Isla Vista shooting

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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 11:37 pm UTC

jareds wrote: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."


Long-distance diagnosis of mental illness is far from reliable. The passages that you are calling "narcissistic" are not narcissistic is a medical sense. The term for what they are is grandiose. Grandiose thinking can be seen in narcissistic personality disorder, but also, and far more commonly, in schizophrenia, mania, and abuse of CNS stimulants (meth, cocaine, PCP).
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).


I wasn't referring to that particular incident. It sounds like he was bullied. Physical, social, I'm not sure that matters very much.
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.


You don't know him, and neither do I. You seem to want to construct a narrative in which all of his problems were the result of his bad character and no actual objective hardships played a role. The only point I see in that exercise is to give yourself an excuse to hate him without any dross of pity or sympathy intruding. Better to accept that like a lot of villains, he was likely also at some point a victim of other people, and of circumstance beyond his control:

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.


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.


Did you know that lack of empathy for others is a symptom of narcissism? :D
"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"

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Brace » Tue May 27, 2014 11:53 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Wed May 28, 2014 12:15 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
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.

I'm not arguing that there aren't toxic communities of incels out there; rather I'm annoyed with blowfishhootie for appearing to have a false dichotomy of blame, as the rest of my post explained. For example, take this quote:
blowfishhootie wrote:If a person desperately wants sex and isn't getting it, that person is not "involuntarily celibate," they just aren't attractive enough to the people they want to have sex with, and are unwilling to have sex with the people who might find them attractive.

Who cares whether the person would be capable of obtaining sex? You don't need to insist that everyone is capable of obtaining sex, thereby blaming those who want to obtain it but don't, in order for men not to be entitled to sex. Men who can't or otherwise don't obtain sex are still not entitled to sex. It's a false dichotomy. That's all I'm saying.
---------------
EMTP wrote:Did you know that lack of empathy for others is a symptom of narcissism? :D

You know, I almost added a parenthetical like "(maybe it's hypocritical not to care about narcissists)". I understand what you and Hippo are saying. But even intellectually seeing the hypocrisy doesn't induce empathy for this guy.
EMTP wrote:You don't know him, and neither do I. You seem to want to construct a narrative in which all of his problems were the result of his bad character and no actual objective hardships played a role. The only point I see in that exercise is to give yourself an excuse to hate him without any dross of pity or sympathy intruding. Better to accept that like a lot of villains, he was likely also at some point a victim of other people, and of circumstance beyond his control:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

I certainly don't think he made a conscious decision to have the character that he did. But, why blame anyone for anything, if it's all just physics? Because people still have a decision making process, and the anticipation of being blamed may affect that process. People in a similar position who aren't quite so far gone may be less inclined to act if they see that society would dislike them it than if they think that society would pity them for it. His ability to anticipate the consequences of his actions was pretty good by spree killer standards. It happens that "decent ability to anticipate consequences" but "desire to do things with bad consequences anyway" lines up with the "bad" mental illnesses.

Maybe I'm just dressing up my moral intuitions with philosophical sophistication, or maybe the moral intuition of blame based on mental capacity to understand the consequences of one's actions, rather than but-for causation where no one is to blame for anything, is actually pretty good for society.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 28, 2014 1:39 am UTC

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

Your claim's bullshit.

How hard is it to fucking understand "our culture idolizes some celibate persons as heroes, sometimes because of their celibacy, therefore you shouldn't feel you're a failure for being celibate"?

Where the fuck are you two getting the idea that I'm saying "all religious figures are celibate, documentation of such is important, and celibacy is the right way to live"?

For the point I'm making? It honestly doesn't matter if we find documents that Jesus was a legendary poonhound. What matters is that humanity is okay with celibacy, and that there are even people who will honor you for it. That's it.

Read the whole gotdamn paragraph before jumping down peoples' throats.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Wed May 28, 2014 1:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 28, 2014 1:44 am UTC

I'm saying that the idea that 'religious figures are celibate' is utter bullshit to begin with.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 28, 2014 1:47 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm saying that the idea that 'religious figures are celibate' is utter bullshit to begin with.

And I'm saying "read the whole bloody paragraph because historical fact doesn't even matter in this case".

For fuck's sake.

That people say Jesus was awesome for being celibate isn't actually affected by whether he really was or not. They say it, ergo they say it.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 28, 2014 1:48 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'm saying that the idea that 'religious figures are celibate' is utter bullshit to begin with.
Are you also the type of asshole who jumps in with "not ALL men" even when responding to things that explicitly said "most" in the first place?
KrytenKoro wrote:most religious figures
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)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 28, 2014 1:51 am UTC

Most religious figures are not celibate. The ones that are VERIFIABLY celibate are few and far between. At best, you have the Catholic priests, but I'm not convinced that even half of them are truly celibate the whole time.

It's perfectly fine to be celibate if that is what you truly want. Some people simply are asexual, and as long as that's not the result of some other trauma it's perfectly healthy.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 28, 2014 1:56 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Most religious figures are not celibate. The ones that are VERIFIABLY celibate are few and far between. At best, you have the Catholic priests, but I'm not convinced that even half of them are truly celibate the whole time.

Verifiability. Does not. Matter. For the point. I was making.

I'll reorder the words, I guess:

Q: Is Humanity at large okay with celibacy?
A: Well, large groups claim that it's a sign of moral purity, and several globally-respected religious/legendary characters are described as chaste, and are sometimes considered legendary because of their chastity. Therefore, it seems that humanity (barring certain minority cultures) does not see celibacy as a personal failing.

