What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Incels: more than just online whiners

It is the kind of thing people with taste and with interest for public security avoid talking about openly.
In principle? Thanks for advice, for it's not quite so in our parts. As to the juicy, potentially useful details that could be used to do harm, i haven't provided any.
 
The "enforced monogamy" thing is actually to do with social trends. It's basically an outcropping of greater male variance theory, which postulates that the reason human history has been overwhelmingly patriarchal is because there's far more male geniuses to take charge, and we just don't really notice the similarly numerous droves of idiots. His relevant statement is "half the men fail. And nobody cares about the men who fail". Essentially, incels didn't used to be a problem for society because there wasn't enough interconnectivity in the world to render below-average "undatable" men an issue, because there simply weren't enough men to chase. That top 20% of men getting 80% of the women's interest wasn't an issue because women generally wouldn't know about enough of them to drive the dating pool down so far. But thanks to recent social trends, the dating pool is overwhelmingly enlarged, allowing for that top 20% to have access to the real majority of women, and the sheer size of the dating pool makes it so that the bottom 40% or so are doomed to involuntary celibacy.

What the enforced monogamy is is widespread slutshaming and socially pressuring people to marry young, so that the degree of below-average needed to reach the cutoff point of being "undatable" gets far enough that it doesn't have a chance of causing widespread issues. Japan's got the "marry young" part down extremely strongly, with a woman past 25 (generally referred to as a "Christmas Cake") being virtually impossible to marry.

Most of this is me expanding on the logic entirely out of my ass, by the way. Basically trying to justify the view, because I haven't read/watched his actual defense of the issue. Which is here, by the way, but I'm not redoing the post for that because I like trying to explain things with my own reasoning. What I will bring up from there is that "enforced monogamy" is actually a decades-old academic term for socially enforced monogamous behavior, as opposed to government-enforced like we retain, or evolutionarily enforced like we lack. He actually has academic papers cited, though they appear to be paywalled. It's almost like people are forgetting he's actually a professor of psychology, specializing in abnormal and social psychology. You know, an actual certified expert on the topics he tends to talk about? Social ills and psychologically-distinguished minorities?

He has a website. And a YouTube channel. It's not exactly difficult to find his actual words on subjects from him.
 
The "enforced monogamy" thing is actually to do with social trends. It's basically an outcropping of greater male variance theory, which postulates that the reason human history has been overwhelmingly patriarchal is because there's far more male geniuses to take charge, and we just don't really notice the similarly numerous droves of idiots. His relevant statement is "half the men fail. And nobody cares about the men who fail". Essentially, incels didn't used to be a problem for society because there wasn't enough interconnectivity in the world to render below-average "undatable" men an issue, because there simply weren't enough men to chase. That top 20% of men getting 80% of the women's interest wasn't an issue because women generally wouldn't know about enough of them to drive the dating pool down so far. But thanks to recent social trends, the dating pool is overwhelmingly enlarged, allowing for that top 20% to have access to the real majority of women, and the sheer size of the dating pool makes it so that the bottom 40% or so are doomed to involuntary celibacy.

What the enforced monogamy is is widespread slutshaming and socially pressuring people to marry young, so that the degree of below-average needed to reach the cutoff point of being "undatable" gets far enough that it doesn't have a chance of causing widespread issues. Japan's got the "marry young" part down extremely strongly, with a woman past 25 (generally referred to as a "Christmas Cake") being virtually impossible to marry.

Most of this is me expanding on the logic entirely out of my ass, by the way. Basically trying to justify the view, because I haven't read/watched his actual defense of the issue. Which is here, by the way, but I'm not redoing the post for that because I like trying to explain things with my own reasoning. What I will bring up from there is that "enforced monogamy" is actually a decades-old academic term for socially enforced monogamous behavior, as opposed to government-enforced like we retain, or evolutionarily enforced like we lack. He actually has academic papers cited, though they appear to be paywalled. It's almost like people are forgetting he's actually a professor of psychology, specializing in abnormal and social psychology. You know, an actual certified expert on the topics he tends to talk about? Social ills and psychologically-distinguished minorities?

He has a website. And a YouTube channel. It's not exactly difficult to find his actual words on subjects from him.
But enforced monogamy is already a thing, or did you not notice the past several decades of the economic benefits married people enjoy over single people?
 
