Heads up - Silver Rights thinks we are the most racist of blogs. A sample:

Whether to write about racism in the blogosphere is a dilemma. If I do, I give bigots the attention they desperately desire.

You can get the gist of the post from this line. Mr. Rights is incensed at the fact that we make generalizations about groups. He believes the generalizations to be largely nonfactual. Admittedly, the statistical/scientific foundation of the site has been omitted from most posts for a few months now, b/c it becomes tiresome to rehash the whole shebang with every post...plus I'm not around regularly anymore to maintain rigor. But objective data exists to back up most of our assertions (or all of mine, anyway, and probably most of Razib's). Forget about Duende - she's not a scientist.

But anyway, I don't know whether it'd even be worth it to talk civilly to this guy. Seems like his mind's made up:

That is pretty unheard of at a blog where topics such as "black = ugly," hopes that AIDs will wipe out most or all the population of Africa and the enshrining of disgraced academics such as blatant racist J. Phillip Rushton as heroes is the norm. I doubt Razib, the ill-informed, African-American hating windbag lead poster, would have used the courtesy title.

I don't think Razib ever endorsed "black = ugly" - in fact, he banned that poster. And I don't think anyone ever "hoped" that AIDS would wipe out African blacks - I'd really like to see the quote on that. As for Rushton, he has interesting data but questionable conclusions...cold climates = planning seems a bit simplistic to me, and there are many exceptions (i.e. high mean IQ Indians, relatively academically undistinguished Inuits, etc.).

Ah well - probably not worth my time, but here's more from that post:

For example, anyone can search the web and learn that the health of African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans is worse than that of whites, probably as a result of poverty and discrimination. Yet, again and again, they portray blacks, particularly, as physical super men and women. It never seems to cross their minds that athletes are a poor measure of the health of people in general.

No one contests that the mean life expectancy of blacks/Hispanics/Natives is less than that of whites, just like no one contests that the mean life expectancy of Northeast Asians is greater than that of whites. One of the interesting questions from the h-bd standpoint is the cause of this discrepancy; it's almost certainly partially due to poverty, but what if poverty was controlled for? (I.e., what if we matched people of equal incomes?) Would we expect a residual difference in outcomes? Yes, we would - differences on other variables (e.g. SAT, height, etc. - sources upon request) remain even after matching by mean income. So there's probably some other factor at work. One could postulate discrimination, but that's generally not meant to be a falsifiable hypothesis.

Anyway, to make a long story short, once the hapmap comes out we will see to what extent genetic factors contribute to group differences. Till then we can make educated guesses about why there are no Hispanic players in the NBA, while West Africans win the vast majority of sprinting medals and East Africans the vast majority of distance medals, with Europeans competitive only at intermediate distances. (see here).

Mr. Rights' post ends with some amusing armchair psychoanalysis:

If you have ever encountered the Gene Expressors (they usually invade other blogs as a group), you are probably wondering about Razib. He escaped the poverty and violence of Bangladesh as a child. His problems with race and gender seem to date from that time. (A blogger from India has written an entry I think really nails Razib. I may post it.) He seems equally obsessed with blacks (as subhumans) and whites (as a superior group he wishes he were a part of). When I noticed he had recently posted a photo of himself, but as a baby, to Gene Expression, I immediately guessed why: People of color tend to darken with age. We are lightest as babies. I've heard Razib is quite dark-skinned and is often mistaken for an African-American as an adult.

Indeed, if Razib really is so dark skinned that he's mistaken for black - yet has not experienced the invidious, irrational discrimination posited to account for the black statistical profile - one would think he might be uniquely qualified to comment on the topic. But Mr. Rights is not interested in the question of whether "people of color" are as monolithically opposed to Europeans as he'd like them to be.

Instead, any white who dares to express views contrary to the axiom of equality is considered a racist, and any non-white who expresses such views must be an Uncle Tom. (Note: acknowledging that genetic differences are material does not mean that "one race must be superior". Groups are adapted to their ancestral environments, so superiority is arena dependent.)

Oh well. There's really no point in arguing any more - that's why I left the site. The question of whether genetic differences between racial groups have macroscopic behavioral effects will be settled in the laboratory, not on some anonymous blog.

(One last thing - Mr. Rights wonders whether GNXP is funded by the Pioneer Fund. Ummmm - no - we are not...)