it doesn't matter so much that it isn't literally true in the details.
— ChatteringMonkey

Of course it matters! It remains almost critical as interpretation of what non-existent gods what has plagued our species since it came out of the wilds. Theism, was a side effect of the primal fears early hominids experienced under the survival rules of the jungle, that was still fresh in the minds of early more settled and less nomadic tribal communities. It was from these mental schisms that the superiority of one human over another was manifest, alongside xenophobia, conquest and territoriality. This had it's most horrific consequences in such as the divine right of kings, messiahs and so called prophets and our entire species still suffers from this terror. For anyone to suggest that the 'truth' of preached religion does not matter, is irrational, provocative and irresponsible. — universeness

But it's not about truth, it's about values, which do not have a truth-value (as in something that can just be verified empirically). I know this is a whole other can of worms where there is much disagreement, so maybe we should park it here.

I don't doubt some of the things you alluded to were part of it, but I think there is more to it than that.

↪ChatteringMonkey
I know what secularism is. How about the tribes that lived by the seasons, and had pagan based celebrations? What are you calling a state? The early city states? Nomadic tribal communities?
Many early worship was based on nature and animism. Such societies could be quite secular in the sense that respecting the forest or even manifesting a forrest deity, did not necessarily affect how you shared the forrest provided food amongst your tribe. We don't have a great deal of knowledge oh how early civilisations separated their pagan beliefs from how the tribe/state functioned.
Epicurean Communes were not ran under religious dictates for example. — universeness

Ok, in written history, that is as far as we know, every state-organisation was fused with some kind of religion. So yes the early city-states in Sumer, sure.

This is speculation of course, but I would presume that most of these tribes also had some kind of mythos (a kind of mostly made up origin-story to pass on the wisdom of the tribe).

Language-use is speculated to have evolved because we are an eusocial species. That is to communicate, to share knowledge that we then can pass on over generations. Because we are social species, we are also specifically interested in all these rather mundane social happenings... and so a narrative form with characters is easier to remember and pass on over generation in an oral tradition. These eventually turned into stories about great men ancestors, semi-gods and gods etc etc.... But to return to point of the OP, you can see that if the function is to pass on wisdom in an easy to remember form, it doesn't matter so much that it isn't literally true in the details.

No secularism before Jesus Christ? Really? :rofl: Did every human on Earth that existed before Jesus Christ (who himself probably never existed, believe in gods? — universeness

No you probably had the odd atheist/sceptic, but there was no societal organisation that was outside of the religious/mythical, i.e. no secular state. Secularism is not the same as atheism.

One could go another way with the Nazism example. Namely that precisely the secularization in the west, made it possible for guys like Hitler and Stalin to usurp religious tendencies in people for their political ends, because there was a void to fill.

Isn't that was the great ideological battles in the 20th century were, a search for some kind of (secular) replacement after the dead of God?

The question to me isn't whether religion is bad or not, the question is whether the role religions or myths used to play in societies can adequately be replaced by something else, or indeed by nothing at all? And I'd say the jury is still out on that one... as a wider sociological phenomenon this plays out over centuries. We will have to see, but I'm doubtful because secularism is certainly a peculiar exception in world history.

As a side note, and maybe to piss of militant atheists some more, secularism specifically came out Christianity. It was in the times of Augustine, that a split was conceived between the worldy/temporal, i.e. the seaculum, and the eternal, the church. Only from then on a division in power between state and church was thinkable in the west. In all other non-christian societies the idea of a secular state made little sense, there was one way society was organised and religion was integral part of that... so really atheists should thank Christianity that it made secularism and atheism possible.

We should all want to know the facts, whether or not they agree with a particular religious tradition. — GRWelsh

Why is that?

↪ChatteringMonkey

I'll say to you what I said to Baden - This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture? — T Clark

Yeah from me its the same T Clark. It comes from a broad understanding of history and philosophy... but mainly through a Nietzschian lens I suppose, because he was one of my earlier influences. And that made me look for other, specific things in later readings.

I used to ask myself the same question as you are posing me here now, but about Nietzsche views, about this broad historical arc he seems to be painting. He does seem kinda loose and poetic at times, which makes one wonder, is this just fiction or is this based in reality? But he did have a very deep understanding of history, especially the Greeks through his philology studies.

