Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Lexicus]

"Kind of"
honestly even starting this thread in the first place is "kind of" defending them, because you know perfectly well why they get so much attention (imo they don't even get that much attention but w.e)

 

[caketastydelish]

No, I honestly don't. I'm saying why they *specifically* get so much attention compared to other men's groups on the internet such as the ones I previously mentioned. Or other fringe minority groups.

For example (countless others)

'Incel' has gotten to the point that it's become a pop culture reference, which hasn't achieved mainstream relevance with these other groups.

 

[Lexicus]

For example (countless others)

That is a contextless bit of information that does nothing to support your argument. I'm pretty sure I can find VICE videos about all manner of subcultures.

'Incel' has gotten to the point that it's become a pop culture reference, which hasn't achieved mainstream relevance with these other groups.

The fact that people can say "radfem" and be understood sorta proves you wrong tho?

 

[caketastydelish]

I haven't seen 'radfems' discussed nearly as much, honestly.

edit: for example, I'm not seeing other fringe minority groups being given this much attention on major national networks.

 

[Lexicus]

edit: for example, I'm not seeing other fringe minority groups being given this much attention on major national networks.

No number of Youtube videos is going to convince me of your argument.

 

[cardgame]

Going back to the original topic ferchristsake:

I think it's interesting that Reddit (I frequent Reddit all the time) has shut down and cracked down entirely on the 'incel' groups but has left MGTOW, Red Pill, MRA, etc up and left them alone.

They can't hit too close to home for their favorite userbase (The_Donald)

 

[Archon_Wing]

Reddit has some pretty low standards for that sort of thing. I'd imagine /r incel was too dumb to even pretend to have acceptable content.

I mean, you literally have to threaten violence, or spam anti-Semitic crap like the cesspool uncensorednews was

 

[Lexicus]

I think it's interesting that Reddit (I frequent Reddit all the time) has shut down and cracked down entirely on the 'incel' groups but has left MGTOW, Red Pill, MRA, etc up and left them alone.

Begs the question that they all had more-or-less the same content.

 

[Commodore]

Begs the question that they all had more-or-less the same content.

Not necessarily. MGTOW, Red Pill, and MRA may do a lot of the same whining as incels, but they don't openly advocate for the legalization of rape or government subsidized prostitution. Nor do any of those other groups refer to women in such terms that cannot even come close to being repeatable on this forum that the incels use to describe women.

In short, the other groups get left alone because they just complain about women, whereas incels actively and enthusiastically threaten women with physical and sexual violence.

 

[Peuri]

That person, and I knew that was gonna be brought up, is not a radfem. She's just nuts in addition to people thinking all feminists are like that already which is hardly fair.

I don't know what the appropriate term for people like her or Jenny McDermott, Emily McCombs, Wille Hyvönen, Clementine Ford and TheFemitheist (who seems to have just plagiarized ideas from Solanas' SCUM manifesto) is. But serious or not they have advocated for violence on men based on their gender, while being there in the feminist movement self describing as feminists and being quite radical. Outside of advocating for violence on men there is an undeniable female supremacist strand in radical feminism.

 

[spot261]

Going back to the original topic ferchristsake:

I think it's interesting that Reddit (I frequent Reddit all the time) has shut down and cracked down entirely on the 'incel' groups but has left MGTOW, Red Pill, MRA, etc up and left them alone.

I can't help but fee you have a really unrealistically restrictive view of the "original topic", when discussing incels, the nature of their views have to be a part of that and questions of ownership and agency around one's own body are integral to evaluating those views.

It's hard to imagine anything more "on topic".

 

[Traitorfish]

classic no true Scotsman.

"Elliot Rodger was 'not' an incel either. He's just nuts."

Valerie Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic, though, is the thing. It's not just an uncharitable character judgement.

 

[red_elk]

Once again
tl;dr people defending incels don't know what incels are

Assuming this was directed at me, it's true that I didn't spend weeks or months studying their subculture, though I read their forum (IIRC you gave me link a while ago) and probably understand enough to make basic conclusions.
As for defending them, no, calling some of them "nuts" and claiming that they need psychological help is not the same as defending in my book.
Perhaps I didn't direct to them enough outrage and condemnation to satisfy you, though.

