Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't overstate the distinction between unattractive men and incels.

Well, seems like you actually can. When no one is really arguing with you and you keep stating it over and over as if someone were, that's sort of the definition of "overstating."

 

[Lexicus]

It doesn't change that powerful societal movements ground a bunch of dudes into dust

What "powerful societal movements" are these? Sounds disturbingly like you're simply reproducing the incel ideology that feminism is preventing them from getting laid by having made rape into something of a faux pas.

It doesn't change that powerful societal movements ground a bunch of dudes into dust and we're blaming the dudes for it. If you want to "solve" incel-ism you will need a social analysis of their cause, and not to treat them like isolated individuals who happened to all be the same thing.

There was a "social cause" for the Nazis too, but does that mean we can't blame and, yes, hate guys like Rudolf Höss?

Well, seems like you actually can. When no one is really arguing with you and you keep stating it over and over as if someone were, that's sort of the definition of "overstating."

For my part I believe that the rhetorical conflation of incels with people who have a hard time dating is intentional and is being done for the purpose of making incels more sympathetic.

 

[spot261]

No, you're switching topics here. We were talking about what a person deserves, from an ethical point of view, not talking about rights. A society may very well recognize that a person deserves a healthy sex life and acknowledge that they cannot guarantee such a sex life, but only help them get to a state where they have a good shot at getting such a healthy sex life.

Aside from that, we are probably not that far away from technology that can simulate people accurately enough that it is able to satisfy that need. When that happens, the whole tragedy of this scenario solves itself and even the idea that access to a healthy sexual life should be a human right becomes a purely monetary issue.

No I'm not, in an equitable society what people deserve and their rights go hand in hand. No one has a right to a sex life, nor do they deserve one per se, however I can't agree with you strongly enough that such a sex life is something people benefit from on many levels and we should find ways to help them find that. After all it's absolutely the compassionate thing to do. But the first step of that help will in most cases be to help that person see they need to look inside themselves and not at the world around them for answers.

The post you were responding to, and the content of which we have been discussing since then, were not about Incels.

You might not have been discussing incels, but I was. The whole point of the thread is to discuss them and there's little to be gained moving that forward if we keep making the disingenuous link between incels and men who are simply unattractive. There's a lot of mileage in the distinction and I hope you aren't conflating them on purpose.

Yeah, obvioulsly it's the individual who needs help. I'm saying that as a society, we should provide that help, which you appear to be arguing against. If not, then what are we even talking about?

What on earth in the many posts I've made suggesting exactly that drew you to that conclusion? Especially given I already told you it's what I do for a living already?

There's a distinction though between helping those harmless men who struggle with confidence and helping the incels, the two will be drastically different processes with drastically different methodologies and rationales. One is about building people's confidence and self esteem, the other about breaking down a toxic and unproductive thought process which externalises responsibility and leads to hatred.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For my part I believe that the rhetorical conflation of incels with people who have a hard time dating is intentional and is being done for the purpose of making incels more sympathetic.

I'd have guessed it was being done for the purpose of drawing out an endless stream of arguments which, while correct, are couched in terms that make the advocate look progressively worse in a tangential way. I don't see any indication that anyone really considers the incel position sympathetic.

 

[Hygro]

What "powerful societal movements" are these? Sounds disturbingly like you're simply reproducing the incel ideology that feminism is preventing them from getting laid by having made rape into something of a faux pas.

Only when your head fills in the gaps.

I don't think our popular discourse covers all the categories. I don't think academic discourse covers all the categories either.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd have guessed it was being done for the purpose of drawing out an endless stream of arguments which, while correct, are couched in terms that make the advocate look progressively worse in a tangential way. I don't see any indication that anyone really considers the incel position sympathetic.

"This thread is about incels, but let me instead write posts about people who have romantic problems for sympathetic reasons"
Pretty sure The Poster doing that is smart enough to realize what they're doing, but *shrugs* maybe not

Only when your head fills in the gaps.

Well, yes. The other possibility I considered was Traitorfish's point, which I think is basically accurate. But incels aren't the only ones being ground into the dust by capitalism.

There's a distinction though between helping those harmless men who struggle with confidence and helping the incels, the two will be drastically different processes with drastically different methodologies and rationales. One is about building people's confidence and self esteem, the other about breaking down a toxic and unproductive thought process which externalises responsibility and leads to hatred.

Are these two not at least to some degree interrelated?

