User talk:Krom

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from User talk:Crimson Guard)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Krom!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Krom (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 02:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

Lewontin's Fallacy

The racialism page repeats Lewontin's argument that variation within a race is greater than that among races. However, a well known (and peer-reviewed) paper by A. F. Edwards notes that this applies only to single allele variations, and is highly misleading because variations of many alleles are highly correlated and form definite clusters. Principal component analysis shows that Edwards is correct, and the claim in the racialism article is not even close to being accurate. See's_Fallacy as well as an example PCA at with only two components (using more shows even better defined clusters). Adding a reference to the Edwards paper specifically or at least cluster analysis in general is necessary for this article to be balanced (I'm writing here as the page is protected); Edward's argument is well accepted by geneticists (Dawkins is cited in the Wikipedia article), whereas the counterarguments come from philosophers and social scientists. ThVa (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at correlations between multiple loci does not change the % of variation. In fact, Edwards (2003) confirms Lewontin's data, he found 84% of variation is within populations (Lewontin found 85%, the figure in fact is closer to 90% with more recent gene sequencing): "The proportion of the variability within groups remains at 84% as in Lewontin’s data, but the probability of misclassification rapidly becomes negligible." Edwards was not disagreeing with Lewontin's data in his paper (most variation in humans is found within not between populations), only he was arguing we can still classify races based on it: "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification." To see why Edwards is wrong, see Templeton (1998). This is also covered on the article, i.e. race requires a significant threshold of genetic differentiation to be of relevance to taxonomy. That threshold is Fst 0.25-30 (25-30%) which Wright (1969) calculated. Humans are only 0.10 (10%). As Wolpoff (2013) concludes: "Human geographic variation obviously exists, but it is not racial. Modern paleoanthropology and genetics are among the disciplines that have shown that there is no taxonomy in the human species below the species level." Krom (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A question

What would a movement in response to police violence - a problem that disproportionately affects African Americans - have to look like to not be considered "black supremacist" in your mind? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence African Americans are substantially more victims of police brutality than any other cultural/ethnic/religious group. This claim in the first place is dubious and the people saying it have a racist agenda. Its no different than how Stormfront members claim there is a conspiracy of "white genocide". Should we take that serious too? Krom (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
We should takes things seriously for which there is actual evidence. There is actual evidence for black people being victims of police violence more often thaen their share of the population would indicate. here is some context / evidence. As a matter of fact, these data is the result of only a quick google search. If you have data disproving my claims, please show it to me. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So police shoot "black" criminals, what's the problem? They're criminals. Unarmed doesn't mean innocent or not dangerous. Note the vast majority of those unarmed shootings by police were justified and hence acquitted, or no law case. Btw, why aren't you concerned with this:

If you're concerned with unarmed criminals being shot and killed by police, why do you ignore "white" criminals being shot?Krom (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Obvious answer is you're a racist. Krom (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you read my contributions to the BLM talk page? I am against anybody being shot by police. Black, white, Latino, Native American, or any other ethnicity, group, creed or whatever. However, as I showed with the data (which you did not address) blacks are much more likely to be targeted by police violence thaen whites. And as a matter of fact many people on Twitter who started BLM did in fact also draw attention to white victims of police violence. Whereas the "all lives matter" "movement" (if you can call it that) was dead silent on white people shot by police. And no, I don't think criminals should be shot just for being criminals. The only legitimate reason for a police-officer to shoot is if a clear present and imminent danger offers no other way out. Training should enable police to detect these types of situation, find ways to reduce or avoid them and deal with them accordingly if and when they arise. Somebody being acquitted does not mean that person is free of guilt or blame. I guess we can both think of relatively recent examples of famous acquittals that let a clearly guilty person off the hook Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


Why? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I compiled the original list. I removed from it - the old sources, the stuff that doesn't need to be included (is too repetitive) or is not cited in article. There's actually still too many sources that aren't needed there. Krom (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to add 'em into the article, and use multiple sources? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


I'd just like to thank you for your outstanding work so far on the Racialism article. While I'm not saying you and I "speak for eachother" on any issue (as nobody does for anybody else here, nor anybody has suggested we do... yeah, I'm George Costanza in real life) - or even say that we'd necessarily see eye to eye on everything, that doesn't diminish the fact that you're doing great work with the Racialism article, and you deserve a little mention in my book for that. So, thumbs up! Keep the scientific sources coming. I'd give you such a power embrace if only the State of Nebraska would let me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be done with it though shortly. I want to branch out and cover other stuff such as numerical taxonomy, ecotypes, species etc. Although I've focused on race, it rather bores me and I've covered it.Krom (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it's important to diversify. One does his best work when enthusiastic. Anyways, your contributions are noticed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You are doing a good job on that article. Even though I find the bibliographic sources excessive, it's a small point. Nicely done! MarmotHead (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no such thing as too many sources. There might conceivably be "the wrong sources", though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
My complaint is better described as too many unattached sources. It read like a bibliography and not as footnotes to specific points. MarmotHead (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
So? Does it do any harm to anybody to have it there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
No. It causes no psychological or physical injury. So, no. To me, it just adds clutter that needs context. I'm used to my neighborhood of the scientific literature where sources are included to support a specific point or points and not just as you-could-also-reads. If it were a bigger deal or something I knew about, I'd just try to integrate them all into the footnotes to support specific points. It's not a big deal and I don't know enough to do anything with them. The article is good and getting better (in large part due to Krom). It just ends with some clutter, IMO. MarmotHead (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Useful articles were useful. I wish RW was generally apolitical, but that doesn't seem likely; maybe in due time. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the saloon bar thread and in the Racialism section on this very talk page; your additions will be sorely missed. Welcome back at any time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
While we disagreed on some issues, my disagreements with you were way more pleasant thaen those I had with Mona or Paravant. Do come back if you wish to. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't go, Krom, you're an awesome editor. Cry.gif Cry2.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Egyptsearch Carlos Coke

Good write up on Egyptsearch. There will be a legal case against Carlos Coke. I've already contacted Egyptsearch's domain host about his abuse.EgyptianTomb (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)