My general impression is that there actually two different fault-lines about race -related questions on Lesswrong.

One is: Are there biologically-determined differences in politically-sensitive traits like intelligence between races? (One should note here that a) there is more to biology than genes and b) "race" is an amorphous term and the layman's use of it based on a rough eyeballing of skin color doesn't necessarily line up well with "genetic cohort"; a desire not to have to explain these nuances over and over again is another reason for people to take the agnostic-leaning against position.)

The second fault line I've observed is about statistical discrimination -- given an individual from a supposedly "inferior" cohort who has nevertheless provided independent bits of information about their intelligence (e.g. scored far above the mean on an IQ test) , should one argue that the more individualized bits screen off whatever information one might have argued just based on their cohort, or should one privilege the cohort information and assume the individual bits of information would just regress to the mean on further investigation. (Someone who is less inclined to the former position than I am might do a better job phrasing the latter; I suspect I'm strawmanning it somewhat but I leave it to its advocates to articulate it better.)