Trolls, INCELs, and coexistence

It could be that I am just an old sod who is over the hill and out of touch, but having worked as much in a men’s domain as in a woman’s domain, I think I have adopted a reasonable attitude towards interaction with other human beings. The anonymity of the internet tends to lure out the shadowy side of our personality. However, if we can be principled human beings, we can still keep our conversations upright and avoid falling into degenerate ad hominem.

Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. Sometimes, they say things they don’t even believe to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with another person’s or group’s views online, so they try to discredit, humiliate, or punish them. There is even a misguided sense of flirtation, which tends to appeal to men but not to women, but which, in any case, disturbs a conversation. Nobody has anything against friendliness, but I’m quite sure we know the difference.

There is also no doubt in my mind that a woman can be a troll in her own way, just as men do it in their own way. Still, my experience with the internet suggests that women are less likely and generally more agreeable, even if there has been an increase in unwillingness to suffer the abuse and misogyny anymore. Men fail to realise that the catcall is a reduction of a woman to her appeal as a sex object, which may appeal to men but is an insult to women that reflects the sexist culture that belongs in the past.

This has had the consequence of creating more involuntary celibates (INCELS), but they have been around longer than men are aware. It is a fact of life that men tend to try to combat using aggression, which makes them even less desirable and has ended too many women’s lives. Therefore, it is understandable that women react against such behaviour, and it is time that men realise what they are doing - in the interest of coexistence and becoming more approachable.

Am I that out of touch? What do you think?

Females and males have different natures.

Females want to put their bodies/sexuality on display, to show ‘the goods’ to males of a group. In philosophy, this is counter-intuitive, and explains the lack of females, because such displays invite attacks from all angles. To expose your body, is slightly different than exposing your mind. Philosophy looks at people’s minds first, bodies second. Most females are hesitant to be exposed in such a way, since their body, their sexuality, is their primary value (to them). In other words, females lack self-confidence in their: thoughts/beliefs/knowledge/values/morals/philosophy.

Males demonstrate their quality in combat/argument/battle, in pretty much EVERY Mammalian specie, especially Humans.


Which females? Real ones or those in your head? Do you mean those stuck in a seedy bar somewhere, in abusive relationships or poverty, or trying to survive in a misogynist environment where guys have to be convinced that they like what they do to prevent another beating? Or the females in porn films who smile into the camera and later cry into their pillow? Or those who break down when someone is polite to them and shows them some respect?

No, there are enough self-aware women around, only they are fortunate enough to be able to be selective, and won’t allow macho men into their dating pool.

Yes, the universal soldiers of the song by Buffy Sainte-Marie, another strong woman:

He’s five foot-two and he’s six feet-four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He’s all of 31 and he’s only 17
Been a soldier for a thousand years

He’a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain
A Buddhist, and a Baptist, and a Jew
And he knows he shouldn’t kill
And he knows he always will

Kill you for me, my friend, and me for you
And he’s fighting for Canada
He’s fighting for France
He’s fighting for the U.S.A

And he’s fighting for the Russians
And he’s fighting for Japan
And he thinks we’ll put an end to war this way
And he’s fighting for Democracy

He’s fighting for the Reds
He says it’s for the peace of all
He’s the one who must decide
Who’s to live and who’s to die

And he never sees the writing on the wall
But without him
How would Hitler have condemned them at Labau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone

He’s the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war
And without him all this killing can’t go on
He’s the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame

His orders come from far away no more
They come from here and there and you and me
And brothers, can’t you see?
This is not the way we put the end to war

lol, how old are you, and you still haven’t figured things out?


I know what it’s about. It’s about caring. You see, when I was eighteen, I joined the army, got into a lot of trouble, chased a lot of girls, and got into fights for the fun of it because I didn’t care. When I returned from active service when I was twenty-one, I discovered that I cared for someone, and things changed. I married (and still am), left the army, we had a child whom I cared for in his first six months whilst my wife worked, and I eventually became a nurse – where I learnt to care even more. After working in a male environment for twenty years, I started working in a female environment for thirty years, working my way up to higher management.

I was lucky to have a muscular physique due to swimming, tug-of-war, weight training, gymnastics, and a trade that entailed heavy work, so I was rarely challenged. However, when I started nursing, I had to learn to be gentler with more people than my family, and I learned the woman’s side of the story. That was challenging, and I saw how the struggles my colleagues had alongside their job were such that hardly any men have experienced.

