Talk:Ryan Faulk

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg 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.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Why did this article blow up?[edit]

Did something happen recently? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato A new user started making edits that seemed to whitewash the page, I reverted them, they put them back, I reverted and locked the page for 24 hours. They asked me why, I replied giving them the benefit of the doubt and directing them to the POV/article guide. The user promptly insulted the site and then everyone else here got involved in a improvised debate. You then arrived, asked what happened and here we are. GrammarCommie (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you read the help page section? To put it simply it says "Screw actually presenting* an argument fairly, we're just going to call them out for being bullshit!" Why should anyone take this site seriously?--CorrectTheRecord™ (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ryan, you've not done yourself any favours coming here to revert and call other users "commies". People don't have to be communists to oppose your alt-right nonsense and racialist pseudoscience. Unfortunately I watched you radicalise further and further on the internet (like 10 years back on YouTube you were far more moderate in what you believed); you are now too far brainwashed with all this race and IQ stuff to apparently abandon it.Dr. Witt (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you braindead? I called him Commmie because his name is GrammarCommie. I'm not Ryan Faulk, I DDG'd his name to find more information, found this page, it looked look really vindictive bullshit for no reason so I decided to make an account to change it. — Unsigned, by: CorrectTheRecord™ / talk / contribs 06:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
So do you also think everybody with a "this user is a grammar Nazi" userbox on their page is a Nazi? 𝒮𝓅𝓇𝒾ℊℊ𝒾𝓃𝒶 (𝓉𝒶𝓁𝓀) (𝒸ℴ𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓈) @ 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you have no idea what a contraction is? If not, Commie is a contraction of his name GrammarCommie. --CorrectTheRecord™ (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Faulk pretty much addressed every point against the gist of race realism if you watch his videos[edit]

Honestly the dude seems to be generally correct about the gist of what he says independent of the moral coating he may put around it. If you guys wanna take him down why don't you, you know, debunk his debunkings rather than regurgitate the same stuff he addressed?

He makes a good argument that aggregate related groups at the very least /can/ have mental dispositions in common because, you know, everything is material and biological. Honestly the arguments against race realism and more broadly the existence of race always came off as red herrings and at best semantics twisting based on the definitions of what constitutes "race" and "subspecies". Faulk made a damn good point that the People's Republic of China classifies race, you know an ideologically communist country. It seems more like legitimizing and de-legitimizing rubrics we'd organically make due to political agendas. User:Nobody 22:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)(UTC)

Fair and balanced[edit]

I have to admit that this page is pretty fair and balanced. It's not like the complete slander that conservapedia likes to engage in.LiberalsAreSheepAndMorons (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not. Most of the information on this page is for the purpose of insulting Faulk. See my critique below. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information, Logical Fallacies, Character Attacks, etc.[edit]

