The NYT doxxing Scott Alexander for no real reason was wrong, but most of the defenses of SSC that I've read recently disgust me about as much as the original article did because they're all playing dumb: Alexander was clearly sympathetic to the idea of Race-IQ differences.

The modern liberal worldview is large, but cannot survive the revelation that there are racial differences in IQ. Any respectable outlet that indirectly promotes this viewpoint is an existential threat and it is rational for liberals to seek these out and destroy them.

In other words, according to the modern American consensus all published writers adhere to, Metz's attack on a rising threat would be commendable (other than the doxxing). It's only distasteful if you are sympathetic to Race/IQ connections, as most of his defenders secretly are.

The real point is this: soft "HBD" type people like Charles Murray themselves often play dumb about the implications of their work. There is no way reconcile it with liberalism and if liberals were smart they would be doing even more they currently are to wipe it out.