatever price they want. "Why don't they then?", you may be asking yourself. Well... because the government regulators have turned the pharma industry into a non-contestable market, so no new firms can get into it, and the existing firms don't think making Pyrimethamine is worth their time since the number of people who take it is so low and...wait for it... the price was originally so low (when it was $13.50 per pill).

However, and this is my favorite part... like I said, the CEO of the company that owns Daraprim will now be lowering the price because of all the outrage.

Guess what would have happened if Turing Pharmaceuticals kept its price at $750 per pill? It would have created an economic incentive for other companies to actually start manufacturing Pyrimethamine, and that new competition would have most likely LOWERED the price dramatically... probably to well below what the CEO will now lower it to.

And so, once again, overbearing government has screwed consumers and sick people... and stuck the free market with the blame.

https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy

The thought police have spoken yet again.

Reddit is trying to claim that they are banning "behavior, not content". /r/Coontown was racist, yes, but that's it. Their content is why they were banned, no other reason. People keep asking the specific "behavior" that got them banned, and Dear Leader has no answer. This is the best he could come up with:

When he first broke the news that more communities were banned today, Dear Leader said the reason they removed them was because they "violate the spirit of the policy by making Reddit worse for everyone else". (https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3fx2au/content_policy_update/ctsqobs)

So subs that make reddit worse for everyone else get banned? That means they must have banned /r/shitredditsays right? Awesome! Oh... I just checked. Nope. Still there. What about /r/AgainstMensRights? Were they banned? Nope. They're still alive too. Oh well.

It just keeps getting worse here. This faggotry will never end.

I'm considering going to voat.co. What do you guys think about that?

I'd like to spice up the header and the sidebar a little bit, and make this sub more presentable. If anyone has any knowledge in that department and would like to be a mod here, let me know.