Isla Vista shooting

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 27, 2014 7:48 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:His hatred against women was significant, but not his only issue. He had racial issues. Strange financial issues(the whole lottery thing). The dude just had skewed expectations in general. I am not trying to make a statement that his varying objects of hatred were equal...but merely trying to point out how pervasively hatred had taken over his life.

Therefore, expecting his plan to be coherent and logical is maybe asking a bit much. He had clearly left logic behind. He was a broken person.

Even a broken clock is... Well, I think the point is his entitlement was based on women, and that this level of misogyny in mass murderers is rare and pretty specific. Though really that distracts from the bigger issue, which is that so many men helped feed his anger.


Right. The specific target of his hatred was unusual. The hatred was not. Hatred, isolation, alienation, entitlement...these are a theme found in mass murderers. They blame others for their issues to the degree of acting violently to get "retribution" for imagined wrongs.

I have no trouble with blaming those who encourage such hatred, including MRA and PUA organizations.

blowfishhootie wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Therefore, expecting his plan to be coherent and logical is maybe asking a bit much. He had clearly left logic behind. He was a broken person.


I can't figure out what it is you're arguing. He was crazy, so there's no reason to learn anything from the violent misogyny this guy displays? It seems to me like that's what you're saying. But those things have nothing to do with one another. His lack of coherence and logic doesn't mean we in discussing it are lacking those things. The dude tried to shoot up a sorority house, explicitly stated over and over that he was out to kill as many women as possible. He wrote approximately two racist things in his entire rambling essay and collection of thoughts online, and even that - like his threats toward men - was borne directly out of his feelings on females. You take this information and decide, "man, this guy hated lots of kinds of people." This is like saying, "slaveowners sure didn't have a lot of respect for many kinds of people." It's almost as if you are going to lengths to subtly deny that women in particular should be terrified of this guy and the ideology he espoused.

Should we just shrug our shoulders at every mass murderer and say, "oh well, that guy sure was crazy" and then never try to analyze their behavior?


I am saying that you cannot take his statements as absolute truth. Yes, he may have SAID that one woman caring about him would have been enough...but his statements were clearly not of a sound mind, and cannot be taken as certain.

Also, you totally fixated on that one portion, and ignored what I said about his anti-woman views to come to that conclusion. Read all of what I posted, and it should be clear that I am not, in fact, dismissing his misogyny. Take your misplaced rage elsewhere.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Magnanimous » Tue May 27, 2014 8:05 pm UTC

Social skills and appearance are heavily influenced by things you have no control over, but motivation and work are also a big factor. It's not all one or the other, unless people have sexual dysfunction or are only super lazy. I don't think either word really fits.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby engr » Tue May 27, 2014 8:07 pm UTC

'Voluntary' simply distinguishes people who are celibate for religious or other personal reasons (asexual, etc.) from people who would love to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship but whose unattractiveness and/or psychological problems prevent them from doing so.
We are very much aware that we are unattractive to the opposite (or same, in case of homosexual incels) sex.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 8:12 pm UTC

engr wrote:'Voluntary' simply distinguishes people who are celibate for religious or other personal reasons (asexual, etc.) from people who would love to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship but whose unattractiveness and/or psychological problems prevent them from doing so.


I think everyone here is capable of understanding the intended meaning.

We are very much aware that we are unattractive to the opposite (or same, in case of homosexual incels) sex.


No, you are (according to you, anyway) unattractive to the members of the opposite gender with whom you want to have sex. I promise you that somewhere, there are women in this world who would love to have sex with you. Even in whatever city you live in, probably! But you may not be attracted to them. When was the last time you made an effort to have sex and/or get romantically involved with someone you're just not attracted to?

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:Social skills and appearance are heavily influenced by things you have no control over, but motivation and work are also a big factor. It's not all one or the other, unless people have sexual dysfunction or are only super lazy. I don't think either word really fits.


To build on that, there are plenty of people with "awkward social skills" or "unattractive appearance" who have found love and all that. They might in a physical sense be things you can't control, but how you react to them is much more important anyway* and that is something that is totally within your control. At least, as much as anything is.

* - Unless you're only willing to have sex with supermodels, in which case I guess you better be pretty hot yourself.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 27, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Yet people get busted for prostitution all the time. What, is 1/3 of America currently involved in prostitution? South Korea only has 1.5% of its economy in that, and it's legal over there and that's mostly from tourism and the US army.
As natraj points out, the legal risk of being a prostitute is disgustingly high, but as TGH said (but you apparently missed or intentionally disregarded), "the legal risk of hiring a prostitute is largely negligible" (emphasis added).

CorruptUser wrote:Enough are caught that they fill up classrooms.
Enough teenagers get into car accidents that they can fill classrooms as well. And yet, I was still pretty comfortable driving as a teenager, knowing that the risk of my getting into a car accident was pretty low. (A bit of searching online came up with the repeated figure that about 10% of prostitution-related arrests are of customers, meaning the total number of customers arrested each year is something like 1/5 the number of people who die in car accidents each year.)

Tyndmyr wrote:Right. The specific target of his hatred was unusual.
No, the specific target of his hatred was not unusual at all. Hating women is not remotely uncommon. That's kind of the point people are trying to make when they keep bringing up his misogyny and promoting things like #YesAllWomen on Twitter.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 27, 2014 8:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Right. The specific target of his hatred was unusual.
No, the specific target of his hatred was not unusual at all. Hating women is not remotely uncommon. That's kind of the point people are trying to make when they keep bringing up his misogyny and promoting things like #YesAllWomen on Twitter.


Among mass shooters. Context.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue May 27, 2014 8:51 pm UTC

engr wrote:'Voluntary' simply distinguishes people who are celibate for religious or other personal reasons (asexual, etc.) from people who would love to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship but whose unattractiveness and/or psychological problems prevent them from doing so.
We are very much aware that we are unattractive to the opposite (or same, in case of homosexual incels) sex.

