Pathetic Pathos: The Incel Hour

[billvon]

No you can't. You can't change your intelligence if you're born mentally retarded.

Of course you can. The more you use your brain the better it works. You may have Down Syndrome - but you can improve what you have by working at it. Do you have Down syndrome?

Most of these things can only be changed if you have money AND if you are healthy and have good genetics.

Bullshit. It takes no money to exercise. It takes no money to go to a library and learn about electrical engineering (or car maintenance, or bookkeeping.) It takes no money to be courteous to people. It takes no money to volunteer for trail cleanup, or for a homeless shelter, or for a school. It takes no money to take public educational classes. In fact, you can MAKE money by learning algebra (for example) and then tutoring people - which, BTW, is one of the best ways to learn something.

But the fact is that there are plenty of obese and ugly/deformed females who can't get a date and sex from males either.

I can think of many women who prove that wrong. An Iranian postdoc at Brown who gets quite a lot of male attention despite her size. An Indian woman who is a professor at the University of Texas who is obese and has a facial deformity (vitiligo) and is happily married. A woman at a Connecticut university who is also happily married with three kids.

What's the common theme there? They spent their lives doing stuff, not complaining on the Internet that they were fat.

 

[Seattle]

Pluto, there's two common mistakes that some guys make in this regard. Being unrealistic and continuing to go after women that just aren't interested and putting too much pressure on the "asking out" moment.

If you aren't good looking and are older (just as an example) you shouldn't assume that younger good looking girls are interested in you. One of them may be but it's unrealistic to assume that.

If you are Prince Charming, yes, you can just go up to someone and ask them out even if you just met them. Otherwise, do something in a group setting where there are single women around and get to know a few.

If one seems to like chatting with you then suggest that you do something together that has to do with that group. Maybe it's hiking or skiing or whatever. Be a friend first.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Being a loser has a lot to do with looks, your economic/financial situation and maybe also your genetics.

I'm going to disagree.

Being a loser has nothing to do with looks (as some serial felons can demonstrably prove). There are plenty of good-looking losers out there.

neither does it have to do with economic/financial situations (as demonstrated by some of the richest people on the planet). Plenty of rich losers and poor folk that are highly regarded and getting sex regularly.

the definition of loser depends on your personal perspective in a lot of cases, especially when applying the term to yourself. if you lose in competitions regularly but you continue to get back up and fight to win again, are you a loser or are you something else? this is important because a large number of athletes go through the period of continual loss only to end up "winners" because they didn't quit.

genetics may well play a role in certain areas, but this would typically be some area that allows the "loser" to simply quit trying and seek to blame others for the self-induced situation rather than continue to fight to be [x], but, is there really any scientific evidence of a link between genetics etc?

You can't change your intelligence if you're born mentally retarded. Most of these things can only be changed if you have money AND if you are healthy and have good genetics.

have you ever heard of the Special Olympics? Check it out one day.

point being: even severely autistic kids benefit from pushing themselves and not giving up. They may never become the pilot or navigator of the next-gen spacecraft but that has nothing to do with being a "loser" or incel.

Perspective has a lot to do with it: how do you see things around you?
focus has a lot of impact on this too: are you too focused on rejection?

I can probably say that I've been rejected a whole lot more than you given my years of experience, but I don't take it as a personal attack. I learned long ago that if you don't ask, you won't know. It's more about exploration than a personal attack to me, therefore I learn from every encounter.

It takes no money to exercise.

SShhhhh! Don't tell my wife this! I've got her fooled...

 

[parmalee]

What is really going on here? (With incels, that is.) Our resident creepy, racist incel "argues" that "fat, ugly, poor" people can't "get sex." Right. As if anyone buys that "fat, ugly, poor" people aren't having sex. It's hardly as though we're talking about some exceptionally difficult, and largely, unattainable feat here. Personally--and as a person who, in all honesty, is about as uninterested in the activity as a person can be--I would argue that, barring certain highly unusual and exceptional circumstances, finding a Herb Albert and the Tijuana Brass record in a thrift stores actually presents more of a challenge than "get(ting) sex." It's almost unavoidable. So what is it that these people are really whining about?

