> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence.
Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that material himself. No, he didn't invent his theory, he simply followed accepted science.
> Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.
There isn't much that resembles science in social academia, data isn't science and the prediction of the so-called "social" sciences have been disastrously wrong all along.
Data isn't evidence ether - you have to have a theory within a science with a sound methodological foundation before you can treat data as evidence. We don't have that now and we've never had it, the few meager attempts were politicized and bastardized in their infancy.
> It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest.
Center-left? Like all Democrats in Congress who joined the fifty-odd Republicans to vote for letting the government remotely mess with your car while you drive?
At the time of a real shooting war in the streets in Minneapolis they seized the opportunity to put some more shackles around public's ankles.
There isn't left, right or center in US party politics - only Orwellian-left theater vs Orwellian-right theater in service of forces who view the public as sheep to be sheared.