Incel terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

Why not?

This makes the assumption that we as mankind have not evolved past or not close to evolving past the bounds of natural selection.

These folks seem obsessed with hierarchies. They feel trapped by them, and invent new ones for people who they consider inferior.

I can want something to be different than it is. I would love it to be safe for me to walk around the city at 3am but it isn't.

Concerning the young man I helped, note that in the post of mine on natural selection which I believe you are referencing that there is a claus of sorts in the wording that stipulates not that one shouldn't be helped, but that those so profoundly resistant to help shouldn't be helped, with respect to this issue.

The young man who I helped did not fall in to such category. He was a socially well adjusted NT with a minor confidence issue due to having been overweight previously. He did not argue when I pointed out his attractive qualities and did not go on rants about the opposite sex or have distorted notions of the social world.

He just needed someone to point him in the right direction and he did his own relationship cultivating there after. In fact between the time I sent him on his way and he got married (3 years?) we had no contact.

While the men here all have social issues due to being on the spectrum, some still have the potential for happy relationships if they would allow themselves. Some here have heeded and implemented the good advice they have received here or have found their way out of bad mindsets that were inhibiting them on their own but some here are absolutely resistant to challenging their negative perspectives or making changes to their lives that would help them. I can think of two people here who I think could have a successful relationship if not for the fact that have made it impossible for themselves by sheer obstinance.

What can one do to help someone who is so objecting to it? Nothing. They would sabotage any relationship anyone managed to get them in just to prove they were right.

Styx brings up another side of this as well - socially alienated/ostracized groups. I don't necessarily know that I'd take what he's saying as a full account of individuals snapping but sure, politics and rote social assumptions do help to fuel fires.

Sargon ripping into this:

The people on this forum have a poor understanding of the incel community, or the manosphere in the general.
I have been lurking on the incel forums the past few days, and they're easily the most extreme group within the manosphere, but common for all of the different groups within this sphere, is that they do not respond to shaming language, especially not if the person trying to shame them cannot even comprehend the issue to begin with. Which to me, is clear as day that most people do not.

I am not in any way part of the incel community, but there's no doubt in my mind that having a bunch of people speak out against misogyny will have at best zero effect.
I'm not sure if there are any solutions though...

Sadly, I'm fairly certain we have not even seen the tip of the iceberg. The frequency of these kinds of attacks will increase over the coming decades.

TBH I think Sargon did a pretty good job, although I understand that a lot of EU and Aus/NZ members pay through the nose on bandwidth and won't be able to feasibly watch it. I'm about 1:30:00 in and most of his laughter's been about how 'special' this group is on people's radar. His suggestion is that feminists are especially embarrassed of the existence of incel because deep down they sense that it's monster they had a hand in making (add to that - it's their black mirror: men demanding very similar things to what they are). I'd have to go with Jordan Peterson and say such things are much worse and much more fundamental - ie. that destructive zero-sum competition is the core of what biological life is and that any time, at all, that you acknowledge that there is a group truly on the bottom getting crapped on it's the several billion year old dirty secret that anyone, with any modicum of success, has instant revulsion to - because it's a given that life is graded on a bell curve and treated according to its genetic capacities.

What I do find hilarious is when people are horrified at the thought of these guys getting sex robots, and entertain the notion that they're simply violent misogynists one and all and that their problem is precisely misogyny and that looks, money, status, etc. are either fictitious right-wing talking points or completely liquid. It's one thing to say that no man has any right to a woman's body, the basics of liberal democracy would assert that's the case, but I get confused when they go after what would essentially be elaborate sex toys. It makes me wonder if I should actually start a thread asking this question - where's the line in the sand between the moral and philosophical line in the sand between Fleshlight and Abyss Creations Harmony, and wherever we do find that line what is it we're actually quibbling over? While I do get that women have a distinctly different experience of the world, ie. constantly under potential threat of rape, it's tough for me to cleanly untangle this issue as purely the concern as that.