And I don't assume every incel goes out and stabs/shoots people. And they don't

This is a reasonable assumption.

 

[spot261]

Assuming this was directed at me, it's true that I didn't spend weeks or months studying their subculture, though I read their forum (IIRC you gave me link a while ago) and probably understand enough to make basic conclusions.
As for defending them, no, calling some of them "nuts" and claiming that they need psychological help is not the same as defending in my book.
Perhaps I didn't direct to them enough outrage and condemnation to satisfy you, though.

There's an interesting tension here between legitimate outrage at the nature of their views and the equally legitimate intention to make positive steps towards reducing the impact of those views.

I agree (from a professional standpoint) that there is significant potential benefit to early intervention here, despite the inherent problems associated with identification and stigmatisation of social deficits, but on the other hand from a more human perspective it's hard not to find the views expressed revolting at the very least.

There's a temotation to go one of two ways, to condemn utterly or to pass responsibility rather nebulously into the ether by claiming they are simply a product of society. Neither by itself is useful, but one thing that's clear to me is there can be no defending their views. There's no middle ground where they have points worth considering and the fact that they are seemingly being given some validation by virtue of parallel interests with the current political mainstream is not only dangerous, but also at the root of much of the anger some of us are expressing here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Anyway, the relevance is that even in those days there was no lack of "woman's right to work." Heck, our own mother who was appalled at my sister pretty much always had a job. The barrier had theoretically been removed a couple of decades before. Society did not magically change overnight.

I mean sure but as a matter of practice, how many good-paying, professional careers were open to women back in the day? It's still a problem today in many fields - even as the hard barriers have dropped the soft barriers are taking forever to bring down.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Valerie Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic, though, is the thing. It's not just an uncharitable character judgement.

And it would be most likely the dominant cause for this, probably. But I think you certainly explained it better than I.

No True Scotsman only works if we clearly defined the criteria as being part of the central definition of feminism in this case because it would be moving the goalpost.

An actual fallacy would be like me saying Valeria Solanas was not a "real" woman, because women would not act like that because I cannot casually dispute that she was a woman. But hey.... this is what happens when others try to google logical fallacies and don't really get them***

***I googled it too.

I don't know what the appropriate term for people like her

Extremists. They all seem to have that kill people thing in common. I dunno.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean sure but as a matter of practice, how many good-paying, professional careers were open to women back in the day? It's still a problem today in many fields - even as the hard barriers have dropped the soft barriers are taking forever to bring down.

That's somewhat a restatement of "society didn't change overnight." My sister was walking talking proof that even way back in the day software engineering, in practice, was "open to women." Yet here we are forty years later and the discussion of "soft barriers" still rages on and software engineering is one of many examples held up in demonstrating their existence.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think your sister more proves that in theory it was possible, not in practice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think your sister more proves that in theory it was possible, not in practice.

She did it. That makes it clearly not "theoretical." It moves the discussion from "can't be done" unequivocally to "why isn't it happening more?"

 

[bernie14]

There's an interesting tension here between legitimate outrage at the nature of their views and the equally legitimate intention to make positive steps towards reducing the impact of those views.

I agree (from a professional standpoint) that there is significant potential benefit to early intervention here, despite the inherent problems associated with identification and stigmatisation of social deficits, but on the other hand from a more human perspective it's hard not to find the views expressed revolting at the very least.

There's a temotation to go one of two ways, to condemn utterly or to pass responsibility rather nebulously into the ether by claiming they are simply a product of society. Neither by itself is useful, but one thing that's clear to me is there can be no defending their views. There's no middle ground where they have points worth considering and the fact that they are seemingly being given some validation by virtue of parallel interests with the current political mainstream is not only dangerous, but also at the root of much of the anger some of us are expressing here.

Although a point for consideration, i dont fully agree with your rationale. I dont think the issue is defending incels, as it is in becoming defensive. If we make an assumption that the root of the incel problem is somewhere in their psychology gone wrong, our "outrage" may perhaps be where our psychology went right. However, if the goal is to help these people (applying western psychological methods not maoist social reform tactics), i dont know how outrage helps them, although it does serve "us" as a nice pat on the back.