Skip Navigation
That tracing woodgrains peice on David Gerard is out
  • I don't know i had to skim it too. Its hard to see what point he's trying to make. I can see why many of wikis choices are shit but he also seems to complain about takis magazine being removed witch just seems like a sensible choice. And he's still up on his high horse about that conference where HBD people were invited to speak. They think "rationality" is about seeking heterodox thinkers but you don't see anyone who believes in shit like miasma theory or any other discredited idea besides race there.

  • TracingWoodgrains launches a defense of Manifest's controversial reputation, all without betraying a basic understanding of what the word "controversial" means.
  • 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.

  • InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ST
    Starseeder @awful.systems
    Posts 1
    Comments 9