But enforced monogamy is already a thing, or did you not notice the past several decades of the economic benefits married people enjoy over single people?
Again, it's the social pressures, which have very nearly every indication of degrading, not the government enforcement. Single parent households are up, average marriage time is down, there's less people getting married in the first place and so on. And those measures do nothing about social polygamy, more frequently known as "open relationships" in this context, which pretty much invalidate the point being made regarding removing people from the dating pool by pairing them off to deal with the issues of a huge chunk of men being too low for most women to be willing to date without these social pressures driving them to pair off early. At least half of men are practically undatable due to exposure to the half of men better than them, when you have an unlimited dating pool.

It's like you ignored the entire third paragraph or something.
 
It's like you ignored the entire third paragraph or something.
The third paragraph renders your entire post pointless. In it you literally admit there is no merit to what you are saying. Your words: "Most of this is me expanding on the logic entirely out of my ass, by the way."

It also seems to me you ignored the part where the man in the video explains how less than 3% of all mammal species on the planet are monogamous. Its kind of hard to argue against solid biology and science in favor of nonexistent "involuntary celibacy".
 
The third paragraph renders your entire post pointless. In it you literally admit there is no merit to what you are saying. Your words: "Most of this is me expanding on the logic entirely out of my ass, by the way."

It renders the previous two paragraphs largely pointless, but links to Jordan Peterson's response to it, and brings up the bit from there that enforced monogamy is a decades-old academic term. According to an academic in that field. Which is to say Jordan Peterson.

This is blatantly twisting my words to justify ignoring opposition, since it should be quite clear that what was intended was "previously mentioned things are my opinion, not a recounting of Jordan Peterson's. Here's what Jordan Peterson has to say on it, and a bit from what he actually said in his defense", if only because I pointed you to it as refutation. Sure, my wording is quite miserable due to limited idiom vocabulary, but this degree of ignoring what I've typed is wildly beyond the pale of discourse.

Go ahead. Read the article. Unless you want to play the game of demanding me to hold to a higher standard than you, in which case I can go quite far, given the time. I'll start with his own summary:

So, let's summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That's all.

It also seems to me you ignored the part where the man in the video explains how less than 3% of all mammal species on the planet are monogamous. Its kind of hard to argue against solid biology and science in favor of nonexistent "involuntary celibacy".
As I specifically mentioned in the third paragraph:
What I will bring up from there is that "enforced monogamy" is actually a decades-old academic term for socially enforced monogamous behavior, as opposed to government-enforced like we retain, or evolutionarily enforced like we lack.
 
How are incels right wing?

Involuntary celibacy doesn't exist. Idiots like Jordan Peterson and his incel horde trying to suggest enforced monogamy as a solution to anything
A fundamental pillar of JP's life advice is that you need to purse a gf and if you can't get one then it's on you and you need to change. That's fundamentally incompatible with incel lore where they're perpetual victims/so genetically inferior they simply can't compete with the chads for pussy.


It also seems to me you ignored the part where the man in the video explains how less than 3% of all mammal species on the planet are monogamous.
This is a blatant appeal to nature Indy, less then 0.001% mammals build skyscrapers I guess we shouldn't do that either.
 
A fundamental pillar of JP's life advice is that you need to purse a gf and if you can't get one then it's on you and you need to change. That's fundamentally incompatible with incel lore where they're perpetual victims/so genetically inferior they simply can't compete with the chads for pussy.
Yet JP involved himself when he foolishly proscribes 'enforced monogamy' as a solution to nonexistent "Inceldom," which are merely useful idiots in a surprisingly coordinated network of Anti-Science Alt-Right. The Alt Right gives them hope that others as despicable as they are are given voice for their views, and are incouraged and emboldened by it.
This is a blatant appeal to nature Indy, less then 0.001% mammals build skyscrapers I guess we shouldn't do that either.
Apples to cheeseburgers. We're not talking generally about things humans do that animals do not. We would be talking circles endlessly about that rather than what Incels represent (see above).
 
Last edited:
How are incels right wing?
First of all, the answer is not this v
People assume they're right wing because only the right wing can do such heinous things or believe in such heinous things, why all right wingers are obviously villains! And therefore all villains are right wing.
...but while things like misogyny and opposition to women's rights, or the racist rants against women, or the pushing of ideals like virginity for women or else they are just dirty whores, are all things that can occur on the left, they are a hallmark of the far-right. Also, while incels themselves may come from across a spectrum, the many acts of violence are perpetrated by those who also hold other far-right beliefs. The "poor oppressed white man" belief has been very common on these forums of self-proclaimed incels, so it is more than a little disingenuous to try and ignore the vocal majority of their community and bothsame by finding a few with other leanings.
 
