Talk:Bo Winegard
|
This Racialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Dodgy sources defending Bo Winegard after his sacking[edit]
The list so far
- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/12/assistant-professor-says-hes-been-fired-because-he-dared-talk-about-human-population
- https://areomagazine.com/2020/03/16/the-firing-of-bo-winegard-when-academic-freedom-and-outrage-collide/
- https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/hounding-heretic-bo-winegard/
The areomagazine piece was written by a Quillette writer, Chris Ferguson John66 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Lmao, “Don’t judge me, but I still believe in spanking". I think Ferguson warrants his own article on RW.
John66 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
"Bias"[edit]
This page is biased. I have created a page for Bo Winegard at Wikipedia to counteract the left-wing bias on here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard
Hciam Hciam (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hciam You don't know how to use the word "biased" correctly do you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- An example of the correct use would be that you exhibit a parasocial bias for Mr. Winegard's opinions that hampers your ability to remain objective. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I was banned on Wikipedia but I have a clean account now, I am untouchable. I will be creating Wikipedia articles for all the race realist scientists you have smeared on this website. My Wikipedia creations will counteract all the RationalWiki articles you have written for Quillette people. Hciam (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to alert Wikipedia to your confession. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Banned on Wikipedia? Does it relate to what you're doing? Also you'll find Wikipedia will ask the same we ask of you: support your claims as which includes removing content in our article. "It's biased" is among the laziest arguments people have trotted out here. There's logic being appealed to here but it's an empty statement, a "I am convincing" platitude, conveys nothing else. Wikipedia probably gets that accusation all the time too, but only substantiated ones get attention. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 19:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are left-wing traitors, you are destroying the white race. Bo Winegard and other race realists are on the front-line doing active race research whilst you guys just sit behind your keyboards smearing them. I have had hundreds of accounts on Wikipedia, I am active on the race and intelligence or Race (human categorization) talk-page every years. My last account was blocked a few days ago but I use a VPN service and they can never track me. They didn't even connect that account to my main. You have no chance of getting me banned on there. I always win against the left-wingers. Hciam (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am so envious of you, what an amazing role model you are. Instead of being behind the keyboard smearing race realists, we should all follow your example and be behind the keyboard being banned on Wikipedia, putting up sockpuppet accounts, and writing up shitty racist pseudoscience. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nazis didn't win World War II. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- They could have won World War II if they ran sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia and bitched about left wingers on RationalWiki. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are left-wing traitors, you are destroying the white race. Bo Winegard and other race realists are on the front-line doing active race research whilst you guys just sit behind your keyboards smearing them. I have had hundreds of accounts on Wikipedia, I am active on the race and intelligence or Race (human categorization) talk-page every years. My last account was blocked a few days ago but I use a VPN service and they can never track me. They didn't even connect that account to my main. You have no chance of getting me banned on there. I always win against the left-wingers. Hciam (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Banned on Wikipedia? Does it relate to what you're doing? Also you'll find Wikipedia will ask the same we ask of you: support your claims as which includes removing content in our article. "It's biased" is among the laziest arguments people have trotted out here. There's logic being appealed to here but it's an empty statement, a "I am convincing" platitude, conveys nothing else. Wikipedia probably gets that accusation all the time too, but only substantiated ones get attention. --It's-a me,
