some of it's really interesting (especially coming apart whose basic findings were mirrored by Putnam's latest work).

I think a lot of the responses to the bell curve are based on ideological warfare instead of actual engagement with a very controversial piece of social science.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/22/excuse-me-mr-coates/

Which brings me to the issue we published on Race & IQ, of which I remain deeply proud and which has been distorted over time to appear as something I don’t recognize at all. Some of this may simply be bad memory or insufficient research (the issue is not online). Ta-Nehisi, for example, hasn’t actually read the issue he excoriates in the two decades since it was published. He is writing about his “feelings” about his memories, which he is perfectly entitled to do. But allow me to explain, with the full issue in my hands, why I think his account is flawed...

It's really easy to hate on books and people based on third hand demonization and in echo chambers but like most things the extreme characterizations fall apart if you take the time to actually engage instead of creating strawmen (again very low bar to clear)

But again i don't want to play your blatantly obvious game. my point is about the SPLC not being very reliable due to bias. It makes not attempt to be "objective" so i'm not sure why splc agrees with other far left organizations about gamergate is anything newsworthy? They are useful because they are one of the few organizations who collect the kind of data they collect,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/12/the-hate-list/

For better or worse, the SPLC remains the go-to media source for data on domestic extremists of the non-Muslim variety, with the Anti-Defamation League coming in second in terms of published resources. Those journalists who do cover domestic extremism often rely on the SPLC for facts and figures.

The problem is that the SPLC and the ADL are not objective purveyors of data. They’re anti-hate activists. There’s nothing wrong with that — advocating against hate is a noble idea. But as activists, their research needs to be weighed more carefully by media outlets that cover their pronouncements.