that time nobody at (ir)rational wiki actually read my blog

i have my OWN page @(ir)rational wiki now! i feel like i’ve really arrived (~_^):

“Hbdchick is a HBD blogger who attempts to give scientific racism credibility by presenting herself as an innocent bookworm fascinated with human variation.

“Like other bigots who now try to rebrand racialist and racist ideologies online through HBD or ‘race realism’ blogs and forums, Hbdchick describes herself a geek who became a ‘HBDer’ after reading books on ‘Eskimos and Indians, that sort of thing – and I was absolutely transfixed by them!’. Sounds innocent right? Somehow though books on Eskimos and Indians leads to the view there are racial differences in IQ, that black people have smaller brains and other 19th century pseudo-science which fills Hbdchick’s blog. Hbdchick also links to other ‘HBD’ sites including an assortment of neo-nazis, racists and internet-kooks (e.g. ‘Racial Reality’ the founder of Anthroscape, Bonesandbehaviours set up by a Holocaust-denier, Chris Brand, Steve Sailer and Forumbiodiversity).”

yes. ’cause posts on racial differences in iq and the fact that black people have smaller brains than other popuations (on average, btw) absolutely FILL my blog.

let’s look at the stats. i’ve posted a total of 1,672 posts. 199 of them have been “saturday star wars” posts, so they’re not hbd-related. that leaves a total of 1,473 serious posts (not that my saturday star wars posts aren’t serious!).

checking through my posts tagged with “iq” — there are 133 of them, btw — i find that there is a grand total of exactly 1 — o n e — which relates to racial differences in iq: andrew sullivan talks sense on iq.

yeah. my blog is absolutely LOADED with discussions on racial differences in iq! not that there’d be anything wrong with that. but SOMEbody over at rational wiki maybe ought to actually READ my blog!

guess they also missed my recent post: you and me and hbd.

(note: comments do not require an email. but please do read the blog first!)

64 Comments

  1. Character assassination plain and simple. Portray the person who makes the blog as biased and right thinking people will know to dutifully wag their fingers in disapproval. You should expect to be singled out for special treatment because you’re not the stereotypical ‘angry white man’ they expect.

    Reply

  2. When people use morality against you as a weapon, I have no problem with fighting back with the same weapon. The ancient Blank Slaters used to say (and the left over ones still do say) the same things before they were blown out of the water by reality. Their hegemony in the behavioral sciences was broken because a few brave people were willing to stand up and insist on the truth. These obscurantists can foam at the mouth and strike pious poses until hell freezes over, but it won’t change the facts about human biodiversity one iota. Don’t let them intimidate you.

    Reply

  3. That these obscurantist idiots dare to write at something called “Rational Wiki” is utterly hilarious. Hey, if you smearing, name-calling nitwits want to claim something is “pseudo-science”, how about using…..RATIONALITY, instead of slinging mud and displaying your own ignorance?

    (crickets, broken only by an occasional shriek of “Raciss!”)

    Reply

  4. rationalwiki said:
    black people have smaller brains and other 19th century pseudo-science

    Does any relevant expert in this day and age seriously dispute the notion that people of Sub-Saharan descent on average have smaller brains than people of European descent? For instance, brain size differences are frankly acknowledged in Nisbett, et al’s Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments, with environmentalist excuses that since there are gender differences in brain size despite roughly equal average IQ so maybe it is the case that racial differences in brain size aren’t causal for differences in IQ or worse post-natal environment could responsible for the differences.

    This just goes to show how little attention the rationalwiki article’s author actually pays to the literature. It’s as if the only content (s)he has digested on the subject is advertising campaign propaganda.

    Reply

  5. Not to take away from your accomplishment ( ;) ), but I noticed that I don’t have a page there, nor am I even mentioned.

