6 ms·

I'm not saying rationalwiki is an authoritative source but you might find it a useful starting point to learn about the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/b

I'm not saying rationalwiki is an authoritative source but you might find it a useful starting point to learn about the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/bo_winegard5vg5 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/bo_winegard5vg5

aaron695 3y ago
> I'm not saying rationalwiki is an authoritative source Then don't fucking link it. I'm not saying Encyclopedia Dramatica is an authoritative source but you might find it a useful starting point to learn about Rational Wiki - https://encyclopediadramatica.online/RationalWiki https://encyclopediadramatica.online/RationalWiki
sverona 3y ago
My suspicions were aroused when I saw they interviewed J. Michael Bailey, who has been doing science backwards for decades now to paint me and the people who saved my life as a bunch of deluded perverts. The manifesto on "race realism" (!!!) is enough to convince me that the authors of this piece would shoot me dead if they ever got the chance. They can kindly fuck off back to the 1920s with that nonsense.
chownie 3y ago
Is that link correct? It appears to point to an empty page
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard
mdp2021 3y ago
While I have seen any kind of participation (hence quality and dubious patterns) in Wiki articles, this is what you find there: > W spends most of his time on Twitter talking about _ and the alleged evils of _. He commonly retweets _ and other so-called _. W identifies as a member of the _ which is basically an attempt by _ to re-brand themselves as political moderates.[ref] That is profiling work. (Not just "Ad hominem".) -- The clash with the name "rational-wiki" is too strong not to be noted. -- (Sniper, put some argument there: you are qualifying yourself. Not in a good light.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cubefox 3y ago
RationalWiki is a highly biased cancel community which has attacked people like Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander before.
- staticman2 3y ago
  What's wrong with attacking Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander? You apparently think it's okay to attack RationalWiki, so what is the distinction?
  - cubefox 3y ago
    RationalWiki tries to get people cancelled, unemployed, destroy their career prospects and perhaps ruin their lives. All the while they hypocritically and cowardly hide between their anonymity. It is disgusting.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    It shouldn't be necessary to point out the difference between attacking a person and a movement/belief set/organization, but I guess it is.
    - staticman2 3y ago
      Maybe you should point out what you mean by "attacking" a person? I assume they were "attacking" (as in disagreeing with?) the belief sets of Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander as outlined in their blogs?
      - cubefox 3y ago
        They tried to cancel them for being considerers of heretical thoughts. In every time period of the past there have been things which were taboo to discuss, which were outside the Overton window. There is no reason to believe our times are different in this regard. That's why intellectually honest people should engage by engaging with arguments themselves, whatever they may be, not by engaging in cancellation and character assassination.

aaron695 3y ago

> I'm not saying rationalwiki is an authoritative source Then don't fucking link it. I'm not saying Encyclopedia Dramatica is an authoritative source but you might find it a useful starting point to learn about Rational Wiki - https://encyclopediadramatica.online/RationalWiki https://encyclopediadramatica.online/RationalWiki

sverona 3y ago

My suspicions were aroused when I saw they interviewed J. Michael Bailey, who has been doing science backwards for decades now to paint me and the people who saved my life as a bunch of deluded perverts. The manifesto on "race realism" (!!!) is enough to convince me that the authors of this piece would shoot me dead if they ever got the chance. They can kindly fuck off back to the 1920s with that nonsense.

chownie 3y ago

Is that link correct? It appears to point to an empty page

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard

mdp2021 3y ago

While I have seen any kind of participation (hence quality and dubious patterns) in Wiki articles, this is what you find there: > W spends most of his time on Twitter talking about _ and the alleged evils of _. He commonly retweets _ and other so-called _. W identifies as a member of the _ which is basically an attempt by _ to re-brand themselves as political moderates.[ref] That is profiling work. (Not just "Ad hominem".) -- The clash with the name "rational-wiki" is too strong not to be noted. -- (Sniper, put some argument there: you are qualifying yourself. Not in a good light.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cubefox 3y ago

RationalWiki is a highly biased cancel community which has attacked people like Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander before.

staticman2 3y ago
What's wrong with attacking Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander? You apparently think it's okay to attack RationalWiki, so what is the distinction?
- cubefox 3y ago
  RationalWiki tries to get people cancelled, unemployed, destroy their career prospects and perhaps ruin their lives. All the while they hypocritically and cowardly hide between their anonymity. It is disgusting.
- throw10920 3y ago
  It shouldn't be necessary to point out the difference between attacking a person and a movement/belief set/organization, but I guess it is.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    Maybe you should point out what you mean by "attacking" a person? I assume they were "attacking" (as in disagreeing with?) the belief sets of Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander as outlined in their blogs?
    - cubefox 3y ago
      They tried to cancel them for being considerers of heretical thoughts. In every time period of the past there have been things which were taboo to discuss, which were outside the Overton window. There is no reason to believe our times are different in this regard. That's why intellectually honest people should engage by engaging with arguments themselves, whatever they may be, not by engaging in cancellation and character assassination.