User talk:EmilOWK

Welcome

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Welcome to RationalWiki, EmilOWK!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Read what our articles are intended to be
Check out the to-do list
See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet
If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft
And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked

You've been unblocked. If you have further issues, go to RW:TECH or email me. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You have a public email. Where is it listed?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara

(talk • stalk) 01:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, though it does seem strange that you did not check for impersonation before blocking this account. Why would I make two different accounts and make contrary statements? Why did you not email me first to make sure? My email is shown on my website. Anyway, it is no big deal. --EmilOWK (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Racialism as pseudoscience

Our page on racialism notes that major anthopological institutions and majorities of anthopologists agree that racialism is incorrect, not useful, or pseudoscientific. How do you respond? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not come here to argue my case for whatever. I think one can just read the various existing defenses of race realism if one is curious. The page you link to is well-sourced but an exercise in semantics and irrelevance. E.g. section Genetic evidence: Race does not predict human variation well presents results irrelevant to the title, it is well accepted that most variation is within the major racial groups. It does not follow from this that the between group variation is unimportant. Indeed, even very small differences can make a large difference, as people with mutations in e.g. SRY can report. It does not matter so much to me whether these groups are called races, genetic clusters, biogeographical ancestry or whatever (the most common euphemism in medical genetics). I generally just switch to cluster if someone starts a semantic battle over race. --EmilOWK (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "Open X" journals

While I admire your pursuit of open data, these journals remind me of most other pseudojournals documented here: a small number of recurrent authors with clear ideological bent who both publish in and moderate the journal. How do you respond? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a good question. My answer is: suppose these people are right about the importance of intelligence and genomic ancestry in explaining social inequality (not that ancestry itself is causal, the point is that it is statistically associated with variants for intelligence, see e.g. Piffer's review in a mainstream journal), and there is a big bias in social science against their beliefs, how would reality look like? How would they publish and gather? Similar to what we see right. These kinds of network patterns are suspicious but not decisive evidence for whether some area of inquiry is pseudoscience or not. Ultimately, reality is one way or the other, and either the HBDers are right or wrong. For the record, I don't know what the ideological bent is of the reviewers etc. because we don't select reviewers based on ideology, but on competence. If I have to guess, it will probably be something similar to that of Heterodox Academy -- various strains of major beliefs about optimal social structure, but atypical patterns and strong support for free speech and free inquiry into taboo topics. The general point of open science journals is to reduce the all too human biases that currently exist in science by making sure that data are open to reanalysis by people with diverse views (open data), that reviewing/editing less biased (open review), that results are replicable (open code/source), that there are no obstacles to reading the science (open access) and so on. --EmilOWK (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your qualifications

Given that you have no formal qualification in genetics, statistics, or biology, how can you say that your publications are authoritative on subjects of race? Why should others trust you to be correct? FuzzyCatPotato of the Incredible Steak dinners (talk/stalk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think people should generally trust my judgment about these things for no reason. I think they should trust data and people competent with analyzing it. As an outsider, there will of course be concerns about competence, but these are defeatable with evidence. Evidently, lots of researchers think I'm interesting enough to follow on Twitter, talk to at conferences, invite to conferences etc. -- not the pattern of the usual crank. But obviously, my publication habits are a big red flag, as I discussed here. --EmilOWK (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your links to white nationalists/Neo-Nazis/Alt right

You come here trying to present yourself as reasonable, but one only has to look on your twitter to see the people who "like" or "retweet" you are nearly all Neo-Nazis/white nationalists/Alt-right. You recently tweeted about Rationalwiki. So lets look at who your Rationalwiki tweet, of about 8 people, here's 6:

1. Tara McCarthy, openly identifies as Alt-right, wants an "ethno-state" and argues for forced repatriation of "non-whites" from Europe, spams the Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white" mantra; has said she hopes immigrants crossing the Mediterranean drown.
2. Someone called "Race realist" with a racialist craniology avatar with "88" as digits (= Hail Hitler). Obvious racist crank.
3. DeusEvola, a fan of the fascist philosopher Julius Evola, again obvious racist crank.
4. Someone called "Hereditarian98" who identifies as a racialist/"hereditarian".
5. David Cedarwood, argues for "white advocacy" who latest tweets show Stormfront and Jared Taylor - so a white nationalist.
6. Someone called "biorealism" who identifies as a "race realist", most their retweets from islamophobes like Paul Joseph Watson‏.

