Jump to content

Thoughts on Incel


Guest Jetsun Milarepa

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I've had a chance to comb through those links, and some of the research they cite.

 

The Semantic Scholar link is the Baumeister paper. The Web MD, Psychology Today, and Kinsey Confidential pieces are all journalistic summaries of the Baumeister paper. The NCBI paper cites Baumeister and one other piece of meta research from Peterson and Hyde, which actually concludes:

 

The Peplau article uses Baumeister for its section on comparing levels of sexual desire. Medical Daily story has nothing about comparative levels of desire between sexes. The Emphower story is 300 words of journalistic generalisations, with no particular sources. However it does say

 

However it wouldn’t be fair to lean on that too much since it’s just these faceless ‘researchers’...

 

So basically, you have one paper. Baumeister. And he has a big problem in the terms he uses.

 

Baumeister’s main criterion for the strength of sexual desire is spontaneous arousal, in one way or another, but it’s flawed as a way of comparing male and female sexual desire, because it assume spontaneous desire as a norm. In fact, spontaneous desire is just more common in men. If he’d measured responsive desire he’d have found it more common in women (I’m using Nagoski’s research as a basis for this).

 

Both spontaneous and responsive desire are about wanting sex, but Baumeister has simply defined his research to exclude the type of desire that’s more common in women, and concluded that they’re not as keen on sex.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Figures on those articles. If I knew of a place where I could find just published studies without the article bullshit in-between that'd be swell. Beyond that, probably not much to say. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 5:13 AM, G1P0 said:

I don't really get incel as a whole, but that's probably a given. I don't know much about it either.

 

What I do wonder though, is how much toxic masculinity plays into it. Not as an attack or anything, but in terms of how a man's value is determined (in part) by getting laid in our society.

 

Or is sex just an emotional need among allosexuals I wouldn't fully understand?

Sex is a need for many allosexuals - they are miserable without it. 

 

That of course doesn't mean that they *deserve* to get sex, but its reasonable for them to wish they were having sex.  The real question is how they approach fixing the problem. 

 

Blaming other people for not having sex with them is at best useless, and possibly highly objectionable. 

 

Trying to figure out what they can change to fix the problem is reasonable. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Telecaster68 @E is for E

 

This is only anecdotal evidence, granted, but it's very good anecdotal evidence. I've know many ftm transmen, and every single one said that they had no idea what a sex drive was until they started T. 

 

So the universal-ish experience of people who switch to male hormones is that male hormones kick up a sex drive unparalleled without those hormones. 

 

I'm inclined to believe it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@E is for E, pubmed is a good source of peer reviewed medical research articles. Some, though you can only see a brief summary of, unless you pay 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
11 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

@Telecaster68 @E is for E

 

This is only anecdotal evidence, granted, but it's very good anecdotal evidence. I've know many ftm transmen, and every single one said that they had no idea what a sex drive was until they started T. 

 

So the universal-ish experience of people who switch to male hormones is that male hormones kick up a sex drive unparalleled without those hormones. 

 

I'm inclined to believe it. 

I guess there's the issues of how prevalent a feeling it is, and how strong that feeling is. The research and my experience makes me think women want sex just as strongly as men, when they want it, but sex is more frequently on men's radar. As generalities.

 

I certainly don't buy the idea that women, by and large, are tepid about sex in some faut ladylike virginal way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small correction to my earlier posts: That community for lonely people I've been part of, explicitly states that they don't agree with what they dub incel mentality. So groups that do self-identify as incel, might indeed be just as bad as you guys claim. I might've subconsciously avoided those particular ones while exploring the subject, or maybe things have changed in the years since then.

 

Still, the hate campaign seems a little unhelpful. Comments of the sort "Let's bully those people into suicide" seem to be rather popular right now. Regardless of how bad the incel subculture phenomenon has gotten, demonizing and othering will certainly make issues worse.

 

On 26.4.2018 at 9:11 PM, J. Alfred Prufrock said:

Any man who expresses despair about having used up his options and facing the choice of "go unfulfilled or become someone I don't want to be" runs the risk of being labeled basically the same as people who demand sex slaves. And that's fucked up, because this is part of how incel groups recruit! "Yeah, they hate us just as much as they hate you, but we understand your pain. We sympathize. You can talk to us."