 

[Peuri]

Not defending the incels, if they, as many have said, think they should be able to rape their desired gender, but treating sexual gratification as a human right is not that outlandish. It's been suggested in a few countries for disabled people.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bled-people-greens-scharfenberg-a7519721.html

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"This thread is about incels, but let me instead write posts about people who have romantic problems for sympathetic reasons"
Pretty sure The Poster doing that is smart enough to realize what they're doing, but *shrugs* maybe not

There's some chicken v egg muddying in those waters.

 

[Lexicus]

Not defending the incels, if they, as many have said, think they should be able to rape their desired gender, but treating sexual gratification as a human right is not that outlandish. It's been suggested in a few countries for disabled people.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bled-people-greens-scharfenberg-a7519721.html

I don't know if this article supports your view that it's not that outlandish

And Ms Scharfenberg’s own colleague in the Green party, Tübingen mayor Boris Palmer, said her comments had made the party look like “crackpots”.

 

[Ryika]

No I'm not, in an equitable society what people deserve and their rights go hand in hand. No one has a right to a sex life, nor do they deserve one per se, however I can't agree with you strongly enough that such a sex life is something people benefit from on many levels and we should find ways to help them find that. After all it's absolutely the compassionate thing to do. But the first step of that help will in most cases be to help that person see they need to look inside themselves and not at the world around them for answers.

So basically, you don't want to say that people "deserve" a healthy sex life, because you think that this then translates into them gaining the "right" to such a thing?

I very much disagree with this idea. A person deserves to be happy. A person deserves to be healty. A person deserves to be free from stress. There are a whole bunch of statements that society in general would probably agree with that do not become rights.

You might not have been discussing incels, but I was. The whole point of the thread is to discuss them and there's little to be gained moving that forward if we keep making the disingenuous link between incels and men who are simply unattractive. There's a lot of mileage in the distinction.

I told you right after you had responded to my post, that I am not talking about Incels, and that I agree that most Incels probably don't even fall into the category of people that I was talking about. It's right here:

Yeah, that's how I understand the mentality that's common in the incel community. Like I said on the first few pages, I have no deep insight in their community and have only drawn some knowledge by looking into their stuff when they first entered the news, but that's the picture that I saw painted. People who resent the fact that they're, in their mind, physically not attractive, and as a result think they have little to no chance to find a partner.

I very much think that this is a false assumption in regards to most people, and that most of them could probably find a decent partner if they put some effort into self-improvement (partially to get their mind out of seeing themselves as such negative characters), but I do think there are some people who whom it is probably true that they have too many "unchangeable" characteristics (not only the psychical attractiveness, but also things like a person's voice, actual disabilities, etc) to them that saying that they realistically it is not highly likely for them to find a partner with whom they could be happy for the rest of their lives.

...you just ignored it and continued to go on about Incels for no reason at all.

What on earth in the many posts I've made suggesting exactly that drew you to that conclusion? Especially given I already told you it's what I do for a living already?

Probably the way you responded with how we should not help these people when I wrote that we should. But of course I did not know that you were talking about Incels, when I was very clearly not talking about giving Incels what they're asking for, but rather helping people who are actually in need of help fare better for themselves on the dating market.

There's a distinction though between helping those harmless men who struggle with confidence and helping the incels, the two will be drastically different processes with drastically different methodologies and rationales. One is about building people's confidence and self esteem, the other about breaking down a toxic and unproductive thought process which externalises responsibility and leads to hatred.

It's somewhat funny how "What on earth made you draw that conclusion?" is followed by a paragraph of things that again I did not advocate for in any way.

Still, the incel deserves help that everybody else deserves.

 

[Hygro]

Well, yes. The other possibility I considered was Traitorfish's point, which I think is basically accurate. But incels aren't the only ones being ground into the dust by capitalism.

But they are a really good example of a way in which people are that falls outside the conversation. And I for one think it's a pretty good clue worth investigating into this whole world we live in, rather than thinking they should be held special in not being seen as a consequence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Chickens in the water will muddy it up. Eggs just sink to the bottom, unless they are rotten, then they float.

 

[Peuri]

I don't know if this article supports your view that it's not that outlandish

Fair point. There is some controversy still relating to that. In my country the conversation seems to revolve around should the personal assistants of disabled people assist them in such activities. Anyway, just wanted to point out that if it is already practice in the Netherlands and Denmark, it is not too outlandish.

 

[Lexicus]

But they are a really good example of a way in which people are that falls outside the conversation. And I for one think it's a pretty good clue worth investigating into this whole world we live in, rather than thinking they should be held special in not being seen as a consequence.

In the Mainstream Discourse in the United States there is no discussion whatever of people who are being ground down by capitalism. It gets close sometimes with Trump voters - of all people - but not quite there.