Most men I met in that nursing environment were patients or relatives, and I saw women’s strengths and men’s weaknesses with new eyes. When we had shifts with medical emergencies and deaths, violent patients with psychiatric disorders, and chaotic circumstances in which I was reaching the limit of my physical abilities, it was seeing the women keep working that was an inspiration. The solidarity we showed each other was above any comradeship I had experienced in the army.

Most men have no idea!



If we look into the world today and consider the problems we face, it is generally down to the egocentric outlook that people have retained, despite the lessons that two world wars taught us and the millions of victims. In the last century, humankind fought one war with high casualties because of nationalism and one against fascism. At roughly the same time, an ideology of equality proved that some were more equal than others and manipulated and killed many millions more. It was only the shock of H-Bombs that slowed that for a while.

These problems, of course, haven’t left us. We still have militant nationalists, fascists, and people claiming to be fighting for equality. In reality, it is about dominance, and minorities are still being exterminated, driven out of their homelands, silenced, tortured and killed. The institutions that intended to bring the killing to an end and create a better world are losing their legitimacy because the killing still goes on, and the core problem isn’t solved. Moral arrogance compromised itself, as it always does, and any good intentions were dashed against the wall.

The core problem seems to be that humankind fails to understand that it habitually chooses a narrow-minded approach to life’s challenges and disregards the broader outlook. It gets caught up in minor details and fails to recognise the interconnectedness of everything. Individualism seems to exacerbate this, although it is common to all, but especially men struggle with it. Women have tended to have biological issues that forced them to see the broader aspects, the interconnectedness of life, but that has reduced in correlation to the ability to overcome those biological issues.

And yet, men remain insecure about the womb that bore them and very often raised them. The Oedipus effect clouds their minds, and the fact that they also have feminine attributes confuses them. They, too, can see the broader aspects of life’s interconnectedness and empathise; they can nurture and care for the weak, but they struggle with the duality of their minds and deem these thoughts weak. Men want it straight, no fussing about, no sentimental gush, because it is a competitive world, and we cannot afford to be soft. However, it is this way because other men have the same thoughts.

I know what it is like to have these two outlooks struggling inside me for control, and both have legitimacy, but one must control the other. That is the conclusion of wisdom traditions throughout history, and these traditions contradict the standard understanding that the narrow outlook must control the broader one and that the physically strong must dominate the mindful but physically weaker people. Until we men realise that we are muddled in our minds because we desire love but think it is a weakness to give it, and instead, we use dominance to express our affection, we will fail to be complete and will be less attractive to women. Male singers are so attractive because they find a way to express their feelings, which women often wait their whole lives for their men to do.

Another Hallmark Card.
This simpleton is a source of modern narratives.
Love, Bob, love will save the world.

Chicken soup for the soul.

If only men find a way to express their feelings, like women do.
Vulnerable men are so attractive.
Like Bob.

He’s gotten laid, and he’s been to the army.
Be like Bob, incels.
Bob is a compassionate man, in touch with his feminine side.


You really don’t. Nice stories about you being pussy-whipped since you were eighteen, though.

You’ve been under the thumb of women since you were born. Your situation is not universal.

Some men are not as easily controlled, manipulated, and emotionally blackmailed as you.

Before the late 1960s, involuntary celibates would isolate themselves in their dreary lives or become unbearably precise and tacky enthusiasts whose professional zealotism made them odious. With the so-called “sexual revolution,” the sales of binoculars and seedy magazines rose. At the tender age of sixteen, I was introduced to the “under the counter” swapping of pornography amongst labourers and artisans who bought material at the wholesale where I had started work in Britain. It became socially acceptable to talk about the sex theatre that had opened down the road or the orgies that took place in the neighbourhood. However, the easily recognisable INCELs were still outcasts for desiring that which they imagined everybody was engaged in. For many women, the pressure to behave like women in porn magazines and films became unbearable, and in our neighbourhood, it caused many separations.

Younger generations are no better off since digital media and the internet arrived. For many young people, pornography has become the default sex educator. Children and young people are encountering pornography in greater numbers, at younger ages, and with a broader variety of content, influencing young people’s sexual lives. Research evidence from around the world shows porn has harmful impacts on young people and adults alike. Watching pornography can lower men’s relationship satisfaction. For women, male partners’ pornography use can reduce intimacy, feed self-objectification and body shame, or involve coercion into sexual acts.

