Talk:Nathan Cofnas

Twitter Links

web.archive.org and archive.is. This page is very tweet dependent so used archived links in case the twitter accounts get nuked. Féinléiriú (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do, I'll archive them, but just dumping these here for now:

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1080738625023688705

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1080475836547948546

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1080478116647063553

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1077254382779981827

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1077254382779981827

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1069794560853794833

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1069789531174400000

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1067214866920980480

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1059455492190281728 Tobias (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/FULHAMFRENCHIE/status/991656234502811649

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2015-cofnas.pdf Tobias (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Response

Cofna's website is hosted by GoDaddy [1], they have a history of hosting alt-right and racist content. Cofna has recently attacked RationalWiki [2] Venom (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

original page, archive.is, archive.org. — Dysk (contribs) 22:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Same predictable response as from Noah Carl, Emil Kirkegaard etc. That's why the alt-center page was added. No one is fooled by these idiots trying to present themselves as political centrists/moderates when they're race-obsessed basement dwellers who sit on Twitter all day tweeting about race and intelligence pseudoscience.Tobias (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a brief rebuttal, that I'll add to, if I can be bothered:

• 1. Cofnas takes issue with him being described as a pseudoscientist. However, racialism & hereditarianism are both pseudosciences (like creationism) and it is made clear in the article this is why he's a pseudoscientist. One of his papers is mentioned and a specific criticism is his use of so-called "Lewontin fallacy."

In 2003, Edwards (2003) argued that Lewontin’s method for measuring the importance of between-group variation for human genetic diversity—conducting analysis of variance for many individual gene loci and averaging the result—ignores a key element of population differences. Namely, populations vary in their frequencies for specific alleles at different loci. The difference in allele frequencies at any particular locus may not be large—vis-à-vis that locus there will, on average, be more variation within than between populations. However, since populations vary (if slightly) in allele frequencies at many loci, it is possible to assign people to separate, genetically related groups with nearly 100% accuracy when considering many loci. (Today, for $99 and a saliva sample, 23andMe can determine anyone’s race or racial admixture using this method.) Edwards coined the term “Lewontin’s fallacy” to refer to the procedure of analyzing genetic diversity by measuring variation among individual genes while ignoring gene clusters.

This is a PRATT since using multilocus genetic markers "93% of the total human genetic variation was found at the individual level while an Fst of 4.3% was apportioned to continental regions (Rosenberg et al., 2002)." (Maglo et al. 2016). So there never was a Lewontin Fallacy to begin with (its just the name of a misleading paper that race realists love to cite); on the contrary, Lewontin's argument there is much more genetic variation within putative "races" (continental populations) than between them, has been demonstrated by many multilocus studies such as Rosenberg. And as explained on the racialism article, under "Lewontin's fallacy": "What Lewontin and Edwards are discussing are two completely different things. Of course genetic correlations exist which can pinpoint someone's geographical ancestry, but as Marks asks: "What is unclear is what this has to do with race", and concludes: "Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards's critique does not contradict that interpretation" because "the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." (here is the main problem with race-realists - they re-defined and trivialise race to mean something it never was; I suggest Cofnas gets his head out his ass and read Adam Hochman's papers e.g. Against the New Racial Naturalism).Tobias (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• 2. Cofnas is lying about not being an anti-feminist. New section added: Nathan_Cofnas#Anti-feminism_trolling Tobias (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence for him being an anti-feminist is poor, and he states in his response to this page that he is not against things like equal opportunities for women, but is against the view that men and women are biologically "the same" (a view that, taken literally, no-one would support, because most women have ovaries and most men don't). I attempted to remove this poorly-substantiated claim that he is an anti-feminist from the article, in which it is in effect made 3 times on the basis of one - count it - weak piece of circumstantial evidence, but I was reverted twice.--Greenrd (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually he has with his own rebuttal admitted that he thinks men and women are defined by biological differences and is thus definitively a cad. The anti-feminist label seems to me entirely appropriate. — Dysk (contribs) 20:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