This question in particular was basically what his entire philosophy was focused on in its different aspects and implications (the value of truth, scientific and the ascetics values, the dead of God etc). From the beginning, even before his first books, in his courses in Basel on the pre-platonics, this was the question he was concerned with, as he uncovers the progression of pre-platonic philosophy becoming more and more materialist :

https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Platonic-Philosophers-International-Nietzsche-Studies/dp/0252074033

And then as you track back his sources, you come across all kinds of material you otherwise wouldn't have. For instance the work of relatively unknown and forgotten philosopher who was a direct predecessor and influence on Nietzsche, Friedrich Albert Lange who wrote a whole book on the history of materialism. This was the question, between Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer, where the whole of German philosophy was apparently revolving around at the time.

But you know, there's a lot to be said on this.... and you can't really paint with a broad brush and go into all the details at the same time.

Yes, agreed.

We are cultural beings. In homo sapiens, evolution has offloaded part of the process that determines how we act from instinctual algorithms (fixed outside of gene-evolution) to knowledge that can be transmitted via language over generations (adaptable via meme-evolution). Because evolution has offloaded a part of our survival-strategy to culture, we are incomplete without it.

The point of a culture however is not only to know precisely what things are, but more importantly to know how we should act. In mytho-religious societies, however imperfect one may think that was, everything was fused into one overacting story... things made sense and actions had meaning in a larger whole.

Socrates thought he was smart to point out (over and over again) that no one could give a reason for why they believed such and such. No individual knows however, because it is a communal process that spans generations, and not a matter of dialectical reason only.

Dialectics are a dissolvent of tradition. In the west however we ran with that, and we (mis)took this purely critical, reductionist and predominately left-brained mode of thought as the only viable way to arrive at anything of value.

Fast forward a couple of millennia, and we more or less got there, we dissolved most of our traditions and also killed god in the process.... Hooray! The problem with this picture however is that we are cultural beings, incomplete without it, and so the void created by dialectics, has to be filled someway somehow. And what better to way to fill the void than with all things our hearts desires, provided in the most effective and efficient way possible, via the markets. Why determine what to value and where to go as a society, if we can just leave that to the invisible hand?

Perhaps it makes sense to see incels as people whose recognition that there is unfairness is valid, but who fail to see the unfairness as being the result of the nature and nurture that resulted in them being an incel, and mistakenly attribute the unfairness to women? — wonderer1

Yes, I would add to that, they probably originally started from the equally false notion that they themselves were entirely to blame for their failure... and then, to feel better about themselves, invented other stories that shifts the blame from themselves to women or society at large maybe. Blaming the physical world, or acknowledging it as a cause, doesn't quite seem to cut it in our psychology, or maybe that's just the way we are taught to think as a result of being raised in a moralizing culture.

Life isn't fair, but life being unfair doesn't equate to there being a victimizer. To "play into this" notion that incels are victims doesn't seem likely to get incels out of the victim mentality that is a big part of the problem they have. Acknowledging to an incel that life isn't fair and perhaps they did get the short stick in some regards I'd go along with. However, what seems likely to me to be most beneficial for the incel (and society at large) is for the incel to stop obsessing about being a victim, and start learning whatever they need to learn to improve their social competence. — wonderer1

Yeah I mostly agree with this, I do wonder (in light of you question about determinism) how relevant the distinction really is that we seem to be making between unfairness caused by non-human factors and unfairness caused by human actors.

As an aside, does anyone want to venture a guess as to what percentage of members of this forum believe in libertarian free will, determinism, and anything in between? — wonderer1

I think a small majority maybe theoretically is some kind of compatibilist determinist, but in practice, in their moral views, most are more on the side of libertarian free will it seems. I mean, I would also call it a useful or even necessary illusion probably, if I was pushed on it.

If what they want is some compassion and sympathy (for not getting what they really want), is the best strategy then denying them that too? Wouldn't that end up making them even more marginalized, frustrated and radicalized?

Why not play into this? Because we have set up this Manichean distinction, wherein they are purely victimizers, i.e. the enemy we should fight at all cost, VS the victims we should protect at all cost? Can't they be both victims and victimizers, as they appear to be?