Yup, it's the same tactic as employed by  "classical liberals" for goading people into anti-feminism and bigotry toward Muslims, or by fascists to goad people into xenophobia. Genuine concerns that the "left" refuses to address (that's because they're not actual leftists, but bankrolled corporatists), and then the only tactic they have left is shaming people who are suffering. Create an artificial divide among people. It's working pretty brilliantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

@Telecaster68 @E is for E

 

This is only anecdotal evidence, granted, but it's very good anecdotal evidence. I've know many ftm transmen, and every single one said that they had no idea what a sex drive was until they started T. 

 

So the universal-ish experience of people who switch to male hormones is that male hormones kick up a sex drive unparalleled without those hormones. 

 

I'm inclined to believe it. 

Damn, I need to get me some testosterone :wub: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief
On 26/04/2018 at 8:20 AM, Tarfeather said:

Oh, that's an entirely different can of worms. Basically a semantic discussion. Look, we can all agree that the word "incel" is poorly coined, and a lot of incel communities avoid it for that very reason. This just comes down to a different understanding of "involuntary". It's not "involuntary" in the sense of, someone forces me to do or not do something. It's more the kind of involuntary where e.g. someone with OCD has to keep washing their hands. Sure, the person with OCD could theoretically choose to just not wash their hands for so long? But they don't genuinely have that option. It's not really a matter of their own free will anymore, it's a matter of compulsion, and they need outside help to deal with that.

 

I've done research on the online resources for the incel concept (basically sites that are in function for incel, what AVEN is to asexuality), and they never claim that incels are physically unable to get laid. What they claim is that a mixture of different factors (social anxiety, autism spectrum disorders, mental illness, physical disability, being in a low population area, etc. etc.) makes it effectively impossible for them to get laid. They view this as a serious and unique problem, and they offer online discussion sites as a sort of self help group for people to discuss their challenges and experiences.

 

But yeah, if you don't want to call it "incel", be my guest. I'm not aware of any other unique term to identify these groups, though.

This is late, but that metaphor really isn't comparable. And for your information there are forms of OCD which can come off as sex addiction or be about sex, comparing THAT with incel is kinda insulting. The reason why compulsions are the way they are with OCD, is because they are preceded by distressing intrusive thoughts, and form as a coping mechanism for dealing with said thoughts. So that person with contamination OCD you metaphorically describe as having to repeatedly wash their hands is doing so because it's the only way to shut down very distressing thoughts of hurting the people they love or themselves. That is in no way comparable to what you're saying. Plus, I have sexual intrusive thoughts myself, which would be the closest to this. (TW sexual/self harm intrusive thoughts)

Spoiler

Until incels have to put up with thoughts of masturbating half way through a conversation, or my own weird gender dysphoria version of stabbing my sex characteristics, regularly, that metaphor just does not work.

 

The entire point here is, regardless of the underlying causes for feeling like you're struggling with relationships, sex is not a need to the extent that not getting it counts as being marginalised. Just organise on the basis of the actual reasons you're being harmed, instead of saying that what you need in your life is just sex. The point is, you're basically saying not having sex on its own is highly distressing to these people, to the point of something like sexual OCD, and my brain just gives a big nope to that.

 

PS: Okay and this is super late, but I also read your more recent comment and think you're probably right, the "incel" communities which didn't self identify as such were probably much better. ^_^ Since it is perfectly reasonable to just be frustrated at your lack of a romantic or sex life, without claiming it as a point of marginalisation or making out that not having sex was so incredibly painful and hard to deal with. The harsh tone here btw was because I don't want to encourage stereotyping of OCD symptoms, the handwashing stuff is kind of offensive when you realise the huge scope of thoughts and compulsions which fall under OCD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony Bogart in his book Understanding Asexuality actually refers to testosterone as a poison.

 

If I remember I'll add the exact quote when I have the book in front of me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

The red pill / incel version is exactly the same, except the word on the card is 'disrespected'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief
1 minute ago, Skycaptain said:

Anthony Bogart in his book Understanding Asexuality actually refers to testosterone as a poison.