- I'll be happy to alert Wikipedia to your confession. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I was banned on Wikipedia but I have a clean account now, I am untouchable. I will be creating Wikipedia articles for all the race realist scientists you have smeared on this website. My Wikipedia creations will counteract all the RationalWiki articles you have written for Quillette people. Hciam (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh by the way, this fucker's article runs the risk of being deleted and Wikipedia editors have obliterated your little article. Try harder. Don't worry though, I will vandal bin you again if you dare, so I will win again. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Lol the Bo Winegard Wikipedia article will never be deleted, nor will I be banned because I always create new accounts. You have autism and you are bi-racial with no racial identity. Is that you why spend your life on this website smearing white academics? You have no science education or degree. You lefties were clueless. Kuiet (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I doubt Wikipedia will delete the article if the subject is worth documenting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Continue with your slacktivism, then. We'll see how that'll take you in life. Oh by the way, we won again by blocking another sock account. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- But Mike, don't They control Google? Why not check the one true search engine, DuckDuckGo? Spoiler, our article is higher there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Continue with your slacktivism, then. We'll see how that'll take you in life. Oh by the way, we won again by blocking another sock account. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I doubt Wikipedia will delete the article if the subject is worth documenting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A mod may want to perm lock the page[edit]
The Winegard's keep complaining on social media about their articles hence why people keep coming here to vandalise. I reverted edits of an IP. REllis (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Response to RationalWiki[edit]
| User:Mikemikev sockpuppetry |
|---|
|
1. “He retweets Nathan Cofnas, Charles Murray, Noah Carl, Emil Kirkegaard, James Thompson and other alt-righter “race realists”. Winegard identifies as a member of the alt-center which is basically an attempt by white nationalists in the alt-right to re-brand themselves as political moderates” I have retweeted every person mentioned in this list. But I have also retweeted progressives and “never-Trumpers.” I follow a motley crew of people on Twitter because I think that it’s important to view and contend with a variety of political opinions. 2. The introduction to my page concludes: “Winegard is a supporter of so-called scientific racism, writing “empirical facts cannot be sexist or racist” Of course, I do not support “scientific racism” (and I’m not even certain what it is) and have strongly urged people to treat others as individuals, not as tokens of categories. I have included such warnings and admonitions in every paper I have written about human variation. It is a clear tell about the biases of my page that the author(s) failed to include a single quote of mine that discusses the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity. I don’t think facts can be sexist or racist. And I don’t understand how they could be. What would it even mean for a fact to be sexist? At any rate, I do stand behind that sentiment. People can be sexist. Institutions can be sexist. But facts cannot be. 3. My page excoriates me for defending Emil Kirkegaard, an independent scholar, who, by his own account, does not entirely understand social decorum. I do not know what is in Emil Kirkegaard’s heart, and I don’t know why it’s particularly important that I do. It is likely that I disagree with many of Kirkegaard’s positions. And I definitely would not endorse some of his tweets or jokes. However, I also don’t think he is a “bad” human being, whatever that might mean, and I have profited from exchanges with him. Even if he were a loathsome person, I would still try to persuade him to relinquish his loathsome beliefs. I think discourse is generally the best way to change people’s minds. 4. Then the page again claims that “cultural nationalism” is really “white nationalism.” It’s not. Again, to be clear, I have never supported white nationalism. And it’s notable that the author of my page has to resort to using a tweet thread about cultural nationalism in which I explicitly rejected ethno-nationalism (if not in the thread, then in responses) because it is immoral and infeasible in the United States, which is already a diverse country. Cultural nationalism was recently defended by Rich Lowry in a book. For those who are interested in my real views, that book is a good place to look. 5. Last, the page criticizes one of my peer-reviewed articles on human diversity. Good. Arguments should be criticized. That is how science works. But, I fail to see why it’s nefarious to write a peer-reviewed article that has been warmly received by many people about human diversity. Is it entirely correct? I doubt it. But, I am still happy with the article and I think it is correct in broad outlines. 109.123.74.182 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Rational wiki has become psychopathic illiberal left wing manipulators creating social fear for conformity[edit]This article on Bo is incredibly biased, and strikes fear into heterodox professors from saying or publishing anything that anonymous rational wiki editors might target. I am heartbroken that a site that once was useful (circa 2009) in distinguishing science and pseudoscience, is now ideological itself now. Shame on rationalwiki for it's psychopathy. As for Bo: he is 100% more decent than the psychopathic editors at rational wiki. signed... a moderate independent professor. — Unsigned, by: 51.6.87.31 / talk / contribs |