RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive92

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 20 August 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Ambition of Truth, Si vis pacem, para bellum[edit]

So. AoT made an essay where he basically advocates for the genocide/enslavement of all women. It was deleted once, resurrected by me with a disclaimer (apologies once more for that mistake), and then recently killed off for good. Afterwards, AoT insulted and demeaned the moderator who killed off his essay after she pointed out the fact that it was toxic crap. I then stepped in and told him to apologize else I'd do what should have been done the moment he put up his crap. I also reminded him that I brought his essay back and essentially told him to grow the fuck up. @LeftyGreenMario also replied with her views on the essay, and again basically told him to grow up and quit being such an entitled shitheel. AoT responded with more insults, a refusal to apologize, and other such childishly entitled behavior. And thusly we are here, wherein I tragically carry through with my threat to kick his sorry ass off our site, as we have done in the past with users who have strayed beyond acceptable bounds and not only refused to acknowledge their inappropriate behavior but actively increased it. What say ye Comrades? Shall we Banish AoT from our fair shores? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wherein AoT tries defense, or not.[edit]

The accusation of me advocating for enslaving women is completely made up. I can't argue against the claim that I said a complete femicide was a benevolent idea, but I never once said women should be enslaved. If I did, feel free to point out the specific comment I made where I advocated for slavery. Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Before you get banned indefinitely, could you explain something to me? What appeal do you see in an unlimited global sausage fest? Because I honestly don't see any. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Without gynocentrism there's no child support or alimony that can only go to a specific sex, and sex discrimination would be gone for good. Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The slavery thing is somewhat implicit "If we cannot control women, we must destroy them." Further, it's called genocide. It's also called plagiarism. Yeah, I noticed that you ripped off the 14 words. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I never said "If we cannot control women, we must destroy them.". Anyone who wants to see what I actually wrote can read the essay and use "Find on page" for that sentence and you wont find it. Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
You didn't say it. You heavily implied it in your premise. Sort of like how Richard Spencer never says that he wants to murder everyone he dislike when he's being given a interview, but if you have more than two brain cells you can do the math on his goals. Your entire worldview is based on the quoted premise, I just took what was originally implicit and made it explicit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can read my essay and see that all I advocated for was men choosing to breed only via cloning themselves. I said nothing about them killing or controlling women, and my justification for advocating this was the atrocities women caused that you can find in my list of references. If you think accusing someone of implying something equates to them explicitly saying something, I can say with more conviction that you are advocating for men to be enslaved to women by opposing men choosing what they do with their own bodies. I seriously doubt my proposal would take off, seeing how much hate I succeeded in getting from right-wingers who call me a cuck for "killing off their precious white race". Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Lies. Not only is your premise false, you just contradicted yourself. See, "I can't argue against the claim that I said a complete femicide was a benevolent idea..." and "Thus they're continued existence can be solved via the eventual dying-off of the female sex. Nazi-style extermination camps are unlikely, so their dying out has to be slow and sure as to not alarm the gynocentric drones." from the essay, (which falls under the definition of genocide given by the U.N. human rights council, see Article II, sections B-D) where you state that you are for genocide, versus "I said nothing about them killing or controlling women" where you claim you are not.
Also see "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for better generations." versus "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children." for proof of plagiarism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And for the record, while you do not explicitly call for Article II, section A, if someone were to implement your ideas that would occur, as it has so many times before. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned the "extermination camp" thing to dissuade people from suggesting that if they agreed with my premise. Was that what you meant by "enslavement"? Also I don't feel bad about ripping off racists as I'm an enemy of their for not breeding "moar hwhite behbiez!". Gynocentrism Watch (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do you reference boys forced to marry in India when it's not the women doing the forcing though? Also does this mean your imagined ideal sausage fest would lack a concept of official relationships tied to parenting and/or sexual intercourse? 142․124․55․236 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"I didn't call for this specific option, therefor I can't be held accountable if someone goes through with it anyway based on the premise of misinformation I provided!" (Note that when I extrapolate from your statements, I don't put it in italics vs when I quote you verbatim) Is a shitty defense. What you intend or do not is secondary to the ultimate result. You call for violating the human rights of others up to the point of literal genocide, all based on a bunch of half-baked conspiracy theories made by opportunists and idiots who can't understand that women won't sleep with them because they're creepy assholes. You are literally the same as InfoWars and Your essay is comparable to the Pizzagate conspiracy. (Personally I'd argue your essay is even worse drivel, since again, GENOCIDE IS KINDA A BIG NO-NO, but that's somewhat subjective) We all know how that went, so don't play innocent. Your defense is pitiful, and you disgust me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, Rwanda proved that with Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines/Radio Rwanda. You can't call for death, and then say you didn't do anything because you personalty didn't go out and kill people. Revolverman (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jeez, what's wrong with advocating genocide? Idiot. Oxyaena Harass 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Final Solution to the Female Question" This isn't worrying at all. Commie Lib (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And now he admits that it wasn't satire ("…I advocated…"). Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"I don't want to kill off all woman, I just want them all to die! Totally different!" Also, the knocking off of Fourteen words honestly makes me think more troll then someone who is serious, but that doesn't change the fact he's at best, here to be a bad-faith disruption, and at worse, calling for... gendercide? Not quite sure what to call it. Revolverman (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
He can say whatever he wants. He isn't trustworthy. Again though, it doens't matter if he is, or is not. His presence will be a net negative for the site. Fire him out of an MRLS. Revolverman (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't say it's satire or trolling since certain flavors of anti-feminists say almost the same thing as this guy. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed actions[edit]