Isn't this essentially the same mistake as the criminal system is making in focusing on retribution instead of rehabilitation?

Because that's probably the philosophically least interesting thing about it. They are evil, that's it, conversation done.

It think it's actually a pretty common phenomenon that recurs time and again in history. In Europe for instance, at the start of Islamic State(IS) and the terrorist attacks in European cities, there were a lot of young European Muslim men "radicalizing" and joining the ranks of IS. Looking at their profiles it were mostly young men, without a family of their own, without any direction in life etc etc... I think there's a story to be told that goes a bit further than simple moral condemnation of this particular incarnation of involuntary celibate men, and looks at how societies historically dealt with them.

guys we are not good at getting in relationships...
— ChatteringMonkey

They say... But did they want to? Were they trying? If they were unsuccessful, you assume it's because of factors they can't help and can't change - and that's generous of you. But is not necessarily the case.
Nice guys want to understand things in their own framework, on their terms. So do not-nice ones. So they misinterpret and misestimate one another's intentions. — Vera Mont

Maybe they are not all that socially inept and unattractive, maybe some choose to remain single...but ultimately I don't think even that matters a whole lot. The label Incel itself, regardless of who they are, isn't going to attract a large percentage of the population. And their morally abject ideas certainly aren't going to help... So I can't really see them becoming anything other than a fringe group.

We have climate denial bots now? This would be funny if the situation wasn't so dire.

Here's a question, would you say what ideologies are in power, what is culture and what is counterculture, can change over time? And what then would be the criterium by which we judge that? I'd say that criterium would be power.
— ChatteringMonkey

Sure, culture changes. I presume that matrilineal culture was dominant in prehistory, simply because we knew where babies come from - between the legs of a woman. Somewhere about 1-2 millennia BC. patriarchy came to dominate. But I don't know how you measure power in this context. The ruler needs an army; the chess player needs pawns, and the little people are what the culture is made of, more so than the powerful's ablity to control it.

To change the mix of metaphors; the powerful can only blow the dog- whistle that the dogs have already been trained to respond to. — unenlightened

I'm thinking it used to be pretty clear what the dominant culture was (or maybe this is just the benefit of hindsight), but now not so much these days... we are left with a lot of splintering and polarization. Looking back maybe this will turn out to be a transitional period.

Ok no worries.

Power is a vital aspect of the patriarchy. I don't think Incels have much power, on the contrary, they seem very much a marginal group.
— ChatteringMonkey

But appearances are deceptive. Compare with the case of the poor white racist:

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
— Dylan — unenlightened

Yeah I had been thinking about this specifically. It's an interesting question. It definitely was the case that racism was an ideology of the ruling class and patriarchy originally. But I don't think I would say a white supremacist is part of the ruling ideology or patriarchy these days, if outing oneself as one would probably get you fired in a matter of days in most places. Those who have power set the rules, that is what power means in practice, therefor I'd say if you have to hide who you are, you are not a part of the powers that be.

Here's a question, would you say what is culture and what is counterculture can change over time? And what then would be the criterium by which we judge that? I'd say that criterium would be power.

Power is a vital aspect of the patriarchy. I don't think Incels have much power, on the contrary, they seem very much a marginal group.

So I dunno, Incels and the patriarchy just seems like a weirdly forced association.

However, to a great many people receiving daily threats, and those who have already been attacked, it is very serious indeed. The fact that the 'movement' is spreading, growing, recruiting
Four clicks on an incognito browser is all it takes for YouTube to churn up a video about, as the host puts it, “embracing the idea of violence” in a society that “despises” what it means to be a manhttps://globalnews.ca/news/8508795/canada-social-media-algorithm-reform/
and increasingly violent in its rhetoric is very serious. — Vera Mont

I guess I would doubt the degree to which the Incel-movement has an additional effect on these issues. Violence and rape have been a part of our history since the beginning. I don't think we need organisations and/or ideologies to have this be an issue.

because they are almost by definition socially inept, unattractive etc. and we have some kind of biological preference for the attractive and the successful.
— ChatteringMonkey
You you keep saying. How do you know? What does "almost by definition" actually mean? Might there not motivations other than self-pity involved? — Vera Mont

Well an incel means involuntary single, so you have "almost by definition" guys we are not good at getting in relationships... that is probably because of a number of factors, but high on that list would be things like attractiveness and social skills I presume.

