|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User:Alden's Number Kid
| Bored juvenile Nazi enjoys harassing |
|---|
|
That 15 year old Race Realist who debated Vaush (and empirically BTFO'd him). Posts that May be Removed[edit]Here is where I will put some posts that have the potential to be removed by sysops due to the authoritarian (ironically) nature of how they handle their critics: Post 1[edit]"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) 21:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Post 2[edit]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) Post 3[edit]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) 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |