[Primateus]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 04 May 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

On the mainstreaming of incel culture/ideas and "sex redistribution": https://www.cosmopol...ion-sex-incels/

HAH!

I literally just responded to a similar discussion on another board.

Quote

"one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income...

My point was that the notion things like prolonged unemployment, loneliness and poverty can have adverse effects on your state of mind. There's also a good argument that a lack of sex can do the same.

Of course, my second point regarding that was that you can't really write a prescription for sex due to the crucial right to bodily autonomy.


Legalizing sex work won't work as a solution either, because again, you can't force sex from somebody.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 04 May 2018 - 09:24 PM

[worry]

Primateus, on 04 May 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

My point was that the notion things like prolonged unemployment, loneliness and poverty can have adverse effects on your state of mind. There's also a good argument that a lack of sex can do the same.

Sure, but it's assuming a lot -- a whole lot -- to describe the cause & effect here as Lack of Sex ----> Incel.

As opposed to say:
Drawn to Incel Culture <---- Repellent Personality ----> Lack of sex

Like, why start here: "Because incels lack sex, causing an adverse effect on them, we need to find a solution to that." No we don't. They don't have sex, it has an adverse effect on them, and that's the end of the story. No problem to be solved -- by society at large, at least.

The incels themselves can try self-reflection and personal development -- instead of expecting the world to change for them, instead of viewing women as commodities to be exchanged -- so they can have healthy sex lives. But that's not their goal. It's sex-on-demand, aka rape. So we particularly don't need fairly well respected conservative thought leaders like Douthat pondering if incels might actually have the beginnings of a good point about sex (and therefore women) in the New York Times.

Hopefully you don't read this as too harsh a response to your specific point. I'm not making a counterargument to what you said. What I'm trying to get at overall is that thinking of sex on their terms is a non-starter, because there's no version of thinking about sex this way that doesn't dehumanize women.

This post has been edited by Luv2B_Sassy: 04 May 2018 - 10:50 PM

[Primateus]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 04 May 2018 - 10:41 PM, said:

Primateus, on 04 May 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

My point was that the notion things like prolonged unemployment, loneliness and poverty can have adverse effects on your state of mind. There's also a good argument that a lack of sex can do the same.

Sure, but it's assuming a lot -- a whole lot -- to describe the cause & effect here as Lack of Sex ----> Incel.

As opposed to say:
Drawn to Incel Culture <---- Repellent Personality ----> Lack of sex

Like, why start here: "Because incels lack sex, causing an adverse effect on them, we need to find a solution to that." No we don't. They don't have sex, it has an adverse effect on them, and that's the end of the story. No problem to be solved -- by society at large, at least.

The incels themselves can try self-reflection and personal development -- instead of expecting the world to change for them, instead of viewing women as commodities to be exchanged -- so they can have healthy sex lives. But that's not their goal. It's sex-on-demand, aka rape. So we particularly don't need fairly well respected conservative thought leaders like Douthat pondering if incels might actually have the beginnings of a good point about sex (and therefore women) in the New York Times.

Hopefully you don't read this as too harsh a response to your specific point. I'm not making a counterargument to what you said. What I'm trying to get at overall is that thinking of sex on their terms is a non-starter, because there's no version of thinking about sex this way that doesn't dehumanize women.

Well, there's a rather big leap from feeling down because you can't get laid, which is okay, to killing people because you can't get laid. Besides, from what I know of the particular "incel" group (I don't like that term because people in general have a tendency to think that there must be something wrong with people who are celibate.) it's more an ideological position with the members more interested in controlling and forcing themselves on women than actual sex.

I agree, writing a prescription of sex isn't a possible solution. My point was merely that, like I mentioned, people think of celibacy, whether "involuntary" or not, as something bad, as something demeaning (in both men and women). And that is most assuredly not a helpful attitude towards something that can actually cause mental health problems in people.

Incels, however, are merely assholes who think women owe them sex.

I hope I'm not rambling incoherently.

[worry]

Nah, that makes sense. The point you're making about celibacy (in general) being side-eyed didn't occur to me. To be clear, I'm not using incel as a catchall for everyone with a rough go of it, but specifically the actual self-identifying, toxic subculture.

[Macros]

Writing a prescription for sex would merely further enforce this idea that sex is a right for men to have access too.
Fuck that and fuck this incel (new word for me) bullshit.
Go have a wank, ladies don't owe you shit

[D'rek]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 04 May 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

On the mainstreaming of incel culture/ideas and "sex redistribution": https://www.cosmopol...ion-sex-incels/

Bah, there's nothing "mainstream" about it any more now than there was 200 years ago. There is, there always has been, and there probably always will be a tiny, tiny portion of the population who are too deranged, too stupid, and/or too narcissistic to realize that they're the ones causing all their own problems. How is it any more "mainstream" now than it was before, just because anyone can go and read their internet message boards now?

[worry]

You could say that about any pocket of the alt-right, and yet Donald Trump won the presidency with Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller at his back.

