If you argue that moral standards should depend on an individual's/group's power, you're effectively arguing that we should empower those who are less moral.

Religion and culture can probably help, but I suspect @nathancofnas is right in this context too. This kind of naivete is dangerous.

It should now be clear that partial Ashkenazi phenotypes can be basically anything.

If there were two Nassim Talebs on this site, how long would it take for them to block each other?

I suspect couples tend to assortatively match on character.

One's complaints about Jews (valid or not) often reflect one's frustrations with society itself. Here, Tucker and Jess resent the established class of technical experts (and the tools they use, technical or otherwise). They hate the cognitive hierarchy rewarded by existing power structures and deny that it reflects anything real. Some progressives hate inequality and ultimately individualized success itself--they resent the prosperous. There's a related right-wing version of this (aspects of which show up in this clip) that accepts inequality/hierarchy but believes the "proper" hierarchy has been manipulatively inverted by sinister players. ("I/we should be on top") Some progressives (including many secular Jews) resent organized religion and project this onto the Haredim or even observant Jews in general--some of this resentment pertains to hierarchical authoritarian structures, while some pertains to particularism (they believe these religious structures are a central part of what divides us). Some right-wingers complain about the naive, self-destructive, and often hypocritical ("particularism for me, universalism for thee") political sensibilities of the secular/reform Jewish left. The reverse of this applies too! Hunter's a genuine nerd--he can't help but feel a kinship with technical innovators.

I think the implicit model countering Aella here is that there's a distribution of "resilience against social influence" throughout the population, and those in the left side of this distribution suffer more when exposed to "risky" ideas. The most ardent libertarians believe some combination of (a) this left tail has sufficient personal capacity to make good decisions regardless of this influence (b) this left tail bears responsibility for personal decisions regardless of personal resilience (c) we must prioritize the liberty of others over the well-being of this left tail.

(Grok refuses to depict Aella accurately regardless of prompting.)

This isn't an academic point about classification principles (the kind you'd find dealing with edge cases in a math or philosophy department), and it isn't a coincidence it was made by "someone with annoying opinions on race". Rather, this is ideologically motivated sophistry deliberately intended to mislead the public into misunderstanding an issue. A good faith, intellectually serious version of this argument would continue "...and therefore we need better genetic testing to characterize this higher dimensional continuum, so that we can evaluate trait variation across otherwise fuzzy ancestral groupings". Instead, he uses this in an epistemically nihilistic way to shut down a discussion he doesn't want to take place. I dislike dunks in general, but the refutation here works because of how Gurmendi is employing his argument, and his point *is* refuted. He's not arguing that edge case classification can be tricky; he's using fuzzy edge cases to suggest that the entire concept contains no useful information.

How much of this is driven by mental illness vs simple stupidity?

Perhaps the dislike/discrimination should also be driven by race itself, rather than a perceived correlate? Imagine a counterfactual world where (a) there's no trait variation within ancestral subpopulations and (b) there are aggregate disparities between them. "Race" would contain ~perfect information about individual traits. In that world, would we consider someone a racist merely for incidentally discriminating in favor of a group when selecting mathematicians/basketball players/etc? Maybe our notion of "racism" simply becomes less socially meaningful as within-group variation vanishes?

It's hard to have a functional pluralistic society when large segments of it look through the NFL's roster of criminals and decide to make "open social conservative" the league's mascot for "horrible human".

He needs to put aside his pride and purchase reading glasses.