But these next areas of impact concern me most. Pornography teaches sexist and sexually objectifying understandings of gender and sexuality. For instance, in a randomised experimental study among young men in Denmark, exposure to (nonviolent) pornography led to less egalitarian attitudes and higher levels of hostile sexism. And in a longitudinal study among US adolescents, increased use of pornography predicted more sexist attitudes for girls two years later. Pornography also teaches violent attitudes and behaviours to both adolescents and adults.
( … ogin=false)

Longitudinal studies among adolescents find watching pornography is linked to sexually violent behaviour later in life. In a US study, people who watched violent pornography were more than six times as likely to engage in sexually aggressive behaviour. In another, it predicted more frequent sexual harassment perpetration two years later. ( … 2/ab.20367)

There is also an assumed correlation between the rise in young women who come out as trans and opt for surgical transition and a fear of what womanhood can imply, including submission to the sexual wishes of men and childbirth. It is also suspected that young men who socially transition misguidedly hope to access female dating pools, which is why they often attempt to access lesbian dating pools. A few prominent examples suggest this is viable, but largely, the trans dilemma is a catastrophe for those affected.

All in all, the sexualising of social intercourse was always a factor. However, convention tended to marginalise oppressive sexual behaviour toward the powerful and wealthy or those who could afford prostitution. This didn’t prevent widespread domestic violence connected to sexual expectations. In all cases, women were expected to comply if they could not fend for themselves. In 2017 there were over 15,000 registered rape cases in Britain. It is estimated that approximately 35% of women worldwide have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. However, in most countries with data available on rape (including the U.S.), fewer than 40% of those women seek help—and fewer than 10% seek assistance from law enforcement. As a result, most rapists escape punishment. In the U.S., for instance, it is estimated that only 9% of rapists are prosecuted, and only 3% spend time in prison. 97% of rapists walk free.

For those who habitually make sexist comments on discussion forums and ridicule any idea of cooperative relationships over decades, I will leave you to make your own assumptions. Whether they are resentful or they are just plain obnoxious I can’t tell.

Bob would be surprised if he could know who, on ILP, is an Incel…or why it is a modern trend.

Feminism is but one factor.

Males being excluded form the future, via female sexual agency…
Female sexual agency multiplied by technological and institutional supports.

The consequence is that most males will be excluded, and converted to ‘free-radicals’.
Free-radicals are always disruptive.

They are un-invested in the welfare of the system they participate in - remaining on the periphery, like anarchists, parasitically existing there.

Feminization of Man is here.

Females are now concubines of the state - similar to how Christian women are married to God, and their biological mates are His earthly representatives.
The institution is now their protector and provider.
All males - no matter their qualities - are now beta-males.
None can compete or challenge the institutional ideal.

Traditional families had to be destroyed, or reinvented, because they were disruptive to institutionalization.
See current socioeconomic reinvention of what it means to be a family.
With biological father’s out of the way, single mothers can be easily indoctrinated.
Their children become the state’s. Indoctrinated into the ideological status quo with no resistance.
Children are now raised by institutions, and parents are either representatives or undesirable hindrances.

I’m sure I would be surprised in some cases, and not so surprised in others.

That may be your perspective, but it seems to arise out of resentment of the fact that women are getting their own back. I’m not in agreement with all that feminism does or where it is attempting to go, but I certainly understand where it comes from. Still, just as the resentment of males is not promising, resentment as a root cause of feminism is not future-orientated either.

I think that nature has provided human beings with binary sexuality because it is the best way of securing a future for the species, and all other divergences have little future. However, okay, if minorities go that way, it at least reduces the population.

Above all, the reliance upon technology is short-sighted, and we already have the latest development in AI potentially threatening the internet because of the assistance it could provide scammers. In addition, the danger that technology could lose its power source through a whim of the sun throwing out enough radiation to destroy our power grids and computers is quite real. Then, we will discover how much “civilisation” we have lost to technological solutions that saved us the trouble of sociability, and we will have to learn to communicate respectfully again.

Expletives often express strong emotions like frustration, anger, or excitement. People may use strong language to vent or release pent-up emotions, even if the person they are speaking to is polite. Some individuals may struggle with emotional regulation, and their use of expletives could be a result of difficulty managing intense emotions. People may use expletives to assert dominance or control the conversation in certain situations. This seems to be your problem, and understanding the motivations behind your language use could help promote effective communication and mitigate potential misunderstandings.

