…And if it weren’t for that one joke by Hannibal, Bill Cosby would be very uncontroversial.
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1805683265480933638
He’s getting mad at scientific american again because they wrote a shit opinion peice but he should know the wiki guidelines are generally against citing opinion pieces as fact in your article
“Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.”
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1803489864488460647
Same here, and I’m not even sure what was so bad about what was said because it was generally a tame article compared to many others.
The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:
With apologies for resurrecting an old thread: I am an independent writer exploring the potential to write an article focused on Gerard’s Wikipedia-related history. I’ve reviewed the information here and the on-wiki behavior and controversies I can find, but if anyone has information I may have missed or other thoughts to share, I would welcome direct messages or replies. In particular, if anyone with an informed perspective is willing to chat at length on the record, I’d appreciate it. I’m an outsider to the whole Wikipedia ecosystem and trying to parse through thousands of pages of history and edits looking for key moments gets rather dense–it’s quite easy for me to miss relevant info.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881
I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal’s research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.
so now we have confirmation that tracing w. is (a) a petty, vengeful prick and (b) reads this; good. tracing, whoever you are, why don’t you focus on some introspection, like consider what causes you to agree with obvious anti-scientific crap (scientific racism, hbd) and why do you prefer the company of fascists (proto, wannabe, true, disguised, and the illinois nazis) to the company of people who don’t think genocide can be justified for any reason?
I tried to look up this Mr. Gerard’s lurid wikipedia past expecting at least a torture dungeon or wiki-cult or something; but all I found were a bunch of people grumpy that they couldn’t turn wikipedia articles into cryptocurrency ads.
Booring.
When I was listening to the most recent episode of the Maintenance Phase podcast which was all in on mocking J. Michael Bailey with a special dig at autogynephilia theories, I went to go see if David had any history policing weirdos on Bailey’s wikipedia page, as an excuse to bring the episode in for a stubsack link. And he didn’t, which means, once again, booring.
“wikipediocracy”? fucking seriously?
for all the good and bad bits that wikipedia has (and there are notably many of the latter too), a rulership is definitely not among that list afaik. wtf.
(e: I’m going purely off the domain name there, but holy shit what a name)
@froztbyte @sneerclub Well, if the vast majority of people in a community share a consensus reality and basic principles, you don’t need a formal governance structure to oppress hallucinating sociopaths.
TracingWoodgrains seems to have developed, in the process of leaving mormonism, an obsession with seeking out contrarianism. But more importantly, he openly admits to being racist/HBD “align[s] broadly with informed experts that the distribution of genetic traits associated with intelligence is non-zero” and “questions of genetics and IQ, including when it comes to group differences, are worth taking seriously”. As such, he only considers it “racism” if it’s “racial crassness and antagonism”.
In which TW names who he thinks is treating the topic with the seriousness it demands without sinking to crassness: our good good friend Cremieux.
the distribution of genetic traits associated with intelligence is non-zero
This doesn’t even make sense. What the fuck is a zero distribution? A probability distribution cannot be “zero” in any sensible meaning of the word. Did you mean uniform?
Also obv citation needed you sack of spuds.
I think he is trying to say something like “non-zero skew”, but really, he just means “I subscribe to race science, but only for the articles”.
I think you’re being too generous. What they wanted to say is “There are genetic traits associated with intelligence.” However, not inserting probability distributions in every fucking sentence is a class 2 misdemeanor in Rat circles, hence what was written.
look at this incredibly offended dork
Ben Stewart:
Manifest’s decisions are and have been bad not in terms of PR, but bad for its own epistemics, the forecasting community, EA, and basic human decency.
TW:
“Basic human decency”? Jeez, mate. I understand not wanting to engage with right-wingers personally, but treating it as a deep affront when others choose to do so is off-putting, to say the least.
Ben Stewart:
Yeah that was a bit strong, sorry late here.
Ben, honey. You do not have to apologize for referring to platforming Hanania as an affront to basic human decency. That TW is successful in shaming you for accurately identifying what happened here is no credit to your own ability to recognize the dangerous epistemic bubble in which you find yourself, or the cultlike social pressures that persuade you to distrust your own correct judgement – not because TW challenged your facts or your interpretation, but because he – gasp! – called it “off-putting.”
Not everyone’s going to like you. Not everyone’s going to agree with you. Social stigma is a good and correct tool in your toolbox when a member of your community says that cites-the-Turner-Diaries, enforced-sterilization, anti-“miscegenation”, “women’s liberation = the end of human civilization” Richard Hanania has something valuable to add.
