Can the truth ever be racist, sexist, or bigoted?Watch
Some people will instantly seek to dismiss this query because the data will never be irrefutable. *That is not the point of this discussion. *The real question is this;
Does promoting a beneficial social agenda take priority over acknowledging an inconvenient truth? **
I just think it's just really weird and unnecessary to dismiss truths and say its not true because it offends me.
This is probably going to be controversial but it reminds of the transgender thing. Even some medical doctors and physiologists have deem transgender-ism a mental disorder. In fact, it is called GID. For some reason, in my state and the whitehouse is trying to convince people this is very normal.
It's very hard to say what the truth is in a politically charged area, though, because everyone will always accuse the other side of promoting a certain agenda or having a flawed methodology. So even if a book like, say, The Bell Curve, were objectively true (and I'm not saying it is), people wouldn't accept it and would call it propaganda. Conversely, people invested in the opposite views would see the "nature" side of the debate as dishing out their own propaganda. So if both sides are completely invested in opposing agendas that involve discrediting the other side, truth becomes scarce.
Also, even if it were possible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that members of one group had a biological inferiority on average... can you imagine the ethical conflict someone might feel in choosing to publish it? I mean, you can either hide it in an attempt to protect the image of that group, or you can publish it and see a rise in discrimination. You would have to go out of your way to explain to people that what was true on average wasn't true of every individual within the group, and try to push them to give each individual a fair chance despite what had been proven as generally true. This argument doesn't appeal to emotion well, and has more nuance than most people can handle. Whereas, when there's a narrative that all group differences are sociological and thus the result of nurture, it's easier to get the better-performing group to take responsibility for the poor performance of the other group.
Can anyone truly create a way of measuring something that's free of bias, and ignore their own agenda in pursuit of truth? Is truth always desirable? None of these questions are easy, in the end.