    A Black guy that looks at HBD doesn’t fit their narrative…

    Reply

  6. It’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion and race and IQ without offending people, so it’s smart to look at other hbd issues. Yet, no one who studies these things directly doubts that Africans have smaller brains and lower IQs (on average!), so merely stating facts shouldn’t be considered hateful. There’s obviously a lot else going on with IQ, brains, and blacks, by themselves and their interrelation, but how can one intelligently discuss those things if some basic facts are considered beyond the pale? You can’t hold a job as a prominent person within a large organization if you are on the record citing those facts. That’s why, when discussing these facts, one links to people associated with pariah groups that have some old school racist elements, because only those groups openly publish studies on this stuff.

    Reply

  7. “Hbdchick is a HBD blogger who considers the possibility of genetic cultural differences by posting articles about kinship structures unrelated to racial variation” probably wouldn’t have the same ring to it.

    Reply

  8. Posted before I saw IHTG’s comment, where I see that the rationalwiki article author has elsewhere favorably cited Nisbett’s book on improving IQ. Looking it up, I see Nisbett says the “difference between black and white brain size is not always found” and selectively cites a NASA study. Later in the article Nisbett states “it is likey that the brain-size differences between blacks and whites that are sometimes found are environmental rather than genetic in origin”. Going from “not always found” to “sometimes found” is rather odd, as the former would seem to imply that most of the literature indicated differences, whereas the latter would imply that this is only found in a minority of studies. Any fair review of it would indicate that most studies do find an average difference in brain size. Rushton & Jensen take Nisbett to task for his selective usage of the literature on the subject. Since Nisbett does less downplaying on the existence of brain-size differences in his more recent article, maybe he has learned something or maybe the co-authors moderated some of his sillier claims.

    Reply

  9. @matt – “‘Hbdchick is a HBD blogger who considers the possibility of genetic cultural differences by posting articles about kinship structures unrelated to racial variation’ probably wouldn’t have the same ring to it.”

    well, yeah, that sounds dead boring! even i wouldn’t want to read that!

    oh, wait….

    (^_^)

    Reply

  10. Jayman and HBD Chick both have pages? This is like the old New York Times headline joke…

    “RationalWiki smears HBDer’s, women and minorities hardest hit”

    Reply

  11. For laughs, I read the “RationalWiki” entry on you. It approaches a self-parody of the stereotypical leftist. It’s a hit piece with all insults and NO FACTS. The left really, really believes its notions are the purest gospel (in a secular way, of course) and do not need substantiation.

    Their slam against you is a badge of honor.

    Reply

  12. You have hit the big time indeed. As opponents gather, the next steps are likely to be sites with names like “HBD Watch”. You might even get a site devoted to watching just you! Then there will be a contest on “Year’sTop ‘Scientific’ Racists”, cast your vote now.

    Reply

  13. These people are crazy. Out of all HBD blogs, yours probably has the least focus on race and IQ.

    Reply

  14. @mike – “It’s a hit piece with all insults and NO FACTS.”

    @chris – “Out of all HBD blogs, yours probably has the least focus on race and IQ.”

    i know! it’s almost like…they didn’t read the blog at all! (~_^)

    Reply

  15. Charlie Bass is a well known Afrocentrist web troll. Afrocentrists likely possess a lower cranial capacity than all other living Africans, believing that the ancient Egyptians resembled geographically distant peoples such as the Maasai rather than regular Mediterranean people such as the Egyptians surviving up till today.

    It would be nice if aDNA could be sampled from the Badarians so as to settle the issue of their prognathism that some have identified as ‘negroid’. Other than that there is no evidence for a black Egypt at all, with identifiable subsaharan DNA entering that country during the Medieval period as a result of the Arab slave trade.

    Reply

  16. Rational wiki is less than rational. How can they call it that if anyone can edit it? Or maybe it’s worse that they get to pick their idiots. Oi, vey!

