I jumped in the rabbit hole...

they seem to believe that when any one person makes mention of GG, they are assumed to be speaking on behalf of all of GG.

I attribute two major factors to this.

Sociological thought pervades the SJW culture. Sociologists can only operate through generalization, but some conclusions, though objectively correct, fall under a "too easily misused" umbrella. So, for instance, if your study suggests black people are less intelligent than white people, you either obfuscate away the race or throw out the data completely rather than risk lending "scientific" credence to the "dangerous idea" that white people are smarter than black people. The ugly truth is, according to IQ, this is true. And asians and Akashashi Jews1 beat white people. Important to note is the existence of a metric fuckload of evidence suggesting environment impacts IQ, not to mention that although IQ as a measure works well as a predictor of general success, it remains a generally inadequate model of the largely ill-defined notion of "intelligence".

The contemporary social scientist finds themselves in a rather uncomfortable position, haunted by and determined not to encourage things like "eugenics", yet accustomed to finding statistics superficially supportive of such barbaric notions. They have no choice but to work with aggregations of data, and therefore can only make conclusions by partitioning demographics with measurable features, of which race is one. So they end up with a whole lot of "racist" or "sexist" conclusions they can't publish without fear of reprisal from the political correctness police or misuse by actual practicing racists or sexists. In response to these pressures they find ways to publish their findings in ways inoffensive to the "must benefit society" orthodoxy built into a field accustomed to encountering ugly truths by reframing their results with more palatable narratives. Thus "black disadvantage" becomes "white privilege" and "female phenotypical stability" becomes "male privilege".

We now witness the fruits of (at least) the second generation of this dedication to the suppression of easily misused conclusions. For several decades this dedication to never shitting on women or minorities seems to have elicited a response echoing the monkeys, bananas, and water spraying parable. Tactical obfuscations, filtered through a series of students made progressively poorer by institutions shifting priority to revenue over educational standards, emerge transformed from insider lingo to pop-sosch "fact". The conclusions so tactically avoided now serve as anti-articles of faith, actively discredited by every responsible and educated person. The obfuscated terms, unfortunately, now serve as "actual" articles of faith, so what originated as a preemptive counter to white supremacists or male chauvinists now finds itself enshrined, misunderstood, and effectively utilized by anti-white racists or anti-male sexists.

This creates a perverse form of intellectual etiquette, emphasizing stereotyping due to the nature of sociology, but forbidding painting disadvantaged demographics with a negative brush. So you end up with avowed "anti-racists" engaging in thoroughly racist reductionism justified by associating the more successful demographic with undeserved advantages rather than associating undeserved disadvantages to the complement demographic.

The second factor, amplifying the previous, finds its ancient origins in the Frankfurt School of Marxism, but only truly took off after Derrick Bell published Critical Race Theory. CRT originated as an approach to legal issues involving minorities; by utilizing historical statutes and executions of law considered "unjust" by contemporary standards, Bell found a way to put the law, and by extension the entire government, on trial rather than only the defendant.

1 No I don't think black people are stupid, nor do I consider Jews geniuses.

/r/KotakuInAction Thread