Does that make it clear? Like I said, it honestly doesn't matter if archaeological evidence proves that Jesus was the world's most prolific rapist. What matters to my point is that the celibate picture of him is treated as a hero.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 1:59 am UTC

jareds wrote:I certainly don't think he made a conscious decision to have the character that he did. But, why blame anyone for anything, if it's all just physics? Because people still have a decision making process, and the anticipation of being blamed may affect that process. People in a similar position who aren't quite so far gone may be less inclined to act if they see that society would dislike them it than if they think that society would pity them for it. His ability to anticipate the consequences of his actions was pretty good by spree killer standards. It happens that "decent ability to anticipate consequences" but "desire to do things with bad consequences anyway" lines up with the "bad" mental illnesses.

Maybe I'm just dressing up my moral intuitions with philosophical sophistication, or maybe the moral intuition of blame based on mental capacity to understand the consequences of one's actions, rather than but-for causation where no one is to blame for anything, is actually pretty good for society.


Right. Free will may or may not exist, but as a society we are going to go on pretending it exists, because incentives.

But whatever is necessary as a society, we as individuals can recognize that it's probably all just physics, and rather than sit in judgement of people, we should, as far as we can, pity them and try to forgive them. I find it interesting that many of the world's faith traditions arrive at a similar conclusion without reference to the problem of free will: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Easy in theory but hard in practice.

Q: Is Humanity at large okay with celibacy?
A: Well, large groups claim that it's a sign of moral purity, and several globally-respected religious/legendary characters are described as chaste, and are sometimes considered legendary because of their chastity. Therefore, it seems that humanity (barring certain minority cultures) does not see celibacy as a personal failing.


I don't know that that follows, really. Fasting is associated with people of faith and purification, but that doesn't mean we don't look down on people who are too poor to afford food.
"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"

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 28, 2014 2:03 am UTC

Yes. And the picture is LIES. You are comparing your life to a reality that doesn't exist. You might as well compare your sex life to pornography.

You order a pizza but it doesn't come with "extra sausage"? YOU ARE HIDEOUS
You go to the hospital but the nurses aren't "playing doctor"? YOU CAN NOT CALL YOURSELF A MAN
You receive a package and it doesn't come with a "special delivery"? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

I mean, seriously. Stop comparing yourself to a world that only exists in someone else's imagination. Plenty of REAL people lived their entire life as virgins and achieved great things, people such as Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, and Nikola Tesla.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 28, 2014 2:16 am UTC

I mean, seriously. Stop comparing yourself to a world that only exists in someone else's imagination. Plenty of REAL people lived their entire life as virgins and achieved great things, people such as Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, and Nikola Tesla.

What you've just said is kind of my entire damn point, so I guess you just went off your rocker because I mentioned religion (in order to communicate a more familiar example)? Whatever.

EMTP wrote:Right. Free will may or may not exist, but as a society we are going to go on pretending it exists, because incentives.

But whatever is necessary as a society, we as individuals can recognize that it's probably all just physics, and rather than sit in judgement of people, we should, as far as we can, pity them and try to forgive them. I find it interesting that many of the world's faith traditions arrive at a similar conclusion without reference to the problem of free will: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Easy in theory but hard in practice.

He should be pitied for his suffering, but what he did, and the worldview he embraced and shared in preaching, were morally reprehensible.

Anyway, regarding the "identification of incels" topic:

From:http://www.involuntarycelibacy.com/about.html
To help simplify matters, when I say incel, I mean to include only men and women above age 25, who are not incarcerated and do not have any physical handicap that could get in the way of a relationship.

One of the main websites on incel specifically defines them as people with social incompetence, specifically in the realm of getting sex to happen. So we can quit all the what-ifs about the mentally ill homeless.

To its credit, this site doesn't peddle the bullshit claim that only men can be incel. What it does stumble on is this:

What they are truly missing is the affectionate touching, holding and kissing and unconditional give-and-take that true couples the world over enjoy.

Which, while touching, seems to me to illustrate an overestimation of how intimate the rest of the world really is.

Yes, there are people who have trouble convincing those they like to like them back, and sure, a lot of them may correctly identify the issue as something internal that, through no fault of their own, inhibits their love life. And honestly, it's terribly sad that the West (probably the East to, but I'm not as sure about that) is so allergic to the physical intimacy that is absolutely necessary to a human's development. But like MRA, while there is a healthy way to approach this conundrum, the larger quantity adopt an incredibly toxic, fundamentally irrational and hateful response of hating the other side. That needs to be stamped out.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Wed May 28, 2014 2:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 28, 2014 2:19 am UTC

I understand, but don't perpetuate the falsehoods. And I'd be very suspicious of anyone perpetuating those falsehoods in the first place.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 28, 2014 2:21 am UTC

Brace wrote:
Lucrece wrote: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.


In a statistical sense it works pretty well.


I must agree. We are reducing violence overall. Yes, this particular incident is tragic and horrific, but counseling and mental health treatment, among other treatment options, is working to reduce violent crime. We should not let an emotional reaction to a single incident overwhelm logic and reason.

Keep in mind that there are MANY young folks, particularly men, who are angry, disaffected, entitled, etc, who do not go on to murder a bunch of people. The vast majority of them, in fact. We can seek further improvements, sure, but we should not abandon part of the progress made.

jareds wrote:Who cares whether the person would be capable of obtaining sex? You don't need to insist that everyone is capable of obtaining sex, thereby blaming those who want to obtain it but don't, in order for men not to be entitled to sex. Men who can't or otherwise don't obtain sex are still not entitled to sex. It's a false dichotomy. That's all I'm saying.


