An old joke - Shut up he explained. — T Clark

I don't think this is a joke at all. Feeling disempowered doesn't imply anything. It is a common and understandable reaction to an unsatisfying life.

"Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?"

I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF.

A weird reverso of Incelitry is B&D, where some mean actually require the abuse of a woman [or in gay S&M, another man] in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. BD/SM is not, in its more extreme manifestation, symbolic -- it involves actual bondage, whipping, beating, and so on. The numbers of people involved in this behavior are fairly large, given what is involved.

I hereby swear on a stack of Kinsey Reports that this information is entirely second hand.

I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF. — BC

I saw this video by Jordan Peterson, who I'm not terribly a fan of, but his videos have become ubiquitous and I stumbled upon it the other day. It got me to thinking that perhaps these guys we've scoffed off as losers might be suffering more than we considered. I'm not talking about those who are attacking women and are horrible people, but I'm referring to those who have personality flaws that interfere with their happiness to such a degree.

I just think what I take for granted, the ability to form and keep relationships, and the central role that plays in my life, to have an inability to do that. And even worse, to have an instinct to react in a way that makes the formation of those relationships all the more unlikely.

The way doublespeak works is that the preaching is "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." but the practice is that it doesn't matter if you cheat as long as you win. This is mainstream culture, and as old as politics and patriarchy. — unenlightened

:up:

There's more to be said but seems like diminishing returns when some here insist on wearing their doctor's masks over their eyes.

Loneliness is an under-rated condition that affects a lot of people. I suspect that many instances of diagnosed depression are actually loneliness, alienation, anger, grief, being left out or left behind, being poor, debt-ridden (uncomfortably saddled by one's debts), unhappily employed, etc., particularly in comparison to one's peers.

One's peers may not be living lives of unparalleled satisfaction and happiness, but maybe they are successful enough to maintain a convincing veneer of comfort and joy.

Life sucks for everyone to some degree and in some ways; for some people it sucks a lot more. We can and should be compassionate towards them. That's one thing.

Social media operate through extremely active algorithms which seek clicks and amplify whatever click-pattern gets more clicks. Thus, one ends up getting a lot more offers to look at progressive sites, conservative sites, anarchist sites, dogs-and-cats-being-funny sites, renaissance music sites OR, if one clicks in this manner, crypto-fascist sites, incel sites, nazi sites, ISIS sites, Christian nationalist sites, white supremacy sites, and so on. That's another thing.

Why do social media operate in this way? Media users may provide YouTube, BlogSpot, Tumblr, FaceBook, et al with a lot of free content, but server farms, electricity providers, employees and shareholders have to be paid for. How do social media do that? Mostly through advertising. How much a site can get for an advertisement depends on eyeball volume.

Social media are not social service providers or healthy lifestyle engineers. They go where the wind blows.

The presence of a given type of content tends to validate the views of those landing on a preferred site, be they MAGA Republicans, incels, vegans, philosophical Georgia lawyers, or aged gay socialists. We all fit into someone's market niche, like it or not, click, click, click.

It's difficult to know if you and @T Clark have realised yet how offensive is the idea that women (especially) should be compassionate towards an organized online group ("incels", the subject of this thread) that considers them to be semi-sentient animals who want to be and should be raped by these incels and otherwise enslaved to give them pleasure.

It's difficult to know if you and T Clark have realised how offensive is the idea that women (especially) should be compassionate towards an organized online group ("incels", the subject of this thread) that considers them to be semi-sentient animals who want to be and should be raped by them and otherwise enslaved to give them pleasure. — Baden

A couple of thoughts:

I've gone back through my posts in this thread and I didn't find any where I suggested compassion towards "an organized online group ("incels", the subject of this thread) that considers them to be semi-sentient animals who want to be and should be raped by them and otherwise enslaved to give them pleasure."

Are you suggesting I should not express opinions you find offensive? Did I write anything in my responses that violated site guidelines? Let me be clear - I'm not writing my posts to be provocative or troublesome. I'm not a troll. I believe the things I've written. I think they are reasonable and humane.

Whatever I've said about my posts are equally true for @BC's. His support for and understanding of the oppressed is unique here on the forum. For you take him to task is a joke.

a) Compassion does not signify approval. b) An internet group is an abstraction which can not be the object of compassion--which is not to say it doesn't exist in some form--just like TPF can't be the object of compassion. c) Compassion is the province of individuals. "Women" as a group can not be compassionate; an individual woman can. Moderators, as a group, can not be compassionate. You, as one individual, whoever you are, can be.