 

[Michael 345]

What is really going on here?

Possible / probable "play the victim - gain sympathy"

 

[Bells]

So what is it that these people are really whining about?

It's not what are they whining about.

It's who.

They are whining about who is not having sex with them.

They don't just want sex with anyone.

They feel that they are entitled to sex with the most beautiful woman.. That beautiful women owe them sex.

Hence why it is really about "who"...

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels

 

[billvon]

So what is it that these people are really whining about?

They are self-fulfilling a prophecy they are making. They are so busy complaining that they can't get beautiful women that they have no time to get any women at all. Dating, or volunteering, or going out with friends, or playing on a coed sports team would get in the way of their pity party.

 

[Bells]

They are self-fulfilling a prophecy they are making. They are so busy complaining that they can't get beautiful women that they have no time to get any women at all.

Somewhat, yes.

These men are not simply lonely people who want to be loved. They are embittered, arrogant, entitled people who believe that women are objects that are only good for sex. They are self-centred, nasty, sexist and sometimes downright frightening. They’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s little wonder that no woman wants to have sex with them. I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with them, let alone engage in that most intimate of interpersonal acts.

You just instinctively know that no sexual act with an ‘incel’ could ever be called lovemaking. It would be fucking. And likely terrible, selfish, male-dominant fucking at that.​

Dating, or volunteering, or going out with friends, or playing on a coed sports team would get in the way of their pity party.

More like a hate party.

It's not just self pity that drives them. It's hatred of women and a sense of entitlement.

No amount of going out, dating, etc, is going to fix that. To fix it, it would require them to view us as human beings.

 

[billvon]

More like a hate party.

Well, they don't see it that way. They see it as telling the world how the mean women are unfairly avoiding them. But even that makes that state of affairs permanent. Like a guy who spends his entire day, every day complaining on Facebook about how everyone else has more money than he does. And as long as he does that - it will be true.

No amount of going out, dating, etc, is going to fix that. To fix it, it would require them to view us as human beings.

It's a start. One of the problems of social media is the ability to surround oneself with an echo chamber that reinforces one's every belief, no matter how absurd or how fringe. It's a lot more difficult to do that IRL (although as Charlottesville demonstrated, it's still possible if you try really hard.)

 

[Bells]

Well, they don't see it that way. They see it as telling the world how the mean women are unfairly avoiding them. But even that makes that state of affairs permanent. Like a guy who spends his entire day, every day complaining on Facebook about how everyone else has more money than he does. And as long as he does that - it will be true.

I think you are being kind...

We are talking about men who have a pathological hatred of women. We are sluts, whores, bitches, etc to these men. And it's all because they feel that women are denying them their right to sex, because they are entitled to sex when they want it, with whatever beautiful woman they so desire at any given time. They aren't just telling the world how mean women are avoiding them. They are telling us much much more.

“By age 25 a woman has had hundreds of dicks inside her,” began a thread I stumbled upon. “She won't even remember you in a few years but for you it will be a lifetime achievement. Just fucking lol.”

There was an assortment of replies. Some angry, some sad, many wallowing. Then there was this:

“Which is why right after you cum, you punch her in the face, that way she never forgets you.”​

And this sort of messaging is normal on their sites.

It's a start. One of the problems of social media is the ability to surround oneself with an echo chamber that reinforces one's every belief, no matter how absurd or how fringe. It's a lot more difficult to do that IRL (although as Charlottesville demonstrated, it's still possible if you try really hard.)

I don't actually think it's that hard to do in real life. And that's the problem. Not to mention the hateful nature of their messaging is resulting in loss of life and violence.

 

[Vociferous]

We are talking about men who have a pathological hatred of women. We are sluts, whores, bitches, etc to these men. And it's all because they feel that women are denying them their right to sex, because they are entitled to sex when they want it, with whatever beautiful woman they so desire at any given time. They aren't just telling the world how mean women are avoiding them.

Interesting who pushes positive rights the most.

 

[billvon]

We are talking about men who have a pathological hatred of women.

