Indeed, when I listen to people I often hear this. Many will explicitly refer to "consensus." Our friendly AMAer did this implicitly; instead of independently discussing systemic racism, here he merely linked a wikipedia article, and here he "just thinks HBD is false," linking two articles instead of generating his own argument. In contrast, he writes loads on socialism, citing specific facts, organizing them into arguments, etc. What we see here is none other than the leader/follower distinction: intellectually speaking, we may class our friendly AMAer as a 'leader' of Marxism and a follower of anti-HBD. He has thought independently about Marxism, but with regards to HBD he is simply going with expert consensus. On Marxism he has dug into the facts and can have an argument; he either knows it to be true or false but is otherwise sticking with it for personal reasons. But for HBD he knows only the expert consensus. He could not say first hand if it were true or false. In consequence there is no real discussion to be had about HBD with this poster. By definition, people are only equipped to defend ideologies which they may be classed as 'leaders' of.
Wow. That's more than enough "HBD" mentions even for me. You've got to condense, my man. However:
This leader/follower distinction is an interesting one and could perhaps be developed further. Why do the followers act as if they are confident of the conclusions? How come their faith in experts they subscribe to on the topic is so strong? I tried to probe in this direction, without much result.
As for Turkheimer, he wears his heart on his sleeve, at this point: HBD is wrong because Holocaust.That's it. No, really.
You may argue this does not make sense seeing as Holocaust was not predicated on the validity of heritable influence on human behavior, but he's not particularly cunning or opaque about his bad faith tactics and so there's not much to psychoanalyze here. The only puzzling detail is whether he could foresee the present debate when «discovering» his three laws of behavioral genetics which blow a hole in his current narrative, and what did he hope for. Maybe he's just not smart enough, or not a bad enough scientist, to be consistently dishonest.