The thing is, that's hard to believe.

I mean, are there really no female incels whatsoever?

There's some dangerous stereotyping going on here -- it's not that these people are unattractive to the opposite/same sex, it's that they're unattractive to the people they're attracted to. Generalizing it to the entire gender is both grossly inaccurate, and feeds into ignoring other minds and personal agency -- which if kept in mind would provide much needed empathy.

"I'm not attracted to this person, and I'm okay with that, so other people not being attracted to me doesn't indicate a failing on their part."

As far as the prostitution angle goes...I'm not buying the argument that the legalistics of it make it "unattainable". Being afraid of the consequences is exactly the reason that religious people would practice abstinence, so it seems odd to make an arbitrary cutoff there. I mean, it's not like those who practice religious abstinence are in any way similar to asexuals who would not desire sex in the first place.

If sex is what you need, do it -- it's easy enough to get on your own if you're willing to lower your expections and make some effort. If you want a happy, longlasting relationship to go with that, well...you're vastly overestimating how many sexual relationships are happy and longlasting. People settle, people fight. Happily ever after is mostly a myth, and where it isn't, it's because the people involved work their asses off every single day to compromise, to sacrifice for their partner, and to make it work. No one's entitled to anything, certainly not happy relationships.

And most importantly -- relationships are great, but they're not necessary. You can live a happy, worthwhile life without having sex or being in an SO relationship, and it doesn't mean you're "sacrificing additional happiness" by doing so.

I mean, most religious figures were celibate, and we're supposed to view them as the pinnacles of human achievement. If we're content to admit that we'll never reach their level of achievement, why do we beat ourselves up for not "surpassing" them by having a sexual relationship? Celibacy is a perfectly fine thing.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 27, 2014 9:05 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:I mean, most religious figures were celibate


Bull.
Shit.

Virtually every well-documented religious founder/leader lived their lives in a perpetual orgy by the end. Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, that guy the Beatles went to India for, L Ron Hubbard, Dwight D York, that Raelian guy, Warren Jeffs, you name it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 27, 2014 9:11 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
engr wrote:'Voluntary' simply distinguishes people who are celibate for religious or other personal reasons (asexual, etc.) from people who would love to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship but whose unattractiveness and/or psychological problems prevent them from doing so.
We are very much aware that we are unattractive to the opposite (or same, in case of homosexual incels) sex.

The thing is, that's hard to believe.

I mean, are there really no female incels whatsoever?

There's some dangerous stereotyping going on here -- it's not that these people are unattractive to the opposite/same sex, it's that they're unattractive to the people they're attracted to. Generalizing it to the entire gender is both grossly inaccurate, and feeds into ignoring other minds and personal agency -- which if kept in mind would provide much needed empathy.


I have to agree with this. I mean yes, no doubt there are people who wish they were more successful in relationships...but this is true for men and women. I've heard roughly equal griping from both. This is pretty much true for every skill out there, really, but relationships are important to us, so they feature heavily in things humans gripe about.

But, like any other skill, it can be improved. The issue with PUAs is that they look outward...how do I manipulate the other person. Not, "how do I change myself". If you are lacking in a given skill, you can train it. Yes, it may suck. Yes, you'll be bad at it at first...so it is with all skills. You will not paint your masterpiece the first time you pick up a brush. It's always tempting to look for the fast, easy fix, sure...but truly improving yourself takes effort.

Physical looks are only part of attractiveness, and I have seen many a person lacking in traditional beauty who was successful in finding a relationship they found enjoyable. If you want such a thing, ask yourself, what do you provide another person who is looking for such a relationship...and how you can do better.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 27, 2014 9:13 pm UTC

speising wrote:it's interesting that any form of sexual identity must be met with utmost respect, but bashing of people who involuntarily have no sex at all is apparently good fun.
Who do you see here bashing people who involuntarily have no sex at all? Or are you speaking generally -- because generally, I see people bashing sexual identities all the frigging time.

Also, re: incels -- whether or not incels 'legitimately' cannot find rewarding relationships in their lives (sexual or otherwise) strikes me as a red herring; if they say they can't, I see no particular reason to disbelieve them. Relationships are difficult to navigate and not everyone's equipped to handle them well.

The solution is probably going to be found in either re-evaluating the importance of those relationships to your life, or equipping yourself with the experience and knowledge to navigate relationships successfully. Both approaches probably call for some therapy.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 9:19 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
engr wrote:'Voluntary' simply distinguishes people who are celibate for religious or other personal reasons (asexual, etc.) from people who would love to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship but whose unattractiveness and/or psychological problems prevent them from doing so.
We are very much aware that we are unattractive to the opposite (or same, in case of homosexual incels) sex.

The thing is, that's hard to believe.

I mean, are there really no female incels whatsoever?


According to many of the "incels" I've seen in the time since this concept came into public conscience recently, the answer is no. Some of these people actually express the opinion that women can only not be having sex if they choose not to. There are several examples of this attitude, for instance, in the comment section below this blog post (which is headlined "Another victim of incel dies"). Here's the most blatant (I've bolded the relevant part, but the whole thing is worth a read):

No mate. I’m simply too tired. I’m a fucking shadow of my former self. The only thing keeping me from doing it is my niece. She is the only female on this entire miserable rock who shows me some affection. Remember when I called for a ban on all female posters on Loveshy.com? How I was vilified for it? Women cannot and fucking WILL NOT understand the sheer anguish Incel causes. How the fucking hell can they? No woman, unless she is hideously deformed can EVER be Incel. They have NO FUCKING IDEA of the magnitude of pain, frustration, jealousy, anger, feelings of worthlessness, suicidal/homicidal urges sexual frustration produces in red blooded NORMAL men. I have lost all respect for the bitches. I see them now merely as sex objects. You give me one reason why I shouldn’t view them in this way dude. All I ever wanted from this shitty fucking life was to be LOVED. Am I so fucking repulsive I deserve this fucking sentence? Because make no mistake, that is PRECISELY what Incel is. And before any of you manginas and bitches start with your fucking shit remember this – ANOTHER MAN IS DEAD. KILLED BECAUSE OF INCEL. KILLED BECAUSE YOU FUCKING WOMEN WILL NOT GIVE DECENT MEN A CHANCE. HE COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO TAKE OUT HIS FRUSTRATIONS ON A GYM FULL OF WOMEN, BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO. HE CHOSE TO END IT QUIETLY. SO YOU CAN BE FUCKING WELL BE THANKFUL FOR THAT.

