I'm not entirely sure what you mean by human biodiversity.
As for the others on your list, non-alt-right people (cf. non-alt-right sites) might be more inclined to discuss (cf. host discussions about) these "facts" if their primary use wasn't to be woven into otherwise fictional narratives claiming to be coherent justifications of racism and homophobia.
> these "facts" if their primary use wasn't to be woven into otherwise fictional narratives claiming to be coherent justifications of racism and homophobia.
So, the same thing mainstream society has been doing for the last 6 years, just for different races and groups?
If they criticized things like Outreachy (which literally discriminates people based on race and gender [1]) with the same energy that they criticize the "alt-right" then I would believe them. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
Those are alt-right facts is just a defense mechanism for people to avoid confronting the contradictions in their own belief system. None of this is driven by reason, at least not the logic of the truth of the matters allegedly being examined. It's all about the logic of identity and social status. It is high status to believe in magical equality. It is low status to acknowledge human biodiversity. The idea of settling important questions through mass society, mass media, mass democracy is more laughable every day.
Nah. There was quite recently a very interesting article about personality differences across sex on this very website.
But being suuper interested in "human biodiversity" without going through the upfront pain of explaining to the reader that you aren't trying to rehash a lot of old racist garbage is, well, a huge red flag.
Also, there are actual HBD blogs and communities and they're frankly pretty uninterested in the african-american vs european-american thing and far more interested in the movements and traits of all sorts of obscure people groups I've never heard of. While also being interested in things your typical white supremicist wouldn't think about like differences between Scottish and South-Western English peoples.
I think your value judgements show through the things you listed and your assertion of all those things being 100% true. The lethal dose comment has already had solid rebuttal arguments disproving the statement. That mixed in with your comment about him saying “I can’t breathe” also seems to imply more ambiguity of fault at his death and ignored the fact Floyd also stated he was claustrophobic right before that. I’m just commenting this to hopefully inform you that you may not be as impartial as you originally thought
The claustrophobic was a fake excuse considering he was sitting in a car right before, officers offered to roll down the windows to make him comfortable, he had used the same swallowing drugs and resisting arrest 1 year prior, and a man who is capable of breaking into a pregnant woman’s house with his 5 friends and beating her up with his gun in front of her son and then pushing the gun into her pregnant belly simply can’t believed to be claustrophobic. Nor can a man who worked security as their job be claustrophobic.
The George Floyd one at leat I've seen discussed outside places that could be termed alt-right.
There are also plenty of things that can't be discussed in alt-right places, only in proper free-speech places (which are rare and often heavily contaminated with alt-right due to them being kicked out of everywhere else). E.g. if you wanted to discuss whether "consensual child molestation" is actually harmful you'd get banned from any right-wing space.
The issue with all these things is that on right-wing forums these issues are spun from human biodiversity to white nationalism, racial crime statistics to racist rhetoric, concern about pedophilia into homophobia, an obvious lie into support of disproportionately tough policing relative to crimes committed, and, again, racism supportive of police. What is true for alt-right forums that isn't true for others is that hate speech tends to be protected on these private platforms.
