Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
And sure enough, just within the last day the user āHand of Lixueā has rewritten large portions of the article to read more favorably to the rationalists.
User was created earlier today as well. Two earlier updates from a non-account-holder may be from the same individual. Did a brief dig through the edit logs, but Iām not very practiced in Wikipedia auditing like this so I likely missed things. Their first couple changes were supposedly justified by trying to maintain a neutral POV. By far the larger one was a āculling of excessive referencesā which includes removing basically all quotes from Cade Metzā work on Scott S and trimming various others to exclude the bit that says āthe AI thing is a bit weirdā or ānow they mostly tell billionaires itās okay to be richā.
I suppose you could explain that on the talk page, if only you expressed it in acronyms for the benefit of the most pedantic nerds on the planet.
Also, not sure if thereās anything here but the Britannica page for Lixue suggests that thereās no way in hell its hand doesnāt have some serious CoIs.
Ed:
Also shout-out to the talk page where the poster of our top-level sneer fodder defended himself by essentially arguing āI wasnāt canvassing, I just asked if anyone wanted to rid me of this turbulent priest!ā
also: lol @ good faith edits.
A glorious snippet:
At first I was confused at what kind of moron would try using shibboleth positively, but it turns itās just terribly misquoting a citation:
Also lol at insiting on āexonymā as descriptor for TESCREAL, removing Timnit Gebru and Ćmile P. Torres and the clear intention of criticism from the term, it doesnāt really even make sense to use the acronym unless youāre doing critical analasis of the movement(s). (Also removing mentions of the espcially strong overalap between EA and rationalists.)
Itās a bit of a hack job at making the page more biased, with a very thin verneer of still using the sources.
There might be enough point-and-laugh material to merit a post (also this came in at the tail end of the weekās Stubsack).