I find it strange that you bring religion into the conversation, considering your abhorrence of it. It might have been expected of me because I believe that religion has its function, but it is not to wield power. History reveals that the wise person does not desire power, but the narrow-minded one does. However, the wise person often has no choice but to control the narrow-minded. In many cases, the wife has subtly controlled the loudmouthed husband, which makes him more agreeable in social interaction - as long as he doesn’t notice it. It takes patience and devotion to sway the emotions of a dullard repeatedly, but when the dullard notices, he feels manipulated and can strike out at his wife. The man who allows this interaction and lets himself be swayed by his wife’s opinion isn’t feminised; he’s socialised and praises the wisdom of his partner.

I’m not sure what country you live in, but we have all sorts of relationships here in Germany. I live in a traditional relationship with my wife because when we married, we wanted to grow old together. Many people saw that critically, and many people we knew then have separated for diverse reasons but married another partner. Very few have remained single. Our neighbourhood has singles, and their reasons are understandable, but I see no indoctrination.

Perhaps you need to get out more and listen to some people instead of remaining in your closed box.

I don’t think you understand where it comes from.

Feminism returns sexual dynamics to primal situations, only this time multiplied by male-invented and maintained technologies and institutions.
So, not only are women liberated from masculine advantages but also form natural restrictions to their own sexuality.

Feminization of man.

Pregnancy is a natural limit to female sexual power.
Paternalism was an institutional restriction making civilization possible.

As a consequence families collapse and civilization declines.
Males are now forced to adopt feminine methods of seduction, e.g., display.

Marriage is not natural to homo sapience.
It is a technology, invented by males to integrate as many males into the system as possible. Making them investors.

That’s not the technologies I’m referring to…I mentioned monogamy, marriage, as one…the others that “liberated females” from natural limits to their sexuality are: contraceptives and safe abortions.
In nature “abortions” occur ex utero…infanticide.

Frustrations caused by naivete, idiocy…stupidity.

I understand it completely…I have a low tolerance for idiocy.
I also have a low disgust trigger. My gage reflex is very sensitive.
So, I react to physical and mental toxins more passionately than the average.

It also explains my disgust reaction at homosexuality, or most forms of paraphilia.
And you, and your kind are ideological toxins.

What? :astonished:
Even in secular states, like the states, religion has extreme power over the minds of the voting populace.
It is also part of what is referred to as superstitions.
Just look at ILP…and how dominated by Abrahamism it is.

Abrahamism = spiritual nihilism.
Secular nihilistic ideologies are now replacing it, but only by substituting the terms referring to the same tropes.

Like god has been replaced by state or the concept of absolute cosmic order; messiah replaced by money; paradise replaced by utopia; salvation replaced by freedom etc.
In all these examples there’s a common thread: anti-nature.
So, the current American concepts that deny race and gender, are based on this nihilistic denial, nullification, of natural identifiers.

Naive and idealistic.

You mistake power for power over others.
All want power over themselves…and this is called freedom.
All want power, but not necessarily over others.

Look into western divorce rates; single parent households; and the current rise in alternative families, e.g., homosexual, or transexual families.
Traditional families: heterosexual - based on traditional gender roles.

There it is.
I go out daily.
I live in the world.

You have no clue what traditional families are.
You believe the modern nuclear family is traditional.
A product of the Industrial Age, and the French Revolution; currently influenced by Marxism and postmodernism.

If we lived under traditional paternalistic family values there would be no incels.
Incels are a consequence of the deterioration of traditional family values.

A doctor that becomes emotionally involved in the patient’s plight cannot correctly diagnose nor formulate the best way to deal with a patient’s psychosomatic distress.

A philosopher who cannot emotionally disconnect from existence, cannot correctly understand nor formulate a method of dealing with it.
Will-less knowing/understanding, in both cases, is essential - objectivity.

Subjectivity is the natural condition of man - man’s limits.

Like power/strength is a measure of weakness, and knowledge is a measure of ignorance, objectivity is a measure of subjectivity.

A doctor who forces healthy people into treatment is mentally ill himself.

If I understand you rightly, I don’t share your perspective on feminism and its impact on sexual dynamics, technology, and institutions. You imply a re-evaluation or transformation of traditional gender roles and power dynamics, suggesting that societal structures and systems that men have historically dominated have been reversed, with feminism aiming to liberate women from the advantages traditionally held by men and work out their own advantage.