    In all fairness, I’m trying to finish reading your whole blog but I’m already 29 whole years old, so don’t hold your breath. I did had the wrong idea about its overall purpose until today, however, because I only read it on Saturdays… (;

    Reply

  17. The blank slate is pseudoscience. A horse breeder adjacent to a university has to walk through an invisible wall of nonsense to get onto the campus and cross it again when they go back to work – like an invisible nonsense preserving version of TSA.

    Reply

  18. This is good though, since anyone reading that entry will probably be curious and have a look here, and then they’ll see the discrepancy.

    Another good thing is the emerging cultural pacifism among liberals like Jonathan Haidt, Jon Stewart, and Sally Kohn (and probably other friendly Jews I haven’t heard about yet). Stewart has been attacked by the left for being too friendly but his ratings, according to the real Wikipedia, have risen from 1.5 to 2.5 million viewers from 2008 to 2013, which seems to roughly coincide with his new attitude.

    Here is Kohn’s TED talk,

    Reply

  19. Sisyphean said: Character assassination plain and simple.

    Character assignation is the lowest form of debate.
    It is essentially a declaration of “I can’t win on merit”.

    Reply

  20. I read this post, then read the rest on the front page:

    “how much longer?”: discusses racism, the the goal of promoting the concept of race realism to the mainstream.

    “who needs academic freedom anyway?”: A discussion of academic freedom based on an article about one of the authors of “The Bell Curve”.

    “chinese cleaners smarter than western professionals”: An extensive discussion of race and intelligence.

    “linkfest – 02/17/14”: Link to Cochran, a proponent of race differences in IQ. A link to a blog which discusses Harpending, Cochran’s coauthor. Several links on race. Several links on intelligence. A link to Thompson, a devotee of race/IQ theories. Gender and intelligence links. etc …

    “darth vader followed me!”: n/a

    “holy ticker tape parade batman – i think i have synesthesia!”: n/a

    It’s difficult to reconcile your accounting, and the front page. I can’t imagine I’ll go back and read all the posts, but based on what’s on the front page today, it’s clear that you traffic in the same lanes as what less polite corners of academia refer to as “scientific racism”.

    Reply

  21. @flinkel – “‘how much longer?’: discusses racism, the the goal of promoting the concept of race realism to the mainstream.”

    no. the post was about political correctness. ALL of political correctness. it wasn’t at all about “promoting the concept of race realism to the mainstream.” you might need to read it again — this time with some care.

    @flinkel – “‘who needs academic freedom anyway?’: A discussion of academic freedom based on an article about one of the authors of ‘The Bell Curve’.”

    no. that post was about the importance of academic freedom. ALL sorts of academic freedom. and, once again, the idiocy of political correctness. seems like you need to read that post again, too.

    @flinkel – “‘chinese cleaners smarter than western professionals’: An extensive discussion of race and intelligence.”

    nope. apart from wondering if the results were broken down by race OR ethnic groups, i didn’t mention anything about race there at all, except for chinese which was brought up in the original research. you seem kinda slow, so i’ll spell it out for you: “western” is not a race.

    @flinkel – “‘linkfest – 02/17/14’: Link to Cochran, a proponent of race differences in IQ. A link to a blog which discusses Harpending, Cochran’s coauthor. Several links on race. Several links on intelligence. A link to Thompson, a devotee of race/IQ theories. Gender and intelligence links. etc …”

    yes, but that is a linkfest. i link to all sorts of things in linkfests.

    the author of the (ir)rational wiki entry claims that disscussions of race and iq “fill” my blog. they do not. i almost never discuss either race or iq — not that there’d be anything wrong with that, but those things are simply not of major interest to me.

    if you — or the author of the (ir)rational wiki entry — would bother to READ through my blog — or even just look at the list of my most important blog entries at the bottom of the page, left-hand-column, you’d discover that the majority of my posts are about 1) altruism (and all the things that go with it — or not), and 2) ethnic groups (i.e. not races).

    if someone decides to sit down and write a wiki entry, they OUGHT to do a little research on their topic of interest first. otherwise, they’re going to look like an idiot, and the wiki is going to be of no use to anybody (apart from being some sort of propaganda tool).

    but i don’t expect either you or anybody connected to (ir)rational wiki to actually read my blog, because you’re obviously not interested in finding out the facts.