That's true of many of them. Many others are just blind followers. Something about being an incel strikes a chord in them, and they follow all those pathological cases. It's why the incel movement has been growing - social media makes it very, very easy to be a follower, and makes it hard to be exposed to a lot of normalcy.

 

[parmalee]

It's not what are they whining about.

It's who.

They are whining about who is not having sex with them.

They don't just want sex with anyone.

They feel that they are entitled to sex with the most beautiful woman.. That beautiful women owe them sex.

Hence why it is really about "who"...

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels

The connections to white supremacism are strong, right down to copying their guidelines for writing missives and such, but where I struggle to comprehend--

and here, I should note, by "comprehend," I mean something along these lines. I know a couple of professional antiquarians--they're English, of course. Now, I know what an antiquarian is, and yet, at the same time, I'm not entirely sure that I know what an antiquarian is--especially, a professional one.

--is with respect to the significant departures. Incels are all about extreme self-deprecation--they're ugly, poor, inadequate, etc. Somehow, this entitles them to what they perceive as "the best," i.e., "beautiful women." That strikes me as incompatible with supremacist thought: they are, in fact, the best, but they've been disenfranchised by all these outsiders, women, queers, etc.

A line that really stands out from that New Yorker piece:

Several distinct cultural changes have created a situation in which many men who hate women do not have the access to women’s bodies that they would have had in an earlier era.

The idea that by according others rights, personhood, etc., the already privileged are somehow disenfranchised.

With some effort I can follow the "logic," but... Well, taking something seriously that is so preposterous is always a challenge, even when they make it abundantly clear that they intend to be taken seriously.

 

[parmalee]

They are self-fulfilling a prophecy they are making. They are so busy complaining that they can't get beautiful women that they have no time to get any women at all. Dating, or volunteering, or going out with friends, or playing on a coed sports team would get in the way of their pity party.

Possible / probable "play the victim - gain sympathy"

The "self-pity" aspect strikes me more as a strategy to downplay how dangerous and hateful they really are.

 

[Michael 345]

The "self-pity" aspect strikes me more as a strategy to downplay how dangerous and hateful they really are.

Might be another true aspect

Not thought of that angle

 

[Bells]

The connections to white supremacism are strong, right down to copying their guidelines for writing missives and such, but where I struggle to comprehend--

and here, I should note, by "comprehend," I mean something along these lines. I know a couple of professional antiquarians--they're English, of course. Now, I know what an antiquarian is, and yet, at the same time, I'm not entirely sure that I know what an antiquarian is--especially, a professional one.

--is with respect to the significant departures. Incels are all about extreme self-deprecation--they're ugly, poor, inadequate, etc. Somehow, this entitles them to what they perceive as "the best," i.e., "beautiful women." That strikes me as incompatible with supremacist thought: they are, in fact, the best, but they've been disenfranchised by all these outsiders, women, queers, etc.

It's not so much about supremacy as it is about entitlement.

Firstly, they are obsessed with looks and with sex.

Secondly, while they are obsessed with their own looks, they blame women for not having sex with them because they believe that women are shallow sluts and whores who will only have sex with attractive men and/or rich and wealthy men. And they feel that they are equally entitled to sex with these beautiful women as any other bloke.. And they blame women for choosing other men. They believe what they perceive as being unfairly treated by society is solely blamed on women.. And it's not just blame. Hate and detest.

The idea that by according others rights, personhood, etc., the already privileged are somehow disenfranchised.

With some effort I can follow the "logic," but... Well, taking something seriously that is so preposterous is always a challenge, even when they make it abundantly clear that they intend to be taken seriously.

The notion that women would choose to be with someone because they had compatible personalities is pretty impossible to grasp for people who believe that women are barely human. Lest it sound like I’m exaggerating, you can tell from posts on MaleForeverAlone reddit like, “Can femoids even be considered human?” which state “The female part of our species, though technically human, completely and utterly lacks the essence of being that one would call humanity. By lacking all empathy, compassion, self-awareness, and capacity for logic or reason, there is little to separate the femoid from a beast of the field.” Commenters agree that “The woman and their cuck slaves have no concept of loyalty, honesty, gratitude, honor, chivalry, conscience and empathy.”