When I was growing up, in the era before widespread public awareness and acceptance of trans people, that was regarded as an unremarkable and even self-evidently true claim - those biological differences being genitalia etc. I remember doing an exercise at school about differences between girls and boys, and this was one thing that everyone agreed on. If you are thinking specifically of psychological differences, I haven't seen him claim that women are less intelligent than men, or that all women are psychologically different to all men. I don't think that believing in psychological differences between men and women is enough to make a person an anti-feminist - many female feminists believe in that to some degree.--Greenrd (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You tried to whitewash the anti-feminism section. The only people who use Twitter like Cofnas to question or downplay Bouman's involvement in publishing the first image of a black hole - are anti-feminist/sexist/misogynist trolls. Tobias (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if you are a troll yourself, i.e. someone pretending to be "right-on" politically in order to parody "right-on" people, because this latest comment of yours really takes the biscuit. I have actually researched this particular controversy a little bit, and my conclusion was that many of the criticisms of Bouman were indeed unfair or unfounded. However, to claim that questioning her involvement - questioning! - is trollish, is really quite irrational. The reality is that what Cofnas said about the Bouman controversy has a grain of truth to it - some, but not all, media outlets really did overhype her contribution. It was a big team effort and the BBC's headline gave the misleading impression that it was her alone, when in fact her original algorithm was not even used, although it inspired the eventual solution. Also, although people claiming that lines of code are all that matters, are ignorant and wrong, it is factually true that she didn't write as many lines of code as some other people, and that was an interesting starting point for a debate. We shouldn't come down hard on unpalatable questions like nuns at a convent school and insinuate that asking questions is morally wrong. That's turning social justice into a religion, IMO.-Greenrd (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Find me a female who argues what you are claiming. It's just sexist/incel etc men trolling Twitter who are saying the "media overhyped her contribution". You're clearly not normal and so arguing with you here is a waste of time.Tobias (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Here: Tania Joy writes "However, the significant media coverage that Bouman received made her out as the ‘lone genius’ behind the accomplishment". But, like me, she is critical of a lot of the anti-Bouman arguments as well. It's an above-average quality article out of the ones I've read on this controversy - really goes in-depth. As for not wanting to argue with me, well, the danger there is that we might disagree on some controversial edit to the article, and by refusing to debate me, you might lose the argument by default. Not a very good attitude to have for editing an online encyclopedia. I think you should consider whether perhaps you're too emotionally invested in these topics to edit this article.-Greenrd (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok troll, so where are the articles that "made her out as the ‘lone genius’ behind the accomplishment"? None exist. The BBC article you mentioned says this: ""No one of us could've done it alone," she told CNN. "It came together because of lots of different people from many different backgrounds." and "Dr Bouman and others developed a series of algorithms that converted telescopic data into the historic photo shared by the world's media." and "the team that helped her deserves equal credit." Stop coming here and posting total BS. Tobias (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the second half of the BBC article seems to be accurate, but I was objecting to the headline in particular (and now that I read it, the first half of the article, before the parts you quoted, is somewhat inaccurate and misleading as well). Headline writers and article writes are sometimes different people, and it is often the case that headlines are objectionable while the articles underneath them are less so, or not at all. The reason why media critics make a big deal out of headlines is because many people will only read as far as the headline and then form an opinion based on that. Likewise, many people may only have read part of the BBC article, and not have read the more accurate second half of it. But since you asked for an example of an article that makes her out to be a lone genius, this article repeats the claim that Bouman was "the woman behind the world’s first image of a black hole", without clarifying that it was a team effort, and suggests that a "vocal minority" think her credit was undeserved, which I believe is misleading because it might be read as saying that everyone else - the majority of people - believe that she did the work on her own.--Greenrd (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right

Just dumping this conversation here since its useful:

“”You know what, I'm not finished. I honestly have no clue as to why you are acting so offended. Your statements about the debate indicate that you think the alt-right is mistakenly hostile to Jews, such that I see your goal as to make the far right more welcoming for Jews.

—@stevenmklein

“”You yourself say you used to have more respect for the alt-right, as you thought they were a good home for those who acknowledge racial differences. "Cofnas tells me: I had more respect for the alt-right 5 month ago."

—@stevenmklein

“”You have an explicitly white, racial understanding of who is *really* a Jew.

—@stevenmklein

“”So this all sounds to me like you think the alt-right should abandon KM's "conspiracy theories" and welcome far-right Jews into the fold.

—@stevenmlkein

Tobias (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

“”This is all based on how *you* have framed the debate. So I'm baffled by this whole charade. If those are your views, own them. If you don't want observers like me to come away with this impression, then you should correct these public statements.

