Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[rah]

and you can see what happened with Dr Ford (she receives death threats, and her abuser gets honored).

I think this was more about politics then people approving it.
If he had been the head of a movie studio or another business position not related with politics, I think it would have ended much differently.

 

[red_elk]

Ok again, must have been someone else invoking the white knight trope. I have no idea whether she intends to weigh in, but I suspect she'd find you clear implication I was trying to impress her somewhat...humorous to say the least.

The "knight" reference was about your portrayal of men as abusers implying that you are not like them.
Again, I don't care about your motives, no need to invent imaginary ideas for me and deny them so vehemently.

So, any actual response to the selection of instances I gave of harassment having been normalised for years?

It doesn't contradict anything I've said in this thread.

 

[spot261]

The "knight" reference was about your portrayal of men as abusers implying that you are not like them.
Again, I don't care about your motives, no need to invent imaginary ideas for me and deny them so vehemently.

Then maybe you should be a little more aware of the etymology of internet tropes when you wave them about, because they are increasingly a thing which represent a subset of the language with specific shorthand meanings. The "white knight" trope is quite singular in how it has come to be used and it's very unlikely many people would read it many ways but the way I did.

That's on you.

It doesn't contradict anything I've said in this thread.

Yes, it does.

Like, seriously, no one has ever questioned man's right to harass woman?

Keep denying it and you'll keep reading those words thrown back at you.

 

[red_elk]

Then maybe you should be a little more aware of the etymology of internet tropes when you wave them about, because they are increasingly a thing which represent a subset of the language with specific shorthand meanings. The "white knight" trope is quite singular in how it has come to be used and it's very unlikely many people would read it many ways but the way I did.

No, if you misunderstand my words and take things personally, it's not my problem.

Keep denying it and you'll keep reading those words thrown back at you.

I stand by my words - "no one has ever questioned man's right to harass woman" is a false and ridiculous statement.
Instances of actual harassment given by you don't change that. If you think otherwise, you have really terrible problems with logic.

 

[red_elk]

My feeling is many men feel sorry for these boys who are being mistreated by cruel women who won't give them what they deserve (and I've even seen people here posting how these men "deserve" affection from women!)

Many of them indeed require help. But their problems are not women's fault by any means and should not be fixed at womens expenses. That's obvious.

 

[Angst]

Ahahaha you kill me. They got nothing Ryika but professional focus.

I'm not sure what you're getting at,

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yet your singular focus remains on a handful of male victims, not the infinitely greater swathes of female ones. Why?

No more straw. You're attributing to me arguments I've not made.

Unless you feel women aren't included in "all discrimination is bad", what you're repeatedly insisting isn't coherent.

Not wanting to have sex with somebody is not "discrimination", bloody hell.

I never said otherwise. There's no point in quoting me if you're not following the discussion.

The thread is about incels, the whole context is the way in which incel attitudes and behaviours actually align with that of the mainstream far more so than most of us are particularly comfortable acknowledging. The difference between an incel and a misogynistic womaniser or violent and controlling partner is frequently quite a fine divide, delineated primarily by the latter cases having whatever requisite attributes allow them to be in a position to act on their dominance fantasies.

The discussion that is questionable is how bad behavior of these subgroups of men influences perceptions/feeling towards men in general, or that men in general somehow allow disproportionate crime towards women. Nobody is saying that incel rationale or violence are okay, despite the disingenuous quotes above.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Keep denying it and you'll keep reading those words thrown back at you.

You might want to work on your English comprehension before you do that though. Ridiculing the notion that no-one has ever questioned that X is a bad thing, is not the same as saying that X has never been condoned by anyone ever.

 

[spot261]

No, if you misunderstand my words and take things personally, it's not my problem.

I'm misunderstanding nothing, you used a trope with a specific meaning then backtracked on that, there's no other way in common usage to employ the white knight trope. I'm not wanting to suggest you aren't the sharpest tool in the drawer but it is possible that unlike the rest of the internet you weren't actually aware of that, so your choices are to continue backtracking or plead ignorance, either works for me.

I stand by my words - "no one has ever questioned man's right to harass woman" is a false and ridiculous statement.
Instances of actual harassment given by you don't change that. If you think otherwise, you have really terrible problems with logic.

Except it's true, prior to very recently a lot of what we now acknowledge to be harassment were unchallenged. they weren't just examples of harassment, they were examples of harassment that our society was entirely tolerant of and were seen as entirely normal behaviour. They were examples of exactly what you were claiming doesn't happen, which is that harassment flies under the radar and goes unchallenged, doesn't even get seen as harassment.