WE DID NOT FUCKING CHOOSE TO BE LIKE THIS. WE DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN INTO A FUCKING SHITHOLE OF WHAT IS LAUGHABLY CALLED A CIVILISATION. WE DID NOT CHOOSE DECADE AFTER FUCKING DECADE OF THE MOST TERRIBLE FUCKING LONELINESS. WE DID NOT CHOOSE THIS. YOU BITCHES CHOSE IT FOR US. AND ONE DAY, ONE FUCKING DAY, AN INCEL MAN WILL FUCKING MAKE YOU ANSWER FOR YOUR FUCKING EVIL. I HOPE HE KILLS TEN FUCKING THOUSAND WOMEN BEFORE HE IS DONE. THEN THE PROBLEM OF INCEL MIGHT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 9:21 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
speising wrote:it's interesting that any form of sexual identity must be met with utmost respect, but bashing of people who involuntarily have no sex at all is apparently good fun.
Who do you see here bashing people who involuntarily have no sex at all? Or are you speaking generally -- because generally, I see people bashing sexual identities all the frigging time.

Also, re: incels -- whether or not incels 'legitimately' cannot find rewarding relationships in their lives (sexual or otherwise) strikes me as a red herring; if they say they can't, I see no particular reason to disbelieve them. Relationships are difficult to navigate and not everyone's equipped to handle them well.

The solution is probably going to be found in either re-evaluating the importance of those relationships to your life, or equipping yourself with the experience and knowledge to navigate relationships successfully. Both approaches probably call for some therapy.


The problem is not that relationships are hard. The problem is that the use of the word "involuntary" - and indeed the entire concept of "incel" - implies that men are entitled to sex with women, and that the only reason a man could not be getting sex is because women are selfishly choosing to withhold it.

"Involuntary celibacy" is not the same as "not having sex." There are undoubtedly many people not having sex who do not make it a major part of their identity the way "incels" do.
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Tue May 27, 2014 9:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby morriswalters » Tue May 27, 2014 9:23 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:The thing is, that's hard to believe.
What, that some men can't find a sexual partner without paying for the privilege? It's harder than it seems. There are millions of women, but not where you are. How many women do you know, how many are possible partners, and how do you approach them? The dance is complex and were it easy there wouldn't be so much time and money spent trying to make those connections.

As to the rest of this discussion misogyny itself is breakage, most men I know don't hate women. But spree shooting isn't the product of his misogyny. Its the product of the checks which keep us from acting on our darker thoughts failing catastrophically. He didn't shot his wife, he disconnected from reality and shot multiple people. Plenty of misogynists live long and hateful lives without killing anybody.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby EMTP » Tue May 27, 2014 9:23 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Also, re: incels -- whether or not incels 'legitimately' cannot find rewarding relationships in their lives (sexual or otherwise) strikes me as a red herring; if they say they can't, I see no particular reason to disbelieve them. Relationships are difficult to navigate and not everyone's equipped to handle them well.


This. When we look at people we don't sympathize with having a big problem, I think it's tempting to try and rationalize it as their own fault. If only the unemployed would found start-ups! If only the poor people would learn to code! And so on.

I don't think this springs from ill-will as much as the desire for simplicity, and maybe some fear of our own capacity to empathize and identify with people we don't want to empathize or identify with.

I'm more inclined to believe that "incels" have probably suffered a lot in ways that aren't easily fixed, and unfortunately have sought comfort in a philosophy that tries to palliate that with anger and misogyny.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:The thing is, that's hard to believe.
What, that some men can't find a sexual partner without paying for the privilege? It's harder than it seems. There are millions of women, but not where you are. How many women do you know, how many are possible partners, and how do you approach them? The dance is complex and were it easy there wouldn't be so much time and money spent trying to make those connections.


As long as you don't blame the women who don't want to have sex with you, you've said nothing wrong here. But what you've said here has nothing to do with the concept of "incel."

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Jave D » Tue May 27, 2014 9:28 pm UTC

I can't quite get over the term "incel" because it seems too much like "incest," which is a whole nother thing.

Anyway, I live in the vicinity of where this shooting happened (and did not know about it til last night, because I don't watch news, talk to people, or read news on the internet) so am reading to catch up. Reading his manifesto, actually; about halfway through. Atrocious reading material; it's the kind of melodramatic and immature stuff that could, really, only be published somehow to a mass audience if the author was a mass murderer, or a YA author.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 27, 2014 9:33 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:The problem is not that relationships are hard. The problem is that the use of the word "involuntary" - and indeed the entire concept of "incel" - implies that men are entitled to sex with women, and that the only reason a man could not be getting sex is because women are selfishly choosing to withhold it.
I think that's one unfortunate implication of the term 'involuntarily celibate', but I'm willing to accept the premise that not everyone who subscribes to that term feels women owe them sex -- or that women are in any way responsible for the situation they find themselves in.