PizzaGate led to someone shooting up Comet Pizza, in real life. Now Roseanne has a sitcom on television right now and uses her revived platform (while maybe not on the show) to promulgate the idea that DJT is saving children from a massive secret child sex trade conducted by world elites.

A neo-Nazi drove into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, killing a person, and the president's response was that both sides had a point.

Elliot Rodger inspired the Toronto van terrorist to kill a bunch of people, and so the New York Times published an op-ed by one of the most respected conservative columnists in America, Ross Douthat, suggesting that the "redistribution of sex" might not be such a bad idea, even if the violent fringe is a little out of line.

It's not just about the number of people who count themselves incels or other pockets of grievance, but the attempt to normalize their ideas, which is happening, across the board. Also, the reason "incel" wasn't a thing 200 years ago is because male ownership of women, male control of their bodies, was the norm. We barely -- barely -- have our feet out the door of that era, and backsliding isn't a stretch. How quickly did "red-pill" and "cuck" become part of the national lexicon? Iowa just this week passed the anti-abortion law that will likely bring Roe v. Wade in front of Trump's Supreme Court. If this stuff was a fringe, and stayed a fringe, that would be one thing, but the reality is that the biggest newspaper in the country just gave them a sympathetic platform.

[Primateus]

Macros, on 05 May 2018 - 02:15 AM, said:

Writing a prescription for sex would merely further enforce this idea that sex is a right for men to have access too.
Fuck that and fuck this incel (new word for me) bullshit.
Go have a wank, ladies don't owe you shit

Well yeah, that was kind of my point...

[Macros]

I wasn't disagreeing with any of you, just making a general statement.

As a sidebar I do agree with you that today's media and culture where sex is the be all and end all and ultimate goal for every normal person probably doesn't help people who are virgins (by choice or not). Alas humanity seems to have a problem with people who don't conform to societal "norms", either the norms have to change or people need to accept that diversity is a good thing.

But I ramble tangently, back in course, fuck those 'incel' assholes (actually it would seem being fucked is what they want so....to hell with?) And at the same time throw in twats who throw around the term 'friendzone' or 'beta male'. That entire culture is something that needs to die

This post has been edited by Macros: 05 May 2018 - 09:33 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

A brief and in depth history of "incel" culture and how it has come to this.

Well worth a read. 🙂

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Macros, on 05 May 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

But I ramble tangently, back in course, fuck those 'incel' assholes (actually it would seem being fucked is what they want so....to hell with?) And at the same time throw in twats who throw around the term 'friendzone' or 'beta male'. That entire culture is something that needs to die

Sums it up pretty succinctly. It's all absolutely vile.

This was the first time I'd come across the term "incel". I believe ignorance may indeed have been bliss.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 05 May 2018 - 02:54 PM

[D'rek]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 05 May 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

It's not just about the number of people who count themselves incels or other pockets of grievance, but the attempt to normalize their ideas, which is happening, across the board.

Disagree. Just because your president is a moron and a couple "journalists" wrote stupid articles to get clicks doesn't mean there's some widespread attempt to normalize it nor that anywhere close to a significant portion of the population believe it can/should be normal. If Trump tweeted that he liked the Emoji movie and a couple journalists wrote good reviews of it, that wouldn't suddenly make the Emoji movie a popular or good movie, nor would it suddenly brainwash a majority of the population into thinking that it is.

Remember that NYT Op-Ed a few years back about how Americans should purposefully default on their student loans? Has that become mainstream in the last few years?

Luv2B_Sassy, on 05 May 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

Also, the reason "incel" wasn't a thing 200 years ago is because male ownership of women, male control of their bodies, was the norm.

Nah, I'll bet even at the heights of Middle Ages patriarchy there were still some depressed narcissistic bachelors who felt they were "owed" a hot young obedient wife like the local Baron or the successful cheesemaker down the street but couldn't get one because they were terrible and not rich/influential, and they wound end up committing some awful crime and getting hanged, too.


And linking incels to abortion laws? What???

[Macros]

I'll agree with D'rek somewhat. There has always been total fuckwits who think they are 'owed' or 'due' what others have (I'm not talking about a justifiable disgruntlement with an overlord/baron/whatever from the peasants point of view, cause fuck feudalism) I mean people who blame everything wrong in their life on others, they don't have the killers hot daughter as a wife because the cheesemaker stole her. He doesn't want to milk maid with the bad leg, he deserves the Millers hot daughter.

But 200/300/add infinitum years ago there was echo chamber (beyond the local ale House) available in the way there is today via the good old internet. Toxic ideas multiply much quicker to a frightening degree when bounced back at you by fellow fuckwits

[worry]

I'm not sure if I can word this eloquently enough, but I'll try. Everyone might wind up disagreeing with me anyway, but that's okay . I'll put it this way:

I don't disagree that there have always been losers of the incel variety, who have been essentially locked out of the romantic pool, and lived out lonely bitter lives as a result. It's not a new phenomenon. What I am saying is that the various factions of the alt-right all coagulate around a regressive set of principles that uphold gender and racial hierarchies, which not coincidentally match the status quo in this country: white male hegemony. "Mainstream" establishment conservatives on the other hand traditionally seek white male financial elite hegemony. There was tension between the right and the alt-right during the primaries, hence DJT beating out his GOP fellows. The issue was white male non-elites feeling left out in the cold, too far down the pecking order, even though they meet all the standards that matter (whiteness, maleness). The entire alt-right movement, from extremely online neo-Nazis to men's rights activists to incels, are branches on the same tree.