    Reply

  22. I read the posts. You insistence that I didn’t seems a bit strange. I can understand that you take issue with the summaries, but I wasn’t trying to summarize the posts. I was pointing out the portions of your posts which relate to race/IQ.

    It may not be fair to characterize your blog as rational wiki did. But it’s clear that you are peddling the ideas and notions of controversial researchers.

    Reply

  23. @flinkel – “I wasn’t trying to summarize the posts. I was pointing out the portions of your posts which relate to race/IQ.”

    no. what you said was…

    “‘how much longer?’: discusses racism, the the goal of promoting the concept of race realism to the mainstream.”

    …when, in fact, that post neither discusses racism OR promotes the concept of race realism. once again, the post was about political correctness — all sorts of political correctness, not just that related to race.

    you also said…

    “‘who needs academic freedom anyway?’: A discussion of academic freedom based on an article about one of the authors of ‘The Bell Curve’.”

    …again, the issue which i was addressing was academic freedom. all sorts of academic freedom. not just research related to iq or race and iq.

    you also said…

    “‘linkfest – 02/17/14′: Link to Cochran, a proponent of race differences in IQ. A link to a blog which discusses Harpending, Cochran’s coauthor. Several links on race. Several links on intelligence. A link to Thompson, a devotee of race/IQ theories. Gender and intelligence links. etc …”

    there were a total of 73 (if i’ve counted correctly) links in that linkfest, and you have pointed to ONE which has to do with race and iq and to my ONE link to dr. thompson’s blog who is, according to you, “a devotee of race/IQ theories.” the other iq-related links are not at issue here since the (ir)rational wiki poster’s problem is with how my blog is “filled” with “racial differences in IQ” discussions, not iq in general nor any iq differences between the sexes.

    the blog is not “filled” with discussions about race and/or racial differences in iq. hardly even iq at all. nor was this linkfest that you pointed to. nor were the other two posts which you picked out. which is what makes me wonder if you read any of them at all. you say that you did. fine. then i’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you have some reading comprehension problems that you ought to work on.

    Reply

  24. You are completely wrong about your blog material when you take the comments into account. Most of your regular commentators or posters are also racists who cling to the Rushton et al scientific racism, in the other thread “blacks” are described as dumb by one poster. This is very typical for this blog. There are hundreds of posts in that vein.The Rationalwiki poster was probably including those. Also you have a “HBD” blog list and most who appear on it are neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. These are actually people you label “HBD”. Any person not knowing what “HBD” clicking here, will presume you are some form of racist just by the associations. You link and approve of their material.

    Reply

  25. I haven’t expressed an ideology. I was just observing that for someone who claims to not be entrenched in race/IQ hbdchick is actively drawing from that well in more than half the posts on the front page.

    To the extent that there are hairs to be split, it’s all well and good for everyone to split them.

    Drawing from Cochran, Harpending, Herrnstein, and Thompson, while commenters appeal to Rushton and Jensen is clear signaling. You can’t fault people for picking up on that.

    Reply

  26. @bulfinch – “You are completely wrong about your blog material when you take the comments into account.”

    see comments disclaimer below.

    in any case, the poster from (ir)rational wiki was clearly talking about my posts, not comments:

    “Somehow though books on Eskimos and Indians leads to the view there are racial differences in IQ, that black people have smaller brains and other 19th century pseudo-science which fills Hbdchick’s blog.”

    the reference to reading books on eskimos and indians is a reference to me, so all of the following relates — according to this wiki contributor — to me, not to any of the comments.

    so, once again, the (ir)rational wiki poster has it completely wrong and is simply far out.

    i can envision what happened. he (i believe it’s a he) found this blog and thought “a ha! another waaaaycist blogger!” — and without checking properly, wrote up the standard propaganda that’s normally used against waaaaycists — the usual set of talking points. only this time, this idiot got it wrong, because i rarely post about iq or race or race and iq!