I think the motivation is to feel better about themselves predominately.

I would argue that Incels will never gain any amount of social power to sufficiently alter the culture so it would become damaging to women and our culture as a whole...
— ChatteringMonkey
I've heard that argued about some groups who have since done a good deal of damage. ISIS comes to mind... Society as whole might recover from them; the direct casualties will not. I consider poisoning a large segment of the next generation of men to the whole concept of healthy relationships as a damage. — Vera Mont

I suppose there is always a remote possibility, like how Christianity became a world religion against all odds and almost by accident. But still, on the list of things to worry about these days, I would put them very low on that list. There's so much and my time and energy is limited.

Okay, I"ll re-iterate why this shouldn't really be a concern other than for the incels themselves maybe.

Social power, the ability to influence large amount of people and maybe sway culture and values in certain directions, is what is relevant here.

I would argue that Incels will never gain any amount of social power to sufficiently alter the culture so it would become damaging to women and our culture as a whole... because they are almost by definition socially inept, unattractive etc. and we have some kind of biological preference for the attractive and the successful.

The idea that Incels might come to pose some kind of danger to society is purely hypothetical, it's not going to happen. People don't take them seriously, it's mostly a sad phenomenon of evolution in combination with our alienating culture.

Don't take it to seriously Vera Mont, It wasn't meant that way.

I actually asked the spokesman of the the Incel-movement these questions, and he told me that they want nothing less than world-domination.

In their analysis, sexual reproduction, and the evolutionary downstream-effects in terms of social status, are the cause of a lot of hardship in men.

Therefor they want to abolish sexual reproduction (and as a consequence also women) to tackle the problem at the root-cause, and in doing so prevent a lot of pain, not only for men living now, but also in all future men.

To achieve this goal, a-sexual reproduction via cloning of men, should become the only legally allowed way to create offspring.

Since this can only really work in a globalized world if it is implemented unilaterally across the globe, world-domination should be the first goal of the incel-movement.

Look Ciceronianus, coming here on a philosophy discussion board and telling someone he is just wrong in a demeaning way, without any argumentation or explanation as to why, is just bad form. I don't know what you expect from this, other than signaling "you must be stupid, I'm so smart".

What, other than a tendency toward self-destructive and self-loathing behavior, is keeping these guys from succeeding at least at minimal levels? Are they as inept in their occupational lives as they are in their after-hours lives?

Are they just surprised to discover Thoreau's insight--most men lead lives of quiet desperation--actually applies to them? Or is their problem that their desperation just isn't quiet enough? — BC

My take it that this whole community-forming around misogynist values is a way to cope with their desperation yes.

The idea that they themselves are responsible for their situation, and feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem that come with that, is probably to hard to bear for them. And so they invent stories and a community around those stories that can serve as rationalizations that shifts the blame somewhere else.

EDIT: Put in more Nietzschean psychological terms,
either 1) you try to overcome your situation and learn some social skills and start self-actualizing (not everybody had the mentality to do this)
or 2) you spiral further down a path of lowering self-esteem, depression and inaction (from the perspective of the individual this probably the worst)
or 3) instead of this continued inward directed laceration, you let your resentment become creative and active, and create new standards of valuation wherein your situation isn't considered that bad

This is why It seems kinda silly to me to consider incels dangerous. Sure they have a pretty toxic community going on, but then they don't seem to have any real social leverage like say the cancel culture who can put that public shame-machine into motion.

In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before).
— ChatteringMonkey

I'm hopeful you're being ironic, but fear you're not. But I don't want to derail this thread. I couldn't help but take note of these remarkable statements, however. — Ciceronianus

It is passive aggressive baloney... what's the point?

