She seems to do this kind of thing a lot.
According to a comment, she apparently claimed on Facebook that, due to her post, "around 75% of people changed their minds based on the evidence!"
After someone questioned how she knew it was 75%:
Update: I changed the wording of the post to now state: ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐ณ๐% ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐ฝ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐, ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป*
And the * at the bottom says: Did some napkin math guesstimates based on the vote count and karma. Wide error bars on the actual ratio. And of course this is not proof that everybody changed their mind. There's a lot of reasons to upvote the post or down vote it. However, I do think it's a good indicator.
She then goes on to talk about how she made the Facebook post private because she didn't think it should be reposted in places where it's not appropriate to lie and make things up.
Clown. Car.
Only an EA could take seriously someone who approvingly cites journals like "Mankind Quarterly" and crackpots like Richard Lynn, Steven Hsu, Jonathan Anomaly, and Emil Kirkegaard.
The author considers himself a "rationalist of the right" and a libertarian who enjoys Richard Hanania and Scott Alexander. He describes ten tenets of right-wing rationalism, 8 of which are simply rephrasings of various ideas promoted by scientific racists. It would be an understatement to say this guy is monomaniacally focused on a single topic.
(Oh, and he publishes his brain farts on Substack. Because of course he does.)