    @bullfinch – “There are hundreds of posts in that vein.”

    no, there are not. as i already commented above, i found ONE post related to race and iq out of a total of 1,473 posts. maybe there are one or two others that i don’t remember, but there are definitely NOT hundreds. i defy you or the (ir)rational wiki poster or anybody to search through the blog and find those hundreds. notice that there is a search bar below.

    @bulfinch – ” Also you have a ‘HBD’ blog list and most who appear on it are neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and white supremacists.”

    well, now you are the one who is far out, and obviously are worse at math than me! there are 70 blogs listed under my hbd blogroll, and i count around three who might be described as controversial by anybody: chris brand, hey ruka, and racial reality blog. oh, apparently bones & behavior is a holocaust denier, so that makes four. the rest are really mainstream — as far as the science behind human differences goes. that’s hardly “most.”

    thanks for your baseless opinion, but if you leave any more comments that are full of b.s., i won’t be approving them.

    Reply

  27. @finkel – ” I was just observing that for someone who claims to not be entrenched in race/IQ hbdchick is actively drawing from that well in more than half the posts on the front page.

    this is false, and i’ve already shown you why in both my responses to you above.

    won’t be approving any more of your comments, either, if they’re full of this sort of b.s.

    Reply

  28. i do need to correct my earlier statement, though. i’ve found three more posts in addition to the one i mentioned in the post — all linkfests, so not discussions — related to race and iq. they can be found here.

    my bad.

    still, four posts (three of them linkfests) hardly makes the place FULL of discussions on race and iq.

    Reply

  29. Here’s the missing piece: flinkel states he has not expressed an ideology, which I’m sure he thinks is true. But he he has. Any mention of race and IQ, or reference to others who mention race and IQ, means to him to that you are not understanding the science, and trafficking with racists. His ideology, then, is that such views are so far from the truth that they should be rejected out of hand.

    How he reconciles that with actual data can only be the product of his ideology. The totting up of number of posts is irrelevant. It is an attempt to find a rational argument in the service of an idea he has already decided must be true. He thinks you cannot possibly be correct, and that is the end of it.

    The word for the day, taken from neurology, is “anosognosia.”

    Reply

  30. Hbdchick, i’m talking about the comments as posts you and other make on the entries (i.e. under them). You have 1400+ blog entries and on average have between 30 – 50 comments on each, on some more than 100. That’s many thousands if you add them up. Loads of these postings are scientific racism and race and IQ related. I don’t have time to go through them, but i’ve only posted here a few weeks back on a thread and some guy started quoting Rushton as evidence. Regardless if you don’t yourself post these racist or controversial comments – they are all logged here and you approve them, and these postings are also considered part of “HBD”. Its easy to see how at RationalWiki your blog was linked to race and IQ etc, you only have to check the comments.

    The three forums you link to were founded by neo-Nazis or racists. Forumbiodiversity was set up by a Swedish national who self-describes himself as a “fascist” on the forum and has countless posts calling ‘blacks’ as monkeys etc, the guy doesn’t even try to hide his bigotry. Anthroscape was founded by “Racial Reality” a well known racist who thinks “Mediterraneans” are superior, even once calling his politics “Medicist”. He claims all civilizations were founded by these “Mediterraneans” including Egypt. He’s just a southern european equivalent of a Nordicist. The Bonesandbehaviours forum was just set up by a handful of racist posters from the Anthroscape forum and is moderated by a holocaust denier. I can go though the rest of your blog roll list. People like “dienekes” are the same type of Anthroscape racist spouting a form of “Medicism”. Dienekes even co-founded Dodona that became Anthroscape, he claims “Mediterraneans” founded Egyptian civilization. So its the same sort of racism: These people think Africans were too primitive to build anything, and so had to wait for “Caucasoids” from the middle east. The rest on your list all quote or link to scientific racism or obsolete race science. People like Meng Hu quote Rushton in nearly every post.