This is true. You are not entitled to sex even if it is very difficult or impossible for you to attract someone normally. Still, I'd like to be hopeful that the vast, vast majority of people are capable of doing so if they wish. It seems statistically probable that the vast majority of people have sex at least once(certainly, the majority of people have children, so this seems a safe bet). If it is something that you desire, it's not entirely out of reach. Achievable, yet not an entitlement. The two, however, are not related.

You know, I almost added a parenthetical like "(maybe it's hypocritical not to care about narcissists)". I understand what you and Hippo are saying. But even intellectually seeing the hypocrisy doesn't induce empathy for this guy.


It is normal for society to respond in kind to people who break with social norms. Someone who is rude has people be rude to him in return. Someone who is violent will likely experience violence as well. Sure, justice is never perfect, but people are usually ok with the concept of poetic justice, at least. We kind of like the idea of someone who causes trouble experiencing that very issue.

So, it's the most normal thing in the world to lack sympathy for one who lacks sympathy for others.

I certainly don't think he made a conscious decision to have the character that he did. But, why blame anyone for anything, if it's all just physics?


If my computer ceases to work, I have no illusions about free will or any such nonsense, but it's still a bad computer, and it's still gonna get stripped for parts and thrown away. *shrug* I'm not sure why people get wrapped around the axle with regards to free will with people.

CorruptUser wrote:I'm saying that the idea that 'religious figures are celibate' is utter bullshit to begin with.


Not relevant to the point being made. It's about society's reaction, not the truth of the figures themselves. Celibacy is not always associated with negativity and shunning. Hell, it's still a major part of the Catholic church, and held up as a virtue. Maybe unjustly, given the context, but still...

Celibacy is a valid choice if that's what you want, and really, the biggest issue with it is people trying to force it on those who maybe don't really want it. Of course, the same is true of the inverse(and some subcultures totally do seem a little over-focused on sex). Really, it all boils down to trying to force others to do what you want. Basically all of modern egalitarianism in this regard comes down to "maybe you shouldn't force other people to live exactly how you think they should". Long as nobody's forcing themselves on anyone else, I don't give a damn about anyone's

Edit: Ugh. Apparently due to conversations about this topic, various online advertising systems have decided that what I really want to see is adverts for ways to seduce women. Goddammit.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby Jave D » Wed May 28, 2014 2:27 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Most religious figures are not celibate. The ones that are VERIFIABLY celibate are few and far between. At best, you have the Catholic priests, but I'm not convinced that even half of them are truly celibate the whole time.


My word is my passport to celibacy. Verify me.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 5:47 am UTC

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.


Wait, so which definition shows that you are not deflecting blame onto others? Is it the one that says it is without choice, implying that you are celibate because of somebody else's choice? Is it the one that says compulsory, implying that you are celibate because of somebody else's choice? Or is it the one that says it is not of your own will, implying that you are celibate because of somebody else's choice?

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.


How very convenient. I've offered much evidence of my claim that "incel" is a misogynistic concept, and you "refuse" to offer any to support your claim that it is not. Please understand why I disregard your claim.

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 for the heterosexuals).


I just want to make sure - you are inferring that people who identify as "incel" are relating themselves to the nature of a homeless man with schizophrenia? Because that's clearly not true. I mean, they are in that they want to use him as an excuse for their own failures in sex in love, and a rationalization for blaming others.

Also, find me a homeless schizophrenic man who identifies himself as "incel," and then we'll talk. Not one who never has sex, but one who specifically uses the term "involuntarily celibate." The only people talking about all men who never have sex, rather than just those who identify as "incels", are those looking to defend this dangerous and blatantly misogynistic outlook. I don't believe your homeless friend would be very likely to use this hateful term, because they would be very unlikely to be exposed to it and be sucked into the insular community that perpetuates it. If he did use the term, then he is probably just as misogynistic as other men who use it. Not having sex doesn't automatically mean the way the person is complaining about not having sex is not misogynistic.

You are speaking in hypothetical fairy tales. There have been examples in this thread - real-life examples, not made-up ones - of people identifying as "incel" and being misogynistic assholes. Can you give us a real-life example of the contrary, outside of the confines of this thread? Remember, use of the term "involuntarily celibate" is important here. Someone identifying as "incel" and then not saying something misogynistic isn't enough, for the same reason that a person not saying something racist doesn't prove that they are not racist. I want to see explicitly stated, "I am involuntarily celibate, and it is my own fault." That makes no sense at all, because it goes against every possible meaning of the word "involuntarily." You want to believe in this neutral, blameless explanation for sexlessness, but it's just not true. There are women desperate for sex, just as there are men desperate for sex. The entire concept of "incel" is predicated on ignoring this reality.

(And now is the part where you go back to whining about love and romance, even though YOU are the one choosing to defend this sexual term, not romantic one, that people are using to identify themselves. I won't argue in circles anymore than I already have, so you can expect that line of argument to be ignored. Refer to previous posts.)

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).


I suspect, indeed I know, that you are continuing to confuse "everyone not having sex," with "people who identify themselves as 'incel.'"
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Wed May 28, 2014 6:18 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 6:15 am UTC

blowfishhootie, I think the relevant question here is: Do you think it's possible for someone to identify as 'incel' and in no way whatsoever blame, hate, or otherwise malign women for their plight? And if so, would you then accept that such a person is identifying as 'incel' in a way that isn't inherently misogynistic?

