Talk:Emil O. W. Kirkegaard/Archive2

Bounty and Bo Winegard drama
well this is just odd. Also, screenshot of the letter that was sent. John66 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the bounty thing should be put back on the article, its funny. John66 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * that bounty part certainly should be added ye. EK (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Smith again
Per the last discussion it was made very clear not to put material ruled by the UK high court as not factually accurate into the article. so this page is protected again, because a banned troll came back for the umpteenth time to dump problematic stuff on the page. Discuss. EK (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have received an email from Smith in the last hour, he tells me he is being impersonated here, and these accounts are not him. His lawyers have told him to not post online and this is someone else trying to stir things up. I am not sure what to make of it, both have claimed to have won the lawsuit and each has their defenders claiming victory on Twitter. The anti-fascists seem to support Smith and the white nationalists support Kirkegaard.


 * The court ruled that "pedophile" and "pedophile apologist" were opinions but defamatory. In one of his comments, Emil Kirkegaard wrote "There is another potential reason why it is a good idea to legalize child porn. Some studies show that the availability of porn has reduced rape rates. Since child porn is a subset of porn, one could expect the same thing to happen with it. The causal theory is that when people have access to porn, they jack off to that instead and thus are less horny, and so less likely to rape. This reasoning applies just as well to child porn" . That is a very dangerous talk actually putting in writing he thinks there are good reasons child porn should be made legal. Kirkegaard is a very strange individual he is not a pedophile but he does want to legalize child porn. I have not seen anyone else hold that position. John66 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The main point is that anonymous users putting opinions which were ruled to be defamatory into the article is deeply problematic. The lawsuit was won by Smith in the sense that he doesn't have to pay out, he's not getting punishment. But it was also won by Kirkegaard in the sense that the allegations were clearly stated as baseless. It's a matter of what was gained from the exercise by each side.
 * As for the argument that certain illegal pornography should be made legal, ye thats certainly something he wrote once but in context it was part of an academic dispute and wasn't express advocacy. There are a lot of people who actively promote this view to the extent that among European Liberals its pretty mainstream now, I wouldn't say its anything unusual.
 * I agree that there are two clear sides of the story playing out on twitter, but I'm neither a whitenat or an anti fascist so I haven't bothered getting involved in that interesting dispute. EK (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The judge in the preliminary trial was not deciding if my comments caused serious harm - "For the avoidance of doubt, I am not deciding the question of serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013." The preliminary trial was to determine if my comments were statement of fact or opinion. The judge rejected Kirkegaard's argument my comments were statements of fact and accepted my argument they're opinions, primarily on the basis of the hyperlinks/urls in my comments - I was relying on to form an opinion. The judge also criticised Kirkegaard for taking my comments out of context by ignoring the hyperlinks, "It is artificial for the Claimant to take a single sentence out of context". The summary judgement on the 2 June 2020 would have determined the question of serious harm and determined if my opinions were honestly held or defamation. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit on 22 May (10 or 11 days) before the summary judgement knowing the judge would have almost certainly ruled my comments did not cause him serious harm as they were honest opinions which provides a legal defence to defamation. Flight (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are indeed some people (including SJWs) who have made tweets about Kirkegaard losing the lawsuit. I'm not aware though of any WN's/alt-right people tweeting about it because its embarrassing for them - it's obviously a humiliating defeat for Kirkegaard (losing the preliminary trail with the judge criticising him for taking my comments out of context, conceding my comments did not cause him serious harm by discontinuing before summary judgement, winning no damages and having to pay my legal fees) so him and his followers prefer to brush it under the carpet. Flight (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"Moderate racist"
Isn't that like saying one "is a little bit pregnant?" Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Kirkegaard v. Smith
I think it is notable to mention on the page given the fact the lawsuit is over and its now public knowledge he was the losing party. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit on 22 May 2020. https://twitter.com/KeidanHarrison/status/1263951923629174784 Flight (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Homophobia section
Hey ya'll, I added a part about Kirkegaard's silly comments on homosexuality and pedophilia. However, there is one paragraph put in by an IP editor here criticizing Kirkegaard's comments on genetic contribution to depression in non-heterosexual men saying that he "doubtfully claims the higher risk of mental illnesses is because of genetics". I am gay myself and have a reasonable understanding of the research in this area. There is evidence to suggest that non-heterosexual male populations have a heightened genetic risk for depression. There is a very short review here by J. Michael Bailey on the genetic evidence using twins and genome wide association studies. One of the major studies was lead by Brendan Zietsch who is gay himself. We needn't buy into stigma around mental health. There is of course, a gene-environment interaction which is worsened by stigma; and gay people are much happier in accepting societies. Of course, Kirkegaard is wrong that "most of it is due to genetics" as it has a moderate genetic contribution, but there are feedback loops involving stigma. Others have suggested that prenatal feminization of the fetal brain (which may be partly responsible for homosexuality) also predisposes to more emotional sensitivity (I would not be surprised). People are different and that's okay. Left handedness is also associated with higher rates of depression, as is high intelligence. Debunky (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Added images
There is a lot of walls of text so I've added some images to make it better presentable. I will add a few more. Tabber (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to do something about the quotes section. That quote template is meant to be way more sparing, something to be added at section headers probably. Currently, its use is an abject eyesore. 23:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work on improving the article and uploading the images. However, I feel like the images are just glorified quote templates, which LGM has pointed out, we have way too much of. You don't have to get rid of them, it's just something to keep in mind. LongStylus (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is Mr. Kirkegaard is litigious and the article was changed primarily to quotes years back to prevent him making legal threats. It's not possible to sue someone if all you are doing is quoting their own stupid words. Kirkegaard is rumoured to be legally now threatening Encyclopædia Dramatica.Tabber (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

False claims of libel
who I suspect is a sockpuppet of Emil Kirkegaard/someone from OpenPsych since they created a page to harass Eric Turkheimer which had to be entirely rewritten (Turkheimer is a known target of OpenPsych) falsely claimed I added a libellous statement to this page.

I found a copy of the tweet: https://web.archive.org/web/20220515214631/https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1525955579440660484

So it's true he defended sections of the manifesto as science. I never claimed the whole thing since I wrote sections. Brain Galaxy (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's evidence Kirkegaard's website was suspended and temporarily deleted for ToS violation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/kirkegaardvsmith/comments/usgl4c/emil_kirkegaards_website_suspended_and_taken/

It provides a screenshot from a website host showing Kirkegaard's website was suspended for ToS violation, specifically for uploading the terrorist manifesto after a complaint was sent on May 17 2022:

Response:

The website was suspended then taken offline (webpage capture) on 18- 20 May but returned when the manifesto was deleted.

There is nothing potentially defamatory about any of this. It's all documented and a webpage capture confirms the website was taken offline supporting the email response from the website host for ToS violation. Brain Galaxy (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything defamatory in the statement seeming as the website host terminated the website according to rule-breaking their ToS - so a wrong was committed. However perhaps more pertinent to the article as an update is the laughable recent paper Kirkegaard coauthored with Edward Dutton claiming unnatural hair colours (such as people who dye their hair blue) is associated with depression:
 * Blue Hair and the Blues: Dying Your Hair Unnatural Colours is Associated with Depression
 * Is there any group or type of people Dutton and Kirkegaard don't think are mentally ill? Fred Jones (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)