—@stevenmlkein

“”The fact that some of my views are not politically correct may be creepy to you. But to me, what's creepy is automatically conforming to the majority and fearing different opinions. Which one of us would have supported Stalin in the USSR, or Hitler if we had been Germans in 1939?

—@nathancofnas

References

Edits

@Greenrd What exactly are you doing? — Dysk (contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@D. I'm going to create a Coop, this is sysop who has been making many problematic edits. I also recently discovered he's a friend of Cofnas (Twitter) and shares all his pseudoscience views. Likely Cofnas got him to come here to try to whitewash the article.Tobias (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not a friend of Cofnas. Although I don't know who you are, judging by your behaviour on this article and its talk page, this seems to be typical of you - taking thin evidence (me liking some of his tweets and following him on twitter) and spinning it into an unsupported theory, in this case that I am his friend, which you present as if it were proven fact. Also, no, Cofnas did not "get me to come here", beyond the fact that he wrote his response and I saw his tweet advertising it (because I follow him on Twitter), read it, and thought that some of his counterarguments were valid points. I'm sure that you found some of my recent edits to be problematic, given your evident political and social views.--Greenrd (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm editing RationalWiki, same as you. Would you care to specify what about my edits you take issue with, and why?--Greenrd (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

See coop: greenrd (Robin Green).Tobias (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

greenrd (redacted)

moved from Chicken Coop

Note: (redacted)

Greenrd (redacted) has been making a lot of problematic and dubious edits, including trying to whitewash the Nathan Cofnas article. The main problem stems from the fact Green is a proponent of hereditarianism, racialism and eugenics and more or less shares all of Cofnas's pseudoscience views. Green himself identifies as "hereditarian left" and can be found in "alt-left" subreddits, for example talking about his support for eugenics in slatestarcodex, founded by Scott Alexander (who identifies as "hereditarian left" and holds pseudoscience views on race and intelligence.) Green is also a fan of the quasi-alt-right online magazine Quillette and was reverted trying to whitewash that article, as well as the alt-center article by removing legitimate criticisms:

• "No evidence that Quillette editors or contributors are alt-right; editor in chief is a woman and an associate editor is Jewish"
• "I agree that this is the worst article I have seen on Rationalwiki. Too much ad hominem, too little actual engagement with the ideas Quillette publishes."

Another problematic edit(s):

• Green is a supporter of The Bell Curve, and for example made a dubious edit on Robert Plomin, removing a criticism: "Bell Curve drew no conclusion on the question, contrary to popular misconceptions" (this is highly misleading, see the discussion about Bell Curve on hereditarianism.)

Most recently, he's tried to whitewash the Nathan Cofnas article by removing criticisms of Cofnas. His edits have been reverted.

It turns out, Cofnas and Green are buddies on Twitter and likely Cofnas asked Green to come here to whitewash the article. While Green protects his Tweets, you can see his name @greenrd is mentioned in a discussion about Cofnas's RationalWiki article on Twitter. Secondly, Green owns a second Twitter account that promotes Nathan Cofnas' papers. I saw this earlier today. Given the conflict of interest and damage Green is doing to the wiki, I request he be at least desysopped. He doesn't fit in the community here since RationalWiki has an anti-hereditarianism and anti-racialism POV. I don't see his views being compatible and he is making problematic edits to race/hereditarianism related articles.Tobias (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

His name is on his Twitter account - the link he provides on his own RationalWiki user page. I fail to see how this was doxing if he provides his own name. Anyway, I thought this needed a Coop because green is a eugenicist, hereditarian etcetc yet is editing those articles. This would be like allowing a creationist to edit the creationism articles here. It's very problematic.Tobias (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(Note: Tobias is a fresh account of someone who has edited Rationalwiki before - see their talk page.) Wow, I find the second twitter account part really misleading. The "second account" to which you refer is AltRtFactCheck, which actually tries to fight against nonsense, fake news and lies being spread by the alt-right. My hope is that, when I have some more time to devote to that project, it will draw a few people away from the cancerous extremism of the alt-right that has led some, like the Christchurch mass shooter, to commit horrible acts of violence. And the Cofnas paper that I promote is one that argues against Kevin MacDonald's antisemitic theories. So it's an anti-racist paper. As for "buddies on Twitter", we are not - I follow him, he does not follow me, and we have rarely discussed anything on Twitter, so I am sure neither of us would consider each other "Twitter buddies". He did not ask me to come here, or to do anything in fact. I have never read the Bell Curve and have only a vague idea of what's in it, so I don't think it's correct to call me a "supporter" of it. I would argue that my attempts to make this article more fair to Cofnas, as I see it, were in good faith. As far as I'm aware, my controversial opinions, like being a fan of some but not all of what Quillette publishes, don't disqualify me from being a member of this community. According to David Gerard, Rationalwiki does not ban people for their political views. I would suggest that if any of my edits are found by other editors to be unwarranted, they can simply be reverted or re-edited in the normal way, as indeed has already been happening.-Greenrd (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd and Tobias ye we do allow creationists and other qanon believing peeps to be editing here tho unless they break the community standards and green has not broken standards. the article content is being debated and u should carry on doing that without too many personal attacks k. EK (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it's pretty clear that Greenrd's proposed rewriting of the article doesn't have much support right now. Obviously there is some conflict of views here, and this Wiki's majority view is more likely to align with the article as it is right now. Fighting each other is tempting I see, but ultimately won't achieve anything worthwhile. — Dysk (contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

