A Current Affairs piece criticizing Charles Murray is posted to /r/SamHarris. Do members of that sub have a superior tendency toward creating “objectively” more “excellent” drama? We're about to find out!

Nathan J. Robinson recently wrote a piece going to town on Charles Murray here which attacked Murray on three main points: that he thought black people were genetically stupider than whites which explains socioeconomic gaps, that white people are objectively better at culture than blacks, which also might be genetic, and that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers essentially had it right about what political equality should mean (in a time of slavery). It is a long, well-argued piece and contains a lot of direct quotes from two of Murray's books, and IMO makes a pretty conclusive (and damning) case.

Of course someone posted it to/r/SamHarris to see what they thought, as Sam Harris recently hosted Charles Murray on his podcast (see the previous drama about that).

It was, ah, not taken well.

"It takes a special kind of liar (or moron) to describe - in detail - how most critics misrepresent Murray, and then proceed to misrepresent him yourself." gets people wondering if those excerpts are out of context or not. Is a Citation fucking needed?

Another poster wonders "Does anyone have any sources for the 3 points the author makes" which is responded to by pointing out that there are direct quotes from Murray's books in the piece. The reply is that "I skimmed it, and haven't dug into it thoroughly yet", which keeps the fun going.

Wall of text alert when someone says everyone they know calls it "junk, debunked science". The finer details of black genetics really get dug into in the replies.

Full thread here with more drama throughout.