You seem to be missing the fact that "incel" isn't predominantly a slur we use for others. People self-described as "incels" first. In a convoluted way, to the incels, being as they are is a badge of honor.

So the central premise of the essay seems misguided, and it's definition of what an "incel" is seems to bear little resemblance to how members of incel communities describe themselves and their views. — Echarmion

How we describe the incel is one thing and how the incel describes himself is another thing. I don't think that my essay really requires me to address the details of the way incels describe themselves since it is really about how we describe incels.

I've written an essay last year about whether we honestly judge others as incels or whether we actually apply a different set of criteria to them. In brief, I argue that "incel" is just used as a synonym for "young single white male loser". Not sure if its appropriate but here's the link to my essay. It's rather long and at times tangential to the discussion in this post, but whatever:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ycPZPrhkYZgxYj5EpGQ4VSTnxF7y_ivYJ2npjVapCmw/edit?usp=sharing

How can the "easy" problem explain anything without partially explaining the "hard" problem? Even separating these two problems suggests that the aspect of consciousness which is "hard" to explain has no function for the workings of the brain or human behavior generally. The very notion separating these two isn't just a resort to dualism but a resort to the kind of dualism in which the "mental" element is ultimately irrelevant.