I'm not opposed to hyper-realistic sex dolls in principle, but, some studies I've come across over the years suggest that viewing things such as violent porn doesn't squash these urges, in fact, it only makes people want to do them even more. Hence, why even "simulated" child porn is a bad idea.

I'd be concerned that the men who use realistic sex dolls to live out rape scenarios and violent fantasies would become even more inclined to try it out "for real."

The thing that has to be touched on there though, for each one of these cases where a guy is violent, awful, and looking for ways to get worse, how many middle-of-the-road would-be rapists who don't have that sort of wiring would be brought back from the edge? Would it potentially be tens or dozens and, if so, wouldn't that still make life a lot safer for most women?

The sense I get is that most of the guys who would be using these things wouldn't be rapists with or without, that the types of people whose rape fantasies or actualities would be effected are a tiny minority, and of those the properly black-pilled mass murderers or mass rapists have a way of being rare enough to make headlines.

My best guess as to what the tragic outcome could be if hyper-realistic sex robots became a thing is that both genders would find it potentially very difficult to find relationships, think IPhone and social media effect exponentiated, everyone's standards would go sky-high, and human population within a few generations would likely plummet - because, pretty much for anyone, a robot is much easier than dealing with a person and if that became normalized most people would go with their inclinations to be themselves and not sacrifice identity to anyone else's liking. I'm still not sure how likely that is to happen because, deep down, I think our biological radars will still see that as the second-best option and we tend to feel grossed out and yes, unhappy, when life isn't challenging us enough or when we know we can achieve more or do better than we are. There could even be a silver-lining in that if it had even half of this effect, say a 20-40% decrease in population, the self-selection that remained could make a better future than those who opted for robots dutifully having kids. I'd also have to draw a distinction though between the guys who could do better but would take a doll just to evade responsibility vs. the guys where either it's the best society would allow or, perhaps in the MGTOW direction, the guys who feel like they'd have to bend, break, or mutilate their personalities to fit the dictates of the center-mass of the bell curve and opt for a robot companion instead. True, I'd suppose its everyone's right to either maximize or muck up their life as they see fit and without harming others but I do think the later group, who have to, are a much more stable group where as the former may very well be in a sort of juvenile spell they can snap out of later as they grow up.

I think it will be helpful if studies are done on this and it would probably take at least a decade for there to be congruence of opinion in the literature. My best guess, and it's a place where I tend to side with Sam Harris, is that this might not have perfect overlap with the violence in video games issue but the overall outcome may be pretty close. There is concern, say with child sex dolls, of pedophiles getting worse or with sex dolls in general truly violent men getting worse, but there seems to be an equally good argument that FPS's should be giving us a lot of our mass shooters and rather than throw that out as a canard or trope I'd actually love to know whether that has happened. Clearly hyper-realistic sex doll is a much more intimate and magnified source of influence so it would have a stronger effect where the video game would generally have a weaker one, but its tough for me to imagine that the reactions and problems wouldn't be very close in type.

Normal people tend to give incels terrible advice.

Taking too much personal responsibility for a poor sex life can be damaging and will lead to entitlement. When people give generic advice like hygiene, work out, get decent paying job, have a passion etc. Regular people don't realize you can do all of those things, and still end up alone.

According to their advice, I'm entitled to sex. But I'm one of the most isolated persons on earth. You can't just tell a lonely people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Society doesn't want to admit the lack of agency we have over our sex lives. If sex was something people had agency over, it would be something people would be entitled to.

Incels and society are both wrong.

^^ Pushing responsibility is fine to an extent imo, but it has to be balanced with the fact that there’s some(alot) of biological determinism at play here.
It just doesn’t help, nor make any sense when people won’t aknowledge that the incels actually have a point..
Some people are born to be able to get laid with no effort, for most of us it requires quite a bit of effort. For incels, no matter how much effort, they are completely unable to get laid at all, and it has little to do with their attitude or them being misogynistic. Misogyny might be the result of their grievances, but it’s not the cause.

They’ve been dealt a sh***y hand in life, and I generally sympathize with them. Lecturing them about their attitude, is no different that telling poor people to stop being lazy. I can’t imagine an incel responding well to that, they would probably just tell you to go f**k yourself.