    Reply

  31. @bulfinch – “Hbdchick, i’m talking about the comments as posts you and other make on the entries (i.e. under them).”

    posts are posts, and comments are comments. get your lingo straight.

    @bulfinch – “Loads of these postings [sic] are scientific racism and race and IQ related.”

    again, see the comments disclaimer below. just because i allow a comment does NOT necessarily mean that i am in agreement with it. for example: i’ve approved both your and finkel’s comments.

    and, again, the poster at (ir)rational wiki was clearly talking about me and my posts, not comments left by readers, so your point is irrelevant.

    @bulfinch – “The three forums you link to were founded by neo-Nazis or racists.”

    i’ve already enumerated one of them, so that makes an additional two that are considered controversial. dienekes has been approved of by the very mainstream science journal nature, so he’s not controversial. so that’s a total of five controversial blogs out of 70 in my hbd blogroll. hardly “most.”

    and, again, just like the comments, just because i link to a website doesn’t mean that i approve of everything that those individuals say (this should really go without saying, but i guess if you’re really slow…). i might not agree or approve (although that’s hardly my place) of anything other bloggers say! — but i still might find them interesting. i’ve linked to several left-wing sites, for instance, and i’m not in much agreement with them.

    you’re making assumptions, bulfinch, about how blogs are run — or ought to be run — which are entirely erroneous.

    Reply

  32. @flunkel
    “I haven’t expressed an ideology.”

    Sure you have and it’s pseudoscience and nonsense. If it wasn’t nonsense and could stand on its own feet it wouldn’t need to be policed through witch trials.

    Reply

  33. @Bullfunch

    Evolution works by selective pressure over time and selective pressure varies with geography therefore humans will vary with geography ergo race is a geographical construct.

    Evolution *necessarily* leads to the things you disapprove of. You can either accept or deny that reality but denying it makes you the PC equivalent of one of those creationists you no doubt despise.

    Reply

  34. I am not a Holycau$t denier unless someone like Finkelstein is also a denier. Mind you Holycau$t guilt is pushed as a guilt morality by privileged white Jews as a means of control, so it would surely be better if the world forgot?

    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/forget.html

    ForumBiodiversity was founded by an expatriated Assyrian from northern Iraq, not by a Swedish racialist. Although in recognising a West Asian as a white man, you have at least confirmed there is no such thing as ‘people of colour’ as anti-racists claim. Whereas everyone knows that the ‘Medicism’ of Racial Reality was only ever a parody of Arthur Kemp.

    Lastly the only people who claim people deny black achievements by attributing them to whites, are those who think that the ancient Egyptians were black. Clearly this is a claim, motivated by racialism, to deny the achievements of the real Egyptian people, a dark skinned Caucasian people who have always been there.

    It is true – anti-racist is a code word for anti-white or people such as RationalWiki would not allow people such as Charlie Bass to be racist against the Egyptian people.

    Reply


  35. Interesting that you disavow responsibility for comments, but actively screen them

    [remainder of comment redacted because this. – h.chick]

    glad you find it interesting, but do note that the two things are not mutually exclusive. i don’t approve of all sorts of comments — pr0n and other spam, calls for violence against other peoples, death threats against myself and other bloggers. but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that i don’t approve or am not in agreement with the comments that i do let through. it’s just that i have my limits, calls to violence from left-wing extremists being one of those limits. – h.chick

    Reply

  36. Bones and Behaviours there’s a whole thread on you by Anonymous and at Encyl Dramatica. You tried to delete your neo-nazi internet history before you starting posing as a “HBDer” in late 2013. However your old nazi blog skadhiblog was screenshotted, and your details are logged such as your former name “shewolfoftheSS” and your Anthroscape posts under “Faintsmile1992”. It’s simply laughable that you are now trying to pose as an apolitical/neutral “HBDer”. Your internet history is completely toxic.