But why does it not have much support? Apart from my proposed removal of the "anti-feminist" description, which has been discussed above, I'm not sure why people disagree with my proposed changes - they were just reverted without explanation. Is there a compromise that can be found - some changes but not others? Or, in the case of some of the changes, perhaps instead of removing things without replacement, I could clarify them and put them into context - would that be more acceptable?--Greenrd (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively you could post here on the talk page what you want to put on the page and we could have a discussion about it. I think for example that the "anti-feminist" label currently has some agreement since you haven't really shown why it's wrong, but if you want to add some context that may be alright, depending on what exactly you want to add. — Dysk (contribs) 09:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation above why Cofnas engages in sexist/anti-feminist trolling. Only way to possibly revise/change that section if Cofnas deletes that tweet and apologises on Twitter. Ask him to do that and you can make your changes, Mr. Green.Tobias (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the alt-right section with better sources. Before it quoted some random nobody, it now quotes a professor who Cofnas was debating - and who made very similar points I did.Tobias (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Dysk (contribs) 15:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's all accurate and well sourced. Cofnas laughably claims "libel". Note how these HBD pseudointellectuals always suffer from unwarranted self importance to the extent they create articles on their crummy blogs claiming to "refute" their RatonalWiki articles; Noah Carl and Emil Kirkegaard have done exactly the same. They also all complain "Google’s algorithm favors RationalWiki, so it virtually always comes up on the first or second page of a Google search" which while true, is irrelevant since virtually no one Googles these idiots names. Despite their delusions, they aren't renowned scientists. Tobias (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Tobias, I strongly object to your ultimatum. You are quite frankly behaving ridiculously here. In my view, one tweet disagreeing with some feminists on one thing does not make someone an anti-feminist, and there appears to be a clear pattern of you repeatedly over-interpreting what people have said (e.g. Cofnas, me) in a way that makes the people you dislike look maximally bad - I don't know whether this is intentional on your part, or whether it's a result of some bias on your part against hereditarians and other groups that you don't like. As I've said before, I believe Cofnas may have been using hyperbole in that tweet out of exasperation. However, if we strip away the gross overgeneralisation, he is making a point that I agree with: that Bouman's contribution was overhyped by some in the media. But regardless of whether you agree on that point or not, one opinion alone, is not sufficient evidence to call someone an anti-feminist, unless they have stated that they are an anti-feminist, which Cofnas definitely has not. Quite the contrary - he has stated in his response to this article that he believes in equal opportunities for men and women, which in my book (but perhaps not in yours?) makes him a small-l liberal feminist. So, unless you can bring forward much more convincing evidence, I believe you are being unreasonable about this.--Greenrd (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sane-minded readers can judge for themselves. And the only people claiming "Bouman's contribution was overhyped" are sexist/anti-feminist trolls . As for other evidence, yes it does exist e.g. Cofnas co-wrote an article https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/ that clearly has an anti-feminism POV. Take for example, this quote: "For more information about how caving in to feminism damages philosophy as a discipline." Quillette was also founded by Claire Lehmann an anti-feminist. Tobias (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

New Coop page for Greenrd after other sysops came to the same conclusion as me that he is whitewashing articles and causing disruption (see also: 1. Tobias (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is getting off on the wrong foot.