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 6:21 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:blowfishhootie, I think the relevant question here is: Do you think it's possible for someone to identify as 'incel' and in no way whatsoever blame, hate, or otherwise malign women for their plight? And if so, would you then accept that such a person is identifying as 'incel' in a way that isn't inherently misogynistic?


I will as soon as I'm given an example of it outside the context of this thread. Claiming that it is neutral or blameless is also deflecting blame, because it makes no sense. If a man is attracted to a woman, but that woman is unwilling to have sex with him, and it's in no way his own fault, then how can it not be the fault of the woman? What is causing them to not have sex, if the man has absolutely nothing to do with it? If the man does have anything to do with it, than "involuntary" is garbage. (Wait, didn't I just say something about not arguing in circles...)

A person physically incapable of having sex may be literally "involuntarily celibate," but I think such people are unlikely to use the term, unless they themselves are also misogynists. If nothing else, a person who uses the term "incel" is to blame because the very use of that term displays a misunderstanding of the nature of sex and relationships. For anyone desperate for sex the way "incel" implies, they can get it if it's really that important to their identity. For those who are actually using "incel" to refer to their inability to find love, it's quite possible they are scaring away potential partners with their fundamental misunderstanding of sex and love. Either way, sexlessness is not "involuntary." A person who is not a misogynist and identifies as an "incel" is simply not taking the time to think about what "incel" means.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 6:34 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:I will as soon as I'm given an example of it outside the context of this thread.
Is that really fair? I can give you examples -- real-life examples, not made-up ones -- of Republicans who think women belong in the kitchen. And despite knowing that not all Republicans believe that, it's actually quite hard to find an example to the contrary -- because reasonable Republicans don't spend their time saying things like 'I do not believe that women belong in the kitchen'.

Assuming there are reasonable 'incels' out there, they're probably not going to spend a lot of time saying things like 'I don't blame women for my situation', or 'My inability to form meaningful relationships with women is my own fault', because to reasonable 'incels', these things would be so trivial they would go without saying.
blowfishhootie wrote:Claiming that it is neutral or blameless is also deflecting blame.
What do you say to someone who finds the entire notion of 'blame' to be kind of silly and backwards?
blowfishhootie wrote:A person physically incapable of having sex may be literally "involuntarily celibate," but I think such people are unlikely to use the term, unless they themselves are also misogynists. If nothing else, a person who uses the term "incel" is to blame because the very use of that term displays a misunderstanding of the nature of sex and relationships.
In all cases? Are you certain about that?
blowfishhootie wrote:For anyone desperate for sex the way "incel" implies, they can get it if it's really that important to their identity. For those who are actually using "incel" to refer to their inability to find love, it's quite possible they are scaring away potential partners with their fundamental misunderstanding of sex and love. Either way, sexlessness is not "involuntary."
In the same way that 'starving' is not involuntary, because you could always just eat dirt and have a full belly?

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby K-R » Wed May 28, 2014 6:56 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:If a man is attracted to a woman, but that woman is unwilling to have sex with him, and it's in no way his own fault, then how can it not be the fault of the woman?

She's homosexual. She's asexual. She's already in a monogamous relationship. She's just getting over a bad breakup and doesn't want to be involved with anyone right now. Or, probably most commonly, her particular preferences don't match him, for whatever reason.

Why does it have to be somebody's fault? People aren't romantically/sexually attracted to each other all the time.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Wed May 28, 2014 7:30 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
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 for the heterosexuals).


I just want to make sure - you are inferring that people who identify as "incel" are relating themselves to the nature of a homeless man with schizophrenia? Because that's clearly not true. I mean, they are in that they want to use him as an excuse for their own failures in sex in love, and a rationalization for blaming others.

Also, find me a homeless schizophrenic man who identifies himself as "incel," and then we'll talk. Not one who never has sex, but one who specifically uses the term "involuntarily celibate." The only people talking about all men who never have sex, rather than just those who identify as "incels", are those looking to defend this dangerous and blatantly misogynistic outlook. I don't believe your homeless friend would be very likely to use this hateful term, because they would be very unlikely to be exposed to it and be sucked into the insular community that perpetuates it. If he did use the term, then he is probably just as misogynistic as other men who use it. Not having sex doesn't automatically mean the way the person is complaining about not having sex is not misogynistic.

You are speaking in hypothetical fairy tales. There have been examples in this thread - real-life examples, not made-up ones - of people identifying as "incel" and being misogynistic assholes. Can you give us a real-life example of the contrary, outside of the confines of this thread? Remember, use of the term "involuntarily celibate" is important here. Someone identifying as "incel" and then not saying something misogynistic isn't enough, for the same reason that a person not saying something racist doesn't prove that they are not racist. I want to see explicitly stated, "I am involuntarily celibate, and it is my own fault." That makes no sense at all, because it goes against every possible meaning of the word "involuntarily." You want to believe in this neutral, blameless explanation for sexlessness, but it's just not true. There are women desperate for sex, just as there are men desperate for sex. The entire concept of "incel" is predicated on ignoring this reality.

I never heard of this term before Saturday, nor looked for any forums for it since then (although I did try to visit the infamous puahate.com, which was offline by the time I tried), so I can provide no examples of anything. It might be the case that the term was invented and exclusively used by misogynists.