We all have our stories of dealing with The Man. Well... some of us.

One time, while at work, I had to show a bunch of State Patrol members and a SWAT bomb squad guy around our job site (I'm a public-sector worker, technically speaking) for a security/familiarization drill. Oh man, I had fun with that one. It was raining cats and dogs, and they were all wearing neatly dry-cleaned and pressed uniforms. So, naturally, I led them through the pouring rain to inspect a bunch of utterly inconsequential shit. I showed them some HVAC air handlers and said "Y'know, if a terrorist gained access to this space, it could be bad, because they could open one of these up and toss some anthrax or something in there." I also showed them how easily our security, in the form of RFID door badges and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of card readers and monitoring equipment, could be instantly bypassed by opening a hatch with a one-dollar socket from Harbor Freight. At the end, the patrolmen were ecstatic, going on about how they were going to tell their wives and kids about their little adventure, but the SWAT team guy, who had a higher IQ than the rest of them combined, was giving me the side-eye.

I told my ex-convict buddy about how I led half a dozen cops on a wild goose chase through inclement weather, and he was in peals of laughter. :ROFLMAO:
 
One time, while at work, I had to show a bunch of State Patrol members and a SWAT bomb squad guy around our job site (I'm a public-sector worker, technically speaking) for a security/familiarization drill. Oh man, I had fun with that one. It was raining cats and dogs, and they were all wearing neatly dry-cleaned and pressed uniforms. So, naturally, I led them through the pouring rain to inspect a bunch of utterly inconsequential shit. I showed them some HVAC air handlers and said "Y'know, if a terrorist gained access to this space, it could be bad, because they could open one of these up and toss some anthrax or something in there." I also showed them how easily our security, in the form of RFID door badges and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of card readers and monitoring equipment, could be instantly bypassed by opening a hatch with a one-dollar socket from Harbor Freight. At the end, the patrolmen were ecstatic, going on about how they were going to tell their wives and kids about their little adventure, but the SWAT team guy, who had a higher IQ than the rest of them combined, was giving me the side-eye.

I told my ex-convict buddy about how I led half a dozen cops on a wild goose chase through inclement weather, and he was in peals of laughter. :ROFLMAO:
And if there has not been an interrogation involved, there has almost certainly been many of us who got a very stern looks and a "shut up!" when pointing out the obvious as to how supposed airport security is just easy to bypass theater, and that there are a multitude of ways how to improvise a weapon from items already on board a plane if you don't want to go through that trouble.

Because the obvious should never be spoken, you might be one of them terrorists if you have more than a dozen brain cells.
 
One time, while at work, I had to show a bunch of State Patrol members and a SWAT bomb squad guy around our job site (I'm a public-sector worker, technically speaking) for a security/familiarization drill. Oh man, I had fun with that one. It was raining cats and dogs, and they were all wearing neatly dry-cleaned and pressed uniforms. So, naturally, I led them through the pouring rain to inspect a bunch of utterly inconsequential shit. I showed them some HVAC air handlers and said "Y'know, if a terrorist gained access to this space, it could be bad, because they could open one of these up and toss some anthrax or something in there." I also showed them how easily our security, in the form of RFID door badges and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of card readers and monitoring equipment, could be instantly bypassed by opening a hatch with a one-dollar socket from Harbor Freight. At the end, the patrolmen were ecstatic, going on about how they were going to tell their wives and kids about their little adventure, but the SWAT team guy, who had a higher IQ than the rest of them combined, was giving me the side-eye.

I told my ex-convict buddy about how I led half a dozen cops on a wild goose chase through inclement weather, and he was in peals of laughter. :ROFLMAO:
Really? Why not be professinal and do something constructive instead on this nonsense?
 
Really? Why not be professinal and do something constructive instead on this nonsense?

I'm an anarchist. I'm fundamentally opposed to the US police state that incarcerates millions of Americans for profit. If I can prank a bunch of cops and get away with it, I will.

If by "professional", you mean "obedient cog in the system", then I refuse.

Besides, I did my job. I showed them what I needed to show them on that tour, plus a little extra. So what? What's it to you that I got their fancy uniforms drizzling wet?

There was nothing untruthful in what I said, anyhow. If a terrorist did gain access to an HVAC unit and tossed in some chemical or biological agent, that would be a disaster, and yes, you can bypass our security theater with tools literally worth pennies. I figured informing them of that fact might open their eyes a bit.
 
