Talk:Emil Kirkegaard

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Edit revert

Hi, I undid an edit made by a user named octopus. @PaultheOctopus

Its totally redundant to point out Kirkegaard is partly Jewish because he has 2.8% Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry on a DNA test. If we use the latter claim, pretty much anyone can claim to be partly anything because of historical mixture between ethnic groups. There's also the fact Kirkegaard uses this claim to try to deflect allegations of anti-Semitism. Several other white nationalists have done the same e.g. Ryan Faulk claims he is 6.25% "African American" (itself a problematic category in these DNA tests) to deflect allegations of racism.Tobias (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Impersonations on Reddit

Recent Twitter discussion about Kirkegaard's blog post about paedophilia

Considering he's also pro drugging and raping kids, kinda feel like the onus is on you to prove he shouldn't be demonized.
—@Beersforopeners[1]
I presume coffee is referring to a well known and disturbing blog post in which Emil considers whether one ‘solution’ to paedophilia would be to allow paedophiles to drug & rape children. Emil suggests they wouldn’t really be harmed if they don’t remember.
—@C_Kavanagh[2]
Including a thoughtful discussion of how very small children could be harmed anyway due to their bodily openings not being large enough to accommodate a regular adult penis. Emil recommends non penetration. Sorry... but Jesus Christ.
—C_Kavanagh[3]
It is demented. What is going on with the spelling though?
—ArthurCDent[4]
It's utterly vile.
—amyalkon[5]
God knows... English as second language? Internet/blog standards? It almost makes it worse because it robs it off the veneer of being a ‘high minded’ philosophical thought experiment. Nope this is just some dude blogging in a pseudo-intellectual style about adults raping kids.
—C_Kavanagh[6]
I’ve not seen or heard him advocate that since—and it’s not clear how serious that post was. My suspicion is that he’s on the spectrum and is unaware how people will greet his words.
—Epoe187[7]
Tobias (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. https://twitter.com/Beersforopeners/status/1127201630120579073
  2. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1127204136670228480
  3. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1127208915706368000
  4. https://twitter.com/ArthurCDent/status/1127209621200883713
  5. https://twitter.com/amyalkon/status/1127212179285929984
  6. https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1127211160183296003
  7. https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1127214803120947200

Why were recent edits about Kirkegaard's incest and rape posts removed?

Just to point out the other IPS are not me. I added the original Kirkegaard incest blog post where he said he wants to legalize incest, a few days ago. It is relevant. Can a mod restore the said content. Thanks. 174.128.181.152 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
that content is still disputed, absolutely nothing has been done to address that. if someone who has been on this site more than 5 minutes wants to talk about it then go ahead.EK (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Those users and IPs were being too judgemental, we should not judge people here! So Kirkegaard wants to legalize drugs and incest. He is entitled to that view. There is nothing wrong with quoting his own words. John66 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
epic irrational libertarian moment. the original headline quote was more biting than the new one u picked btw EK (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Kirkegaard v Smith

this article and almost everything else on this site about kirkegaard were originally written by oliver smith, using many sockpuppets. smith was subsequently banned from this site as User:Aeschylus/User:Tobias/User:Krom/etc. however kirkegaard has continued a lawsuit against smith privately in the uk. a preliminary high court ruling was recently released in Kirkegaard v Smith (2019) EWHC 3393 (QB) in which smiths writings about kirkegaard claiming he is a paedophilia apologist were found to be defamatory (see paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment). and therefore i am making the appropriate changes to articles where smith has added his defamatory opinions to this wiki. based on smiths pattern of disruption if anyone else edits his work, i will be protecting the pages which are edited to preemptively prevent this. pls note that this only applies to some of the claims, kirkegaard is still an alt-right eugenicist and stuff. EK (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EK Is it an option to temporarily move this article to a draft state? Then it can be rewritten by someone who isn't a sock or any of the trolls mentioned above. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
it doesn't make any difference where the page is, as long as its visible on the wiki it's the same difference. Anyway Smith has written a lot of articles here all of which have equally dubious factual backing. This specific page is only relevant because of the judgment that proves part of it was wrong. EK (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Note to @EK: On the Abd ul-Rahman Lomax page, I restored a citation (not the quote you deleted) because it was also used in another quote. You might want to confirm that this is OK. The second quote does not pertain to pedophilia. Bongolian (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated note but recent. This reliable source was recently published by Donna Minkowitz, it describes Kirkegaard as a "white supremacist" [2], I will add the source to the article. John66 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
EK do you want a total topic ban on the subject of child porn or pedophilia on this article, what if only his own words are quoted? Emil has been recently discussing this topic on Twitter. In one of his comments Emil 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" [3]. We should not oppose quoting people's own words. Of course any opinions of the said content should be left out. John66 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think quotes should be cited. Just opinions about the quotes removed. So far all quotes have been removed from the article on that topic. John66 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone out of context to achieve a particular goal is little different to writing it in your own words. I have done what I feel is best in the situation and would strongly caution against adding to the article as you propose but it is ultimately your responsibility if you add to the article and you may write what you wish. EK (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't add anything on this topic without consensus. I noticed David Gerard commented about the lawsuit on Twitter. I would like to know what the Foundation thinks about it. Perhaps someone can raise it at the correct venue? John66 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
if the rationalmedia foundation or any of its trustees make editorial decisions on the subject then the site will lose its section 230 immunity and that would be an extremely unwise thing to do in the middle of a high court defamation lawsuit that has already in a preliminary judgment ruled some content here as defamatory. EK (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
In regard to the preliminary judgment, it was ruled in Smith's favour because he was presenting an opinion based on newspaper sources he had read. He stated his opinion not fact. The lawsuit is not about RationalWiki. It was about Mr Smiths 4 internet posts about Kirkegaard (not on this website). The preliminary judgment has not ruled that any content on RationalWiki is defamatory, just those posts. The lawsuit only refers to 4 internet posts Smith made. I am in agreement with you, I think it probably best to totally nuke any mention of pedophilia because it has caused controversy on here but it is incorrect to state that content has been ruled on RationalWiki as defamatory. There is no defamation here. John66 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)