Fair point. There is some controversy still relating to that. In my country the conversation seems to revolve around should the personal assistants of disabled people assist them in such activities. Anyway, just wanted to point out that if it is already practice in the Netherlands and Denmark, it is not too outlandish.

Serious physical disability aside, you don't need another person to get off. And I agree in the abstract with the idea that people have a "right" in some sense to properly intimate relationships (which, I hasten to add, need not be sexual) but how many failed attempts to build those does it take before you start thinking "maybe it's me and I should stop blaming the feminists"?

 

[Ryika]

"This thread is about incels, but let me instead write posts about people who have romantic problems for sympathetic reasons"
Pretty sure The Poster doing that is smart enough to realize what they're doing, but *shrugs* maybe not

I should know better than to respond to you, but still. When I reentered this thread, I responded to Bugfatty300, who made a statement about involuntary celibacy in general:

Yes exactly, I believe their entire situation was a self-made cage. I don't think "involuntary" celibacy exists at all for healthy functional people; which they were for the most part as far as I knew. I think it's similar to how people steadily entrench themselves into crazy beliefs that can turn them into frustrated unsociable types, i.e. they're possessed by demons or that jetliners are dumping poisons into the air, etc.

How is it in any way unreasonable for me to respond to that post with my own opinion on the concept of involuntary celibacy in general?

The moment spot261 made a reference to Incels, I told him that I was making a general statement and not saying that I was describing all incels in my post (#413) - to clear up the confusion that I saw coming. He just didn't react to it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So basically, you don't want to say that people "deserve" a healthy sex life, because you think that this then translates into them gaining the "right" to such a thing?

I very much disagree with this idea. A person deserves to be happy. A person deserves to be healty. A person deserves to be free from stress. There are a whole bunch of statements that society in general would probably agree with that do not become rights.

I think that is a difficult position to defend. "Deserves" gets pretty close to "owed". Why do people deserve a healthy sex life? And what the hell is such an thing anyway?

Do rabbits deserve not to be hunted by foxes? etc. Is there something special about humans that earns them the right to free from their genes and the forces of evolution? Some of that may be on the horizon, but it is not here now. A huge part of being human is our crankiness and hostility; they go along with all our more "desirable" characteristics.

 

[Lexicus]

I should know better than to respond to you, but still. When I reentered this thread, I responded to Bugfatty300, who made a statement about involuntary celibacy in general:

When I entered this thread I too made a statement about involuntary celibacy in general. But I also made it clear that the way incels respond to that condition is their own responsibility.

 

[spot261]

So basically, you don't want to say that people "deserve" a healthy sex life, because you think that this then translates into them gaining the "right" to such a thing?

I very much disagree with this idea. A person deserves to be happy. A person deserves to be healty. A person deserves to be free from stress. There are a whole bunch of statements that society in general would probably agree with that do not become rights.

I'm not sure I agree with the use of the word "deserve" here to be totally honest, it implies a legalistic state of affirs that to me is entirely analogous with a right. I'd be more inclined to think in terms of these things being a desirable state of affairs that society should aim to promote, but we're starting to split hairs and it's not going to result in anything productive

I told you right after you had responded to my post, that I am not talking about Incels, and that I agree that most Incels probably don't even fall into the category of people that I was talking about. It's right here:

...you just ignored it and continued to go on about Incels for no reason at all.

You may not have been talking about incels, but that's the conversation the rest of us are having. By all means start another thread where the topic is more broadly about dating difficulties, but right here, right now, incels are explicitly the point.

But of course I did not know that you were talking about Incels, when I was very clearly not talking about giving Incels what they're asking for, but rather helping people who are actually in need of help fare better for themselves on the dating market.

It's somewhat funny how "What on earth made you draw that conclusion?" is followed by a paragraph of things that again I did not advocate for in any way.

Still, the incel deserves help that everybody else deserves.

I agree, but the nature of that help is in question. An incel is someone whose needs revolve around their own internalised social schemas, not broader issues in society. On the contrary if society needs to change it is further in the other direction, away from a position where the issue is seen as one of deprivation and towards one where the choices of others, specifically women, are seen as paramount.

I'm not suggesting here you've advocated for anything by the way, you seem to have an odd tendency to assume anything I posit is intended as a rebuttal of some suggestion of yours instead of being more accurately simply an observation about the issues in hand.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Chickens in the water will muddy it up. Eggs just sink to the bottom, unless they are rotten, then they float.

This does not identify which came first though.

 

[Lexicus]

On the contrary if society needs to change it is further in the other direction, away from a position where the issue is seen as one of deprivation and towards one where the choices of others, specifically women, are seen as paramount.

And /thread