The only thing I can't stand even less than deluded theists is deluded pomos. It's one thing to deny something that noone has seen happening because of the timeframes involved, and a completely other thing to deny something which happens before your very eyes in Detroit, Haiti and elsewhere - people who are our equal SIMPLY NOT MANAGING to meet the demands imposed on them by the modern society.
Also, see David Reimer case. Another outgrowth of the "no innate differences" delusion.
I DO realize that finally accepting that everyone is not the same can lead to inequality and exclusion. But denying that which is obvious is not helping things.
In a materialist's worldview truth, based on impartial observations of OBJECTIVE REALITY (yes, pomos, there IS such a thing), no matter how unsettling, is better than a reassuring lie. A lie being cultivated for political ends, regardless how noble in retrospect, is bound to someday backfire, and prevents people looking for a real solution in the meantime. How can one make things better (hope I'm not being too naive in assuming that that, rather than something else, is the pretension of all scientific endeavour) if one doesn't know - or (as is the case with the pomos) doesn't quite care - what they are like in the first place?
And it's not like the dogma of "no innate traits" is without problems of its own. The logical consequence namely - the unlimited shapeability of human nature, allows for abusive social experiments on a massive scale.
For example, jamming people into ugly boxes of reinforced concrete, several families in a flat, despite your beloved country having the most land in the world.
How could a movement, that initially was concerned with workers' rights (happy May 1st, btw!) give rise to a gang of reality-denying scum holding sine cura degrees of no scientific merit, who disseminate pseudoscientific BS claiming that "we've been gypshuns, nomesane"?!
How could a movement that fought the parasitic sacerdotal caste give rise to a gaggle of self-righteous frauds who try to reverse the acquierements of the Age of Enlightenment by substituting OBJECTIVE REALITY with individual truths; who exhibit but utter contempt for exact sciences; who hail muddled up thinking (and equal wording) and try to pass it off as sophistiqué-tion and profundity?