This is the sort of company you keep and you even appeared in a McCarthy YouTube video. I hardly consider it a "smear" to link you to white nationalism/Alt-right, like John Fuerst. If you're merely yourself a libertarian/free speech activist or Pirate Party member, why not distance yourself from the type of people above? But not only do you surround yourself with them on twitter, you let them publish in your pseudo-journals. A referee for a submission to your journal is a virulent anti-Semite, Kevin MacDonald.86.14.2.77 (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Emil's publication list, he has written four or so papers in the Mankind Quarterly, this is a journal that has been described as white supremacist... I am not impressed. 136.0.231.13 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have little control over who does what to my tweets. Your argument doesn't make much sense. It's a variant of guilt by association, essentially saying that the wrong people like my tweets/science and thus I am also wrong etc. It doesn't follow. I have very little sympathy for actual Nazis, which I have stated many times. Obviously, Nazis would target me if they were to take power and I'm very happy they don't have much political power anymore. In the future, I request that you don't post more stuff on my user page, including hiding behind various proxies to hide the IP. If possible, I would like admins to enforce that only named users with a history of editing can post here. I have no issues with the stuff other people posted above, I think these were reasonable questions. --EmilOWK (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Emil - you should not be telling users or IP/s here what they can and cannot do. You were using a vpn earlier yourself. Your real IP ([1]) which you used on this website, now you use vpn (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.45.165.178) and an account. As for people targeting you. This is rationalwiki a website that is not tolerant to racism, so what do you expect. There is anti-racist and human rights activists here. You also write offensive things majority of people would not agree with, example: "Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they don't notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape." - Emil O. W. Kirkegaard .. writing such offensive things online about children will never gain you credibility. You really have opened yourself to be targeted by anti-pedophile activists and anti-racist groups. Everything on the internet is there to stay. You run these racist pseudo-journals and you are unemployable in the real world... But in 5 to 10 years you may regret all this and want a real job but it will be too late. And BTW I do not see you on twitter criticising neo-Nazism in any tweet, ever. If you did this you would lose some of your neo-Nazi followers... and that is something you will not risk. Take care. 162.217.31.43 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, making things up. I was not using any VPNs earlier. People have multiple internet connections, visit places etc. My comments on pedophilia from a 5 year old (!) blogpost were not a concern of anyone until recently when SJWs started digging around for dirt, any dirt. In point of fact, I had forgotten about it too and was confused when people started making these pedophile claims. Turns out, they are due to SJWs having low reading comprehension/ or taking part in deliberate quote-mining, as you just did. As for jobs, I have a very nice job in the real world, thank you. And here's a public tweet denouncing neonazis, old nazis etc. I have done this many times, but apparently not on Twitter, at least as far as I could find. Fine, to further lower your credibility here is a public tweet denouncing these ideas. Quite obviously, I care little for my neonazi follower count, or rather, I wish there were no neonazis, just as I wish there were no Marxists, and any other followers of totalitarian political ideologies. --EmilOWK (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkpage protected + autopatrolled

To reduce the unnecessary discusison here, I protected this page to autoconfirmed and gave you autopatrolled. That should let you comment here but prevent trolling. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 08:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Just for the record, there are the single-purpose stalker profiles/IPs: Welliver, Antifa Ireland, 86.14.2.77, 166.88.123.112, 162.217.31.43 (the above edit only). All of them edit only stuff related to racialism, me or John Fuerst. (I do of course recognize that I have done the same, but I am the subject of an article, so it seems like a legitimate exception. If necessary, I can add some stuff to e.g. astrology.) --EmilOWK (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Doxing

Don't do it.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara (talk • stalk)

