Subpage of  rationalwiki/edward-dutton/


Pretty sure VV is making a reference to the RW category of racialism pseudoscientists. Only if you look at the revision history of the relevant pages, you see this is the finest Orwellian retconning. :p

2 hours ago·edited 2 hours ago

Example: Octo (admitted Oliver) started an article on Edward Dutton. That article has seen activity from what appears to be the latest Oliver sock , SimonandSimon. Is this actually Oliver?

As it happens, the other day, because of a link in the article, I watched a Dutton video. It was difficult to tolerate, the guy has, for me, quite an annoying voice. He needs some coaching if he is to be more effective.

But he is obviously intelligent and is working on what appears to be real science, not pseudoscience. His hypotheses are radically incorrect politically. But science is not about political correctness at all. Unless you are a sociologist studying “political correctness.”

He uses racial categories, and whether or not this is “pseudoscientific” would depend on the definitions used in studies he cites. (Racialists propose that race is a biological reality rather than merely a collection of traits. But race is definitely a social reality, depending very much on context. Racialism can be distinct from racism, and it is possible to be either or both.)

But the very fact that he mentions “race” is considered enough to cast him into the outer darkness, for the Smiths. So this is a good example, I suspect. I’m going to critique the article (and Dutton, to some extent, along the way). Is he a racist? What I’m seeing is that his claims are being misrepresented as if obviously racist when they might simply be factual.

And in some fascist anti-racist environments, presenting clear fact will be attacked. (Fascism is not wrong, and pointing to some activity as fascist does not mean that it is wrong, it means that it is suppressive or attempting to suppress contrary views by any means other than the development of consensus or the clarification of differences, both of which require tolerance, rejected by fascism.)

1 hour ago

Edward Dutton is a white supremacist and identifies with the alt-right, he also thinks mixed race people are mentally unstable and susceptible to high behavioural risks. He appeared on neo-Nazi Mark Collet’s podcast This Week on the Alt Right – with Edward Dutton. This is man you are defending?

“But he is obviously intelligent and is working on what appears to be real science, not pseudoscience”

You would say that Abd Lomax because you are a pseudoscience promoter and defender of figures from the alt-right. What Edward Dutton is doing is not science.

And here you are yet again on Reddit defending far-right extremists. Is this why you were divorced 7 times? Your ex-wives found out you support racists? You pretend to protect civil liberties and free-speech but you defend racists and neo-Nazis and you file law suits against people who ban you for trolling. All your views are contradictory. You are basically a closet racist.

1 point·58 minutes ago·edited 53 minutes ago

Perfect. I say I am going to write a study of the Edward Dutton article, that the guy has an annoying voice, that he is proposing scientific hypotheses (because they are falsifiable), therefore it is real science, not pseudoscience (which certain people use to mean “science we don’t agree with,” not following the normal definitions, or “bad science” or “pathological science” — which are not pseudoscience, and Yet Another SPA shows up to spam the RatWiki article he wrote over and over

and over

and over.

I am not defending Dutton or his ideas, but analyzing the article about him, and, as part of that, how what is in the article relates to the sources. If that has the effect of defending him, so be it, but if he is actually a “pseudoscientist” wouldn’t that show up in the study? I have just begun the page, and anyone is welcome to comment, and the correction of errors is especially invited. So far, it’s just the page linked to the RW article and the two Smith socks which created it.

This avalanche of SPAs turn up [deleted] quickly, so I’m noting the name.

Nobody who is anybody is buying this SPA spam spew, so far, anyway.

What is really cool about SPA spew is that one can make directly contradictory claims, such “you will never sue anybody” and “you file law suits against people who ban you for trolling,” both deceptive, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, right?

Leave a Reply