I'm not saying that individually these various groups and subcultures are huge or powerful in and of themselves. But I do believe that the establishment right is perfectly willing to cater to them -- has catered to them already, in fact -- and doesn't mind throwing them bones on their pet issues. It's the Southern Strategy re-purposed to the alt-right. There's nothing they won't do, ultimately, in order to remain the establishment.

What do abortion restrictions have to do with incels? Well what does Mike Pence have to do with Donald Trump? The desire to seize and assert power and dominance ruthlessly. Republicans got their tax cuts. What's the end of DACA, or temporary protected status for half a million people, or Roe v. Wade, or protections for LGBTQ and disabled people, compared to that?

Notes:
I recognize that even though white male hegemony is the status quo, there are women, gay people, POCs who identify with the right and the alt-right anyway, so it's fine to imagine a "mostly" before all the times I mention that stuff. Also I hope it's clear from my post history that I don't think Dems are blameless in this, or don't maneuver for power, etc.

I'm being fairly moderate in my language because, to be honest, I think the "right" (and tbh not just the right) largely agrees with "alt-right" principles -- that non-white people, non-male people, disabled people, gay people, poor people, etc. aren't really 100% people -- and differ only in degree. So making these concessions isn't particularly difficult.

Lastly, I don't want to sound like I think just because this is what's happening imo that it's going to always be successful, or that it won't be nipped in the bud or otherwise battled by forces of opposition. Like, I don't think all this regression is inevitable (though, on the other hand, some of it is already happening). But that's kinda why I posted the response to Douthat in the first place. The push-back is a positive thing.

This post has been edited by Luv2B_Sassy: 06 May 2018 - 02:58 AM

[Primateus]

So, at the risk of maybe being a bit too light-hearted in what is a serious discussion about a group of not just potentially dangerous people...

I just saw a clip on youtube with Jim Jeffries, and he raised a question I found both funny and interesting.

If the incels have what is ostensibly their own actual communities online, what does happen if an incel manages to get laid? Does he get kicked out of the group or something? Does he get voted off the island?

[Macros]

He rages when it doesn't happen again because he deserves what he is owed, whenever he wants it?

[Puck]

More like, he rages because he must've been deceived by the womenz because it wasn't the big band experience he'd been expecting. Always the woman's fault, not the fact that he has no fucking idea how sex works.

That said, I doubt that much of that is happening.

[Primateus]

Actually, having just slight dipped my toes in their insanity to investigate it, they call such people "Fakecel's" because he was never an incel to begin with and gets dropkicked from the community.

Though I imagine Puck's idea is also plausible.

[EmperorMagus]

Primateus, on 06 May 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

Actually, having just slight dipped my toes in their insanity to investigate it, they call such people "Fakecel's" because he was never an incel to begin with and gets dropkicked from the community.

Though I imagine Puck's idea is also plausible.

These people are freaking insane.

[worry]

Here's a parallel I thought of after actually getting some sleep: flat earthers. In the same vein as incels, there've always been kooks, and we can all agree that they aren't the mainstream, the vast majority of people aren't going to adopt their specific beliefs, etc. But when you were a kid did you imagine they'd still even be a thing in 2018, let alone see a slight resurgence? I sure didn't.

But if you think of them as one small branch on a much bigger tree of science skepticism -- that does include mainstream views (at least in the US) such as the Earth being 6000 years old, the view that the theory of evolution is a lie, the view that man-caused climate change is a lie -- it kinda makes more sense. Mainstream science skepticism legitimizes fringe science skepticism -- if the experts are wrong or deceptive about this, what else are they wrong or deceptive about??? -- and I would say there's legitimization in the other direction too. Like, "Of course I don't believe in Adam and Eve literally, but I respect those who do, and America was founded as a Christian nation so it shouldn't be too much to ask to put the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. What about the First Amendment rights of Christians?" may sound relatively reasonable to the right ears. So like, the incels take thing too far, sure, but maybe we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe they do have a case to make, even if they're doing a lousy job of it.

Think of Incels as a small branch on a tree of sex-equality skepticism. A tree that happens to be the status quo, and the incel branch benefits from and contributes to it. In turn, this sex-equality skepticism tree benefits from and contributes to an alt-right ecosystem. Maybe that ecosystem is dwindling, but right now there's a company called the GOP that is intent in extracting every last resource from it while it still can.

Is that metaphor too goofy? I do quite often get compared to the Lorax, but it's usually because of the way I look.