I assumed it was common knowledge who this user was. After all, he's quite public elsewhere already, e.g. there's an entire website mostly dedicated to him (apparently, the url of the site is blocked by the admins). --EmilOWK (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless he reveals his name on-site, it's best to keep everything anonymous. For instance, you have revealed yourself to be Emil O.W. Kierkegaard. Therefore, it is acceptable for people to address you as such. While it may be obvious to you or others who the person in question is, don't reveal who he/she is before he/she does so themselves. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Well, what common name shall we use to refer to this individual? There are hundreds of aliases. I guess I will use Krom, although it is of course easily traceable too. Speaking of sock-puppets, can the admins tag the impersonating usernames made in my name? Onlookers would be unlikely to suspect it was an impersonation. (PS. Kirkegaard, no silent e.) --EmilOWK (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you should probably talk on your own article deletion entry.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara

(talk • stalk) 19:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Did not know that. --EmilOWK (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

More Doxing

Please do not post peoples real names, dox or IP addresses to other websites. You have been told not to do this but you refuse to listen. Skeptical (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What? I have posted only IPs found on Rational Wiki (I looked at various pages for edits to compile them). That cannot be against the rules. I have not posted anyone's real names except people already mentioned here. --EmilOWK (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you linked a real name someone called "Ben" (not giving his full name) and an external Reddit link that contains real names of people in connection with supposedly Rationalwiki accounts. You also linked about six different IP addresses and said they are all the same person. But you have no proof of that so it could be considered libellous. You also accused me indirectly of being involved with this person. I am not. Your agenda here seems to try and stir drama and post allegations about someone you have a feud with. Rationalwiki is not interested in this drama. But yes you say someone did spoof your username and request for you to be unblocked [2] but that is not "harassment". Seriously look at the state of the world, there are worse crimes out there then someone else requesting for you to be unblocked. BTW I ran this by another admin, if any mistake has been made, you may be unblocked in a few days. Take care. Skeptical (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not link to any real name person Ben, just the username found on this site and some other site. This is not the real person of that name presumably, just another sockpuppet/impersonation, cf. Wikipedia: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Ben_Steigmann#Account_Blocked. I have never heard of any rule against noting that several IP's publicly found in RW records are illegal to compile. Such a rule makes little sense. Your overaggressive deletion was unwarranted. If you had a problem with specific parts, then edit those and open a discussion or whatever. Instead you deleted a large chunk of information in what appears to be a bad faith edit that was done in a hurry. Suspicious. --EmilOWK (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is another person who has a Rationalwiki article Abd ul-Rahman Lomax who was banned for making wild allegations about sock-puppets, posting IP addresses and linking to real life names and to Wikipedia accounts. That was only earlier today. Rationalwiki does not want the drama. That is why I removed what you wrote. We have already read it all, it is not relevant to this website. Nobody cares about who created an RW article. I understand that when pseudoscience promoters get added to RW they may get upset so they will try and band together or hunt for those responsible for their article, but it is not a crime or illegal to create a RW article on someone. Your beef with me seems to be because I created an article on your friend Laird Shaw. Laird claims to communicate with demons and be 'controlled' by an evil metaphysical force on a regular basis. He is one of the biggest cranks I have come across. It was entirely on-mission to add him to RW. Skeptical (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

1) I have not heard of Lomax before. My objection to Laird's article creation was based on him not being notable, not on the content which I think is fine. I have spent years debating Laird on his crazy beliefs. 2) Your profile seemed suspicious for multiple reasons, so it was lumped with the socks of 'he who shall not be named'. I may or may not have made a mistake, as these are judgment calls based on limited evidence. 3) If you have an issue with my edits, then edit the part you find offending, not delete entire edits. That's bad faith editing. I cannot think of any reason I cannot be allowed to compile public RW evidence of my own stalkers on my personal page. --EmilOWK (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When you say "my personal page" I hope you mean someplace other than Rational Wiki. If a page here contains "evidence' of my own stalkers" it's going to be considered doxxing and deleted quickly. Take your drama off site, or better yet, consider why you need to resort to inflammatory internet posts to make your point. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Emil is already perm-blocked, but I've now blocked him from editing his talk-page that was left open. He's not here to contribute, but cause disruption.

Skeptical (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)