 

If I remember I'll add the exact quote when I have the book in front of me 

I think if we were to discuss the effects of testosterone on libido, sexual desire etc, it's best to do through academic literature, for the sake of not creating misinformation, since there might be more AFAB trans aces watching who want HRT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

This is late, but that metaphor really isn't comparable.

It's not a metaphor. It's the illustration of a concept. It's the same as if I say "Gravity causes the apple to fall off the tree and to drop on the man's head, the same way it causes this boulder to roll down the hill and crush a helpless goat". That's in no way saying that apples dropping on people's heads is comparable to boulders crushing goats, it's just applying the same concept to different situations. Why am I being put in a place where I need to explain basic premises of human reasoning? I seriously need to take a break from this place..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
1 minute ago, Tarfeather said:

It's not a metaphor. It's the illustration of a concept. It's the same as if I say "Gravity causes the apple to fall off the tree and to drop on the man's head, the same way it causes this boulder to roll down the hill and crush a helpless goat". That's in no way saying that apples dropping on people's heads is comparable to boulders crushing goats, it's just applying the same concept to different situations. Why am I being put in a place where I need to explain basic premises of human reasoning? I seriously need to take a break from this place..

Misconstruing analogies has a long and venerable tradition on AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ABryonJ.maybe said:

No, no you don't. Its a horrible hormone that subverts all rational processes in its great and never ending hunt for poontang. 

Mmmm gotta get that pootang :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

@FictoVore. I don't think I had up to that point ever used that word but eventually you got to say why not?😂😂😂 But I also think it plays up to the idea that a lot of people see sex as a game rather than an emotional investment by inventing these cutesy names for sex and the sexual organs. I mean I could see a line of kids toys called poontang if it hadn't been appropriated already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

@Tarfeather You were making an analogy using the stereotype of a mental illness, so how exactly am I wrong in correcting you on that? Semantics on metaphors vs analogy is ridiculous when you're drawing on a stereotype regardless. And again, I was drawing on my own experience since I find it hard to sympathise with guys complaining about how detrimental to their lives it is to want sex and not have it, considering I don't want sex, I can't help thinking about it, it is a part of the stuff making life really bloody hard right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader

Shrug. 

 

1. Denouncing actual acts of violence - fine

2. Denouncing person that committed that act of violence and not giving people chance to contribute to society in other ways - not fine to me, but understandable 

3. Denouncing the entire group of people that the person that has committed the act of violence belongs to - not fine, not understandable, and drives division 

 

Putting aside philosophical questions about whether we agree or disagree with their worldview of 'whodunwrong', how about talking about ways to address insecurities, loneliness and potentially maladaptive behaviours? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite my tendency towards disliking the label and the group as it seems to lean largely towards a negative aspect rather than a positive one, unfortunately it hits close to home. If anything, over the past few days it's inspired miscellaneous thoughts on my part. I can never warrant it as an excuse to hurt people or even direct negative feelings towards anybody, but I can, with thought understand the angle where some of those people come from, by looking over my own life. Ballpark mathematics ahead.

Spoiler

 

I've never wanted sex. If it were ever a goal of mine, I'd've hired an escort by now. But I've always been looking for a partner. My province is one of issue. There's a million people in it. Sixty percent or more of them are retirement age. So with loose math, right off the bat I have a population of 400,000 people as candidates for a meaningful partnership. Cut that in half due to my province having roughly 50/50 for male to female ratios. I seem inclined more towards women than men. So we're down to 200,000 people. Still quite a bit for one guy.

 

But then we get to personal life choices and lifestyle, which absolutely tanks that remaining number to degrees that I can't precisely ballpark. I don't do drugs of any kind, I don't hunt, and I live below my country's poverty line. I'm in decent shape for my age(something a lot of people in my province arguably aren't weight wise) I live out in relative wilderness, I seek a simple life, and I stay in a small localized area for the purpose of helping my remaining family.

 

Basically, I go against the grain of almost everything most of the youth in my province is about. I can pin that number down as a rough example. 90%. Using my old school classmates as an example, and all the other classes I've known that've graduated in the area, over 90% of those people left for other provinces or the cities. In fact, of my old class alone, I'm the only the poor bastard left in the region. So that's 20,000 people to work with.