This may be right in some ways, but the domination by men wasn’t all good, and attributing some form of limitation on women’s sexuality to feminism oversimplifies the diverse range of perspectives within the feminist movement. There are feminists, like Mary Harrington, who suggest that the advantages gained were not all good and lists several influences on her life:

Mary Harrington was drawn out of an understanding that Mum was the central caring agency, and Dad and the kids were exempt from helping her, which had made her ask, “What did that mean for me when I grew up.” Judith Butler seemed to offer a solution to the ‘performance’ of both sex and gender in a system that’s imposed on women and that they re-impose on themselves and others by participating in it. She went through a progressive transformation, even doubting her “assigned” gender for a while, but she sobered up:

Many women who play follow this “revolution” find themselves in a similar situation, find it unsatisfying, and begin once more to long for a more enduring partnership. It is the same with most revolutions; they overplay their hand. With time, going through the crisis of 2008 …

So, if you busied yourself more with women like Mary Harrington, you might find that your thesis doesn’t apply to everyone. I can recommend her book wholeheartedly.

It isn’t so much the supposed “feminisation of men” that you claim to see in my behaviour that has become a problem, but the gender confusion that denies each sex their own space. The claim of radical feminists and trans-activists that we are all the same in some way is obviously false, and men and women need their own spaces to satisfy their specific needs. The attempt by mediocre men to access women’s spaces, sports, and organisations, or women into men’s clubs has been met by an odd affirmation from politicians, who seem to waver under the pressure of upper-class women, who are the leading group driving this progressive stance. The lack of moral fibre in men seems to be the problem. Trans-women are not women but disturbed men.

Seduction is the wrong word because it is traditionally connected to enticement, especially to evil, and attraction is probably more appropriate. The Latin seducere means “lead away, lead aside or astray.” As Mary Harrington said, a more enduring partnership is more attractive to women than one-night stands, as appealing as these may be for men. Women may go through a phase in which they comply, but generally, the excitement fades with time, and many are selective in this way from the beginning.

Note that I was talking about binary sexuality, not marriage. I grant you that the convention of marriage may have ulterior motives, but enduring relationships in which a partnership probes the advantages for both sexes are more attractive. This is especially true for women with children, who are often disappointed by the uncontrollable sex drive of their men who look for younger sex partners.

Once more, I think you would find a friend in Mary Harrington who doubts the suggested progress that such technology brings. In fact, it seems to open numerous markets, and women find themselves in various situations selling their goods. She writes about the struggles that women tend to find themselves in through supposed progress and asks whether it is indeed advancement at all.

I will ignore your personal and offensive tones and suggest that I have shown you that feminism is not the narrow concept you imagine and that there are other facets you could investigate.

Not women…women are what they’ve always been, pawns.
Easily indoctrinated.
Being used in a greater war unfolding presently.

I never said it was “all good” nor that it was good.
I am simply pointing out a shift with effects.
Famileis have always been the bedrock of a nation, of a civilization.
They replenish human resources…and maintain cultural cohesion.

Judith Butler, and others of her ilk, were agencies of degeneration.
Women were always the heart of a family.
Look into the ethnicity of those that dominated the second feminist wave, and what they’ve said.

You don’t understand feminization.
The transexual movement is but one symptom.
Some factors:
*Compounding mutations.
*Un-invested males turning to femininity to find sexual and emotional gratification.
*Criminalization of masculinity.
*Idealization of femininity.
*Institutions taking over the role of alpha, or dominate male: protector and provider.
*Technological and institutional liberation of females, releasing them form natural limits to their sexual power.
*Hypermasculinity overcompensating for masculinity’s degeneration.
*Masculinization of females, who now feel empowered to fill in the absence of masculinity by caricaturing masculinity.
*Destruction of traditional families releasing both females and children to be easily indoctrinated into socioeconomic norms.

Three forms of manipulation: coercion, bribery and seduction.
Sexual relationships are based on seduction - feminine pretences, promising what will not be delivered.
Both sexes pretend…part of the preliminary flirtation phase.
A negotiation.

Hypergamy is an innate feminine impulse.
Released from monogamy, a few males will inseminate most females, leaving most males outside the gene-pool.
Women are genetic and memetic filtering agencies. Control their ideals, their judgments, and you control their choices.
Control their choices and you control human destiny.
Paternalism took over control…and women resented this, obviously. Now, they are liberated returning to their original roles.

With no invested males a system inevitably collapses.

Feminism is a byproduct of Marxism.