Which it categorically has done and still does.

No more straw. You're attributing to me arguments I've not made.

Unless you feel women aren't included in "all discrimination is bad", what you're repeatedly insisting isn't coherent.

So, again, why specifically make that statement when discussing a handful of males, then backtrack to clarify with a disclaimer that those millions of women were included too? The focus of your statement was to defend males being accused, not to promote equality. You made no effort to try making reference to the fact that those accusations happen against a backdrop of a far greater problem of underreporting and harassment. It was only after you were called out on this you added the weak disclaimer.

It's not discrimination to talk, to make mention of a problem, to have a voice in raising that problem into the public awareness. Women doing that isn't discrimination, it's being empowered in a way that was previously the domain of males. It's taking discrimination away.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you don't have a long and impassioned posting history of decrying the rampant discrimination against women in society, that this "all discrimination is bad" schtick has come out of the hat like a magician's rabbit now when there's the slightest hint that the balance is shifting towards something more closely resembling equilibrium.

 

[red_elk]

I'm misunderstanding nothing, you used a trope with a specific meaning then backtracked on that, there's no other way in common usage to employ the white knight trope.

I used it according to its original meaning - knight in shiny armor, protector of women, etc. Which seems to fit your position in this thread very well.
Whether you meant to impress particular poster or not, I didn't know, neither I cared about it.
So it was strange to read your reply that you weren't trying to impress Mary at all - like I ever suggested that.

They were examples of exactly what you were claiming doesn't happen, which is that harassment flies under the radar and goes unchallenged, doesn't even get seen as harassment.

I didn't make these claims. Can you please stop trying to make a strawman in almost every single post here?

 

[spot261]

I used it according to its original meaning - knight in shiny armor, protector of women, etc. Which seems to fit your position in this thread very well.
Whether you meant to impress particular poster or not, I didn't know, neither I cared about it.
So it was strange to read your reply that you weren't trying to impress Mary at all - like I ever suggested that.

Nope, it has one meaning and one meaning alone. You either meant it that way and are backtracking or are claiming ignorance, but in fairness the rabbit in the headlights act is added slapstick value here, do continue.

I didn't make these claims. Can you please stop trying to make a strawman in almost every single post here?

You asked

Like, seriously, no one has ever questioned man's right to harass woman?

I gave you several examples amongst the thousands out there of situations where exactly that has been the case, where harassment has gone unchallenged until recently.

Still you have nothing but quibbling about what you did or didn't mean.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Dude, you can say someone is "white knighting" without directly implying they want to specifically bed the last woman they defended. I don't really know why you're clinging to this one so hard.

 

[spot261]

Dude, you can say someone is "white knighting" without directly implying they want to specifically bed the last woman they defended. I don't really know why you're clinging to this one so hard.

That's nice.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ah you're one of those posters. Well you'll be in good company here.

 

[red_elk]

Nope, it has one meaning and one meaning alone.

You vastly overestimate my interest in your personal life, friend.
I even had no idea that Mary is special to you among several other women in this thread, until you mentioned it.

Still you have nothing but quibbling about what you did or didn't mean.

What I meant is actually quite simple - just read my posts in this thread.
And address them specifically, without trying to put your words in my mouth.

 

[spot261]

Ah you're one of those posters. Well you'll be in good company here.

I just don't see any value in giving a more involved response, clearly we interpret the commonplace usage of the trope differently and there's little to gain by further derailing the thread and risking censure. I'm not sure about the general modding environment in here but limited experience suggests an intolerance for topic drift. It makes sense t press the case with the other poster as it's directly relevant to that exchange, but I see no value in doing so on multiple fronts. It's not going to move the debate forward.

 

[spot261]

You vastly overestimate my interest in your personal life, friend.
I even had no idea that Mary is special to you among several other women in this thread, until you mentioned it.

No, I vastly overestimated your basic internet communication skills.

What I meant is actually quite simple - just read my posts in this thread.
And address them specifically, without trying to put your words in my mouth.

Or you could offer something new instead of page after page of twisting and turning about your previous posts.

 

[red_elk]

No, I vastly overestimated your basic internet communication skills.

Yeah, by giving away personal info which I didn't ask for.

 

[spot261]

Yeah, by giving away personal info which I didn't ask for.

No, just expecting you to understand social norms online.

But don't worry, I'll lower my expectations in future to make it easier for you.

 

[red_elk]

But don't worry, I'll lower my expectations in future to make it easier for you.

Thank you for giving additional information about your future plans. This is extremely important for me