 

For one guy, again, 20,000 people is still a pretty big number. But that heat is starting to stack. Let's add on some more variables. What's going to wipe the absolute floor with that remaining number are two factors. Intelligence and sex. I don't like bragging in any form. But it's not an unreasonable assessment to look at things objectively. The majority of the people I've met in my life were lacking in intelligence. Or if they had some, they were only intelligent in one specific area. And the ones that were intelligent that I knew are all dead. Dunno what my IQ is, never cared to know, but I'd ballpark my intelligence somewhere above the average line. And I'm not looking for sex, not at first. 

 

So that's probably another 90%. That's 2000 people in the entire province. Oh mama that heat's stacking now. Let's add another factor with a twist. I'm a family person. I live in a closed area of space. I don't go on vacations, I don't travel, I tend to avoid people, and a big part of my life is helping the only family I have left. Let's make it a 100 mile radius from my position because that's the most I've ever traveled probably in about 10 years. That makes three towns nearby. 800 people, 1000 people, 2500 people. That's 4300 people. Just regular people mind you. Let's apply my shitty formula to the localized control group just for fun. Cut 4300 down by sixty percent for oldies. 1720. Cut 1720 down by half for male/female ratios. 860. Apply 90% to factor in people leaving and other stuff, and I'm left with 86 people. You know, for one guy, 86 people is still quite a bit. I mean, if I were looking for sex, 86 people is a lot of people to have sex with. This also isn't factoring relationship status either. Funny, I found a census with all the info I could want on numbers in my province. Paints a pretty grim picture. That 86 people is actually looking like a reasonable ballpark. Actually with the addition of another 90% that I forgot 86 becomes 8.6 people. There's half a partner out there for me in the world.

 

But, either way, for my area, with all of the combinations and my lifestyle choices, I'm a 0.01% anomaly.

 

 

With even just ballparking math, based off social experiences and anecdotal data of a map of my life thus far where I live, me being me, I'm actually fucked(oh the irony). Granted, of course, I am aware that some of the choices in my life are what make me undesirable as a person, and it is in my power to change those. But I don't seek to alter myself to fit a mold for the sole purpose of sex or a partner. I'd just like to be little old me. And over time, I actually have improved in areas I once lacked in.

 

But, to the point, I actually can understand the movement. If I were a vindictive personality, and I could be due to so many bad experiences with people of every type, factored in with some absolutely horrid experiences with women in the past, I could fall incredibly easily into a mindset and a vicious circle. That ballpark data in the spoiler, which I find actually has some merit the more I refine it, is soul crushing to me. And I'm sure it would be to anybody else who existed in such a position. And I'm sure that people that exist in my position do agonize over this stuff. They would actually start breaking things down into statistics and mathematics in some vain effort to find hope, only to find something even worse. Reality. Factor that with something like depression or introverted tendencies, and a knowledge of their lacking qualities, and man, that is a fucking grim picture to wake up to every morning that'll absolutely feed a vicious circle of despair, self loathing, and a general attitude that asks "why the fuck am I not good enough?"

 

Does that give them the right to enact violence? Absolutely not. If it were me, the driver of that van would be dead right now, on the spot if I had a choice in the matter. The taking of life in hatred or uncaring manners forfeits the life of the taker as far as I am concerned. But I can absolutely understand why and how some of those people end up to be the way they are, and why they see what they see.

 

You know, I'd even gamble something here. Sex has never been the priority on my list. But in thought, if I had a partner who did want sex, it would be my top goal to make said partner happy. That's a goal that I have. I want that. Not the sex for myself, but to experience giving that form of intimacy and caring to somebody. I can't give that to an escort who is simply doing their job. And I can't gain that from an escort either. I'd be willing to wager that some of the people who adopt the label also face similar circumstances in their views about sex. A portion of them anyway.

 

But the skinny here is, on reflection, I really can understand why the movement exists. I understand, but don't condone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, paperbackreader said:

Shrug. 

 

1. Denouncing actual acts of violence - fine

2. Denouncing person that committed that act of violence and not giving people chance to contribute to society in other ways - not fine to me, but understandable 

3. Denouncing the entire group of people that the person that has committed the act of violence belongs to - not fine, not understandable, and drives division 

 

Putting aside philosophical questions about whether we agree or disagree with their worldview of 'whodunwrong', how about talking about ways to address insecurities, loneliness and potentially maladaptive behaviours? 

