Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Ryika]

No, he recognised a clear and visible pattern which raised suspicions for several people, me included. I just don't know you well enough to form any conclusions based on previous patterns, so I assumed ignorance rather than malice. There isn't a third option sadly.

Well, there IS a third option, which stems from your complete inability to recognize that it's perfectly normal to make posts that are ever so slightly off topic every now and then, while it is not normal to insist that a person made their comments under a certain topic, and then insist that they are totally talking about something different that they're talking about, even after they've told you exactly what they were actually talking about.

I can't actually attach a name to that option because the mods would probably (incorrectly) identify it as an insult towards you, but suffice to say... there are more options than the two you named, and to notice these options, you have to actually look at yourself and introspect, instead of looking at me.

In either case the "trap" failed and you still haven't addressed the point attraction doesn't work according to a linear scale, which is an inherent flaw in incel thinking.

Just that, if I had set a trap, that trap would have worked beautifully, because that trap would have wasted a ton of your time. The "trap" that Tim is talking about, would have been to lure you into a meaningless discussion.

Anyway, I don't see anything productive coming from this discussion with you, so I will not continue it any further.

 

[spot261]

Well, there IS a third option, which stems from your complete inability to recognize that it's perfectly normal to make posts that are ever so slightly off topic every now and then, while it is not normal to insist that a person made their comments under a certain topic, and then insist that they are totally talking about something different that they're talking about, even after they've told you exactly what they were actually talking about.

Nope there are two options, you knew what you were doing or you didn't, one is malicious, the other ignorant. It was publicly visible and the only difference betweem those commenting on it was which of those two possible options to choose from. I was nice, I went for ignorant, might be wrong.

Just that, if I had set a trap, that trap would have worked beautifully, because that trap would have wasted a ton of your time. The "trap" that Tim is talking about, would have been to lure you into a meaningless discussion.

Anyway, I don't see anything productive coming from this discussion with you, so I will not continue it any further.

If your purpose was to waste a ton of my time, that's a shame, but you wasted your own too and still haven't answered the actual point I raised. Nor will you, because you are slowly realising how utterly your argument has been shown up in public and it took other people pointing it out to you to make that sink in.

Again, out of curiosity, how old are you and what gender?

Regardless of your picture I'm edging for young male, but I'll grant the "young" bit is open to correction

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope there are two options, you knew what you were doing or you didn't, one is malicious, the other ignorant.

The third option is "I am wrong about what they were doing, so the question as to whether or not they knew what I incorrectly think they were doing is meaningless". You should consider this option.

I find it bizarre that you were more than happy to agree earlier on that the two threads should never have been split as everything discussed in both of them is related and on-topic, yet now you're insisting that talking about people who actually exhibit characteristics that so-called "incels" only purport to exhibit (in what would have been a one post aside had you not argued it endlessly) is off topic in a thread about incels. What thread would it be on topic in? And would we be allowed to talk about incels in that thread as a comparison, or would that be wrong too? Must everything be discussed completely divorced from any context whatsoever?

And what I find really bizarre is you liking my earlier post mocking the idea of starting a third thread, whilst apparently still actually thinking that should be done. Must have been an "ironic" like I suppose

 

[Birdjaguar]

Must have been an "ironic" like I suppose

Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

 

[Perfection]

I thought they were incels because they weren't getting attention.

 

[Farm Boy]

OOoooooh. Snap! The ol' I need to throw shade on your IRL self rather than your forum argument. Complete with the "you sound young and dumb, but I bet you're old because that means you're especially dumb for your age." It's like all the joys of chatting with Blizzard players in low ranked games. Haven't seen that one here in a while.

 

[bernie14]

OOoooooh. Snap! The ol' I need to throw shade on your IRL self rather than your forum argument. Complete with the "you sound young and dumb, but I bet you're old because that means you're especially dumb for your age." It's like all the joys of chatting with Blizzard players in low ranked games. Haven't seen that one here in a while.

I dont understand half the stuff you say, but i think i got this one

 

[red_elk]

I dont understand half the stuff you say

Thought this happens to me only. Either due to language barrier or may be because I'm too dumb for my age

 

[spot261]

The third option is "I am wrong about what they were doing, so the question as to whether or not they knew what I incorrectly think they were doing is meaningless". You should consider this option.

No, because the derail was happening, the only question was to whether it was intentional or not.

I find it bizarre that you were more than happy to agree earlier on that the two threads should never have been split as everything discussed in both of them is related and on-topic, yet now you're insisting that talking about people who actually exhibit characteristics that so-called "incels" only purport to exhibit (in what would have been a one post aside had you not argued it endlessly) is off topic in a thread about incels. What thread would it be on topic in? And would we be allowed to talk about incels in that thread as a comparison, or would that be wrong too? Must everything be discussed completely divorced from any context whatsoever?

And what I find really bizarre is you liking my earlier post mocking the idea of starting a third thread, whilst apparently still actually thinking that should be done. Must have been an "ironic" like I suppose

Oh you're right, I agree completely, but it can't work both ways. Either we are staying content specific or we are looking at a broader picture, not picking and choosing on the basis of strategic debating.

In either case that's not what our friend was doing, he was simply having a different conversation to everyone else and very possibly doing so tactically because the distinction between the two scenarios played into his hands obfuscating the issue. That's not providing context, that's muddying the waters and he apparently hadn't realised others could see what was happening.

 

[brennan]

No, because the derail was happening, the only question was to whether it was intentional or not.