The notion that women should love you—and they probably will not do so if they are forced into relationships with you—doesn’t register for people who believe women are incapable of human traits like love.

When Incels tweet after the van massacre in Toronto that they want “a state implemented girlfriend program," it is a suggestion that strikes most people as so absurd that it seems like a joke. After all, no reasonable person would want to be with someone who didn’t happily and consensually enter into a relationship with them. Why would you want a sex slave who would doubtless hate you?

But that puzzlement hinges upon the idea that you think women are people, who have feelings. If you don’t, and you just view them as machines to stick your penis and frustrations into, then it’s a totally reasonable suggestion.

And if it still seems like a joke—this isn't even the first time Incels have suggested there should be a government program in place to help them get girlfriends.

Obviously, this seems so absurd as to be hilarious. But then, when people in the KKK declare that black people are genetically inferior, it’s also absurd. We’re just more used to hearing it and identifying it as hate speech.

[...]

Maybe some Incels do just think it’s all a joke. But when your ideology has a body count, whatever it started out as, it’s not laughable anymore.​

We no longer have a choice but to take it seriously.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Incels are all about extreme self-deprecation--they're ugly, poor, inadequate, etc. Somehow, this entitles them to what they perceive as "the best," i.e., "beautiful women." That strikes me as incompatible with supremacist thought

We are talking about men who have a pathological hatred of women. We are sluts, whores, bitches, etc to these men. And it's all because they feel that women are denying them their right to sex, because they are entitled to sex when they want it, with whatever beautiful woman they so desire at any given time.

IMHO, I don't think it's about women at all. It's about manipulation, domination and control, the keywords defining most serial offenders (especially in sexually related crimes), sociopaths, narcissists and some people with a borderline personality disorder. It's almost if they read "Control by false authority, manipulation, intimidation" by Steve Morris (angelfire) and decided to use it as a playbook.

(1) Projection of guilt upon others by:
(a) Correction
(b) Criticism
(c) Fault finding
(d) Disapproval
(e) Condemnation
(f) Confrontation
(g) Ignoring an individuals existence
(h) Circulating malicious opinions
(i) Non-acceptance into their clique
(j) Blame
(2) Statements in the form of questions or analogies designed to put others on the defensive.
(3) Not initiating closure when problems surface in a personal relationship, regardless of who is responsible for the problem. They will always depend on the unresolved tension to cause the other party to contact them first to resolve the issue.
(4) Establishing uncertainty of the past, present or future to build insecurity in a person and dependence upon the practitioner’s abilities and information by:
(a) Altering true information
(b) Withholding true information
(c) Issuing false information
(d) Using big names as information sources
(5) Illegally assuming authority without responsibility, by:
(a) Outright claims that they have the official sanction of those in charge
(b) Implied claims they have the official sanction of those in charge
(c) Manipulating, maneuvering and motivating others to think, feel and choose the way the practitioner wants them to
(d) “Spiritual” revelations
(e) Physical authority—violence, temper tantrums, force, sex, drugs, etc.
(f) Rebelling against established authority
(6) Illegally attempting to assume responsibility without authority.

...
(13) Insults directed at others to further distance the practitioner, who by now knows they have failed in their efforts to dominate.
(14) Polarizing groups of people into adverse parties. This is further punishment for failure to recognize the superiority of the practitioner and an attempt to establish control by comparing persons to create competition.
(15) Withdrawal, when suggestions, comments or questions come up about their pronouncements, with simulated:
(a) Hurt
(b) Rejection
(c) Depression
(d) Physical sickness
(e) Protests of innocence
(f) Accusations of others
(16) False remorse, with hypocritical statements of now perceiving how their past activities have hurt others and a seeking of forgiveness for past behavior.
(17) Self-proclaimed martyrdom, usually follows withdrawal or false remorse when the practitioner realizes others are not fooled by their insincerity.
Withdrawal or self-proclaimed martyrdom is tacit admission of failure to successfully dominate others.
(18) Instigation of difficult, uncomfortable or costly activities for others, which may or may not benefit the practitioner.
This is their last desperate effort to control others after having been exposed as two-faced hypocrites, gossips and liars. They will eventually resort to their old, more satisfying, tactics in an attempt to force others to depend upon them. This dominating technique, however, may be used at any time by them to control situations, circumstances and social environments.
(19) You may also notice one or more of the following communication techniques.
They will:
(1) State the obvious
(2) Make a mountain out of a molehill
(3) Play “can you top this”
(4) Promise beyond their delivery capability
(5) Stampede into action before all the facts are in
(6) Edit the facts to dramatize their point
(7) Keep in constant motion, unconcerned about direction
(8) State the opposite of the facts, because all else failed.