You have chosen to defend the position that misogyny is implied by the words themselves, and that is a really high bar. I don't even care much about the ultimate outcome of this semantic arguement. I'm not offended by the conclusion that the words "involuntary celibacy" are inherently misogynist (although it seems dubious, and in fact you just said that they're not when applied to physical impotence, which seems to admit that it's not inherent to the words, but rather to the context that implies that women are to blame). Rather, I'm offended by a particular form of argument that you keep repeating. Here is its latest incarnation:
blowfishhootie wrote:I will as soon as I'm given an example of it outside the context of this thread. Claiming that it is neutral or blameless is also deflecting blame, because it makes no sense. If a man is attracted to a woman, but that woman is unwilling to have sex with him, and it's in no way his own fault, then how can it not be the fault of the woman? What is causing them to not have sex, if the man has absolutely nothing to do with it? If the man does have anything to do with it, than "involuntary" is garbage. (Wait, didn't I just say something about not arguing in circles...)

This is awful! Why does it have to be someone's fault? Who thinks like that? (That's rhetorical. Of course people do, but it doesn't seem like a good way to think, certainly not a logical necessity.) It seems especially weird applied to two people. It seems remarkably easy to have an unrequited attraction without finding either party at fault. (Example: "Oh, I guess I'm not right for her" doesn't seem to imply fault in the woman. But it doesn't seem to imply fault in me either. Certainly, "not being right for her" is not a voluntary state on my part--there might be nothing I could do to change her decision. But even if there's nothing I can do to attract some particular woman, that's not her fault. Whose fault is it? I say no one's. But your position requires that I must assign fault, and it's not clear why.)

Obviously, if you think that one party or the other must be at fault (or to blame, or whatever), your argument goes through, but this seems so weird to me. Again, the only thing you've been saying that I'm actually bothered by is the logic that one side or another must be to blame or at fault in unrequited attraction.

I'm sorry if this breaks your linguistic argument, but as I said, it might still be the case that the term was created by misogynists.
blowfishhootie wrote:(And now is the part where you go back to whining about love and romance, even though YOU are the one choosing to defend this sexual term, not romantic one, that people are using to identify themselves. I won't argue in circles anymore than I already have, so you can expect that line of argument to be ignored. Refer to previous posts.)

You must be confusing me with someone else, since I didn't say anything about love or romance, and you're responding to my first post that addressed you.
blowfishhootie wrote:
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).


I suspect, indeed I know, that you are continuing to confuse "everyone not having sex," with "people who identify themselves as 'incel.'"

I'm not claiming anything about people who identify themselves as 'incel'.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 7:44 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:I will as soon as I'm given an example of it outside the context of this thread.
Is that really fair? I can give you examples -- real-life examples, not made-up ones -- of Republicans who think women belong in the kitchen. And despite knowing that not all Republicans believe that, it's actually quite hard to find an example to the contrary -- because reasonable Republicans don't spend their time saying things like 'I do not believe that women belong in the kitchen'.


Republicans are not all sexist, sexist Republicans are. In your analogy, "Republicans" are "all people not having sex," and "sexist Republicans" are "incels."

Assuming there are reasonable 'incels' out there, they're probably not going to spend a lot of time saying things like 'I don't blame women for my situation', or 'My inability to form meaningful relationships with women is my own fault',


And, if they were reasonable, they also wouldn't identify as incels. In the same way a person who doesn't hate black people wouldn't identify as a racist.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 7:46 am UTC

jareds wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
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 for the heterosexuals).


I just want to make sure - you are inferring that people who identify as "incel" are relating themselves to the nature of a homeless man with schizophrenia? Because that's clearly not true. I mean, they are in that they want to use him as an excuse for their own failures in sex in love, and a rationalization for blaming others.

Also, find me a homeless schizophrenic man who identifies himself as "incel," and then we'll talk. Not one who never has sex, but one who specifically uses the term "involuntarily celibate." The only people talking about all men who never have sex, rather than just those who identify as "incels", are those looking to defend this dangerous and blatantly misogynistic outlook. I don't believe your homeless friend would be very likely to use this hateful term, because they would be very unlikely to be exposed to it and be sucked into the insular community that perpetuates it. If he did use the term, then he is probably just as misogynistic as other men who use it. Not having sex doesn't automatically mean the way the person is complaining about not having sex is not misogynistic.

You are speaking in hypothetical fairy tales. There have been examples in this thread - real-life examples, not made-up ones - of people identifying as "incel" and being misogynistic assholes. Can you give us a real-life example of the contrary, outside of the confines of this thread? Remember, use of the term "involuntarily celibate" is important here. Someone identifying as "incel" and then not saying something misogynistic isn't enough, for the same reason that a person not saying something racist doesn't prove that they are not racist. I want to see explicitly stated, "I am involuntarily celibate, and it is my own fault." That makes no sense at all, because it goes against every possible meaning of the word "involuntarily." You want to believe in this neutral, blameless explanation for sexlessness, but it's just not true. There are women desperate for sex, just as there are men desperate for sex. The entire concept of "incel" is predicated on ignoring this reality.

I never heard of this term before Saturday, nor looked for any forums for it since then (although I did try to visit the infamous puahate.com, which was offline by the time I tried), so I can provide no examples of anything. It might be the case that the term was invented and exclusively used by misogynists.

You have chosen to defend the position that misogyny is implied by the words themselves, and that is a really high bar. I don't even care much about the ultimate outcome of this semantic arguement. I'm not offended by the conclusion that the words "involuntary celibacy" are inherently misogynist (although it seems dubious, and in fact you just said that they're not when applied to physical impotence, which seems to admit that it's not inherent to the words, but rather to the context that implies that women are to blame). Rather, I'm offended by a particular form of argument that you keep repeating. Here is its latest incarnation:
blowfishhootie wrote:I will as soon as I'm given an example of it outside the context of this thread. Claiming that it is neutral or blameless is also deflecting blame, because it makes no sense. If a man is attracted to a woman, but that woman is unwilling to have sex with him, and it's in no way his own fault, then how can it not be the fault of the woman? What is causing them to not have sex, if the man has absolutely nothing to do with it? If the man does have anything to do with it, than "involuntary" is garbage. (Wait, didn't I just say something about not arguing in circles...)