Maybe I'm being optimistic? But even if that were the case -- while relying on a misogynistic worldview to explain why you can't form a positive romantic relationship is repugnant (and probably a contributing factor as to why you can't form a positive romantic relationship; the sort of guy who blames women for his inability to get along with women was probably not going to get along with women anyway), I still think it's a problem we'd do well to address, and not by simply verbally bashing the dude until he gives up on the misogyny.

But, I mean, yeah -- the post you quoted above is pretty deranged and legitimately scary. I'd like to think the solution is lots of therapy, soft words, hugs, and support -- but when a dude is wishing death upon a subset of the population, it's kind of hard to deliver those things.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue May 27, 2014 9:34 pm UTC

Bull.
Shit.

Virtually every well-documented religious founder/leader lived their lives in a perpetual orgy by the end. Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, that guy the Beatles went to India for, L Ron Hubbard, Dwight D York, that Raelian guy, Warren Jeffs, you name it.

The full paragraph provides the clear context that I'm talking about figures the whole world idolizes, e.g. Buddha, Jesus, etc. They're viewed as heroes in spite of and sometimes because of their purported celibacy, therefore it doesn't make sense to view celibacy as an objective "flaw".

The solution is probably going to be found in either re-evaluating the importance of those relationships to your life, or equipping yourself with the experience and knowledge to navigate relationships successfully. Both approaches probably call for some therapy.

This is basically what I'm trying to say, with better phrasing.

No woman, unless she is hideously deformed can EVER be Incel.

So they engage in fundamental doublethink and misogyny.

In order for the base definition of incel to function, women owe sex to men they aren't attracted to, but men don't owe sex to women they aren't attracted to.

Unless there are literally no women who want sex but aren't having it, then belief in existence of "Incels" is misogynist.

What, that some men can't find a sexual partner without paying for the privilege? It's harder than it seems. There are millions of women, but not where you are. How many women do you know, how many are possible partners, and how do you approach them? The dance is complex and were it easy there wouldn't be so much time and money spent trying to make those connections.

No no no, you don't get to throw out payment, is my point.

If having sex, just sex, is so gotdamn important to you as to become embittered against the whole of womankind and engage in misogyny and murder, you sure as shit aren't "too good to hire a prostitute".

Now, the prostitute may be too good to accept you as a customer, but that's a separate matter.

The problem is not that relationships are hard. The problem is that the use of the word "involuntary" - and indeed the entire concept of "incel" - implies that men are entitled to sex with women, and that the only reason a man could not be getting sex is because women are selfishly choosing to withhold it.

This too.


This. When we look at people we don't sympathize with having a big problem, I think it's tempting to try and rationalize it as their own fault. If only the unemployed would found start-ups! If only the poor people would learn to code! And so on.

I don't think this springs from ill-will as much as the desire for simplicity, and maybe some fear of our own capacity to empathize and identify with people we don't want to empathize or identify with.

I'm more inclined to believe that "incels" have probably suffered a lot in ways that aren't easily fixed, and unfortunately have sought comfort in a philosophy that tries to palliate that with anger and misogyny.

I'm sure that there are circumstances behind the lives of the incels, beyond their control, that keep them from having fulfilling sexual relationships. I don't think anyone is saying that these guys could have easily found their soulmate and are just not putting in the effort.

What I'm saying is that the virulent misogyny and violence bred out of this insulated thinking is absolutely the fault of the people committing that misogyny and violence, and seems to pretty clearly be linked to lack of empathy and willful doublethink.

(Disclaimer: not all incel have the virulent misogyny depicted in the above quotes, but as said previously, the "identity" still relies on a fundamentally misogynist idea that women owe men sex, even if they're not attracted to them, but those same men don't owe sex to women they're not attracted to. Oh, and the implication that prostitutes don't count as people, I guess, though that one's par for the course in society.)
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby speising » Tue May 27, 2014 9:47 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
speising wrote:it's interesting that any form of sexual identity must be met with utmost respect, but bashing of people who involuntarily have no sex at all is apparently good fun.
Who do you see here bashing people who involuntarily have no sex at all? Or are you speaking generally -- because generally, I see people bashing sexual identities all the frigging time.

eg.
gmalivuk wrote:(And "incel" means "involuntary celibacy", a fancy made-up name for people who made a whole identity out of not getting the sex they feel they should be getting.)

also just about everyone who basically said "just have sex with women which are unattractive to you. come on, it isn't hard to get laid."
and, yes, i meant here on this forum, where talk like that about LGBTs wouldn't ever be accepted.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 9:51 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:The problem is not that relationships are hard. The problem is that the use of the word "involuntary" - and indeed the entire concept of "incel" - implies that men are entitled to sex with women, and that the only reason a man could not be getting sex is because women are selfishly choosing to withhold it.
I think that's one unfortunate implication of the term 'involuntarily celibate', but I'm willing to accept the premise that not everyone who subscribes to that term feels women owe them sex -- or that women are in any way responsible for the situation they find themselves in.

Maybe I'm being optimistic? But even if that were the case -- while relying on a misogynistic worldview to explain why you can't form a positive romantic relationship is repugnant (and probably a contributing factor as to why you can't form a positive romantic relationship; the sort of guy who blames women for his inability to get along with women was probably not going to get along with women anyway), I still think it's a problem we'd do well to address, and not by simply verbally bashing the dude until he gives up on the misogyny.

But, I mean, yeah -- the post you quoted above is pretty deranged and legitimately scary. I'd like to think the solution is lots of therapy, soft words, hugs, and support -- but when a dude is wishing death upon a subset of the population, it's kind of hard to deliver those things.


The problem with this way of looking at is that then not only is "involuntarily" problematic, but so to is "celibacy." You yourself said on page four of this thread:

The Great Hippo wrote:Except, from what I'm seeing, the focus isn't on the relationship, but rather the sex -- it's not 'involuntarily alone', or 'involuntarily loveless', or even 'involuntarily relationshipless'. It's 'involuntarily celibate'.

