To take the most prominent example, every now and then someone touches on the topic of IQ in a way that doesn’t dismiss the possibility that there might be some genetic basis for the statistical group differences in it. The reactions, if any, are typically entirely calm and treat this as a legitimate hypothesis given the present state of knowledge on the subject, without any sign of shock and offense. Whereas in the mainstream, mentioning such things is a near-surefire way to set off a hurricane of outrage. (Just remember the recent case of media lynching against that Harvard law student.)
I’ve also seen well-accepted and upvoted arguments against democracy as a system of government, as another example of something that is impossible to argue in the mainstream without provoking shocked reactions.
Perplexed:
To take the most prominent example, every now and then someone touches on the topic of IQ in a way that doesn’t dismiss the possibility that there might be some genetic basis for the statistical group differences in it. The reactions, if any, are typically entirely calm and treat this as a legitimate hypothesis given the present state of knowledge on the subject, without any sign of shock and offense. Whereas in the mainstream, mentioning such things is a near-surefire way to set off a hurricane of outrage. (Just remember the recent case of media lynching against that Harvard law student.)
I’ve also seen well-accepted and upvoted arguments against democracy as a system of government, as another example of something that is impossible to argue in the mainstream without provoking shocked reactions.