This article, like many on this site, suffers from the drawbacks of RationalWiki's SPOV. Faulk is a participant in an ongoing controversy of the nature/nurture debate, particularly the portion relevant to group differences such as the origins and ontogeny of the Black/White IQ gap. As such, SPOV is, in my opinion, unnecessary and harmful to the discussion surrounding this character and therefore, should not be applied here. Aside from the typical name-calling and character attacks that are associated with SPOV, this article begins with a blatant strawman and misinterpretation of one of Faulk's quotes. In any point of view, no article should include logical fallacies of this scale. Some more issues include an unsourced claim, mixed in with an unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim about Faulk somehow promoting "pseudoscience" because he believes that racial differences in brain morphology may have significant genetic origins. It does not follow from Faulk's (and many other's) hypotheses about differences in brain morphology that he is "ignoring counterarguments" and therefore this statement should at the very least be elaborated upon but preferably, should be replaced or removed. There aren't many other specific issues to address that do not fall under the category of "problems of SPOV" but I recommend to the sysops of this website, that instead of removing this comment, you take note of it and consider revising this article. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cope Rockford the Roe (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I hate saying this, but "not an argument". Alden's Number Kid (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Cry to someone who cares. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 03:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Confused. So it's okay for this site to commit numerous logical fallacies and character attacks because, it's RATIONAL to do so? Or is it just humoring my critique without actually addressing it? The latter seems more likely. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. The quote at the top isn't misinterpreted. Have you even looked at the source? It's a literal tweet, and that's all it says. With no other mitigating context, it's safe to assume the subject a) advocated for the forceful removal of other groups and b) was willing to create or sustain unprecedented levels of violence and destruction to do so.
  2. Faulk is promoting pseudoscience. Again, have you even read the article? He explicitly claims that differences between races are fueled primarily by genetics; that some races are by nature "superior." Given that nearly every piece of scientific literature (even ones made 150+ years ago, where slaves still existed) and my own personal experience contradicts this, and that he handwaves away every single one of them as "bias" or "da Jewsdidt," I'm inclined to think he's engaging in pseudoscience. So don't worry, his claim is falsifiable.
  3. Again, curb your self-importance. You're a racist kid, not a god. People don't have to take note of everything you say, especially when you ride in on a high horse and presume that you are undeniably right. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
"The quote at the top isn't misinterpreted. Have you even looked at the source? It's a literal tweet, and that's all it says. With no other mitigating context, it's safe to assume the subject a) advocated for the forceful removal of other groups and b) was willing to create or sustain unprecedented levels of violence and destruction to do so."
It does not follow from "paying non-white people to leave" that "he advocated for forceful removal of non-whites". Have you watched any of his videos about this? Clearly not since you linked to a Twitter thread by an ignorant individual about this particular topic who did not put any other context to that quote. Therefore that excess statement (and the quote itself) is unnecessary due to it being blatantly misinterpreted.
"Faulk is promoting pseudoscience. Again, have you even read the article? He explicitly claims that differences between races are fueled primarily by genetics; that some races are by nature "superior." Given that nearly every piece of scientific literature (even ones made 150+ years ago, where slaves still existed) and my own personal experience contradicts this, and that he handwaves away every single one of them as "bias" or "da Jewsdidt," I'm inclined to think he's engaging in pseudoscience. So don't worry, his claim is falsifiable."
Here, you make claims and implications that do not follow from what Faulk has said. Differences between races being fueled by genes to some degree does not imply that any race is superior. Faulk does not use that terminology in his article (have you read it). My favorite example to use is people with a physiological disorder that follows a Mendelian Inheritance pattern to show why implying this is misleading and nonsensical. For instance, would you agree with the following statement:
"People with cystic fibrosis are physiologically inferior and this is due to their genes as it follows a Mendelian Inheritance Pattern and thus they are genetically inferior."
This seems nonsensical. How about a trait directly related to Intelligence like Down Syndrome? Most (99%) of people with Down Syndrome have IQs lower than 70 and in the US, this is enough evidence to classify them as "intellectually disabled". This is due to them having an extra chromosome at the 23rd pair. Are these people "genetically inferior"?
Other things such as "Faulk ignoring every piece of evidence proving him wrong" have yet to have evidence presented and are unverifiable and also unfalsifiable. Faulk does not "handwave" any evidence in this article or really any of his articles. Thus, it must be replaced. There is still a [citation needed] there so please provide at least a counterargument to Faulk's claims. Look back through the Fossil Record to see what I replaced that sentence with. I arguably greatly improved your critique of Faulk by instead of insulting him, saying that what Faulk was saying was not established.
"It is well known that variation in brain morphology (distinct from brain size as it is a more general term) exists among the races but the origin and ontogeny of this difference is controversial to this day."
Also, a claim being falsifiable is one of the many things that we test to see if it is pseudoscience. If the claim can be falsified, then it cannot be a pseudoscience. I don't see how this helps your argument.
