|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:Wangmeister
Topic[edit]
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Wangmeister.
This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be. |
Please leave your racialism at the door. Thanks! Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- You mean you have an a priori position? Any contrary data is erased? That isn't science. Wangmeister (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your edits were erased because you implied that different races are different species. That isn't science. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- No I didn't. I showed Fst can't be used to delimit taxa by showing interspecies Fst is under 25% let alone subspecies. Wangmeister (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your edits were erased because you implied that different races are different species. That isn't science. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- We have nothing against pseudoscience promoters and bigots editing here, we don't like edit warring or removing talk page comments though. Christopher (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- "We have nothing against pseudoscience promoters and bigots editing here"
- Indeed. They form your core membership. Wangmeister (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Is that the best you can do? Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Liar[edit]
Your lies were again refuted on racialism talk. Also enjoy the new page on Peter Sweden. :) Tuna (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Advice[edit]
Look, you do you. While I (and the rest of us) think your racist comments are bad, hold the views if you want. But please don't harass people who disagree with you. You're at a place nobody agrees with you. Also, maybe you should reconsider some of your views. Views change over time. The changes help us grow as people. You should try to work on yourself. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Harassing people? I was trying to engage in a rational discussion about the subject of race and intelligence and a solution method involving compressed sensing GWAS and genomic prediction of SES and appearance.
- The response I got was a childish tantrum claiming I "just don't understand" or something with name calling.
- Why does nobody here agree with me? Because egalitarianism is your religious belief? Wangmeister (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- You said we're "pretending races are equal". 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's exactly what you're doing. You refuse to engage in debate about the existence of racial differences. You refuse to entertain the possibility races are not intellectually equal. You do this with no evidence that egalitarianism is true. You refuse to even consider experiments that would resolve the question. This is religion not science. Your word "racist" functions much like "heretic". A racist to you is someone that doesn't share your evidence free belief. The hysterical reaction to "racists" is also religious. Irrational, highly aggressive and abusive. And then of course you ban the victim for "harassment" for trying to discuss rationally. Pathetic. Wangmeister (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Other users here who edit the racialism article are not unhealthily obsessed with "race" like you. That's the main difference. Your obsession about race, that makes you look like a complete weirdo and dysfunctional - is why you have a 700+ page thread on Kiwi Farms that considers you a lolcow. All you do online is talk and vandalise wikis about race, as if you have no other hobbies or interests. I noticed you were recently blocked yet again on Wikipedia on their race article.Tuna (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's exactly what you're doing. You refuse to engage in debate about the existence of racial differences. You refuse to entertain the possibility races are not intellectually equal. You do this with no evidence that egalitarianism is true. You refuse to even consider experiments that would resolve the question. This is religion not science. Your word "racist" functions much like "heretic". A racist to you is someone that doesn't share your evidence free belief. The hysterical reaction to "racists" is also religious. Irrational, highly aggressive and abusive. And then of course you ban the victim for "harassment" for trying to discuss rationally. Pathetic. Wangmeister (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Request to be unbanned[edit]
Who was I harassing? Reverting my edits for no reason is harassment. Wangmeister (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I (as well as others) have already stated reasons for reverting your edits, you just don't like them. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- You said it was "racist". How can an experiment which establishes whether races are intellectually equal be racist? What does racist mean in this context? Wangmeister (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- And you said quote "...Reverting my edits for no reason is harassment." I am simply informing you that there were reasons you just didn't like them. Which by the way is not the same as lacking reasons. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ GrammarCommie, Wang has been blocked already on hundreds of accounts. His first account was perma-banned in 2014. David Gerard bans him on sight when he reappears on new socks; if you take a look at the racialism page talk and its archives - he's 90% of the racist/neo-Nazi accounts there. Other sysops though are not familiar with him and think he is a genuine "new" user, but its not - its all the same individual. He's the most irrational person you will likely come across, so debate is completely pointless.Tuna (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- And you said quote "...Reverting my edits for no reason is harassment." I am simply informing you that there were reasons you just didn't like them. Which by the way is not the same as lacking reasons. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- You said it was "racist". How can an experiment which establishes whether races are intellectually equal be racist? What does racist mean in this context? Wangmeister (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- So you can't explain what your reason, "racist", even means? Are you not embarrassed by that? Your political worldview is based on saying the word "racist" and you can't explain what it means? Wangmeister (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
LMAO[edit]
17:34, 14 December 2017 Stabby the Misanthrope (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Wangmeister (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Actual racist who keeps trying to put actual racism into an article. Keep the "free speech" to your talk page, shitbag.)
Racist, racist, racist. Now I know what it feels like to be a heretic in the dark ages. So this is officially a human equality belief wiki rather than a science wiki? Wangmeister (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Or a parody of a racist. You've been banned on more "racist" websites like Metapedia than anti-racist ones. Even your fellow Neo-Nazi buddies think you're a clown.Tuna (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
LOL[edit]
How does it feel you Nazi or ANTIFA-impersonating-Nazi idiots are getting RationalWiki articles?
Ryan Faulk. Tuna (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)