No. I'm going to denounce entire groups when the reason I'm denouncing them is the central philosophy of the group. Honestly don't care if you agree or not. I'll denounce the KKK as a group. I will also denounce incels as a group. 

 

Not all lonely men call themselves incel. If they do, I denounce them. It's their choice to join a group with a specific worldview, and it's my choice to disagree with that worldview. You're not actually the boss of me and I can talk about whatever I want, thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, paperbackreader said:

3. Denouncing the entire group of people that the person that has committed the act of violence belongs to - not fine, not understandable, and drives division 

So you don't denounce the KKK as a group of people, out of interest? What about TERFS? or ISIS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader

@Skullery Maid - I guess I made that post knowing it sounded like an order. Not trying to boss anyone or tell you what to do, but for me those are my own boundaries and in the same way that I don't tell you how to live your life you don't tell me how to live mine, however fine for both of us to state our opinions and discuss what we feel /think about it without wanting to get at each others throats :lol: 

 

The problem is that reaction you just felt in writing the last post to me? I'd hazard that's what other people feel when they read yours about themselves... 

 

Detour :

I'm not sure it's the central philosophy as you describe, but for the sake of argument, I struggle a lot, but can apply my philosophy to the KKK. Say it was a current thing problem. If the KKK hadn't yet gone out as groups of people together to lynch people, I'd be prepared to hold cross party talks to figure out why they feel threatened and work on possible routes to integration. I recognise that I'd probably get killed on the way. :lol: Generally, I would wanna work on preventing people to feel the need to establish something like the KKK in the first place. 

 

I denounce the violence. I denounce the views that are incompatible with promoting peaceful society, although I am probably more liberal in this than most and this is up to interpretation. So for example, whilst my gut reaction to the red pill is 'gag, wtf is this is absolute poppycock', I don't have a problem if you aren't in public office setting policy on everyones lives and just run your own private affairs with other consensual adults in that way. 

 

I definitely don't, won't and can't denounce EVERYONE in the group, whether it be incels, the KKK or IS. Because chances are, the narcissistic psychopathic madmen who really wanna do harm within a group starts off as a minority within the group. And I'm sure almost every group has a few of those. So if the KKK had 1 or 2 members that had gone out to commit murders on their own, I'm not gonna be prepared to say all of the KKK members are evil and needs to be shot. In the same way I'm not gonna say all Columbine alma maters are mass murderers, or all Brexit supporters are killers. I'm gonna wanna find out who it is that wanna nuke others, find out why they think that is an acceptable trade off and work on making sure other people like them don't get made. I guess the difference is I can denounce the central tenets of the KKK because it is clearly set out to be divisive by violence. 

 

And to me, to do otherwise and to generalize in that way is to be a little more like these groups we despise, their problem is more often than not over generalization, and I'm sure as hell not gonna take a leaf out of their book to spread more negative division. 

 

I read this a few years ago about ISIS survivors and mostly I just feel sorry for the people caught up in the situation.  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-03-11/women-who-escaped-isis

 

These are people,  that for whatever reason through their experiences of society and the world, believes in their world view, that running away from their lives to join a death cult is a better option than staying at home, knowing they might never ever see their previous lives again. It took a lot for me to leave my family, country,  best friends and home behind. I wonder how their past lives must be, to have a desparation to leave it all behind knowing there's no return, and I wonder what promises have been made to them to inspire such a move. Lumping these people caught in the situation and are later coerced or radicalised in to commiting heinous acts with those that set the agenda in the first place for their own personal gain is difficult for me to do. And even if you're that narcissistic sonofagun, I'd love to interview you one on one to find out how someone can become so extreme in their hatred against other people to be able to cause harm to others on purpose. I don't understand how anyone could want to inflict harm  or see other people's lives as collateral. But even that doesn't mean I will completely dismiss their other skills, so hypothetically if Toronto killer guy has amazing out of this world higgs boson finding skills, he should be given the opportunity to do so and make his positive contribution to society, albeit with restricted freedoms elsewhere to ensure similar things don't happen again. 