"Again, curb your self-importance. You're a racist kid, not a god. People don't have to take note of everything you say, especially when you ride in on a high horse and presume that you are undeniably right."
I'm just going to ignore the character attack at the beginning but where do I imply anything about specifically, me being important? I do say that I have talked to Sean (and Ryan) over discord to verify many of these unsupported claims with flawed logic, but other than that, my importance is not stressed at all. I thought it would be humorous to see how you would react to a fairly well known and hated character on Vaush's show, but other than that, this isn't about me, it's about you guys. I am curious why you consider yourselves exempt from taking note of and subsequently correcting logical fallacies (note how I don't even use that immature pseudo-insult of "IrrationalWiki") because your articles are in SPOV or you guys aren't as well known as Wikipedia. So, please, actually address my criticisms and only make claims about what can be implied not what you want to imply about these controversial people. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Ryan Faulk and Sean Last are political ideologue white nationalists who constantly repackage and relabel their ideology because of the stigma attached to the label - this is no different than Nick Fuentes and David Duke. Faulk at one point was doing the "I'm an alternative!" (not alt-right or SJW) thing hence his stupid name "Alternative Hypothesis" while Sean Last has tried to reinvent himself as a "race realist". I'm not sure what you think you are going to achieve screeching here. These pages aren't going to be changed to remove Faulk/Last being labelled white nationalists and racists because they blatantly still are no matter what they're now calling themselves. Falcon (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with them being labeled as WNs. I identify as a WN myself. What I have a problem with is the "racism" narrative which is completely meaningless see Chapter 4. Also, the name "The Alternative Hypothesis" has nothing to do with the "alt-right" or Faulk being Alternative in any way. It's a statistics joke, fuck I am 15 and know that.
Of course, I don't expect this article to be edited legitimately. It would be a pipe dream for Rational Wiki to live up to it's name and abandon SPOV. However, this is the talk page, so I figured I might at least critique this horseshit article. Also, name-calling is not an argument. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay then. You go through an awful lot of hoops to argue that "Saying different races have different levels of intelligence, with some having higher intelligence and more positive traits by virtue of their genetic structure" doesn't mean that some races are superior, even though the statement itself would mean some races are superior. In fact, your Down Syndrome analogy is itself beyond absurd - of course people with Down syndrome are inferior, what are you on? And finally, Mr. Pro logic, curb your ego. I bet you feel so smug and self-assured as you type out your brilliant arguments. Keep owning the libs from your basement!
Also for you, here's some actual logic for your trite "nOT aN ArGUMenT" screeches.
Postulate 1: If Person A does behavior X, that person is Y.
Postulate 2: Person A did behavior X.
Conclusion 1: Person A is Y.
Postulate 3: People who are Y are bad.
Conclusion 2: Person A is bad. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Almost none of this is really related. Also note that whether something is bad is subjective (a postulate is something that you assume, not something that is true). I don't believe in any such concept of inferiority or superiority as a Post-Modernist. People with Down Syndrome are not inferior and that is actually pretty bigoted and ignorant quite ironically. Intelligence does not determine your moral worth nor does it apply to the equation of "inferiority" or "superiority". It does, to a degree, imply some things about why differences in SES exist among races. Let's take another example since you are too bigoted to understand the Down Syndrome one.
Poor people have lower amounts of wealth than rich people.
Some poor people make mistakes because they are less intelligent than rich people.
Intelligence has, to a degree, a genetic component.
Therefore, some poor people are genetically inferior.
Your arguments thus far have simply been to use loaded terminology and imply things about us which are untrue. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this argument? This is an easy one. So, because poor people can't afford tutors and rely on poorly funded public schools, they tend to receive a lower quality of formal education than say, someone who's wealthy and can afford those things. This means that poor people aren't as well equipped as even upper middle class people, meaning that they have a lower chance of getting a high paying job, meaning they have a lower chance of escaping poverty. And thus the cycle repeats. And most poor people in the US are black and Hispanic, while most wealthy people are "white". (Side note, "white"ness as a concept is historically been borderline incoherent as a whole, and our modern conception of it as a catchall for light skin is in fact largely a contrivance to bloat the numbers of "white"ness. So, yeah it makes sense that a poor black person would have a lower education than a posh white person. And this is all economic/class based. We haven't even gone into the effects of government sanctioned racism and its lingering effects within the present day. So, yeah, just via economics alone I can kill your position. NEXT WHITE SUPREMACIST TALKING POINT! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. Let's break down your example to show just how ludicrous it is.
  1. I will accept the first postulate.
  2. Wow, this one is really crazy. First, there's the qualifier "some," which debases this entire argument. I'll talk about this later. Second, you claim that making mistakes correlates and is caused by lower intelligence without previously establishing that. Not to mention "making mistakes" is an incredibly vague term including anything from not turning the lights in a room off after you leave to running late for a meeting to making a massive financial error. This further devalues this statement, as many of these mistakes have nothing to do with intelligence, unless you want to revert back to a 18th century understanding of neuroscience.
