Christopher Rufo, credited with helping oust school’s first Black president, touted critic associated with ‘scientific racists’

Rufo described Jonatan Pallesen as “a Danish data scientist who has raised new questions about Claudine Gay’s use – and potential misuse – of data in her PhD thesis” in an interview published in his newsletter and on the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal website last Friday.

He did not tell readers that a paper featuring Pallesen’s own statistical work in collaboration with the eugenicist researchers has been subject to scathing expert criticism for its faulty methods, and characterized as white nationalism by another academic critic.

The revelations once again raise questions about the willingness of Rufo – a major ally of Ron DeSantis and powerful culture warrior in Republican politics – to cultivate extremists in the course of his political crusades.

The Guardian emailed Rufo to ask about his repeated platforming of extremists, and asked both Rufo and the Manhattan Institute’s communications office whether they had vetted Pallesen before publishing the interview. Neither responded.

  • @EldritchEnglish
    10•10 months ago

    So. Where to start.

    It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.

    How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

    All correlation can ever do is imply. Causation is not an implication. No amount of implications can prove causation. They are different things entirely.

    You are correlating heavily with eugenicists. You are using the language of eugenics. The measures of eugenics. And the reasoning of eugenics. Now while it’s true, I cannot say what’s in your heart. All your pro eugenics talk maybe performative and pure bluster. Which honestly isn’t any better. However, if this is sincerely not what you’re doing. And you don’t think you are or don’t want to be seen as someone pro eugenics. I suggest you change up where you’re getting your information from. I’m not going to tell you where to go. Just suggest that maybe what you’re doing now isn’t working for you.

    • DarkGamer
      -6•10 months ago

      That’s probably because the article we’re discussing is about a eugenicist’s paper.

      • @afraid_of_zombies
        4•10 months ago

        I manage to discuss articles about criminal acts without endorsement. Must be all the Midi-chlorianians I have. Take it on faith that I do.

        • DarkGamer
          -3•10 months ago

          Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I’ll wait.

          • @afraid_of_zombies
            2•10 months ago

            I was listing an example. I pointed out that it is possible to discuss awful things without endorsement. You are discussing g IQism and it’s good buddy eugenics and are giving everyone the impression that you are fans of both. Which you pretty much have to be. Once you assume the spiritual belief in the holy G you have to assume that there are people with less Holy Spirit than others. Meaning humanity can be evaluated by 1 number and ranked accordingly. At some level there is a cutoff of who is unfit to live and who is fit to live. Since more G is always good it differs from all other rankings.

            You can’t apply this to anything else. Being a better long distance runner means very little. You could still be in bad health you could still die at a young age. You could still be a jerk. However Holy Spirit G is always good. You take up as much space and use the same level of resources as someone with less Holy Spirit. A plus with no downsides since it measures all aspects of the human mind. Belief in IQ and you are going to believe that humanity should get rid of those with less IQ.

            As I told you before, it doesn’t act like anything else in existence. You aren’t a better human because you have a higher temperature, or eat more calories, or have darker skin. Which should set off massive alarm bells, because right now you are pleading for special treatment. A well known logical fallacy.