This is awful! Why does it have to be someone's fault? Who thinks like that? (That's rhetorical. Of course people do, but it doesn't seem like a good way to think, certainly not a logical necessity.) It seems especially weird applied to two people. It seems remarkably easy to have an unrequited attraction without finding either party at fault. (Example: "Oh, I guess I'm not right for her" doesn't seem to imply fault in the woman. But it doesn't seem to imply fault in me either. Certainly, "not being right for her" is not a voluntary state on my part--there might be nothing I could do to change her decision. But even if there's nothing I can do to attract some particular woman, that's not her fault. Whose fault is it? I say no one's. But your position requires that I must assign fault, and it's not clear why.)

Obviously, if you think that one party or the other must be at fault (or to blame, or whatever), your argument goes through, but this seems so weird to me. Again, the only thing you've been saying that I'm actually bothered by is the logic that one side or another must be to blame or at fault in unrequited attraction.

I'm sorry if this breaks your linguistic argument, but as I said, it might still be the case that the term was created by misogynists.
blowfishhootie wrote:(And now is the part where you go back to whining about love and romance, even though YOU are the one choosing to defend this sexual term, not romantic one, that people are using to identify themselves. I won't argue in circles anymore than I already have, so you can expect that line of argument to be ignored. Refer to previous posts.)

You must be confusing me with someone else, since I didn't say anything about love or romance, and you're responding to my first post that addressed you.
blowfishhootie wrote:
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).


I suspect, indeed I know, that you are continuing to confuse "everyone not having sex," with "people who identify themselves as 'incel.'"

I'm not claiming anything about people who identify themselves as 'incel'.


So you never heard the term before Saturday, have no evidence to support your claim that it's not a misogynist concept, are not arguing about "incels," and ... what? You are apparently having a different discussion from everyone else on this forum.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Wed May 28, 2014 8:13 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:So you never heard the term before Saturday, have no evidence to support your claim that it's not a misogynist concept, are not arguing about "incels," and ... what? You are apparently having a different discussion from everyone else on this forum.

This is a dodge, so I suspect you have no defense of the idea that one party or another must be at fault. I was extremely clear what I'm arguing about. Read my post starting from the sentence, "Rather, I'm offended by a particular form of argument that you keep repeating," which then quotes you and objects to the logic of the quote. You're using quite objectionable reasoning (that one must blame one party or another) to produce a less objectionable, but still dubious, conclusion (that the misogyny can be deduced from the name itself), and you are additionally making an empirical claim, with support, about there being a bunch of misoygnist 'incel' forums. Pointing out your objectionable reasoning is not a different discussion just because I have no knowledge about the separate empirical claim.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 8:19 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:And, if they were reasonable, they also wouldn't identify as incels. In the same way a person who doesn't hate black people wouldn't identify as a racist.
'Involuntarily celibate' is not to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'. 'Misogynist' is to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'.

It might be that 'involuntarily celibate' is, in fact, a term used exclusively by misogynists and misogynists in training; I don't actually know. But I don't think it serves us well to make 'incel' a synonym for 'misogynist' without more data.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 8:40 am UTC

jareds wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:So you never heard the term before Saturday, have no evidence to support your claim that it's not a misogynist concept, are not arguing about "incels," and ... what? You are apparently having a different discussion from everyone else on this forum.

This is a dodge, so I suspect you have no defense of the idea that one party or another must be at fault. I was extremely clear what I'm arguing about. Read my post starting from the sentence, "Rather, I'm offended by a particular form of argument that you keep repeating," which then quotes you and objects to the logic of the quote. You're using quite objectionable reasoning (that one must blame one party or another) to produce a less objectionable, but still dubious, conclusion (that the misogyny can be deduced from the name itself), and you are additionally making an empirical claim, with support, about there being a bunch of misoygnist 'incel' forums. Pointing out your objectionable reasoning is not a different discussion just because I have no knowledge about the separate empirical claim.


I have said repeatedly, "incels and people not having sex are not the same thing, and I'm talking about incels." You respond with, "(a bunch of gibberish), but I'm not talking about incels." If you're not talking about "incels," then you and I are not talking about the same thing.

Here's how I see this argument going:

Me: "Incel" is a misogynistic concept. Here are examples of this.
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????
Me: Then they are misunderstanding "incel" and/or actually are misogynists. Do you have an example of this?
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????
Me: No, seriously, I'm not here dealing in hypotheticals, I've provided real examples, why don't you?
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????

Do you have a source on that schizophranic homeless man who identifies himself as "involuntarily celibate" yet, by the way?

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 8:42 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:And, if they were reasonable, they also wouldn't identify as incels. In the same way a person who doesn't hate black people wouldn't identify as a racist.
'Involuntarily celibate' is not to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'. 'Misogynist' is to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'.

It might be that 'involuntarily celibate' is, in fact, a term used exclusively by misogynists and misogynists in training; I don't actually know. But I don't think it serves us well to make 'incel' a synonym for 'misogynist' without more data.


