You’re not very bright, are you?
Cite? Even the uppermost estimates of Mao’s policies stay well under 80 million (Great Leap Forward <55m, Cultural Revolution <20m), and the upper estimates for Stalin stay under 10 million. And what, Cambodia with under 3 million?
~Max
I think you can include Lenin and the famine’s following the Bolshevik revolution to that number as well. A 100m figure doesn’t sound unreasonable, especially when adding the Khmer Rouge and similar on top of it. Hell, Leftist actions in Africa over 100 years probably gets you to 100m in addition to what has been mentioned.
Of course, WW2, a war started by three rightist/authoritarian states (Germany, Italy, Japan) and one Communist state (USSR) is a little more complex, but since we are pulling numbers out of our asses, I have no problem assigning the 55m dead during WW2 to the Right. Hell, same thing with WW1 since non-British participants were all conservative monarchies up until 1917 or so. 
I still wonder what any of this has to do with the OP, however.
Wut? France has been a republic since 1870.
Oh, that focus was lost loooonnnnng ago.
~Max
At least no one has argued that Stalin was really right-wing yet. I’ve seen both that and right-wingers arguing that Hitler was on the left because national-socialism.
So tiresome.
Dammit. Wasn’t thinking there.
RESOLVED: The Message Board can handle right wingers who do well on the SAT’s.
Time to close the thread. 
What about people who never took it?
They can apply for exemption 429.SDMB.1.a. I’ll be glad to mail them one, it takes 6-8 weeks to process.
JohnT may have missed that whole part where you don’t know anything about taking SATs.
~Max
I suspect you are right. That’s because I never took any.
It does have the advantage that no one can ask me how I did. 
Yes, we’re all aware of your clever technique of deflecting from the overt rise in fascism in the American right by responding “Nuh-uh!”.
Just a reminder:
Sometimes we call people fascists because they support fascism. So thanks for yet another example of you doing it.
That was in the section where they talk about possible shortcomings of their study, and dyslexia is mentioned in the context of a manifestation of the gene-environment correlation, not as a cause of anything. I’m really baffled how you could get the conclusion you have from the study.
Here are their main conclusions:
Conclusions
We dissected the association between 7§-year-old children’s reading ability and reading frequency and volume (called print exposure). We confirmed that individual differences in reading ability were mostly due to genetic differences, while print exposure was equally genetic and environmental in origin. Importantly, we found evidence that children’s reading level fuels how much they choose to read – it follows, as practitioners know, that children tend to avoid reading if they find it difficult. Interventions should focus not only on promoting reading skills but also motivation to read.
No mention of dyslexia. The word is mentioned only three times in the whole study.
The genetic differences in reading ability they’re talking about are dyslexia.
What genetic differences do you think they’re talking about?
They are talking about the differences between all levels of reading ability. We do not usually describe the difference between a good and average reader as due to dyslexia.
They are talking about children who have difficulty reading; which is usually described as dyslexia. And they are talking about children who have enough difficulty reading that it discourages them from doing so.
Analyses were based on 11,559 twins, born between 1994 and 2004, and 262 siblings. The sample was obtained from the Netherlands Twin Register, a nationwide database of multiple births and their family members, including data from birth onwards (van Beijsterveldt et al., 2013).
Their sample was from a nationwide database of twins. It was not restricted to those who have unusual difficulty reading. (The study was done on seven year olds’, and we expect a range of abilities.)
Figure 1 shows that they defined the least proficient 10% of readers in the study as dyslexic, with the remaining 90% not considered so.
I don’t know the details of how holistic review “scores” applicants. I do know that most colleges want their student body to have a mix of family backgrounds, including some with college-educated parents and some with non-college-educated parents.
It seems very unlikely to me that a given level of parental education would automatically be counted at any fixed level, either positive or negative, as a “score” factor for applicants. AIUI, it’s precisely that kind of “algorithmic” quantitative scoring of applicants that holistic review is trying to get away from.
And, as I said, the point here is that nothing in this discussion so far refutes the report’s conclusion that standardized test scores are pretty much redundant as a measure of student achievement.