I don't recollect advising women to be compassionate, or anything else.

Is this your way of saying you never understood what the thread was about or you never understood what incels were? I think it's fair to be curious about who you think you're going to bat for here. Would you also demand compassion for Nazis and white supremacists? Or is it that you never meant incels but as Hanover has specified, unaligned marginalized young men who are not misogynistic etc. I think it's reasonable to ask that that be specified considering there's a significant difference there. I don't believe it is at all humane to demand sympathy for victimizers over victims. Quite the reverse. (Not a mod issue btw, no.)

Is this your way of saying you never understood what the thread was about or you never understood what incels were? I think it's fair to be curious about who you think you're going to bat for here. Would you also demand compassion for Nazis and white supremacists? Or is it that you never meant incels but as Hanover has specified, unaligned marginalized young men who are not misogynistic etc. I think it's reasonable to ask that that be specified considering there's a significant difference there. I don't believe it is at all humane to demand sympathy for victimizers over victims. Quite the reverse. (Not a mod issue btw, no.) — Baden

Point out the comments you find offensive and I'll respond.

We can and should be compassionate towards them. — BC

You said "we", not particular individuals. In normal parlance that is a generalised "we" that includes women and everyone else. So this:

Compassion is the province of individuals...
I don't recollect advising women to be compassionate — BC

suggests you don't know what you're saying. I don't want to hound you but I think it's fair to ask what you're talking about.

I never said I found any particular comment offensive. I said I found it difficult to understand your position and so I'm asking these questions to clarify where you are coming from. So, please do.

It's pretty easy I would have thought to condemn extreme misogyny, rape culture and the like as embodied in this group and then specify you're talking about others more deserving of sympathy. I guess I don't understand the reticence.

Maybe I'm not concentrating properly, but I'm struggling to understand what this thread is about. Is it clarifying who incels are and if they are something we should be concerned about? Is it about men and women? Dating advice? Where we should allocate our compassion? All of the above? From what I have heard of incels, I am reasonably comfortable to write them off - the way I would virulent racists or any other vile bigotry. No doubt everyone has their reasons, no doubt there's a perspectival, George Lakoff-style way to understand their conceptual framing and contextualize their value systems, etc. But I find it hard to give a fuck.

The standard definition of "compassion" is not as compelling as a more extended treatment: "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
"the victims should be treated with compassion"

Mercy is a component of compassion or forbearance (see forbearance sense 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power. also : lenient or compassionate treatment. begged for mercy. : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder. : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion.

You said "we", not individuals. In normal parlance that is a generalised "we" that includes women and everyone else. — Baden

You are being pedantic. "We" is the plural form of one individual. If "we" must include all 8 billion people on earth, men and women alike, then so be it.

suggests you don't know what you're saying. I don't want to hound you but I think it's fair to ask what you're talking about. — Baden

One would think a linguist (you have been accused of being a linguist, I don't have any evidence either way) would have more facility reading.

A psychiatrist was asked if psychopaths (whom can be credited with some horrific crimes) should receive care. His response was that psychopaths suffer from very significant abnormalities and deserve compassionate care. Again, the offer of compassion and mercy does not include approval, any more than forgiving someone who attempted to murder oneself implies approval.

Announcing that what incels are saying is offensive to women (never mind most men) is boilerplate--a rote text, like the rote phrase, "incredibly racist" and a few dozen other expressions,

From what I have heard of incels, I am reasonably comfortable to write them off - the way I would virulent racists or any other vile bigotry. No doubt everyone has there reasons, no doubt there's a perspectival, George Lakoff-style way to understand their conceptual framing and contextualize their value systems, etc. But I find it hard to give a fuck. — Tom Storm

That's pretty much where I am. I think the level of depravity is hard to understand at first and one might be tempted to conflate them with others with similar problems minus the hatred. But when it's pointed out and others have specified distinctions, an apparent refusal to do so is odd to me.

Well, good luck with the psychopaths. Seriously though, I never said compassion meant approval and if all you are saying is we should always be compassionate for everyone regardless of what they've done or what they stand for then you really aren't saying anything but just effacing all moral distinction.

and then specify you're talking about others more deserving of sympathy. — Baden

Are petty thieves more deserving of compassion than those who engage in grand theft? No. Is compassion and mercy something that can be casually granted by the individual without much effort, such that just any Tom, Dick, Mary, or Jane can emit compassion without inconvenience? No.