Identifying yourself as "involuntarily celibate" is to misogyny what being racist is to being racist. Please feel free to gather more data. The links I've shared should be a great starting place - they have links to lead to more forums, which then have links to lead to other forums, etc. I have read more than enough from people subscribing to this view for me to decide that it is dangerous. You are here arguing something that by your own admission you don't have enough data on. That doesn't mean I don't. If you want to believe "incel" is not a misogynistic concept, then show me a community of people who identify with that label and are not misogynistic. Until you do, you're just making stuff up.

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 8:59 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:Identifying yourself as "involuntarily celibate" is to misogyny what being racist is to being racist. Please feel free to gather more data. The links I've shared should be a great starting place - they have links to lead to more forums, which then have links to lead to other forums, etc. I have read more than enough from people subscribing to this view for me to decide that it is dangerous. You are here arguing something that by your own admission you don't have enough data on. That doesn't mean I don't. If you want to believe "incel" is not a misogynistic concept, then show me a community of people who identify with that label and are not misogynistic. Until you do, you're just making stuff up.
Frankly, I suspect your characterization of 'incel' is largely correct -- but for all the wrong reasons.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby leady » Wed May 28, 2014 9:31 am UTC

well this got a little derailed into a discussion of internet subcultures :)

I'm pretty sure this narcissist would never self identify as "incel", they at least recognise that its as much them as external forces. This chap clearly thought he was perfect and everyone else was broken (taking his writings as face value).

Anyone fancy moving towards the real likely root causes of early childhood alienation when his parents separated and his instant new step mum? I mean his parents knew he had problems well before they manifested themselves in sexualised way going back to the age of 8.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby jareds » Wed May 28, 2014 9:39 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:Here's how I see this argument going:

Me: "Incel" is a misogynistic concept. Here are examples of this.
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????
Me: Then they are misunderstanding "incel" and/or actually are misogynists. Do you have an example of this?
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????
Me: No, seriously, I'm not here dealing in hypotheticals, I've provided real examples, why don't you?
You and others: But what if somebody who's not misogynist identifies as "incel"????

Do you have a source on that schizophranic homeless man who identifies himself as "involuntarily celibate" yet, by the way?

Here's how I see this argument going:

blowfishhootie: By reasoning X, the term "involuntary celibacy" is inherently misogynist.
blowfishhootie: Also, here's a bunch of misogynistic garbage from 'incel' forums.
Me: Reasoning X is totally off base--you're implying that any man who doesn't blame himself for lack of sex blames woman. That's offensive to any man who doesn't feel blame either way about his lack of sex.
blowfishhootie: I repeat my claim that blamelessness is impossible without explaining why.
Me and Hippo: Seriously, why is one party or the other to blame?
blowfishhootie: This is a totally different discussion.
Me: No, it's not. You just asked a few posts ago how a man can fail to think that either he or the woman is at fault when a women isn't attracted to him.
blowfishhootie: Yes, it is, because I'm not saying anything about people who don't use the 'incel' label. Also, you're talking gibberish.

Back to the present:

Unless you retract your claim that blamelessness is impossible, you ARE talking about people who don't identify as 'incel'. You're talking about every man who's ever been rejected without having some psychological need to blame himself or the woman for it.

It is you, not I, who is trying to bring the conversation to non-misogynists who use the 'incel' label. I am consistently trying to get you to respond and explain why you think that men MUST either blame themselves or the woman (or women in general). This is not a different discussion because your argument that 'involuntary celibacy' is inherently misogynist is based on it. And if it is a different discussion, why have you been repeatedly saying that blamelessness is impossible?

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Wed May 28, 2014 9:45 am UTC

I've read through this thread and think I can succinctly sum up the last two or so pages:

Blowfishhootie: No true incel is not a misogynist.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 10:57 am UTC

WilliamLehnsherr wrote:I've read through this thread and think I can succinctly sum up the last two or so pages:

Blowfishhootie: No true incel is not a misogynist.


Exactly. I am certain there are people out there who identify as "incels" who do not hold what I would consider to be misogynistic views. That doesn't mean "incel" is not a misogynistic concept, it only means there are people identifying with something that they shouldn't be. There were Nazis who didn't hate Jews. There were (I assume) slaveowners who didn't particularly hate black people. That doesn't mean the Nazis weren't anti-Semitic, or that slavery was not a racist institution. There are many reasons why someone might identify with this term that doesn't really apply to them: the desire to be in a group of people with what they think are similar issues; a failure to actually think about the concept of "incel" and its implications; the ease of giving into peer pressure; or maybe the people just aren't that smart. Who knows? Without specific examples, which I have asked for and asked for and asked for, it is impossible to say. But the number of men who identify as "incel" and are in fact not misogynists are surely an insignificant portion of the overall "incel" community, based on all the interactions within that community that I've read over the past few days.

I have said this repeatedly - the schizophrenic homeless guy is "unlikely to identify as 'involuntarily celibate.'" That was what I said. It's not impossible, but it's pretty unlikely. What is the natural response to that, if you want to refute it? Show me it happening in real life. Instead, I get crickets. Actually, not crickets, but a playback of the same song over and over.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby engr » Wed May 28, 2014 11:23 am UTC

Check your PM.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

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 » Wed May 28, 2014 11:31 am UTC

It took a lot of staring into the abyss, but I did finally find non-misogynist people who identify as incel at http://yourenotalone.info/forum/index.php. Sample quote:
I agree with this. "Involuntary" is of course meant to distinguish from people who abstain from sex for religious or other reasons, but it's always sounded a bit off to me. It suggests coercion and helplessness, and neither of those are healthy ways to view a lack of sexual relationships.