  3. Everything has a genetic component. This isn't comparable to your arguments on race and Down syndrome as you claim for both of them that genetics are the major influence and driver producing observable differences.
  4. First, you haven't established that someone with lower intelligence is genetically inferior, showing a rather rudimentary grasp of logic. Let's once again touch on the "some" bit. It makes your argument meaningless. Just like some poor people are less intelligent, some rich people are. Some Americans are, some Europeans are, so on and so forth. But that does not and cannot from that phrasing imply that the entire group, or even the majority or a significant portion, are genetically inferior. If you were to use this in your race argument, it'd look ridiculous.
In conclusion, terrible example, faulty logic, and severely lacking in substance. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
To the White supremacist runt. One, don't delete @IveBeenFrank's comments. Two, don't edit my comments to put words in my mouth. When I said "posh", I meant 'posh". Just because you can't argue against either of our positions as they exist doesn't mean you get to alter them to suit your ends. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, finally unbanned. Now I can post my response!
"Wow, this one is really crazy. First, there's the qualifier "some," which debases this entire argument. I'll talk about this later. Second, you claim that making mistakes correlates and is caused by lower intelligence without previously establishing that. Not to mention "making mistakes" is an incredibly vague term including anything from not turning the lights in a room off after you leave to running late for a meeting to making a massive financial error. This further devalues this statement, as many of these mistakes have nothing to do with intelligence, unless you want to revert back to a 18th century understanding of neuroscience."
I have to admit that my logical argument here was ill formed and too vague. That is a good point. The problem is that I am simply causally referring to research that causally confirms the notion that IQ predicts credit score, job performance, etc. See, Strenze, 2015 for more information. Also, google "Twin Studies" to see the heritability of IQ (not talking about racial or group differences by the way, but if you want to get to that, we can discuss the X-factors and Variable Environments hypotheses and why they suck).
"Everything has a genetic component. This isn't comparable to your arguments on race and Down syndrome as you claim for both of them that genetics are the major influence and driver producing observable differences."
That first statement implicitly gives credence to my Post-Modernist position. There is phenotypic and genotypic variation to all traits and if you believe that some traits can determine inferiority and superiority, then some people are genetically inferior, even on traits like genetic diseases (see my cystic fibrosis example). And these differences are observable. Quite clearly, the difference between poor and rich can be phenotypically observed by looking at their houses, their health, etc.
"First, you haven't established that someone with lower intelligence is genetically inferior, showing a rather rudimentary grasp of logic. Let's once again touch on the "some" bit. It makes your argument meaningless. Just like some poor people are less intelligent, some rich people are. Some Americans are, some Europeans are, so on and so forth. But that does not and cannot from that phrasing imply that the entire group, or even the majority or a significant portion, are genetically inferior. If you were to use this in your race argument, it'd look ridiculous."
You misunderstand the entire point of my argument but the one good point you made was about the "some" which I agree with you on. The entire point of my argument was to dismantle the idea of "genetic inferiority" and "genetic superiority" from a Post-Modernist viewpoint so as to, from that, dismantle the "black people are genetically inferior" argument and declare it strawman status. Alden's Number Kid (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Response to GC part 1) You entirely ignored the key word "some" and the irony of the statment. Wow. But anyways, I'll actually address this. We know that education differences between races fail to explain a significant portion of the BWIQG also see here but they might play a bit more of a (albeit small) role in the variation in intelligence within races. Don't even bother with "muh racism". Alden's Number Kid (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Part 2) One, genetic fallacy and you need to elaborate. Two, I thought it was a typo, my bad. Three, we were editing at the same so I saw my comment was removed so I tried to get it back, also, my bad. Four, ??? pretty bigoted. Five, just actually address the arguments in my source as many of them deal with the "racism hypothesis". Alden's Number Kid (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So what do you want? Do you believe races should be separated? That interracial relationships are a public health issue? You can't argue that with just a "some people of a race have lower intelligence," because then that would be true across all races, social classes, regions, and nations. Second, you can't assume that "some people of a race have a lower intelligence due to genetics" without first proving that genetics is a major influence on intelligence. In your response to my "make mistakes" section of your poor people example, you argue that observable aspects of poor people's environments (their houses, their neighborhoods, their health) are influenced in no small degree by their genotypes. This is a bold assumption, especially when you consider the numerous environmental conditions that could produce the observable phenomenon. To your supposed debunking of counterarguments, we dont' "know" that education differences between races fail to explain a significant portion of the BWIQG; I have at least two books at my house that are dedicated to that claim alone. Hint: education isn't exclusive to school. Finally, you really have to be clear on what "some" means. If you mean that genetics composes 10 percent of intelligence, and affects 10 percent of the people from a certain race, then any argument on the scale of an entire race is absurd. IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ryan has a Twitter[edit]

If anyone wants more content for this page, his new twitter is @freesoilyeah Debunky (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)