I'm an anarchist. I'm fundamentally opposed to the US police state that incarcerates millions of Americans for profit. If I can prank a bunch of cops and get away with it, I will.

If by "professional", you mean "obedient cog in the system", then I refuse.

Besides, I did my job. I showed them what I needed to show them on that tour, plus a little extra. So what? What's it to you that I got their fancy uniforms drizzling wet?

There was nothing untruthful in what I said, anyhow. If a terrorist did gain access to an HVAC unit and tossed in some chemical or biological agent, that would be a disaster, and yes, you can bypass our security theater with tools literally worth pennies. I figured informing them of that fact might open their eyes a bit.
Ah yes. Locking up criminals who broke the law and voilated the rights of others is soooo wrong. And lol, cops put there lives on the line every time they put on that uniform, so they deserve some respect. Also if you are such a anarachist and hate our society so much, why do you even have a a job? Shouldnt you by living in the wilderness somewhere, free of the evil american police state?
 
Ah yes. Locking up criminals who broke the law and voilated the rights of others is soooo wrong. And lol, cops put there lives on the line every time they put on that uniform, so they deserve some respect.







VvMAJ7z.gif


http://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/

Many may assume that this decrease in crime was caused by the increase in incarceration. But research shows incarceration had a limited impact on the massive drop in crime.

"When the incarceration rate is high, the marginal crime reduction gains from further increases tend to be lower, because the offender on the margin between incarceration and an alternative sanction tends to be less serious," according to the Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project. "In other words, the crime fighting benefits of incarceration diminish with the scale of the prison population." A 2015 Brennan Center study came to the same conclusion.

Although there is some relationship between increased incarceration and lower crime, at a certain point, locking up additional people is not an effective crime control method, especially when imprisoning one person costs $31,000 a year.

Do you even comprehend how all this works? How, exactly, do impoverished black people "violate the rights of others" when they make the personal choice to smoke weed or do crack? They round these people up and warehouse them like cattle for money. That's all it is. All the contractors involved in the private prison system, all the general contractors who do the construction of the prisons, all the companies that provide the furniture, the handcuffs, the batons, the private security guards... they're all in bed with the politicians who establish things like mandatory minimum sentences and funnel people into those miserable hell-pits in exchange for bribes.

That's your tax dollars going straight into the hands of a bunch of bullshit corporations whose executives probably snort blow in the Bahamas every year anyway, making them the world's biggest hypocrites. That's your tax dollars that could be used to beautify our parks, improve our pothole-filled streets, replace our rusting and worn-down bridges, and provide people who can't afford it with vital medical care.

If you consider yourself a patriot, you would care about how America looks to the rest of the world, and how does a country look when it has squandered its money incarcerating a number of people equal to the population of Botswana, while millions of its citizens have to live with crumbling infrastructure and spotty public services?

Also if you are such a anarachist and hate our society so much, why do you even have a a job? Shouldnt you by living in the wilderness somewhere, free of the evil american police state?

You confuse anarchist with primitivist. Anarchy, real anarchy, requires more organization and more technology, not less.
 
It's probably a bad choice for me to wade into this shitstorm but then it's bad choices that got me to hang around here these days in the first place...

So while the so called incel rebellion must be crushed with extreme prejudice it's not gonna solve some of the much wider issues of society...

(given that the incel rebellion is mostly a North American issue, most of the underlying issues discussed here will also be very regional in context)
-the middle class (as defined by economic variables) has been dead for a while, the shambling corpse is only shuffling along due to life support from credit card debt
-the middle class (as defined by social expectations/appearances/lifestyle) are increasingly out of reach to the majority of the young population, while pressure to reach/maintain that lifestyle are still very much there.
-follow on to the previous point, the prerequisites & costs to reach the "ideal" (read: bare minimum) relationship has increase (for wider society, this is a good thing. No long does female have to settle for raging homeless abusive alcoholics because of societal pressures, at least in most civilized places, so I guess stay away from the USA Deep South?). This means some would lose out (perhaps good riddance to bad trash, but no surprise that they would lash out).

Of course the incels are going the wrong way, laboring under the delusion that they are waging a crusade against feminism or some such stupidity. In reality they're just another forgettable and self-defeating faction in the modern patriarchy civil war, one that they are unlikely to win, to put it mildly.
 
Back
Top Bottom