 

Transphobia is not OK. But from my POV, neither is treating people that are transphobic like they have no right to feel the way they do. Whether we like it or not, that's the way they feel. Take it less personally and work on why their egos are affronted by the identity of other people. Denying their right to feel a certain way isn't gonna change their view... 

 

ISIS pretends to be bigger than it is. A lot of so called 'IS attacks'  are really 'IS inspired'. I wish the media would stop giving them so much time of day, as a result enabling violent fame seeking / propoganda spreading behaviour. Unfortunately most of the time their primary interests are their commercial bottom lines, so whatever gets our beef and is sensationalisable gets reported. I guess we're not gonna change human nature. My feelings about radical Islam is that it is in part enabled as a consequence of 9/11 /televization. A generation of young Muslims grew up feeling dispossessed, unwanted  and targeted by other communities and consequently feels a change in the world order in order that they can be respected. 

 

I'd also like to note that comparing incels to ISIS / KKK and the negative views against this group has occurred because of 2 publicised mass murders in North America, sensationalised by the media. In discussing these subjects nobody has significantly discussed other traits, or that Elliott had bipolar/schizophrenia and Alek appears to suffer from Aspergers / OCD (of course, it is SO uncool to discriminate people based on their mental disorders), and instead have focused primarily on their links to a particular group of people, and making assumptions and invalidating these people's feelings and thoughts based, I feel, primarily on the actions of 2 people. And it is this generalizing bias that I find worrying and difficult to accept. 

 

Back on topic:

I guess what comes across from some of the posts here is a negative view about incels that prompts people to express that they don't believe they don't have the right to feel the way they do. I feel so strongly that that is a foot shooting move. They feel that way, whether we like it or not.

We're not gonna make better societies by further denying how people feel, or telling them that they have no right to have support, which feels like what a lot of people are saying. 

 

@E is for E I enjoyed the maths a lot :lol: reminds me of an episode of Frasier. I feel that for some peeps, having a partner is not so much a biological need but a roundabout way to be respectable, validated and a fully fledged member of society. I wish less people felt that way about themselves. 

 

Sorry for length! :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we had a way to indicate we like PART of a post, without having to quote the sections we don't like and say why we don't.   Could we have half a heart as well as a full heart, for those who are lazy? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

So you don't denounce the KKK as a group of people, out of interest? What about TERFS? or ISIS?

Personally, I don't, actually. I'm not a bigot. I recognize that a group with even the most shit mentality doesn't necessarily entirely consist of evil people. I do denounce the mentality of those groups, though, and given a strict definition of incel that involves misogyny etc. I denounce the mentality of that group as well.

 

Hey, you're a Tolkien fan, right? Tolkien was actually really aware of this theme, part of why I admire him. The whole Gollum thing, and how Bilbo taking pity on him ended up essentially saving everyone. And then this quote, "For nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so." We're all humans, we all are shaped and affected by our experiences. Even members of the KKK or ISIS are still humans who we can empathize with if we try, and I think that's important. Not dehumanizing people. That's what those in power fear the most, I feel, that the humans of this planet woke up and realized there are no tribes, that we're all in a huge boat and we'll all sink together, and that we had better work together. And that's what I consider true leftism, and it's why I'll never consider someone "on my side" who dehumanizes groups of people, no matter how evil and vile they think them to be.

 

PS: Okay, if this is what you're talking about when you're denouncing "incel mentality", I understand fully where you're coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

But they're humans who thought 'yes, I want to be part of a group of violent racists'. They, individually, make that choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

We shouldn't judge a group which gets together to comfort each other on loneliness, nothing against that. We should judge a group whose central philosophy is "women owe me sex"(not saying incel is always this but if a group calling itself incel were repeatedly making that statement, at some point they're just shit people). We should definitely judge a group of people whose central philosophy is, I want to join a group of violent racists attached to a decades-centuries long history of literally killing black people, and making people of colour fear for their lives. I mean heck, some people are afraid just to live in a house where a murder happened, I can guarantee you don't find good people willing to join a group known for mass murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

So yeah, if you're gonna say you WOULDN'T judge a person for being in the KKK!!!!!!?????? What that tells me is, you're happy with the idea that people of colour who want to be friends with you might LITERALLY be risking their lives. What the fuck!!!!???? @Tarfeather I have absolutely ZERO problems judging you now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...