I mean, I really don't think it's about the sex -- but I'd be willing to bet a lot of these people do think it's about the sex. That's kind of the bill of sale society's sold them; relationships are about sex, and so their failure to attain sex demonstrates their failure at relationships.


I don't believe anybody who has what I would consider to be a healthy view on sex and relationships would self-identify as "involuntarily celibate" as a means to bemoan their lack of love and affection. I agree that going decades without romance and/or sex would be terrible and could drive a person crazy, but "incel" is not a term that describes all people who are not having sex. It describes people who are not having sex and blaming others for that, and who also seemingly have difficulty drawing a distinction between sex and romance.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 27, 2014 10:02 pm UTC

speising wrote:eg.
gmalivuk wrote:(And "incel" means "involuntary celibacy", a fancy made-up name for people who made a whole identity out of not getting the sex they feel they should be getting.)

also just about everyone who basically said "just have sex with women which are unattractive to you. come on, it isn't hard to get laid."
Ah! I beg your pardon; that's definitely bashing.

In a way, though, I can at least understand a bit of disdainful skepticism toward incel; MRAs and their ilk have made it very hard to view any attempt to describe male social anguish as anything beyond misogynistic, anti-feminist poppycock. That being said, I think there is definitely room in this world to support and help men who feel as if positive romantic relationships are beyond their reach -- and I don't think that this issue deserves any of our scorn.

It is, of course, very hard to have that discussion when you also have self-proclaimed incels (such as the one quoted above) stating that they blame women for their anguish, and hope that tens of thousands of them die in punishment. But that doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't happen, and that doesn't mean we should belittle the people wanting to have it.
blowfishhootie wrote:I don't believe anybody who has what I would consider to be a healthy view on sex and relationships would self-identify as "involuntarily celibate" as a means to bemoan their lack of love and affection.
That's kind of the problem; people with healthy views on sex and relationships probably wouldn't be part of the movement in the first place -- having a healthy view on sex and relationships tends to lead to having healthy sex and healthy relationships!

That being said, I can imagine someone who doesn't think women owe them anything identifying as 'incel', if only for a lack of a better term to identify as. But, yeah -- the rough impression I'm getting is that 'incel' is a poor choice of terminology, and hints at what one of the underlying problems might be.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby EMTP » Tue May 27, 2014 10:06 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:I don't believe anybody who has what I would consider to be a healthy view on sex and relationships would self-identify as "involuntarily celibate" as a means to bemoan their lack of love and affection. I agree that going decades without romance and/or sex would be terrible and could drive a person crazy, but "incel" is not a term that describes all people who are not having sex. It describes people who are not having sex and blaming others for that, and who also seemingly have difficulty drawing a distinction between sex and romance.


Is anyone making the argument that these people have a healthy view of sex and relationships?

Also, to be nitpicky: celibate does not mean "no sex." The term for that is "chaste." "Celibate" means no marriage, and typically, by implication, no sex as well.

Perhaps "incels" are using the word "celibate" to mean "chaste" . . . it's a common mistake. But if we're making argument for the nature of their philosophy based purely on word choice (a practice I don't recommend) be aware that celibacy, taken literally, as a state of being has a lot to do with relationships, not just sex.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 10:08 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:I don't believe anybody who has what I would consider to be a healthy view on sex and relationships would self-identify as "involuntarily celibate" as a means to bemoan their lack of love and affection. I agree that going decades without romance and/or sex would be terrible and could drive a person crazy, but "incel" is not a term that describes all people who are not having sex. It describes people who are not having sex and blaming others for that, and who also seemingly have difficulty drawing a distinction between sex and romance.


Is anyone making the argument that these people have a healthy view of sex and relationships?

Also, to be nitpicky: celibate does not mean "no sex." The term for that is "chaste." "Celibate" means no marriage, and typically, by implication, no sex as well.

Perhaps "incels" are using the word "celibate" to mean "chaste" . . . it's a common mistake. But if we're making argument for the nature of their philosophy based purely on word choice (a practice I don't recommend) be aware that celibacy, taken literally, as a state of being has a lot to do with relationships, not just sex.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/celibate?s=t

The first entry:

"a person who abstains from sexual relations"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 27, 2014 10:21 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(And "incel" means "involuntary celibacy", a fancy made-up name for people who made a whole identity out of not getting the sex they feel they should be getting.)

also just about everyone who basically said "just have sex with women which are unattractive to you. come on, it isn't hard to get laid."
and, yes, i meant here on this forum, where talk like that about LGBTs wouldn't ever be accepted.


Bluntly, a lot of people want more from a partner than they offer. There are only a few ways to handle this. You can readjust your expectations to match reality. You can change yourself so that you offer more. Or, you can decide that none of these is worth it to you, and choose not to pursue a partner at all. Any of those is fine. But, this choice is yours. It is not being forced on you, and it is something essentially everyone has to deal with.

People here are not reacting to folks not getting laid...they are reacting to the "woe is me, it's impossible to get laid, and it's someone else's fault" attitude. If it's really that important to you, you can make it happen.

The Great Hippo wrote:In a way, though, I can at least understand a bit of disdainful skepticism toward incel; MRAs and their ilk have made it very hard to view any attempt to describe male social anguish as anything beyond misogynistic, anti-feminist poppycock. That being said, I think there is definitely room in this world to support and help men who feel as if positive romantic relationships are beyond their reach -- and I don't think that this issue deserves any of our scorn.


There are legitimate issues out there, and it is conceivably possible that some group could approach issues such as men's rights and problems in a reasonable, non-hateful way. I just...don't see a lot of this in practice. There is a HUGE overlap between the MRA, PUA, and incel communities. The blaming of women is a common thread in the worldview that wends through all of them. When people talk about a culture that hates women...it's usually this one, because it's so terribly blatant.