Further, compassion and mercy are not like "Get Out Of Jail" cards in Monopoly.

if all you are saying is we should always be compassionate for everyone regardless of what they've done or what they stand for then you really aren't saying anything but just effacing all moral distinction. — Baden

You are shallower than I thought you were.

The victims of thieves are deserving of more compassion than the perpetrators of theft. The victims of violence and rape are deserving of more compassion then the perpetrators of violence and rape and the victims of online misogynistic abuse are deserving of more compassion than the perpetrators. You don't get moral brownie points for a pseudo-Jesus act that pretends they are all the same.

You are shallower than I thought you were. — BC

Like I said before, I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. But if you do, back this up with reasoning and evidence or I'll just need to put it down to more of the same.

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.

It's not as if there is an International Incel Foundation that sets forth a mission statement and clearly defines their ideology. An incel at his base is an involuntary celibate, meaning someone who desires female interaction, but does not receive it.

It is undeniable that many in that group are extereme misogynists. It does not appear though that all those malicious attributes are essential for an incel to exist. Some may just be sad sacks, worthy of some degree of sympathy.

The steelman position here is in defending the incel who lacks the malicious attributes and seeing just the lonely socially incompetent person as someone who might do better if the dating system and relationship rules du jour were different.

I am not convinced that today's online swiping system is the best we've got.

As to the meta conversations about what sympathy ought be afforded the devil, I break the tension with a musical interlude:

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.

It's not as if there is an International Incel Foundation that sets forth a mission statement and clearly defines their ideology. An incel at his base is an involuntary celibate, meaning someone who desires female interaction, but does not receive it. — Hanover

No, they do have an ideology and they are not shy about telling us what it is. You've been given plenty of examples. Stop conflating "incel" with average dude who can't get laid. An average dude who can't get laid doesn't necessarily identify as an "incel" because he probably knows they are an online hate group.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/incels-involuntary-celibates

"The incel ideology is rooted in the belief that women have too much power in the sexual/romantic sphere and ruin incels’ lives by rejecting them
Incels are the most violent sector of the manosphere, and have perpetrated a range of deadly attacks against women"

"the label of incel adopted now describes much more than loneness or singledom, including the subset of incels who are consumed by homicidal rage."

"The underlying theme of incel ideology is that the current sexual “marketplace” gives women too much freedom to choose their own partners. Those partners tend not to be incels, who in turn believe they are being deprived of their sexual birthright. Some incels charge that women who deny them sex are committing “reverse rape” – just as dangerous and harmful as actual rape."

Incels are a hate group no better than Nazis or the KKK.

From what I have heard of incels, I am reasonably comfortable to write them off - the way I would virulent racists or any other vile bigotry. — Tom Storm

:up:

Likewise. Very comfortable.

Far as I'm concerned the vast majority of disagreements on this thread would simply dissolve if we all recognised that the term "incel" signals a specific ideology of hatred and misogyny that goes beyond a difficulty establishing romantic relationships. I don't know how more evident this needs to be or why it's such a block.

Far as I'm concerned the vast majority of disagreements on this thread would simply dissolve if we all recognised that the term "incel" signals a specific ideology of hatred and misogyny that goes beyond a difficulty establishing romantic relationships. I don't know how more evident this needs to be or why it's such a block. — Baden

"Much of the knowledge of incel ideology has been derived from observational analysis of online forums which may not represent all or even most incels. There is a question around which posts should be considered and filtering based on popularity and effect compounded by prevalence of deliberately posting for controversy. Some researchers have tried selecting posts for a period of time rather than based on popularity. The attitudes of those who post in forums and those who read but do not participate can be different. In in-person interviews with a female interviewer, incels were found to be more interested in discussing their lived experiences than in discussing anti-feminist
ideology.[75]: "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

It's like you're the definition police that says your definition must control even when others tell you they're using a different definition.

We'll call your icels "Aincels" and mine "Bincels."

I sympathize with Bincels, not Aincels. Does that make us all happy?

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.

I'm all for saving anyone worth saving. But yes, we should call out this online world for what it is and not sugarcoat it. Anyway, my point is made. Good night.