so it's not about women in any way, shape or form. they chose women because they found it allows them the most attention and they've learned it's a useful tactic for manipulating (etc) others

Firstly, they are obsessed with looks and with sex.

Secondly, while they are obsessed with their own looks, they blame women for not having sex with them because ...

and again, IMHO, this is a symptom, or rather, an excuse allowing them to focus on a point that enables them to play the martyr/victim card. I think a good example of this from this forum would be the former "realitycheck", who used the same incel tactics: it's not about the chosen target at all

modern first world, and especially the internet, societies promote narcissistic behaviour and allow for the propagation of ideological beliefs while providing a means for contact, research and social gathering of the like-minded where it would be discouraged in real life.

 

[parmalee]

It's not so much about supremacy as it is about entitlement.

I think it's both, but I agree that entitlement is foremost. I mean, there's this:

The notion that women would choose to be with someone because they had compatible personalities is pretty impossible to grasp for people who believe that women are barely human. Lest it sound like I’m exaggerating, you can tell from posts on MaleForeverAlone reddit like, “Can femoids even be considered human?” which state “The female part of our species, though technically human, completely and utterly lacks the essence of being that one would call humanity. By lacking all empathy, compassion, self-awareness, and capacity for logic or reason, there is little to separate the femoid from a beast of the field.” Commenters agree that “The woman and their cuck slaves have no concept of loyalty, honesty, gratitude, honor, chivalry, conscience and empathy.”

​

-----

​

Bells said:
We no longer have a choice but to take it seriously

.

And, unfortunately:

Now, you’re never going to see President Trump tweet that “misogyny has no place in this modern world.” That’s for a few reasons. One, misogyny is a four syllable word. Second, because as someone who thinks it’s cool to grab women by the pussy, there is no reason to assume Trump thinks believing you’re owed sex is a bad thing.

Exit polls and other research shows that not only were the overwhelming majority of the sixty-odd million who voted for that piece of shit familiar with the dozens of allegations against him, they also believed that at least some of them were true. Yet, somehow, this did not impact their decision to vote for him.

Within this thread, some adopt a somewhat compassionate tone when addressing pluto2. I'm certainly not faulting anyone for this--and I am in no way suggesting that posters here do not take the matter seriously, but I honestly don't know how one should address a guy like that.

 

[wegs]

The thing that is worth noting about incels (from what I've read of this self-identifying, online ''culture") is that their main problem doesn't seem to stem from being merely ''dateless,'' rather they are jealous of good looking ''bad guy'' types who seem to have an endless line of beautiful women waiting to climb onto them. Emphasis on the ''bad guy/player'' persona. Incels want to remain angry, embittered men and perceive their lack of luck with women, strictly due to their looks and financial status.

If only they could be effortlessly good looking, women wouldn't care if they were mean, and misogynistic.

From what I've read, this partially fuels their rage.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

but I honestly don't know how one should address a guy like that.

IMHO - it's entirely possible that the best choice is to ingore him.
if he's an incel, or he identifies as one, and he's promoting their beliefs, then it's about attention (Martyr/victim). Like a troll, he feeds off of the attention regardless.

That doesn't mean the thread doesn't have some useful information in it though

If only they could be effortlessly good looking, women wouldn't care if they were mean, and misogynistic.

well hell! that's where I've been going wrong all these years! Do good looks have a height requirement? I'm a little short in that department...