The Great Hippo wrote:That's kind of the problem; people with healthy views on sex and relationships probably wouldn't be part of the movement in the first place -- having a healthy view on sex and relationships tends to lead to having healthy sex and healthy relationships!


Nah. Someone can be healthy, and still not be all that interested in either one. I've known people who were borderline asexual, and really didn't care all that much for it, but were reasonably healthy in their outlook. On the flip side, I've known some people who were friggin' nuts, and yet were basically always in a relationship. Desire seems to be a huge confounding factor.

However, the persecution complex DOES tend to hinder lasting relationships. People who hate women having difficulty being in a relationship with women is...unsurprising. It goes beyond a mere lack of skill.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby engr » Tue May 27, 2014 10:23 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:The thing is, that's hard to believe.
What, that some men can't find a sexual partner without paying for the privilege? It's harder than it seems. There are millions of women, but not where you are. How many women do you know, how many are possible partners, and how do you approach them? The dance is complex and were it easy there wouldn't be so much time and money spent trying to make those connections.


As long as you don't blame the women who don't want to have sex with you, you've said nothing wrong here. But what you've said here has nothing to do with the concept of "incel."


I honestly don't even know what to say to you.
I know I don't blame anyone but myself for my problems. I know that blaming the opposite sex for your own relationship problems is severely frowned upon in the incel support community I am familiar with.
I keep saying I don't blame anyone for that, and you respond "noooo, you are, because of the word you are using to describe that".
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Lucrece » Tue May 27, 2014 10:26 pm UTC

It makes you wonder that despite effort by parents to address his issue, from hiring counselors to contacting authorities, this kid still managed to go on a killing spree.

How can you create an effective proactive system to identify and contain these people? And I mean contain, because obviously the whole "counsel the socially maladapted and hope they don't kill somebody when they get out of their house into the social sphere" isn't working.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 10:27 pm UTC

engr wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:The thing is, that's hard to believe.
What, that some men can't find a sexual partner without paying for the privilege? It's harder than it seems. There are millions of women, but not where you are. How many women do you know, how many are possible partners, and how do you approach them? The dance is complex and were it easy there wouldn't be so much time and money spent trying to make those connections.


As long as you don't blame the women who don't want to have sex with you, you've said nothing wrong here. But what you've said here has nothing to do with the concept of "incel."


I honestly don't even know what to say to you.
I know I don't blame anyone but myself for my problems. I know that blaming the opposite sex for your own relationship problems is severely frowned upon in the incel support community I am familiar with.
I keep saying I don't blame anyone for that, and you respond "noooo, you are, because of the word you are using to describe that".


So ... are you acknowledging that your "involuntary celibacy" is not actually "involuntary" then? Because that's kind of important if you're going to say I'm just arguing semantics. Involuntary by definition means it is somebody's will other than your own. How is that not blaming someone else? And if you are acknowledging that it's not "involuntary," then why on earth would you use that term?

Please feel free to link to one of these "incel" forums that are not misogynistic, by the way.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 27, 2014 10:33 pm UTC

speising wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
speising wrote:it's interesting that any form of sexual identity must be met with utmost respect, but bashing of people who involuntarily have no sex at all is apparently good fun.
Who do you see here bashing people who involuntarily have no sex at all? Or are you speaking generally -- because generally, I see people bashing sexual identities all the frigging time.

eg.
gmalivuk wrote:(And "incel" means "involuntary celibacy", a fancy made-up name for people who made a whole identity out of not getting the sex they feel they should be getting.)

also just about everyone who basically said "just have sex with women which are unattractive to you. come on, it isn't hard to get laid."
and, yes, i meant here on this forum, where talk like that about LGBTs wouldn't ever be accepted.

I wasn't bashing "people who involuntarily have no sex at all", I was bashing people who have adopted the "incel" label as part of their very identities. For basically all the problematic reasons other people have already been discussing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby speising » Tue May 27, 2014 10:35 pm UTC

so, a paraplegic who says he's involuntarily not a ballet dancer is blaming someone else?

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue May 27, 2014 10:38 pm UTC

speising wrote:so, a paraplegic who says he's involuntarily not a ballet dancer is blaming someone else?


No, this person is misusing the word involuntarily, just like "incels" are. Involuntarily would refer is something you do against your will. This hypothetical paraplegic is not being forced to do something he doesn't want.

Or, maybe this person really is blaming someone else, who knows? I would imagine a considerable number of paraplegics are understandably bitter, similar to the men we are talking about in this discussion. This paraplegic would be wrong to blame others*, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for the person to be wrong. I'm not sure what that proves.

* - unless, you know, other people caused the paralysis
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Tue May 27, 2014 10:44 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Tue May 27, 2014 10:40 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:People who suffer from a mental illness may have a very limited capacity to acquire, or make good use of, social skills.

I didn't mean to demean or dismiss people with subpar social skills (I am one!). In context of this tragedy, I just meant that they/we need to cope with life as it is rather than blame the world or women or whatever. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
EMTP wrote:I don't know whether Elliot Rodger was mentally ill, though I strongly suspect so. The family lawyer has been telling the press that Rodger suffered from Asperger's. He's also said to have been bullied.

He probably did have Asperger's. He was also extremely narcissistic, to the level of "I am the closest thing there is to a living god."