No, it came out of a questioning of old norms. Even Stuart Mill questioned why women didn't have equal rights and I don't think the suffragette movement came out of Christianity, most at the time wouldn't consider them acting in a "Christian manner" and they wouldn't have had to if the church or other religious institutions had pushed for such ideals. And you didn't understand what I wrote about traditions, I said that the secularization of power made traditions no longer follow state praxis and instead became traditions in of themselves. Over the course of over a hundred years, since the suffragettes succeeded in getting women voting rights, these traditions have been slowly dismantled over generations since it is easier to question traditions when they only exist as cultural behaviors. I don't think you can give credit to Christian values for this since Christian values have been precisely what's been working against this progression since secularization first began. — Christoffer

I do think it came out of Christian values. Even the notion of the 'secular' only really makes sense in a Christian context (and etymological came out of that context), which is why all of these emancipatory rights came out of the western tradition, and not universally everywhere. If you want to dig deeper into this, you might want to read some of Tom Hollands stuff on how Christianity shaped our world :

https://www.amazon.nl/Dominion-Christian-Revolution-Remade-World/dp/0465093507

https://www.gethistory.co.uk/historical-period/general-history/why-the-secular-cant-exist-without-christianity

With Holland, Nietzsche pointed out even earlier how weird the Christian inversion of values really was in a world historical context. The dominant values across the world generally were those of the ruling class. To put is a bit to simple perhaps, good was what was powerful/victorious, and bad was what was weak, the victims... For the Romans the cross was a symbol of humiliation and contempt, the lowest of the low, and specifically in Christianity it became the basis of the whole western value system. Without this inversion of values, none of the emancipatory movements we saw in the west make sense.

And in line with what I've written. The industrial revolution emerged out of secular ideas, since "industry" before that was deeply connected to the power structure of a nation. The modern type of capitalism that raised up from the ashes of monarchy and religious institutions exponentially sped up progression and was able to further finance intellectual institutions outside of elite corridors. What happened was that more people had the ability to question the status quo and it started to influence women to do so themselves which led to things like the suffragettes movement. — Christoffer

First, as I alluded to above the secular came out of Christianity. Christianity with its valuation of the Truth, and Protestantism with its turn to individualism, rather than being in opposition with, also helped pave the way for the scientific revolution. I don't see these things in opposition to eachother, but rather as a continuation.

Second, the industrial revolution had a lot of causes. Cultural climate no doubt was one of them, which was I think influenced by Chirstianity, but more important were other material conditions like the fact that Britain had a lot of readily available coal, had a lot of surplus workers because of the agricultural revolution, and also had a lot of excess wealth because of colonial trade.

I'm not saying these emancipatory activist forces played no role whatsoever, I'm just saying that one shouldn't overestimate their role either. If we are to believe the likes of Nietzsche and Holland, Christianity had in it own valuations the seeds for its own demise, structurally giving rise to revolutions that question the existing power structures on emancipatory grounds (reformation, enlightment, French revolution, socialism/communism, woke-ism? etc etc..).

Contemporary society is a thoroughly alienating experience for many people -- not everyone, but a good share. Social media, dating apps, etc. bring the chilly competitiveness of business to the more intimate business of finding friends and sexual partners. It's great for the winners, not so hot for the losers.

The images of men and women (in many contexts) that the businesses of social media and advertising project are often very distorted, and the projections are pervasive. From media that is designed to promote consumption (of goods, services, and other people) it's no wonder that some people feel like they are the left-overs from a clearance sale. — BC

The world is alienating for many people, I agree with this, but then it doesn't seems to be acceptable to point this out if we are talking about incels. Anyway, I pretty much said what I wanted to say about this, I don't want to be an apologist for their behaviours either.

And throughout generations of traditions that no longer function in relation to older power structures, people start to notice norms that seem to exist without any rational reason.

It's no coincidence that women in Western societies managed to reach equality in voting around the same time as religious states in the West became more and more secularized. — Christoffer

This is what triggered me, I don't think this is how it works. In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before).

Aside from that, the biggest contributing factor I think for emancipatory values accelerating in the west, was fossil fuels, the industrial revolution and the technology build on that, creating material conditions that made these new ideologies possible.

But this is, as I said a big topic, and doesn't exactly fit here in this thread.