I think the OP brought up some great points regarding sex dolls/robots. Technology might be the great solution and equalizer here.

I do wonder how many of these guys, same for the women who complain in major news articles about not being able to find mates, are literal incel vs. voluntarily. I think about my own position and really - I'm that weird, that different, not necessarily in negative ways but ways where I'd have to take an ax to my personality and the remnants of that would most likely only find abusive relationships. In that sense the terms being offered aren't worth it, so in a way even though I don't really identify with MGTOW politically I get that there are people who have to find their worth in a completely different way because I'm there. At the same time I know I could go out to a bar, end up at some girl's place, most of the options would be dodgy enough regardless of weight, addiction, or other popular things to bring up in this regard that I simply wouldn't know my environment, wouldn't feel safe with the experience, my performance would be mediocre based on that discomfort, and if it's been a while since I've put my bedroom game to good use f' if I know that consent would get revoked afterward if it were considered lousy. Regardless of how it would turn out it wouldn't be a good memory and, for the sake of resetting the 'born again virgin' clock to tell my friends I did it - there's just not enough redeeming value.

Also, with respect to not just going anywhere for the sake of going, there's a good chance people just care too much for themselves, have a sense that they're deeply responsible for the flow and consequences of their own life, and it would be dereliction of their responsibility - as their own custodians - to put themselves in that sort of random jeopardy by pursuing their possibilities all the way to the bottom. Sure, we can argue that we're useless throw-away animals and that to take such a stance displays cowardice unbecoming of someone who'd be worthy of casting their genes into the future (PUA's love to harp on that for example) but it seems like it should be obvious that we go that route, ie. seeing ourselves as nothing but biological canon-fodder, at the price of human history and all of the moral, ethical, and philosophic progress we've ever made and it demotes us to something of whom the life value of is little different than an insect; sure, we could go there if we chose but it would be a truly bizarre, pathetic, and sad adventure.

It could very well be that the majority of guys claiming incel are dead-serious about it and that the above doesn't apply to them - ie. weight, addiction, dodginess/criminality, there's no barrier they could drop that would open doors for them (even if that were the case, in the last two, who'd want to invite that sort of chaos into their lives though - virgin or otherwise...).

I think we'd just be a lot better off as a culture that we acknowledge that life can be quite bad, and the process of life throws a lot of people away as refuse. The way Sargon put it in his video chat 's---ing on people from great heights' is a habit we probably want to get over. No one has a right to anyone else's body but I think they at least have a right not to be heckled for not having someone else's body and, who knows, maybe such heckling should be considered a valid form of sexual harassment - I don't often prefer to go that way but while we're bending all bars we might as well do so evenly.

I don't really think misogyny is the cause of all male-specific grievances in general. "Misogynist" is a pejorative description of any male-specific grievance of society, whether that's romance/sex or any other aspect.

Some of the MGTOW's have ridiculous political views, but I do agree with many of them on philosophical level, mostly because I've found that relationships don't make me happy. Some of us have to define ourselves in other ways than through pursuing a traditional family life.

I don't think we should go as far as to [b]only[b] see ourselves as biological entities, I just think we should aknowledge that there is a certain reality and unfairness to life. Some people are born short, with odd facial features, low iq, deformed body and a naturally passive temperement. While others are born tall, symmetrical, smart, naturally dominant, and have a shredded six pack naturally without ever having to do a single situp.
The latter group will have a very easy time getting laid, and it has nothing to with them being good people who have worked hard for it, that's nonsense. It's down to biological luck more than anything.
This is where we have to meet the incels atleast halfway, because they absolutely have a point. It's nonsense to act as if is, it's only about their attitude.

And I do believe some of them are completely unable to get laid. Every DNA researcher in the world will tell you, that we have atleast twice as many female ancestors. Throughout history, there have always been many many men who were not able to pass on their genes. When this occurs in a modern context, filled to the brim with overly sexualized media and a culture that is absolutely obsessed with sex, it's not difficult to understand how this can be extremely painful for those not able to take part in it.