The lawyer said he was pushed from a balcony and broke his ankle, and the lawyer may well have believed that Rodger was the victim. However, his own manifesto/autobiography describes the incident as follows. He was at a party near some guys and some girls who weren't paying attention to him. He tried to act arrogant and cocky by throwing insults at everyone. They laughed at him and insulted him back, so he became enraged and tried to push as many as he could off the balcony, especially the girls. However, he was pushed off instead and broke his ankle. He didn't want to get in trouble, so he concocted an altered version of the story, in which boys pushed him from the balcony because he was cocky to them, which he told his father and the police and one of his social skills counselors, but the boys in question had a different story for the police, and nothing came of it. This is all his own interpretation of his behavior, not mine. He does say about this incident that he was bullied before but never before was he physically beat up. While non-physical bullying is very real, I wouldn't give it credence in this case without reading his episodic account of it (I didn't read his whole manifesto, just the Santa Barbara part).
EMTP wrote:Even with the best mental health care and social support, and the best possible effort on his part, Rodger might never have been able to function at a high enough level socially to have the kind of social and romantic success he wanted.

Well, yes. He wanted hot, beautiful blond girls [his words]. He wanted to be a multi-millionaire, or to fit in a certain conception of high social status that one would associate explicitly with wealth. He was upset with his mom for not picking a rich guy to remarry so that he, Elliot Rodger, would obtain that social status. I'm not even sure he was interested in friends as much as high social status that he felt he deserved. Truly, there is no doubt that he never would have achieved the success he wanted, at least not without changing his desires to better match reality.
EMTP wrote:Life's not fair, yes. And sickness is not fair. And mental illness is the least fair of all. It's sad.

It's sad that some people are that way, but I simply don't have the same sympathy for narcissism and entitlement and self-interested lying as I do for other mental disorders.
Last edited by jareds on Tue May 27, 2014 11:03 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby engr » Tue May 27, 2014 10:55 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:Involuntary by definition means it is somebody's will other than your own. How is that not blaming someone else? And if you are acknowledging that it's not "involuntary," then why on earth would you use that term?

Please feel free to link to one of these "incel" forums that are not misogynistic, by the way.


in·vol·un·tary. adjective in-ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē, -ˌte-rē\. 1 :  done contrary to or without choice 2 :  compulsory 3 :  not subject to control of the will.

Of all the meanings you chose the one that is most convenient to you - the one which paints your opponent as a bitter, self-entitled, bloodthirsty asshole.

And I am very reluctant at this point to give you a link. That community deliberately does not advertise itself (though you can easiy google it) because it already had experience with mass influx of trolls willing to bash on some ugly dorks who can't get laid.
Last edited by engr on Tue May 27, 2014 11:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 27, 2014 11:02 pm UTC

jareds wrote:It's sad that some people are that way, but I simply don't have the same sympathy for narcissism and entitlement and self-interested lying as I do for other mental disorders.
Why not?

I don't think it's wrong for you to feel the way you do, but I think it's a feeling that merits analysis: It seems to me as if we don't feel sympathy for narcissists, compulsive liars, and people with delusions of grandeur merely because their particular mental illness has taken a form that's very easy to look down upon.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Tue May 27, 2014 11:03 pm UTC

blowfishhootie,

Plenty of people will not reasonably be able to obtain sex for the reasons that EMTP outlined to me, quoted three posts above. For a totally uncontroversial example, consider a homeless man with severe schizophrenia. There are plenty of homeless people (and they are disproportionately male, so looking to each other isn't going to cut it for the heterosexuals).

I suspect that you have fallen into a binary mode of thinking where either women are to blame for not having sex with a guy, or the guy is to blame for doing something wrong (like having too high standards or not fixing himself). This is a false dichotomy. No one blames women for not being attracted to homeless men, and I don't think you really would blame sexually frustrated homeless men for setting their standards too high. We don't have to find someone to blame for every situation.

And the same lack of blame in any direction can be applied with guys in better circumstances than schizophrenic homeless men, although it might be friendly to point out things that they could do to improve. A blanket assumption that standards are too high for everyone who wants to have sex but doesn't is uncharitable; and it's completely unnecessary to find a way to blame the guy in order to avoid blaming women--it's not binary. (Obviously, standards were to high in Rodger's particular case, as I pointed out to EMTP, but this is based on looking at his standards, not a blanket assumption.)
Last edited by jareds on Tue May 27, 2014 11:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby eSOANEM » Tue May 27, 2014 11:09 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Bull.
Shit.

Virtually every well-documented religious founder/leader lived their lives in a perpetual orgy by the end. Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, that guy the Beatles went to India for, L Ron Hubbard, Dwight D York, that Raelian guy, Warren Jeffs, you name it.

The full paragraph provides the clear context that I'm talking about figures the whole world idolizes, e.g. Buddha, Jesus, etc. They're viewed as heroes in spite of and sometimes because of their purported celibacy, therefore it doesn't make sense to view celibacy as an objective "flaw".


What about Muhammed? He's got at least as much of a claim to go there as the Buddha.

Your claim's bullshit.

speising wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
speising wrote:it's interesting that any form of sexual identity must be met with utmost respect, but bashing of people who involuntarily have no sex at all is apparently good fun.
Who do you see here bashing people who involuntarily have no sex at all? Or are you speaking generally -- because generally, I see people bashing sexual identities all the frigging time.

eg.
gmalivuk wrote:(And "incel" means "involuntary celibacy", a fancy made-up name for people who made a whole identity out of not getting the sex they feel they should be getting.)

also just about everyone who basically said "just have sex with women which are unattractive to you. come on, it isn't hard to get laid."
and, yes, i meant here on this forum, where talk like that about LGBTs wouldn't ever be accepted.


The point is, "involuntary" is misleading. These people can choose not to be celibate. Hell, a gay guy who is kept living only with women isn't forced to be celibate.

That these men aren't having sex is a choice. That these men don't find any of the nearby eligibles attractive is not. It is the lack of attraction not the celibacy which is involuntary.

