That's the paradox: "taboo" statements like black crime statistics are to some extent "taboo" for sound, rationalist reasons. But "taboo" is not taboo: it's about context. People who think that such statements are taboo are probably bad at communicating, and people often think they're racists and misogynists because they probably are on good rationalist grounds. If you want to talk about statistical representatives on the topic of race, be ready to understand that those who are listening will have background knowledge about the other views you might hold.

That may hold for the bar conversation you describe, but it doesn't once media distortions are introduced.

And when you consider the things that public figures can talk about, then which ones are "taboo" is pretty clear: it's the things that can be stripped of context and used as ammo for accusations, or just for a nice and attention-grabbing headline story.

This kind of distortion is what people (like me) who are annoyed by "taboos" are most concerned with. Yes, your Bill's statements may be valid evidence of some questionable characteristics, but such a statement by Bob stripped of it's context and pushed in the media is much weaker evidence: maybe there were plenty of caveats attached, but the journalist preferred to get rid of them, so Bob gets judged as if he was Bill.

The Stephanie Grace case is a pretty clear example where all the context was stripped for maximum outrage. Or here is Chomsky talking about how he was taken out of context (I believe he's a frequent victim of that).

The question, however, is whether there are also some true beliefs, or uncertain beliefs that may turn out to be true given the present state of knowledge, that are also costly to express (or even just to signal indirectly) nowadays. Would you really assert that the answer to that question is no?

I would not.

I am doubting your claim that your beliefs are really so beyond the pale to the social mores of your peers here, that you'd be unfairly suppressed and/or censored, or otherwise hurt "the cause" of LW any moreso than you might be saying what you already do freely.

I could be wrong about that, but I also have different estimates of the real, net social cost to signalling something unpopular, especially for someone who consistently signal-boosts in your observed patterns in this environment.

I would be unsurprised to learn you believe that IQ represents general intelligence and that it is primarily genetic, and that all personality traits are ultimately genetic or inconsequential in the scheme of things, and that they are linked to race, and that this could get people upset at you if you just said it at random at a party.

I would be very surprised if it got you successfully sued, persecuted in a tangible way, or indeed anything worse than flamed on the internet for voicing this openly. Or arrested, or fired from your job, or targeted by a group like Anonymous for ongoing harassment...

However, based on what you've said about your reasons for not revealing some subset of your beliefs here, you appear to fear consequences considerably more significant than just someone being mad at something you said on the internet, and this seems...disproportionate, incorrect, biased -- a skewed misunderstanding of the reality of your likely risks and costs.