It wasn't intentional, but it was clearly your mistake not Ryika's.

 

[spot261]

It wasn't intentional, but it was clearly your mistake not Ryika's.

So has he responded to the original point?

Clue: he hasn't

 

[brennan]

I'll take that as an admission of culpability.

Hmmm, assumption of gender...

 

[AmazonQueen]

What was this thread about again?
After several pages of 2 people arguing about what they were arguing about and who won the argument I've forgotten.

 

[spot261]

I'll take that as an admission of culpability.

Hmmm, assumption of gender...

Culpability for what? The subject was derailed, it was deliberate, we all know that, we all watched it happen. That I allowed it to happen means nothing given when we eventually got back on track he had nothing to respond to the actual point.

Nothing, dead in the water, never had anything to start with.

I'm assuming nothing, I've asked repeatedly and got no response, but the posting style is distinctly masculine as are the arguments and underlying mindset, not to mention the horrendous incel apologising (which is exactly what was happening) whilst suggesting being female in order to lend the whole carefully crafted show credibility (which I'm clearly not the only person to suspect).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No, because the derail was happening, the only question was to whether it was intentional or not.

Only if you consider making a side point about people who actually are involuntarily celibate, but either don't adopt the identity of "incel" or don't match the typical profile of an actual self-identified incel, to be a derailment of a thread about incels. I can't fathom why you would think it would be.

In either case that's not what our friend was doing, he was simply having a different conversation to everyone else and very possibly doing so tactically because the distinction between the two scenarios played into his hands obfuscating the issue. That's not providing context, that's muddying the waters and he apparently hadn't realised others could see what was happening.

I don't think she was doing that at all. She's already re-quoted the entirety of what she said, and the post she was replying to. I think you have to be particularly paranoid or cynical to read that and see it as an attempt to derail anything, or set a trap, or whatever. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a moustache-twirling, hand-rubbing Machiavellian comic book villain.

 

[spot261]

Only if you consider making a side point about people who actually are involuntarily celibate, but either don't adopt the identity of "incel" or don't match the typical profile of an actual self-identified incel, to be a derailment of a thread about incels. I can't fathom why you would think it would be.

Because being unable to have sex and being an incel are two separate concepts, it's not a "typical profile" it's what the movement is about, hating women.

I don't think she was doing that at all. She's already re-quoted the entirety of what she said, and the post she was replying to. I think you have to be particularly paranoid or cynical to read that and see it as an attempt to derail anything, or set a trap, or whatever. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a moustache-twirling, hand-rubbing Machiavellian comic book villain.

But being an obvious and blatant apologist for people like this most definitely is a red flag, especially from someone claiming a feminist perspective. Colour me suspicious as hell.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm assuming nothing, I've asked repeatedly and got no response, but the posting style is distinctly masculine as are the arguments and underlying mindset, not to mention the horrendous incel apologising (which is exactly what was happening) whilst suggesting being female in order to lend the whole carefully crafted show credibility (which I'm clearly not the only person to suspect).

Yeah, before you go wild acting on assumptions maybe hang around a while and find stuff out. This isn't one of those sites where people adopt a persona for a particular argument, then come back later with a different persona for a different argument. Ryika is well known here, and well if not necessarily widely liked.

There was almost certainly a deliberate effort to make you spend five pages repeating a flawed statement that you had made. That happens around here, so it's wise to check before you dig in your heels whether what you said is really what you meant, as well as whether it can easily be presented in a different way. You got derailed because you apparently couldn't just say "oh, that's not what I meant, let me clarify and move on."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But being an obvious and blatant apologist for people like this most definitely is a red flag, especially from someone claiming a feminist perspective. Colour me suspicious as hell.

Now, this is a pretty wild accusation. I haven't seen anyone, least of all Ryika, being an obvious and blatant apologist for "people like this."

I do find that interesting though, because I am hard pressed to believe it isn't a parody. Join date equals post date on the one and only post? That's a troll. Openly asking "should I commit a violent crime?" That's a draw law enforcement troll.

It looks pretty similar to what @MaryKB described as having been shown to her, and I'm wondering if it was posted with the specific intention that it could be circulated under "OMG just look at what these horrible incels are up to."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because being unable to have sex and being an incel are two separate concepts, it's not a "typical profile" it's what the movement is about, hating women.



But being an obvious and blatant apologist for people like this most definitely is a red flag, especially from someone claiming a feminist perspective. Colour me suspicious as hell.

Their actions in practice are consistent with hating women, but in many cases they don't believe they do. The cognitive dissonance required for their rationale is a significant part of their problem so the distinction is useful.

 

[MaryKB]

It looks pretty similar to what @MaryKB described as having been shown to her, and I'm wondering if it was posted with the specific intention that it could be circulated under "OMG just look at what these horrible incels are up to."

You're right, that's what was shown to me, and I hadn't even though about trolling (please forgive me, my experience with these things is very limited, I never even would've thought someone would do something like that). I think you make a lot of sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if people are trolling an incel community, but it's still sick, and I believe those responses to him are probably very likely real, you know what I mean? I think it's still telling how those people wouldn't be suspicious of someone posting something like that and still says a lot about them.

Do we really have to have all these personal attacks and such? I feel like instead of talking about real issues, I'm seeing so many posts arguing about what was said, who meant what, what someone's motives are, and such and such, and I can't even really make sense of it all and it seems to me like everything is really off point of focus.