3 ms·

Background on the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard http

by reocha 3y ago

Background on the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard

ralfd 3y ago
Rationalwiki is trash.
- reocha 3y ago
  How so?
  - Viliam1234 3y ago
    I wouldn't call it "trash", but it comes with some political bias and personal vendettas. The reason for both is that the entire wiki probably has about dozen editors, some of them way more powerful than others. So you might think that "wiki = something edited by lots of people", but for many topics there was one person who decided whether something was okay or not and wrote the article accordingly, and everyone else only added details afterwards (or disagreed and was banned). From my perspective, the greatest problem is the local cultural norm that once you decide that someone is a bad guy, it is allowed (even encouraged) to exaggerate about them, and complaining about exaggerations can get you banned. Which means that when a mistake is made, it becomes very difficult to fix it, because of course after the exaggerations anything can look stupid.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It is by reputation very online, very judgy, and very left, so its pronouncements are perceived as cliquish and insubstantial. That's probably the case; it's probably a mistake to just go click around that site and draw conclusions according to what it says. But it is also a useful link aggregator, so when it claims something, like "this person earnestly believes that the Earth isn't round and that there is not an atmosphere but instead an atmosflat", it's worth checking the links to make sure that isn't clearly the case. Oftentimes it is.
mellosouls 3y ago
Background on the authors according to a far-left website. Let's at least be honest.
- tptacek 3y ago
  You can just follow the links in this case. I don't know much about RationalWiki and am disinclined to "trust" it, but often when that site makes claims, the links they provide to primary sources are more than sufficient to support them. That's the case here.
- reocha 3y ago
  All the information about them is cited and backed up by evidence, the fact the website is left wing (according to you) shouldn't get in the way of the factual information contained within.
  - Sankozi 3y ago
    At least half of "information" is just guilt by association, sometimes taken to ridiculous levels: "Winegard clarifies his above comment and concern is specifically only countries below sub-replacement fertility (2.1 TFR), meaning (excluding a few countries in East Asia i.e. Japan, Singapore and Korea), the whole of Europe.[33] This a key obsession of white nationalists (such as Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, whose manifesto called for white Europeans to increase their fertility rates above 2.1)." Winegard says make more babies, you know who said that too? Christchurch terrorist! Ridiculous.
    - pharrington 3y ago
      Do you think it's ridiculous to associate Bo Winegard with this race realism manifeto? - https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/race-realism-a-moderates-manifesto https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/race-realism-a-moderates-ma...
      - Sankozi 3y ago

by reocha 3y ago

Background on the authors: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard

ralfd 3y ago

Rationalwiki is trash.

reocha 3y ago
How so?
- Viliam1234 3y ago
  I wouldn't call it "trash", but it comes with some political bias and personal vendettas. The reason for both is that the entire wiki probably has about dozen editors, some of them way more powerful than others. So you might think that "wiki = something edited by lots of people", but for many topics there was one person who decided whether something was okay or not and wrote the article accordingly, and everyone else only added details afterwards (or disagreed and was banned). From my perspective, the greatest problem is the local cultural norm that once you decide that someone is a bad guy, it is allowed (even encouraged) to exaggerate about them, and complaining about exaggerations can get you banned. Which means that when a mistake is made, it becomes very difficult to fix it, because of course after the exaggerations anything can look stupid.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It is by reputation very online, very judgy, and very left, so its pronouncements are perceived as cliquish and insubstantial. That's probably the case; it's probably a mistake to just go click around that site and draw conclusions according to what it says. But it is also a useful link aggregator, so when it claims something, like "this person earnestly believes that the Earth isn't round and that there is not an atmosphere but instead an atmosflat", it's worth checking the links to make sure that isn't clearly the case. Oftentimes it is.

mellosouls 3y ago

Background on the authors according to a far-left website. Let's at least be honest.

tptacek 3y ago
You can just follow the links in this case. I don't know much about RationalWiki and am disinclined to "trust" it, but often when that site makes claims, the links they provide to primary sources are more than sufficient to support them. That's the case here.
reocha 3y ago
All the information about them is cited and backed up by evidence, the fact the website is left wing (according to you) shouldn't get in the way of the factual information contained within.
- Sankozi 3y ago
  At least half of "information" is just guilt by association, sometimes taken to ridiculous levels: "Winegard clarifies his above comment and concern is specifically only countries below sub-replacement fertility (2.1 TFR), meaning (excluding a few countries in East Asia i.e. Japan, Singapore and Korea), the whole of Europe.[33] This a key obsession of white nationalists (such as Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, whose manifesto called for white Europeans to increase their fertility rates above 2.1)." Winegard says make more babies, you know who said that too? Christchurch terrorist! Ridiculous.
  - pharrington 3y ago
    Do you think it's ridiculous to associate Bo Winegard with this race realism manifeto? - https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/race-realism-a-moderates-manifesto https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/race-realism-a-moderates-ma...
    - Sankozi 3y ago