    edit: bulfinch and EVERYBODY, please note that this is the LAST comment that i will approve here in this comment thread or ANYWHERE on this blog regarding bones and behaviours’ — or ANYBODY’s — internet history, “toxic” or otherwise. if you (or anyone) has got a beef with someone’s opinions which they posted elsewhere, TAKE IT UP ELSEWHERE. this will NOT be the venue for such discussions. i’m not interested.

    bones and behaviour — i’ll give you one comment in which to respond to bulfinch’s comment, and then i’m ending this convo. keep it civil. – h.chick

    Reply

  37. Well played. It looks like you’re only goal here is to preach to the choir.

    Keep preaching, but don’t expect to be a force of change. Suppressing dissent will only get you so far in this world.

    Reply

  38. @flinkel – “Suppressing dissent will only get you so far in this world.”

    haven’t suppressed any dissent. simply won’t approve comments that repeat the same unfounded (which you admitted yourself since you refuse to look through my blog — i actually did) statements over and over and over…and over…and…zzzzzzzzz….

    Reply

  39. Feel free to restore the rest of my comment which you redacted. I’ll be happy to revisit my reading of your blog and back up my statements in further detail if you do that.

    Reply

  40. @flinkel – “I’ll be happy to revisit my reading of your blog and back up my statements in further detail if you do that.”

    nope. you first. you’re the one who’s saying that the (ir)rational wiki person’s assessment that my blog is “filled” with discussions by me on…

    “racial differences in IQ, that black people have smaller brains and other 19th century pseudo-science which fills Hbdchick’s blog”

    …is correct. i’ve demonstrated by looking at the stats for my blog that this is not the case. if you can demonstrate — with data — that this is incorrect, i will approve that comment of yours.

    i will not approve any more comments from you saying or suggesting or implying that my blog is “filled” with these discussions if you don’t provide any proof. nor will i approve anything else that you repeat without evidence.

    Reply

  41. The only thread on me and my family members over at any Wiki is the result of cyberstalking by a confused individual called Oliver Smith who is being compared to a sectioned individual known as Ian Keith Gomeche due to his absurd and antisocial behaviours that are perhaps consistent with the Borderline Personality Disorder. When he is banned from a forum, he begins spreading lies to defame other internet users, ranging from accusations of creationism to paedophilia. Whilst this may be standard trolling, he crosses a line by dragging in family members and other innocent bystanders.

    He drags in family members and abuses wikis so as to harass people. His page on me over at Metapedia was removed when Metapedia was threatened with legal action by a moderator who, I believe, has also contacted RationalWiki. ED can expect the same kind of action unless they stop stalkers from abusing their wiki so as to get back at people who have banned them, by using it to spread false information.

    It is not clear as to whrpether he is associated with the Afrocentrist Charlie Bass, or whether Charlie Bass is merely imitating Atlantid/Oliver Smith/other sock puppets of his. Bass has been harassing people by ask.fm because we do not agree with his strange Afrocentrist positions, and created a defamatory post saying that the B&B forum was founded by a holocaust denier. This is clearly a lie, as is the confusion (following Oliver Smith) between me and other internet users.

    Reply

  42. HBD*Chick, can you post for me Bulfinch’s IP address, I know a former Chaos hacker from Germany who owes me come favours.

    edit: no. that will NOT be happening. do NOT ever ask anything like that again.

    your response options are exhausted for this convo, btw. – h.chick (did i just wake up on another planet or…wtf??)

    Reply

  43. FTR faintsmile1992 is my cousin who was helping me out but backed out of the project. We do not even have the same personalities as one another. I have never had a neo-nazi blog nor ever posted anywhere as ‘shewolfoftheSS’.

    I naturally object to misinformation dragging in innocent people, so as to encourage harassment, otherwise the best course of action with both the mentally ill and ideological fanatics is to ignore them.