Hell, if I went on an incel forum, I could probably share my story and get plenty of sympathy and knowing nods. I've only actually tried asking one person out (and heard those dread words :roll: "I think of you like a brother") and have had crushes on a few others (one of whom turned out to be gay and the others ended up in relationships before I got around to asking them. I'm still friends with all of them. Honestly so. Not the Nice Guy "friends" with the sole purpose of getting in their pants, but actually friends because, you know what, friends isn't a losing option, it's an alternative win.

Anyway, the point is, I also know that, if I started shaving, cut my hair and took up rowing and going on drinking society swaps I could almost certainly get laid without much real hassle. I choose not to do that because that isn't the sort of thing I want.

I choose the celibacy (which is an incredibly melodramatic term to use anyway) over sex I would find unfulfilling.

This is just as true of people who do identify as incel.

speising wrote:so, a paraplegic who says he's involuntarily not a ballet dancer is blaming someone else?


I would interpret that sentence as a Billy-Elliot type scenario where someone wanted to be a ballet dancer but their was an outside pressure not to be. From a paraplegic, I'd guess the intended meaning correctly but think it an odd choice of word.

engr wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Involuntary by definition means it is somebody's will other than your own. How is that not blaming someone else? And if you are acknowledging that it's not "involuntary," then why on earth would you use that term?

Please feel free to link to one of these "incel" forums that are not misogynistic, by the way.


in·vol·un·tary. adjective in-ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē, -ˌte-rē\. 1 :  done contrary to or without choice 2 :  compulsory 3 :  not subject to control of the will.

Of all the meanings you chose the one that is most convenient to you - the one which paints your opponent as a bitter, self-entitled, bloodthirsty asshole.


The etymological fallacy has fallacy in its name for a reason. Wiktionary lists the against your will as the second meaning after unintentional. Languages almost never contain exact synonyms however and so the secondary meaning of involuntary (against your will) will colour the first.

Whilst involuntary does not necessarily mean someone else is to blame, the choice of it over unintentionally implies that the speaker thinks it's the case.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Tue May 27, 2014 11:12 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
jareds wrote:It's sad that some people are that way, but I simply don't have the same sympathy for narcissism and entitlement and self-interested lying as I do for other mental disorders.
Why not?

I don't think it's wrong for you to feel the way you do, but I think it's a feeling that merits analysis: It seems to me as if we don't feel sympathy for narcissists, compulsive liars, and people with delusions of grandeur merely because their particular mental illness has taken a form that's very easy to look down upon.

I realize it's a good question, but I don't have a good answer. Certainly, I think it's a good thing for actual mental health professionals to treat those people with the same dignity as other patients, for example (at least given security constraints that the patient may warrant).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 27, 2014 11:14 pm UTC

speising wrote:so, a paraplegic who says he's involuntarily not a ballet dancer is blaming someone else?


This would be a legitimate issue for someone who is physically unable to have sex, I suppose. Relationships are somewhat different than sex. However, I think it's inappropriate to compare a lack of skills to a physical handicap. They are somewhat different issues. Not knowing something is a whole different game from being a paraplegic.

jareds wrote:blowfishhootie,

Plenty of people will not reasonably be able to obtain sex for the reasons that EMTP outlined to me, quoted three posts above. For a totally uncontroversial example, consider a homeless man with severe schizophrenia. There are plenty of homeless people (and they are disproportionately male, so looking to each other isn't going to cut it).


This is likely a difficult, though not impossible situation. However, I think it is unlikely that such a person is the sort of fellow found on the internet in a community with other incels. I do not think this is a realistic portrayal of the online culture.

The Great Hippo wrote:
jareds wrote:It's sad that some people are that way, but I simply don't have the same sympathy for narcissism and entitlement and self-interested lying as I do for other mental disorders.
Why not?

I don't think it's wrong for you to feel the way you do, but I think it's a feeling that merits analysis: It seems to me as if we don't feel sympathy for narcissists, compulsive liars, and people with delusions of grandeur merely because their particular mental illness has taken a form that's very easy to look down upon.


Well, this sort of person in particular pings pretty hard on the "is abusive and not empathetic to everyone around him". Our first thought is not to try to help them for the same reason that when encountering a hungry tiger, our first thought is also not to help them. When someone is hostile/dangerous, avoidance is a safer strategy than getting involved, for the individual.

He probably totally did need care, but I am very unsurprised that people view him negatively and unsympathetically.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue May 27, 2014 11:17 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:I choose the celibacy (which is an incredibly melodramatic term to use anyway) over sex I would find unfulfilling.

This is just as true of people who do identify as incel.
I think that's a little unfair: If someone said they're involuntarily starving, we wouldn't say 'Well you aren't really involuntarily starving, are you? You could boil your shoes and eat them'.

And, in fact, they could -- but this wouldn't be nourishing or fulfilling. Similarly, someone who describes themselves as 'involuntarily celibate' might be able to find sex if their life depended on it -- but not the sort of fulfilling sex they're looking for.

I mean, sure; when you're starving, you're in some sense choosing to starve -- since you could always boil the bark of trees or dig up your dead relatives and cook them. But we don't describe that as a 'choice', because it's an incredibly shitty choice that none of us want to make.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 27, 2014 11:34 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Bull.
Shit.

Virtually every well-documented religious founder/leader lived their lives in a perpetual orgy by the end. Jim Jones, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, that guy the Beatles went to India for, L Ron Hubbard, Dwight D York, that Raelian guy, Warren Jeffs, you name it.

The full paragraph provides the clear context that I'm talking about figures the whole world idolizes, e.g. Buddha, Jesus, etc. They're viewed as heroes in spite of and sometimes because of their purported celibacy, therefore it doesn't make sense to view celibacy as an objective "flaw".


Neither Buddha nor Jesus are well documented. Jesus especially. The documents we do have, such as they are, claim he is simultaneously a direct male descendant of King David AND he had no human father. So, yeah, highly suspect. Buddhism is no stranger to sexy monks.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: measure and 21 guests