Along all human history (and in most primates), most males have fit the “involuntarily celibate” description, a fact reinforced, for example, by research on DNA that tells that 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.
I doubt naming it will make any difference whatsoever, unless that would make them more sexually desirable by the other sex. Since that goes against “getting along”, that seems to go against being more sexually desirable. Those people will have no descendents, so why would any lasting change stir up from it?
Men that don’t reproduce don’t instill their values/thoughts in their offspring, which are the people most influenced by them. If they are to influence others socially, that take being against ‘getting along’ makes that posture to be held only by outliers, which tend to be (by the same token) involuntarily celibate, and the cycle repeats but with mostly no offspring, so the ideas die fast
Incel is one of those concepts that makes me lose faith in humanity.
Anyone, who for any purpose, thinks that “lol u got no gf” is some kind of gatcha moment or an actual argument of some kind, they need to be sent to the closed ward because they do not reach the required minimum to be a functioning part of human society.
The very fact that this concept can exist at all, is a testament to how mentally retarded society as a whole has become.
Its about as humorous and functional as “poorfag” or “mansplainer”.
It was actually coined by a woman and mean to be for anyone, male or female, who was involuntarily celibate. So, it was an in-group label, not a name hurled at those who couldn’t find a sex partner. And it’s still a self-label, though now it seems to be mainly men who use it for themselves.
Trust me, this is not how its used online. Its mostly used as an extrapolation of the original intent and meaning, referring to people who are very very emotionally unstable because they are not getting sex.
And its glorious to watch entire documentaries and even politicians discussing how these individuals are a threat.
You can twist this any way you like but at its core you just look at it and you see people in all sincerity discussing that “if you are not fucking you are a terrorist” and im just looking at this like
I see the use of the term much like body positivity:
Started pointing to people that are, truthfully, victims of their situation (people with scars, deformities, or rather wholesale unlikable characteristics that they cannot reasonably change)
Then, adopted by a larger group that point at themselves as being victims of the situations as an excuse not to better themselves
Then the whole group being mocked by assuming that everyone is of the latter kind, since that characteristics are unliked by people. Mocking the latter kind only would make sense, tho
Just picture someone saying ‘you’re an incel’ to a 50 year old man who lacks hands because his mother took some medicine to relieve nausea when he was in the womb.
I’d don’t have enough media experience on it. I encountered mainly the people identifying with the term and most of the ones I encountered were blaming women for not getting laid. I thought the media reactions were to the women blame. But I haven’t see that directly so I could have been fooled by how it’s framed. I never enountered anyone saying you’re fucked up because you’re not having sex. But again, I’ve not done research.
Go to youtube, type in incel and you get the most tame version of how the word is being used.
Go to social media like X, search for incel and you will get the advanced run down how its basically solely and exclusively used as an insult.
We are talking extra big brain.
The literal usage of the word is at this point is hardly anything more than “people who went insane cause they dont get laid”.
And the very notion that this exists and there are actual documentaries and politicians discussing it… Even for and ad hominem or a plain insult. This is a level of retarded that my brain cannot contend with it.
OK, I started the first suggestion. The first is extremely critical of incels from outside. The second video was an interview with someone who left the movement and is very critical of it. The third was Joe Rogan critical of it. The fourth was Jordan Peterson who expressed sympathy for the men but was critical of the women blaming. Then a video from someone in the movement who says he will never leave it. His perspective. Then a video focused on a woman saying there are extremists in the movement and is definitely con.
Is it at all possible that part of the problem is that the incel movement had a lot of rage aimed at women and that the critics are not saying if you don’t get laid you go insane like these people? Could these incel online communities have anything to do with the criticism which is not aimed at their virginity but what they’ve been saying? I sure in the let’s go binary on any issue we have in the world, there are extreme, universal criticisms of these men, but so far I’m not getting the image you presented.
I’ve gone down further and it hops around different perspectives. Including one on femcels.
The only way I’d be convinced to a clear position would be to go to incel forums and see what they actually say, the incels. Because I don’t trust the idea that most of them are a problem. But I am really skeptical that the criticism is focused on their virginity. It may be overblown and too general, but I really doubt that’s the focus of the criticism.
You seem to have missed the subtle conflating of concepts too.
Start with your own definition of incel: Involuntary celibate.
Extrapolate it. What does it mean in the practice?
People who are ugly, people who got disfigured, who suffer from some kind of unattractive feature that makes them less than desirable for a relationship.
Now try to overlap this with what you see on youtube. This supposed avalanche of hatred, to the point its supposedly a threat to rest of society.
How do you make that connection and it’s implications? Are all ugly people hateful now?
If someone gets disfigured are they a potential terrorist threat?
How do you connect these concepts to eachother and on what basis. Im genuinely interested to hear your rationalization for linking being undesired with being full of hatred.
Femcells is a rather new and niche aspect of it. And it has hardly a tenth of the implication incel does. I mean the term is unisex, but you get a gendered distinguisher. What’d be the reason for that?
Really? You surprise me.
You are seemingly going along with the entire theme without having stopped for a second to consider how the concepts are even capable of overlapping or connecting with eachother.
Kinda fascinating. Can you explain what made you simply skip over what incel means and potentially) connect it to this idea of extreme hatred?
