SneerClub

https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1805683265480933638

He's getting mad at scientific american again because they wrote a shit opinion peice but he should know the wiki guidelines are generally against citing opinion pieces as fact in your article

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1803489864488460647

Same here, and I'm not even sure what was so bad about what was said because it was generally a tame article compared to many others.

The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:

With apologies for resurrecting an old thread: I am an independent writer exploring the potential to write an article focused on Gerard's Wikipedia-related history. I've reviewed the information here and the on-wiki behavior and controversies I can find, but if anyone has information I may have missed or other thoughts to share, I would welcome direct messages or replies. In particular, if anyone with an informed perspective is willing to chat at length on the record, I'd appreciate it. I'm an outsider to the whole Wikipedia ecosystem and trying to parse through thousands of pages of history and edits looking for key moments gets rather dense--it's quite easy for me to miss relevant info.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881

I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal's research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.

TracingWoodgrains seems to have developed, in the process of leaving mormonism, an obsession with seeking out contrarianism. But perhaps more importantly, he ~~openly admits to being racist/HBD~~ "align[s] broadly with informed experts that the distribution of genetic traits associated with intelligence is non-zero". As such, he only considers it "racism" if it's "racial crassness and antagonism".

• https://libreddit.kavin.rocks/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1al4rui/premium_episode_the_faas_bizarre_diversity/kqfo5dp/

In which TW names who he thinks is treating the topic with the seriousness it demands without sinking to crassness: our good good friend Cremieux.

look at this incredibly offended dork

Ben Stewart:

Manifest's decisions are and have been bad not in terms of PR, but bad for its own epistemics, the forecasting community, EA, and basic human decency.

TW:

"Basic human decency"? Jeez, mate. I understand not wanting to engage with right-wingers personally, but treating it as a deep affront when others choose to do so is off-putting, to say the least.

Ben Stewart:

Yeah that was a bit strong, sorry late here.

Ben, honey. You do not have to apologize for referring to platforming Hanania as an affront to basic human decency. That TW is successful in shaming you for accurately identifying what happened here is no credit to your own ability to recognize the dangerous epistemic bubble in which you find yourself, or the cultlike social pressures that persuade you to distrust your own correct judgement -- not because TW challenged your facts or your interpretation, but because he -- gasp! -- called it "off-putting."

Not everyone's going to like you. Not everyone's going to agree with you. Social stigma is a good and correct tool in your toolbox when a member of your community says that cites-the-Turner-Diaries, enforced-sterilization, anti-"miscegenation", “women’s liberation = the end of human civilization” Richard Hanania has something valuable to add.

Tracingwoodgrains is a reference to one of the sillier plot points in Card's Ender series, right? Not very flattering imo.