Essay talk:How death camps can end Androcentrism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

if the other chap is genuine and not just a tedious troll, this isnt really helpful. its not like the original wasnt instantly recognisable ridiculous. we *could* just call the guy a loser or laugh at his horrible ideas. you know who wont call him a loser though? incel groups, mrgs. they will feed his neurosis. make him worse. he wont ever change and he will suffer because of it. in extreme cases others will suffer too. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

fite fire with fire. EK (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
How else are you going to make men and women equal except by removing men who behave in a masculine way? Surely equality is the only thing that's important here. Only when when we are all exactly the same can humanity reach its true potential. Perhaps you have fascist tendencies, I don't know. Time for Justice (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
u are reading too literally but its not all wrong EK (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem is my essay doesn't call for killing anyone; just men cloning instead of having children the normal way which would eventually eliminate the female sex. I may have overlooked the possibility of women cloning too (unless if they aren't Feminist Separatists, and there are a lot of those) which would mean the separatists would survive, and the tradthots would die out via not reproducing. Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
To be honest you may have also overlooked how to enforce your cloning plan. There isn't much difference between a volumandatory ban on sexual reproduction and volumandatory death camps, both are fascist. — Dysk (contribs) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that human cloning is currently impossible, and that "gynocentrism" doesn't exist outside a few scattered groups of radical feminists who can do little more than daydream about it. --Logos (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The left can't meme[edit]

Original was pretty funny and insightful, this is a poor attempt at hole cope. Next time get a man to do it, sweetie. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think we have entirely different definitions of the word "funny", sugar tits.--Logos (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hitler vs Mao[edit]

Why not Maoist style "Re-education camps?" In order to earn their daily bread, "wayward men" could be required to actually be reasonable and egalitarian. Those with overwhelmingly psychotic symptoms would soon find themselves to be overwhelmingly starving to death, and would probably eventually forsake their wayward ways in exchange for some small morsel of bread. Should they prefer self-starvation instead, then "power to them, and good riddance!"

Humane totalitarianism in a nutshell. Walaa!!

Actually, men don't have a monopoly on ignorance, though perhaps a "controlling interest" in it. Enlightenment, on the other hand, would seem to me to be an "equal opportunity" kind of an affair.

Scottperry (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

it could have been a lot better ye. i was copying a format because its a meme essay.EK (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I get it.... A defender of comedy and therefore general sanity, in an otherwise slightly irrational world, no? The world definitely needs a little more comedy, and a lot less tragedy! Sometimes I'm slow, but eventually I get there. Scottperry (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
sadly this is an example of tragedy since the essay its based on was entirely unironic EK (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

How exactly does this make you any better?[edit]

I don't think killing people and becoming everything you hate is really the solution. Having an authoritarian style way of handling opposition isn't going to help and its not going to solve the societal issue of the problem in fact it will probably make it worse. Female supremacists are really just as bad as male supremacists (I've met both). Sympathizing with them isn't exactly okay. Both Men and Women have problems that affect them uniquely. Doing worse to your opponents won't help and its morally wrong. We shouldn't kill people we hate we should show them respect and mercy because we are better than they are and we should not become them. --St.~Emi (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@St.~Emi It's an almost word for word satire of the original, made to point how bad said original was. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Then how exactly is it satire? This satire is a little extreme --St.~Emi (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The original was very extreme. The satire illustrates this. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of this essay now?[edit]

The essay that this text satirizes has been expunged from the wiki. Is not the presence here of this response now essentially pointless?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

mras still exist so the point is still valid in every way. EK (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
So, your claim is all MRAs hold the positions satirized in your essay? Really?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
just a substantial number. EK (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)