Cause last time i was seeing these kind of suggestions it was in children’s movies like the hunchback of notredame.
EDIT:
I will summarize the entire problem in one counter concept:
For all intents and purposes this is a reverse correlation. Incels are no more prone to violence than any other group, and this can be reviewed through statistics.
On the other hand, there is a lot left to say about people who view unattractiveness as a sin.
The people who identified as incel and went on forums had a culture. I remember when it first arose, I read some of what they were saying - those people who joined that culture and identifies as that. Not everyone who were in those categories identified as incel. And by the way it wasn’t just looks: some of these people clearly were not at all socially fluent. I don’t mean, they weren’t cool. There people who didn’t have friends either. It included gamers who didn’t know people directly. It included men in their twenties who lived at their parents without work or a social life. It also included people who looked good enough to get laid if we are dealing just with looks. In fact one of them who went around shooting people, I would say was actually handsome and had a car from which he shot people.
People were reacting to what the partipants in forums were saying, including what they were saying about women. It wasn’t everyone. But it was a significart part of the incel culture. That was my unscientific impression at the time.
To this just shows you don’t know much about the controversy. You don’t seem to even know that the problem was about people who called themselves incels - which was not remotely all people who wanted sex but weren’t getting it. It seems impossible to you that those people could have had a culture that not all people who don’t get sex but want it are in.
You’re viewing it in some Platonic realm. Who are incels? They are people who aren’t getting sex - and not only that you assume they are all ugly. Oh, that’s mean people are saying incels are dangerous, etc.
Sorry, you’re off in the realm of ideas. People who called themselves incels, some portion of them, joining online communities and those communities had tendencies to express a lot of hatred of women and even men who were getting laid. It wasn’t everyone. And those communities only have a fraction of the young men who aren’t getting laid on them. But the criticism was aimed at what was being expressed in those communities, not at young male virgins. Did the media exaggerate this. Possibly. But when this controversy arose I did look in those communities and there was stuff said, and with regularity, that would make me wary of any of my female family members or friends being around many of the people in those forums. That ain’t science, but there was enough for me to think that even if the media was exaggerating this, there was a real tendency towards harsh misogyny.
I think you have hallucinated a version of what happened there that is really disconnected from what was happening.
You see the word incel. Find out what it means. Abstact the conflict away from the specific incel communities. Assume (weirdly) that the hate was aimed at all young male virgins, because the word that these specific young male virgins identify with online - that % of young male versions identifying with that term AND being active on those forums - could potentially be applied all men who be labelled that way, then it was aimed at everyone, despite the fact that nearly all the media coverage was focused on the forums and what was writtent there.
Then you add your own specificity to this and assume that young male virgins must be ugly.
And yet again you are pissed off the stars and talking down to me when it seems you really didn’t even look into this shit.
And you’re basically rehashing the same perspective as if I hadn’t covered some of this in the previous post. You have no sense of how it got into the media. It didn’t make you think for one second that Jordan Peterson, hardly a mechanical lefty or male hater also said that there was a problem with misogyny on these forums.
This is how I experience this exchange.
Naus is angry about something and seems to have made a lot of false assumptions.
I respond to this and raise the issue of the forums.
Naus restates his position more angrity as if nothing had been said, even when I am leaving room for media hysteria.
No. It’s not specific forums with misogynistic cultures. Not possible. So impossible it doesn’t even have to be responded to. No, the only thing people hated was ugly young male virgins. It must be that way because of what the word means.
Seriously. You wanna rant. Rant. And it wasn’t just the left, in case this is part of your assumptions here, there was a broad conservative criticism of these incel forums - also not filled with hatred of young male virgins, but rather concerned about the misogyny, nihilism and their victim mentality.
But right, really deep down, they hate ugly people. It’s lookism. I mean, even this shows a lack of understanding of how hard it is to be a young male. You think they must be ugly if they are not getting laid. I mean, jeez I would have been in their category later than most of my peers. I wasn’t ugly, I was shy as shit.
I’m not sure whether to wait even longer this time before reading your next response or to get my welder’s helmet out of storage and brace.
And you are already heading completely backwards with your definition.
Incel has a definition. What you are describing is a certain forum and it’s users.
There can be an overlap between the two things, but they each mean something fundamentally different.
And im sure there are people like that on this forum as well, as well on any social media platform.
Does that mean that we have an incel culture here as well?
There are jew haters on this forum too. Does that mean that this place is an anti-Semite meeting ground?
These parallels are wild and you understand that perfectly well yourself.
Handfuls of individuals do not make “culture” and do not define entire groups of people, lest the rest stands behind them, and i sincerely doubt that the group of “i fail to get a partner” which is easily in the hundreds of millions, is subscribing or supporting that kind of behavior.
Lets just say that unlike you who literally asked me how this word is regarded in online discourse, i have participated in online discourse and know first hand how its being used.
I stay true to that.
Meanwhile you walk up and down on this concept where it simultaneously means just some random individuals, everyone who is unable to get a partner, and a complete culture of its own with supposed forums and what not.
And im simply telling you that the word incel has a meaning.
And that meaning is involuntary celibate.
And that is being used in one particular context only, which is not “some random dudes on a forum”. Those words mean something completely different and i think thats kinda obvious.
