Yes. but telling them exactly what they want to hear is dangerous.

I don't see any of the posters on this thread attacking the Slate article because it doesn't tell them what they want to hear. In fact, no one has attacked the article at all. But what we have seen is racists seizing on the article because it justifies their hatred of blacks, and their hatred of people who do not hate blacks.

Lee's post is not an isolated incident, he brings up his twisted views continuously, usually where it isn't even relevant, the man is obsessed by it and he will interpret anything here to justify and propagate his poison, especially if he can cloak it in science, patriotism, or right wing politics. The man is a low-life bottom feeder, and defending him because he is a partisan of your views is unnacceptable and reprehensible. There is nothing in conservative philosophy which promotes racial prejudice, but since it is denounced by liberals, it appears some conservatives feel compelled to embrace it.

Researching the possible differences in human intelligence in different populations is not wrong in itself, and may be overdue even if it is controversial and open to abuse, but exploiting it to justify prejudices is unacceptable. Racists beware, research on racial intelligence distribution is not guaranteed to show YOUR race is necessarily superior. And although I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it, if there is a gene for bigotry, it appears to be predominant in northern Europeans.