Talk:Race, Evolution, and Behavior

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515022349/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903120328/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/reb_gw.html to http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/reb_gw.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are race terms such as Mongoloid used with the quotation marks in the article? They are scientific terms not specific to this particular book.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: He served as a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario for many years, and he also served, until his death from cancer on October 2, 2012, as the head of the Pioneer Fund.
I write a lot of improvisational satire online, and it's an absolutely routine tactic to bury a modifier in one sentence that's intended to spill over into a subsequent remark, and every astute reader gets this right away, because it's simply a magnification of a universal human behaviour. So you describe some chick as amazingly "hot" at the outset (it's a good hook). But then in the next paragraph you manufacture a pretext to inject the word "radioactive" and the paragraph after than you manufacture a pretext to inject the word "potato". People absolutely do connect the dots at the subconscious level to form the gestalt "radioactive hot potato". Any lingering hint of Victoria's Secret foxy hotness has by this point been thoroughly deep-sixed into the dirty laundry hamper. 
Enter one J. Philippe Rushton, radioactive hot potato extraordinaire. 
Anyone out there defending the use of the word "cancer" in this context as not having wings (as described above), I must congratulate you on your ninnihood of the straight face. (Were you ever to become the target of my satire, you'd wise up in a New York microsecond, because the effect is amazingly potent when wielded with practiced hands.) 
For some reason that I never understood a favourite joke in my childhood schoolyard went this: 
* so and so was telling everyone he saw you floating down the river last night 
* but I defended you by saying "shit doesn't float". 
(It was all I could do to restrain myself from pointing out that shit does float with a sufficient volume of entrained gas, thereby gaining a permanent reputation as having exactly the wrong fascination with intestinal atmospherics.) 
Is that why we're specifying death by cancer here? Because otherwise the reader would assume he was assassinated in his sleep, or accidentally immolated himself while burning down an orphanage? In which case "cancer" dispels a much worse implicit rumour?  
Bottom line: I successfully weaponize that kind of casual word drop on a daily basis. Doesn't look harmless from where I sit, at a wry Eustachian cant, emitting my barbed bubbles. — MaxEnt 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You found it easier to write this lengthy analysis, than simply moving the cause of death out of that sentence?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "simple" if it keeps coming back, and if it's still here, chances are not slim that it has already come back, and fairly decent that some (in such a polarized venue) are choosing to deny or downplay the issue. Revision on a Wikipedia is a dime a dozen. And I have no real desire to put my fingerprints on the actual page itself, since I'm just passing through, and not planning to stake the matter out in my watch list. And it's not like I haven't had blowback from "simple" edits along the way, either. My sensitivity to language is not "normal", as I've discovered at cost (which I lampooned above, quite deliberately, in my remark about "entrained" gas). — MaxEnt 23:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "cancer" operating at the explicit level? I think not.