Yes, egging one another on; reinforcing resentment and blaming others for one's own shortcomings, instead of encouraging positive change. Charisma is rare and accidental and unreliable; courtesy, interest, versatility, tolerance and humour are far better assets. And of course, acceptance of the fact that everybody isn't ever going to get first pick. — Vera Mont

Yes that would be a more positive reaction, some obviously don't have the mental strength to avoid the pitfalls... I guess what bothers me is that the total lack of attempt at understanding and empathy is deemed fine in this case, whereas generally it is literally the basis of our morality.

Thank you for the compliment!

Nobody's marginalized for feeling unloved. They are rejected for acting like jerks - and much or worse. It's just that women who are 'marginalized" in the same way - i.e. have no sexual outlet - don't go around "punishing" - attacking - people.
But there are plenty of women online who share the same frustrated feelings of involuntary celibacy as men. These women want to have romantic and sexual relationships, but for whatever reason, are unable to do so. They call themselves “femcels,” an abbreviation of “female incel.” — Vera Mont

It's not only because they are jerks that they are marginalized, they are generally considered low status because they are single, and perhaps don't have a lot of charisma, attractiveness and/or social skills to begin with. It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem... they don't become jerks in a vacuum, it's a bit of that good old resentment playing a role here.

EDIT: And the difference with femcel women is predominately testosterone I'd say.

Christoffer, I disagree with the whole way you look at these things, because I'm a materialist/physicalist, and believe ideas usually follow the physical and biological reality more that the other way around. Obviously it isn't that simple or unidirectional, but I think ideology are more post-hoc rationalization than that they are causes. So I don't think we will get past that here.

they have no power at all
— ChatteringMonkey

People with guns have power. — RogueAI

Not a whole lot because the military and the police have more and bigger guns. Social power is were it is at.

Recent revolutions in population genetics suggest that a relative minority of men have had reproductive privilege historically, so i don't think looking to prehistory brings us closer to a solution, on the contrary i'd say.

No Tzeentch, society has decided that women are the victims, so it's okay to marginalize incel men... they are evil because they are man, and so technically part of the patriarchy (eventhough they have no power at all and are considered the lowest of the low).

And so as members of these societies condemning violence, even if marginalized in the case of incels, it is still a big obstacle to act on these beliefs
— ChatteringMonkey

That's true ChatteringMonkey I think the culture is pretty much standard anti-violence in most places and I reckon now is the least violent we have been as a populus compared with hundreds or thousands of years ago. But I also think this is why very brief, sporadic and horrific events are occurring randomly. Like school-shootings. Mass shootings in the locations where the pent up rage/hatred spills over the social anti-violence precedent that usually is sufficient to counter it. — Benj96

This is a bigger problem in the US than say in Europe, and is more because of US gun laws and the place of violence in that society. I think one needs to look more at that relationship with violence, than at the specific problem of incels.

Yes that's what I suggested in my first post:

I'm not sure what to do about it, other than generally providing for more community-alternatives that can provide support and maybe some meaning. These seem to have eroded for everybody, not only incels, and leaves a lot of people that get sidetracked without any direction or guidance. — ChatteringMonkey

But ultimately the problem is not totally solvable by acceptable means I think, there will always be those who will miss out because they are less attractive/charismatic/rich than others. A healthy society doesn't solve the frustrated desires of those. Historically this has always been a problem.

And I don't think we really want the unacceptable means of dealing with the problem, like say castration, putting down, genetic alteration etc etc.

Why don't we just put them down, like the males of breeding animals we have no use for? Wouldn't that be a major step towards progressive utopia!

Maybe Benj, only the future can tell.

Beliefs are interlinked with the body, and do influence our actions, yes. But as a society we generally condemn physical violence rather strongly now (relative to past societies). And so as members of these societies condemning violence, even if marginalized in the case of incels, it is still a big obstacle to act on these beliefs.

Incels are a dying breed of men who are just holding on to traditions that the rest of us have already moved away from. — Christoffer

God, you really have drunk that progressive kool-aid.

It's not just a matter of a bunch of guys holding onto an outdated ideologies, I think you underestimate 1) how biology played a role into forming these traditional ideologies in the first place, and 2) how their frustrated biological drives now plays into forming post-hoc misogynists rationalization. I bet a lot of incels coudn't care less about traditional norms and values... they're mostly frustrated, and invent stories to make it more bearable for themselves.