Consider the quote:"Based Jew. @nathancofnas is both a race realist and a Jewish realist and no fan of the ADL. He's an Alt Right Jew trying to make the Alt Right better. A light unto the nations! Tikkun olam! Moshiach now! #613" I'm certain this must be making something clear to someone somewhere. But it is no way to introduce a biographical article. Next, I would say, since Cofnas doesn't claim to be a scientist but a philosopher, labeling him a pseudo-scientist is just technically wrong. Maybe he argues for ideas some consider pseudo-scientific, but that just makes him a bad philosopher. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

He's a pseudoscientist since he's a proponent of racialism & hereditarianism; D though has changed the opening line.Tobias (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument is that since he isn't presenting himself as a scientist, he can't then be a pseudoscientist. Though obviously his views may be pseudoscientific, so I tweaked it. I have no clue what the opening quote means by the way. — Dysk (contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tobias One is not a pseudo-scientist because one supports an idea that is ideologically inconsistent with general opinion, even if held by a majority of scientists. Pseudoscience is a failed science. Calling an idea pseudoscientific is ambiguous. I find that what people usually mean is unscientific or just bad science. I think some people use the term because they think it is more of an insult. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Both racialism & hereditarianism are pseudoscience though. To give an example, hereditarianism uses confirmation bias and an unsystematic methodology, not an honest attempt to follow the scientific method, yet its proponents deceptively present it as science. A good source for this is Wicherts et al. 2010 on Richard Lynn.Tobias (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to make changes. My only concern was the whitewashing attempt by Green (although he was reverted).Tobias (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to replace entire paragraph

It has been suggested above that because my previous changes have been reverted, I should suggest changes here first for discussion. So here is my first suggestion.

I propose to replace the newly-added paragraph "Cofnas is a fan of the philosopher Michael Levin[42] who the SPLC describe as an "unabashed white supremacist". Later he would deny being a fan, claiming he just promotes Levin's literature.[Do You Believe That?]" with

"In a Twitter debate with a white nationalist about whether there are prominent Jews who have supported white nationalism, Cofnas cited the example of Michael Levin, a Jewish person who the SPLC describe as an "unabashed white supremacist",[43] and his book "The Color of Crime", which is about statistical differences in crime rates between racial groups in America.[42]"

Obviously my description of the book could be improved - that's based on my very cursory research. Or alternatively, with the book unmentioned, if other RationalWiki editors think it is better this way (I don't have a strong opinion on whether to mention the book):

"In a Twitter debate with a white nationalist about whether there are prominent Jews who have supported white nationalism, Cofnas cited the example of Michael Levin, a Jewish person who the SPLC describe as an "unabashed white supremacist".[43]"

Either way, this avoids making the claim that Cofnas is a "fan" of Levin, a claim for which we do not have direct evidence - or any evidence, really - it's possible that he was merely giving an example to try to back up his argument - and provides the context. I think it's absolutely fine to cover this tweet in the article, but how we cover it matters - in my view, we should avoid leaping to conclusions about what Cofnas endorses based on what he merely mentions. As everyone knows, mentioning and endorsing are two very different things.--Greenrd (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also an interesting secondary discussion to be had about whether Cofnas is factually correct or not here - is/was Michael Levin a white nationalist, or is he only a white supremacist but not a white nationalist? However, I would need to do more research to attempt to answer that question.--Greenrd (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Cofnas is a racialist/hereditarian and as other Twitter users have pointed out he's in the same circle as OpenPsych, Emil Kirkegaard, Richard Lynn (Ulster Institute) etc. I just find it laughable how he's playing the same crypto-politics game as Kirkegaard; that's why the alt-center page was created. Its blatantly obvious the racialist/hereditarian literature Cofnas quotes or cites he endorses. Read the alt-center page to get the context of how dishonest these people are.Tobias (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

green already disagreed with that page when u wrote it tho EK (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but his opinion is worthless - he's a proponent of the same crazy things Cofnas' believes. So I don't expect any impartiality or for him to make sense. I also tried to make a Coop, but as Green says RationalWiki will not ban people for believing in pseudoscience. IMO that's rather unfortunate; I'd rather have only rational people here since that's in the name of the wiki.Tobias (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that would wipe out most the userbase. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Dysk (contribs) 16:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Its now been changed to this:

Cofnas has linked to the work of the controversial philosopher Michael Levin who the SPLC describe as an "unabashed white supremacist".Later he would deny endorsing Levin, claiming he just promotes Levin's literature.^{Do You Believe That?}

Tobias (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Levin's writings ramblings on "race realism" and they mirror exactly Cofnas'. A coincidence? Tobias (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Both Kirkegaard & Noah Carl use Cofnas' same excuse "linking or citing etc doesn't mean endorsement". In the case of Carl, he even "liked" right-wing individuals such as Nigel Farage and Enoch Powell on his Facebook. He then claimed "liking" these individuals was not endorsement or support for them. lol. That's how dishonest these "race realist" type of people are to hide their right-wing to far-right political biases and ideology behind their "race realism" pseudoscience.Tobias (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Updates

Just an update relevant to the above:

• Coop page for Greenrd after other sysops came to the same conclusion as me that he is whitewashing articles and causing disruption (see also: 1, 2, 3).
• Noah Carl has been sacked from Cambridge University for his links to far-right extremists.

Its funny that I'm often attacked across the internet for my activities as "lying" when everything I say on RationalWiki is accurate, well-sourced and backed up independently by other people, including mainstream journalists.Tobias (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific= Science you dont like

This has been the lefts most insensitive trend recently. Calling ever IQ based argument pseudoscientific. Any science you don't like= pseudoscience..

absolutely nothing on this guy you can say is pseudoscientific. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.217.199.155 / talk / contribs}

Cofnas lying about his RationalWiki article

"Radical (and even some not-so-radical) leftists say that by engaging with @TOOEdit and the alt-right I "legitimize" their ideas and accept their premises. RationalWiki, for example, says that I am "quasi-alt-right."

• https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1134471328222908417
• https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=127067

- It's made clear why Cofnas is quasi-alt-right on the article: he's a race-obsessive weirdo, who is part of the HBD pseudoscience cult and identifies as a "race realist". Mountain (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nathan again posting blatant lies why the article calls him alt-right:

"Because I engaged with alt-righters and people who took MacDonald seriously, *I* have been accused of being "alt-right." When you Google me, one of the first things that comes up is a RationalWiki (i.e. fake Wikipedia) page that says I'm "quasi-alt-right." https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1134958910148947974 Mountain (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

He has a new paper

"Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry" --84.177.92.199 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"BBC future" article on vegetarian diet and intelligence

Cofnas quoted heavily in this BBC future article, with his anti-vegan / vegetarian study linked within.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200127-how-a-vegan-diet-could-affect-your-intelligence

RationalWiki might want to restore or rewrite this article given Nathan Cofnas is in the news

My understanding is Cofnas bullied the article author by sending him legal threats and setting up webpages attacking him. This is despite from what I can tell there was nothing wrong with the article. Regardless, here are a lot of current news sources about Cofnas:

• https://www.ucu.cam.ac.uk/cucu-executive-committee-statement-opposing-race-science-in-the-university/

{{quotebox|Cambridge UCU unequivocally condemns all racism within our university and in the world at large. We are particularly dismayed to see how Dr Nathan Cofnas, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Emmanuel College and the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Cambridge, promotes a discredited, ‘scientific’, ‘biological’ understanding of ‘race’ and associated abhorrent ideas regarding the assessments of groups and their social positions. This is not only a form of race pseudo-science, but also of eugenics, which have both caused unspeakable harm in the world and should be actively fought under any circumstances. It is for these reasons that there is an awareness within the scientific community about the ways in which fascist and white supremacist groups appropriate and misuse scientific research and language in the way Cofnas has done.}]

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13060909/cambridge-university-fellow-race-equality-controversy.html

Controversial Cambridge University fellow sparks another race row after claiming 'black people would only be famous for sports and entertainment' in a meritocracy and says Harvard would 'have no black professors'

• https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/27035

‘Race realist’ fellow argues for ‘preservation of racial distinctions’

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/08/cambridge-fellow-black-people-famous-meritocracy-sport/

Cambridge academic in race row over black people’s place in a meritocracy

• https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2024/02/23/cambridge-students-organise-protest-and-petition-calling-for-termination-of-nathan-cofnas-174987

Cambridge students organise protest and petition calling for termination of Nathan Cofnas

And many more recent news sources.

There were protests held today held at the university.

My view is RationalWiki should not give in the bullies. Cofnas should have an article especially given all the recent sources and controversies he is embroiled in. 167.172.51.175 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)