    Reply

  44. “not that there’d be anything wrong with that.”

    Then why go out of your way to prove him wrong?

    Reply

  45. @vosk – “Then why go out of your way to prove him wrong?”

    because the description of my blog (and me, for that matter) by the person at (ir)rational wiki is completely wrong. (duh.)

    Reply

  46. Oh man! The things that suck about WordPress (and particularly the phone app version) is that it doesn’t notify you of comments to a post unless you leave a comment and check that you want to follow comments in that post. Because if
    I had seen this, I would have jumped in.

    I will see that, as always, these two jesters provided some interesting insight. Look how closely they grazed your blog, and decided that you were obsessed with race and IQ and that you linked to neo-Nazis… :\

    I don’t understand these folks, but I’m trying, so I try to look closely at such remarks.

    Sorry you had to go through that…

    Reply

  47. @jayman – “Sorry you had to go through that…”

    oh, don’t worry about it! (^_^) bunch of goofbags, afaict. (~_^)

    i AM still trying to figure out what “19th century pseudoscience” i write about. -?- i don’t recall ever having brought up spiritualism or iridology or martian canals. -?- i don’t even think i’ve ever mentioned phrenology!

    (~_^)

    Reply

  48. The clue is in the title: “Rational”. The Enlightenment project, which was mainly the work of French thinkers like Saint Simon, Fourier and Comte, is the reconstruction of the world on ‘rational’ principles, Which means: application of abstract universals, whereby the touchstone of decision lies in an artificial person screened by an imaginary veil of ignorance from that knowledge of their own life that real people have.

    This website says Europeans have special hereditary traits. To be fully ‘rational’ you would have set this website up even if all evidence in HBD was that white people lack the intelligence, creativity, peacefulness and warm humanity of other peoples, and so must benefit from from mass immigration. You might, but I wouldn’t bet you would have. So, goofbags or not , they’re probably right you are not fully rational in the sense you haven’t emancipated yourself from the particularity that goes with being a real person.

    Another less stringent way to be ‘rational’ is to reason that immigrants benefit so much from coming to the West that it outweighs any objection from the occupants of receiving counties ( global utility). Moreover, if they are more productive in the West, then it is irrational to keep people in their own countries, because it is economically inefficient.

    The Western understanding of morality is rational; to subject oneself to a principle that one would be willing to have guide anyone’s conduct in like circumstances. So you would have to genuinely think yourself in the non European immigrants’ shoes, and say to yourself ‘yes I would be OK with the hbd* chick site saying those things about me and my people’, to be thought ‘rational’. Whether those things your saying are as wrong as spiritualism was is beside the point. Being right doesn’t get you out the charge of consciously abjuring the foundation ‘do as you would be done by’ belief of western rationality, and setting out to look at things in a way no one has thought or dared to look.

    edit 03/16: this comment is mostly nonsense (as usual), but here’s why i won’t be responding to it. – h.chick.

    Reply

  49. @sean – “This website says Europeans have special hereditary traits.”

    this website (my blog, i presume you’re talking about) says that all peoples have special hereditary traits.

    @sean – “The Western understanding of morality is rational; to subject oneself to a principle that one would be willing to have guide anyone’s conduct in like circumstances.”

    yes. that’s one of those “special hereditary traits” that (some) europeans have. that doesn’t make it the best evolutionary solution…in the long run. which is all that counts.

    Reply

  50. @sean – “The Western understanding of morality is rational….”

    meant to say, too, that western morality isn’t any more rational than any other morality. morality isn’t rational at all. our morality is simply the set of emotional drives we have that get us to behave in certain way — drives which evolved (i.e. were selected for ’cause they worked). nothing rational about it whatsoever. that’s just your brain fooling you to think you’ve been rational.

    Reply

  51. If you can give reasons for your actions that would justify them, were the positions reversed, then that is what is called rationality. HBD’s starting point is that rational justification by reference to culture is not where the action is. But it is, in society.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s