Stern warning[edit]

Short term ban (no more than a few weeks)[edit]

Long term ban (months)[edit]

Indefinite ban and sysoprevoke[edit]

  1. The toxicity and extremism displayed by AoT should never be tolerated here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Let's be honest, everyone knew how I'd vote. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. At best, he's a painfully unfunny troll. At worse, he's arming up as we speak. I see no reason for keeping him around. Revolverman (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. user is not rational or interested in changing his obnoxious views.EK (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  5. ban. Oxyaena Harass 16:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Although it's technically fine to come here and make an essay I am not impressed with how they seemed to be getting some sadistic pleasure from how disgusting it was to everyone, and then essentially trolling to make it worse. This is a definite case of unacceptable conduct. — Dysk (contribs) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. I think that it was previously noted that the offensive essay in question could have been a crude attempt at satire. However, AoT's talk page comments elsewhere would seem to indicate otherwise. Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  8. Not the type of user I personally think we should allow to spread their ideas here. Commie Lib (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  9. A disruptive troll who contributes nothing of value to this wiki. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  10. Someone who not only isn't rational, but he has a troubling rhetoric on top of that. The essay seems to heavily imply killing women, and it also references the Fourteen Words. I agree with banning him. Magic Master (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  11. The answer to my below question is no. Not a bit of contrition at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  12. MRA types who think the "female humans" can be "obsolete" through cloning, refer to them as "wahmen" without any hint of irony, and heavily imply that women are just baby spawn dungeons via practically saying cloning benefits only men via the whole cloning argument and just doubles down when a woman gets offended aren't welcome. He also argued that cloning promotes the best genes and would "weed out" diseases like "diabetes and autism" so even if he wasn't being a sexist pork chop, there's being an ableist. And he said cannibalizing women isn't a solution only because people get disease from cannibalism. Incel rhetoric leads to killing people. I don't want this wiki to be a host for such parasitic ideas as well as scaring off contributors. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  13. This person can fuck off forever as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't deserve to have relationships with women. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


Close the case[edit]

I move to close this case. AoT is clearly not going to win it. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pounds gavel* I kinda already banned him. I like to think if its 12 permaban VS 0 in every other choice, its automatically called there. Revolverman (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd close the case already but I'm on mobile. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)