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 11:48 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:It took a lot of staring into the abyss, but I did finally find non-misogynist people who identify as incel at http://yourenotalone.info/forum/index.php. Sample quote:
I agree with this. "Involuntary" is of course meant to distinguish from people who abstain from sex for religious or other reasons, but it's always sounded a bit off to me. It suggests coercion and helplessness, and neither of those are healthy ways to view a lack of sexual relationships.


Thank you. Here's a line from the first post on that forum's thread about Elliot Rodger:

I'm also seeing the term "incel" being grouped in with this, and judging by the majority of people/communities that use this term online, it's entirely justified. This "incel" forum is an outlier, at least from what I can see.


This kind of sentiment is in a very small minority among people using this term. It's kind of akin to a white man whose ancestors are from Africa identifying himself as African-American: It's technically true if you take the term literally, but it's not actually what the rest of the world thinks when they use that term. The difference being, African-American is not an offensive concept (well, maybe to some, I don't know), while "incel" is. (EDIT: Actually, another difference is that "involuntarily celibate" is NOT technically true if you take the term literally; I can't be asked to rework the whole statement.) It's bizarre that these men would acknowledge the misogynistic meaning of the term as the rest of the world uses it, and then continue using it to identify themselves, but it doesn't make "involuntarily celibate" not sexist.

EDIT: Also, a quick scan through some random threads on that forum show that misogyny exists there too. Here's another post referencing this, though not actually necessarily sexist itself:

The term 'picking fights' is provocative but women essentially come here to the board because we want to find a way out of our incelibacy and share stories with other incels. That we end up having to regularly defend feminism (and it is regular, like every few months), or prove its validity to men, is a bit wearing. Discussing perspectives has its merits but it is also very tempting to push the discussions aside. We are looking to find ways to connect to men, not disconnect.

And you're a smart guy, Tox. I can't help but think if you wanted to know something you'd research it using your own devices, and not ask the opinion of people on the Internet whose views you are not particularly aligned with..


I don't have time to read anymore than that right now.
Last edited by blowfishhootie on Wed May 28, 2014 12:03 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 28, 2014 11:57 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
WilliamLehnsherr wrote:I've read through this thread and think I can succinctly sum up the last two or so pages:

Blowfishhootie: No true incel is not a misogynist.
Exactly.

Wow, you just bit that whole fallacious bullet, didn't you?
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)

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed May 28, 2014 12:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
WilliamLehnsherr wrote:I've read through this thread and think I can succinctly sum up the last two or so pages:

Blowfishhootie: No true incel is not a misogynist.
Exactly.

Wow, you just bit that whole fallacious bullet, didn't you?


If it was satire, it was pretty poor satire.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 28, 2014 12:14 pm UTC


User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26824
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 28, 2014 12:15 pm UTC

He called you out on what is pretty clearly a No True Scotsman, and you agreed wholeheatedly.
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)

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

Re: Isla Vista shooting

Postby eSOANEM » Wed May 28, 2014 12:22 pm UTC

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

Your claim's bullshit.

How hard is it to fucking understand "our culture idolizes some celibate persons as heroes, sometimes because of their celibacy, therefore you shouldn't feel you're a failure for being celibate"?

Where the fuck are you two getting the idea that I'm saying "all religious figures are celibate, documentation of such is important, and celibacy is the right way to live"?

For the point I'm making? It honestly doesn't matter if we find documents that Jesus was a legendary poonhound. What matters is that humanity is okay with celibacy, and that there are even people who will honor you for it. That's it.

Read the whole gotdamn paragraph before jumping down peoples' throats.


You claimed most religious figures were celibate. That claim is false (unless you define religious figure in an incredibly narrow way purely to justify your statement). I agree with your conclusion that many cultures do not, in theory, consider celibacy to be a bad thing.

In practice however, celibacy is often criticised even in western culture which, in many ways, claims to hold celibate people up as ideals. You can see this in the fact that asexual people need to come out and the reactions when they do.

Likewise, the way guys get criticised as pussies if they get past the age of 18 without having sex (cf. 40 year old virgin) and girls get criticised as prudes if they stay a virigin too long.

So yeah, in practice, western culture does view not having sex as a flaw. Whether religions view it as a virtue is as irrelevant as the fact of religious figures' celibacy (which isn't my argument, my argument was that it's not even really true of the perception unless you choose a definition so that it is true) because religions are not a microcosm of the entirety of a culture.

blowfishhootie wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:And, if they were reasonable, they also wouldn't identify as incels. In the same way a person who doesn't hate black people wouldn't identify as a racist.
'Involuntarily celibate' is not to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'. 'Misogynist' is to 'misogyny' as 'racist' is to 'racism'.

It might be that 'involuntarily celibate' is, in fact, a term used exclusively by misogynists and misogynists in training; I don't actually know. But I don't think it serves us well to make 'incel' a synonym for 'misogynist' without more data.


Identifying yourself as "involuntarily celibate" is to misogyny what being racist is to being racist. Please feel free to gather more data. The links I've shared should be a great starting place - they have links to lead to more forums, which then have links to lead to other forums, etc. I have read more than enough from people subscribing to this view for me to decide that it is dangerous. You are here arguing something that by your own admission you don't have enough data on. That doesn't mean I don't. If you want to believe "incel" is not a misogynistic concept, then show me a community of people who identify with that label and are not misogynistic. Until you do, you're just making stuff up.


This is bollocks.

As has been said, misogynist is to misogyny as racist is to racism. You're begging the question.

I mean, I agree that the a straight guy who identifies as incel will almost certainly be a misogynist, but making the claim that they are equivalent is patently false. Case in point, the numerous misogynists who manage to have sex and don't identify as incel.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests