Jump to content

Concern for the rise of Incel


umbasa

Recommended Posts

Telecaster68
48 minutes ago, bejjinks said:

It is their choice but they won't acknowledge it. They only want "stacys" so if a non-stacy expresses interest in an incel, the incel rejects her but tells himself that women reject him.

Meanwhile the other option, of raising their own status and being acceptable to a 'quality woman' (I hate that terminology) doesn't occur to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bejjinks said:

They only want "stacys"

So they're having tantrums for their self-inflicted situation. On top of that, are angry at women for this? On the road, staying in your lane is conducive with driving well. Dating isn't any different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry
8 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Meanwhile the other option, of raising their own status and being acceptable to a 'quality woman' (I hate that terminology) doesn't occur to them. 

There is some truth in that. 

 

Lurk on their boards for any length of time, and you'll find that most of them have no ambition to be their own bosses, get a better job, become better off financially, and generally give up their shitty outlook on life for something more optimistic. This is why I doubt I'd be welcome among their ilk, hence I never de-lurked. Anyone who bootstraps becomes persona non grata to such chronic complainers.

 

Incidentally, if you want to read some heavily loaded pro- and anti-incel material, just google "ban sexbots" and be sure to have plenty of popcorn on hand. There will be no indifference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Woodworker1968 said:

There is some truth in that. 

 

Lurk on their boards for any length of time, and you'll find that most of them have no ambition to be their own bosses, get a better job, become better off financially, and generally give up their shitty outlook on life for something more optimistic. This is why I doubt I'd be welcome among their ilk, hence I never de-lurked. Anyone who bootstraps becomes persona non grata to such chronic complainers.

 

Incidentally, if you want to read some heavily loaded pro- and anti-incel material, just google "ban sexbots" and be sure to have plenty of popcorn on hand. There will be no indifference.

You're really waiting for sex bots to be a thing, huh?

 

I mean, they're fine and all, but if incels refuse prostitutes they'll probably refuse sexbots. Especially with how expensive the good ones will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
knittinghistorian
On 6/9/2018 at 4:02 PM, Grimalkin said:

Oh, no. No, it's far worse than that. It's a name angry men coined for themself, and it stands for "involuntary celibacy." Yes, as in, they're celibate because they can't get women to have sex with them.

 

And they are BITTER about this. It's one of the most hate-filled internet communities I've come across.

And several have committed murders out of bitterness, to get “revenge” on all the “uppity bitches” who turned them down and wouldn’t give them the sex they so richly deserved. It’s absolutely revolting and, as a woman, not a little scary!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reference the above, people who won't pay £50 for a "quickie" behind a hedge, won't pay £25 for a blow-up doll, sure as hell ain't gonna pay a couple of grand or more 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

So they're having tantrums for their self-inflicted situation. On top of that, are angry at women for this? On the road, staying in your lane is conducive with driving well. Dating isn't any different.

On top of that, "Stacys" aren't real. Hollywood has to use a lot of makeup, plastic surgery, and digital editing to create the illusion of a "Stacy". So incels are angry at real women because fake women won't sleep with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry
1 hour ago, Grimalkin said:

You're really waiting for sex bots to be a thing, huh?

It's inevitable. The fact that some people urgently want them banned is a dead giveaway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Woodworker1968 said:

It's inevitable. The fact that some people urgently want them banned is a dead giveaway.

Just who wants them banned?  Cite, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sally said:

Just who wants them banned?  Cite, please.

I feel like there's some women out there who are legitimately disgusted and/or calling for a ban, but I don't think it's gained any traction. I think there's a greater number of women out there who just don't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

The fact that some people urgently want them banned is a dead giveaway. 

The issue with Incels, is they look down on escorts, prostitutes or anyone facilitating them in having sex. This is beneath them. We're talking about men who feel entitled to a "Stacey" like she should be throwing herself at him and cooking him breakfast in bed. They probably look down on even having to put any effort towards her. Guaranteed many are irritated at none ever approaching them.

 

A sex bot would be no different. In fact, you're paying far more up front, for sex.

 

Plus, the technology will be quite advanced, but you can not recreate a genuine human. There are slight nuances a woman brings to the  mix, that you could not recreate in a robot no matter how hard you'd try. Emotional intelligence being one of them.

 

By that, an eluding to the instinctual intricacies behind that emotional intelligence.

 

If these men are craving a connection with any level of depth to it, a robot won't cut it.

 

So you'd be paying likely as much as you could pay for a car, for a very advanced sex doll that responds to your commands. Think of the dynamics, here. If you're willing to pay for this, why not just get an escort or a stripper?

 

The technology will never meet the high standards of men like this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sally said:

Just who wants them banned?  Cite, please.

Religious people want them banned, especially those religious people that want all sex banned except for procreation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bejjinks said:

Religious people want them banned, especially those religious people that want all sex banned except for procreation.

Well okay. But religious people always want something banned. It's kind of our thing. Cats meow, ducks quack, religious people try to ban things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

Dr. Kathleen Richardson wants them banned.

 

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/06/02/interview-kathleen-richardson-makes-case-sex-robots/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

One person, not "some people", and it doesn't  sound like she's "urgent" about it. 

 

And...so what?  You seem to be making the case that since a person wants them banned, that must prove that they are really wonderful.  There's always at least one person who wants just about anything banned.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fractionally off topic, but I find the assumption that all incels are purportedly cishet males, and all sexbots will be AFAC (Assigned Female At Construction) cishet slightly presumptuous. Now if we're talking asexbots which are just there for company without the other stuff...

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

Fractionally off topic, but I find the assumption that all incels are purportedly cishet males, and all sexbots will be AFAC (Assigned Female At Construction) cishet slightly presumptuous. Now if we're talking asexbots which are just there for company without the other stuff...

Well, yes... lovebots.

 

It is a daunting task to design and build a machine that can love (or at least a convincing simulacrum), but one thing technology has taught me is that nothing is really impossible if it doesn't break the laws of physics.

 

Take smartphones, for example... they're just tools. You can use any tool well or use it badly. But if someone would have told you back in 2000 that we'll have handheld devices which can work like two-way TVs and let you buy and sell things when you're out and about, you'd think the person was nuts, or that such things are science fiction. A sexbot or a lovebot is a tool for attaining happiness, and last I checked, the Preamble to the US Constitution still read "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

 

Yeah, sex has become commoditized, but then again, so has love, probably even moreso than sex. In this sense, bots can be analogous to what electricity is doing to the petroleum industry (not to mention what vape pens are doing to tobacco growers). Sure, probably no more than 5% of the cars I see on the road are electric, and I have one myself, but the gas stations haven't had a customer in me for 3 years, and I'm not complaining. If you apply this analogy to the commoditization of love and sex, it's not hard to see how bots have the potential to be the Great Disrupter (as Dr. Richardson argues, correctly), but is this bad? The only people who'd really be hurt by lovebots and sexbots would be people who withhold love and sex, thereby driving the commoditization of them. If someone offers an alternative that prices you out of the market AND offers a better degree of customer satisfaction, then too bad for you. I'm not going back to gasoline in the foreseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
2 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

 The only people who'd really be hurt by lovebots and sexbots would be people who withhold... sex

It's not exactly withholding sex in terms of motivation, but that would be basically romantic asexuals... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Yeah, sex has become commoditized, but then again, so has love, probably even moreso than sex.

No, love has not and cannot be commoditized. Romance has been commoditized. Love cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. It's the same reason why creating a bot that is as sophisticated as the human mind is impossible. There are aspects of the mind that cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. Bots may be able to act human but it will always be an act, nothing real. They can act romantic. They can act sexy. But that isn't love. That's just pretend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bejjinks said:

No, love has not and cannot be commoditized. Romance has been commoditized. Love cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. It's the same reason why creating a bot that is as sophisticated as the human mind is impossible. There are aspects of the mind that cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. Bots may be able to act human but it will always be an act, nothing real. They can act romantic. They can act sexy. But that isn't love. That's just pretend.

Exactly.   If you think pretense is better than the real thing, then a bot is for you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Dr. Kathleen Richardson wants them banned. 

Isn't that like saying Dr. Phil doesn't approve of single parent households?

(keep in mind am not quoting anything he stated)

 

His voice is irrelevant to this, as he is speaking as an out of touch outsider (should he have such a stance).

 

Or Martha Stewart being against recreational drug use, and gang violence.

 

He is well off, has parents, is married and could not relate to a broken home or situation that would create a single parent household.

 

What would she know about the loneliness a man who is driven to pay for companionship would feel?

 

Her voice is almost satirical in nature and would not create any obstacles to this movement as a result should it be in the works.

 

You hold a lot more weight being in an industry that directly competes with this one.

 

She's like a feminist finding Bill Burr offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

Why isn't anyone hating on author David Levy about incels and bots??? It was his damn idea long before I considered it. (Yes, I bought a copy of the book and read it 3 years ago.)

 

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

 

Incidentally, most of those robot-love pics online are of human women with malebots, despite a consensus that the real life situation will overwhelmingly be the opposite. Google and ye shall find.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 10:08 AM, Woodworker1968 said:

It is a daunting task to design and build a machine that can love (or at least a convincing simulacrum), but one thing technology has taught me is that nothing is really impossible if it doesn't break the laws of physics.

You can't give something you haven't experienced.

 

You cannot create an AI intelligent enough to show love, with all the intricacies that come along with it. Sex bots, will as a result, be just that. Practical alternatives to seeking a high end escort, who essentially provides you with the same services (I.E companionship, romance and sex).

 

I'm confused as to why you feel this as a result, would be a benefit to those who label themselves as Incel. There are zero benefits for such a person, when you consider that they want the real life beautiful "Stacey".

 

What you're describing, is a guy hating a "Chad", because he has a Porshe and a hot wife, and you turn around and buy yourself a bicycle and pay for a hooker. Its not the same. It doesn't level the playing field, and if anything, makes the Incel even angrier once he realizes it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa
On 6/23/2018 at 8:36 AM, Skycaptain said:

Fractionally off topic, but I find the assumption that all incels are purportedly cishet males, and all sexbots will be AFAC (Assigned Female At Construction) cishet slightly presumptuous. Now if we're talking asexbots which are just there for company without the other stuff...

...isn't that called Alexa? 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Why isn't anyone hating on author David Levy about incels and bots??? It was his damn idea long before I considered it. (Yes, I bought a copy of the book and read it 3 years ago.)

 

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

 

Incidentally, most of those robot-love pics online are of human women with malebots, despite a consensus that the real life situation will overwhelmingly be the opposite. Google and ye shall find.

We're not hating on any specific individual. Besides, some of us never heard of David Levy. We are concerned because Incels often turn violent and have killed.

 

Also, google takes into account one's previous searches and therefore gives the opposite of what one is looking for. I googled and most of the pictures were robot on robot, no men or women at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader
On 6/17/2018 at 10:52 PM, Sally said:

That's kind of expecting ordinary people to 1) listen to the usual stuff incels say, most of which is mysogynistic, and 2) be a counselor to them.  

Wow this thread has gone to town whilst I've been away... 

 

I'm not sure how you have gathered that it's my expectation we all become counsellors for people who have a different view of the world from us. But I'm certainly of the opinion that making a generalised, negative statements of pathology with only a precursory assessments don't foster better societies, but wedges divides. It's like the trash, sure you put it in the bin and it ends up in landfill, but we're gonna run out of land at some point. If people are having maladaptive traits that prevents them from contributing to society, surely it's better for all of us to address the issue rather than alienate? What next, export them to Syria? 

 

On 6/14/2018 at 2:54 AM, Perspektiv said:

I'd have my hand on my pepper spray, taser or whatever weapon I had on me, and would politely decline his offer. The weapons would remain in my purse, as long as he kept himself in line.

That's precisely the point. Is it right that we live in a culture of fear, rather than mutual support? Women should not need to walk around with weapons, just as men should not need to walk around with knives and guns. 

On 6/18/2018 at 10:29 PM, Malum said:

While women can get a partner very easy, with little effort.

I disagree with this. I can agree that generally, men and women tend to look for different things in partners. And therefore there are difficulties in fulfilling their requirements for partnership on both sides. I can also agree that if  a woman has a generalised man mentality for seeking partners, she would probably find it easy to couple. However, most women are not so inclined. 

 

On 6/15/2018 at 12:15 AM, Malum said:

I will be entirely blunt, it is the result of extremist Feminism, and some normal Feminist doctrine.

Can you elaborate as to what you think is the result of extremist feminism? And why you feel so? Do you feel that extremist feminism is becoming mainstream? 

 

I think @bejjinks said it best at 

On 6/21/2018 at 10:12 PM, bejjinks said:

Okay, we need a new word. Not all incels are men. Not all have male supremacist ideation (the belief that women exist solely to make men happy). Even some non-incels have male supremacist ideation.

 

Incels are not the problem. Only those incels that have male supremacist ideation are the problem. Come up with a new label for those jerks.

But I rather take that we could try to work out how jerks could become less jerks rather than spending our time pointing out parts we find disgusting and excommunicating them. 

 

I see no issue with bots, if that rocks your boat. Heck, I see no issue with cows, if cows could consent... But they can't, so, scrap that. In the future when we have a bot that actually experiences emotions rather than simulates them I may change my mind about how acceptable bot sex is without consent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

What you're describing, is a guy hating a "Chad", because he has a Porshe and a hot wife, and you turn around and buy yourself a bicycle and pay for a hooker. Its not the same. It doesn't level the playing field, and if anything, makes the Incel even angrier once he realizes it.

You helped me realize something. Maybe the problem is more jealousy than it is misogyny. Of course there still is misogyny going on but maybe what fuels the Incels anger is seeing "Chads" being so successful and thinking, "That should be me."

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

Is it right that we live in a culture of fear, rather than mutual support?

Of course not. However, one can't ignore the realities of life (if so, its done at your own risk). I'd rather be prepared, than wind up a victim.

 

Same reason you teach your kids to be street smart. Obviously as a parent you hope they never wind up having to be.

 

Ideally, there would be no sick people out there wanting to hurt them, but we all know this is daydreaming.

 

Same can be said for a woman. She will be a target for men in many establishments. She goes clubbing, and needs to be razor sharp attentive, as guys can slip pills into her drink. Not only this, she has to watch how much she drinks, as if she didn't go in a group, is easy pickings for a guy if is too far inebriated. Many guys wait until the club closes, to find women stumbling about, as are easy sex.

 

I know a handful of women who have been raped, and it can be something a trivial as being too drunk to fight back efficiently at a house party.

 

Yes, it sucks that this is the world that we live in, but last time I checked--large outdoor assemblies in my city and many others in North America are met with heavy police presence. Not only this, but cement filled dump trucks blocking roads, and armed snipers if the event is high profile.

 

Should we be living in fear of terrorism? Up to you, but you can't deny the threat.

 

Its a cold world out there. As individuals, its our responsibility to bring that support to one another, but you can't be naive in doing so.

 

3 hours ago, bejjinks said:

maybe what fuels the Incels anger is seeing "Chads" being so successful and thinking, "That should be me." 

That's how I see their anger.

 

They can't stand the Chad's for getting all the Stacey's they feel entitled to.

 

3 hours ago, paperbackreader said:

Women should not need to walk around with weapons, just as men should not need to walk around with knives and guns. 

That's more idealistic than realistic. Plus actual violence should only be a last resort in self-defense. Street smarts, is avoiding situations before they begin and  learning to see things or situations prior to them going awry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 12:53 PM, bejjinks said:

No, love has not and cannot be commoditized. Romance has been commoditized. Love cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. It's the same reason why creating a bot that is as sophisticated as the human mind is impossible. There are aspects of the mind that cannot be measured or studied scientifically and therefore cannot be replicated. Bots may be able to act human but it will always be an act, nothing real. They can act romantic. They can act sexy. But that isn't love. That's just pretend.

It's not particularily wise to say never in regards to scientific fields. Everything you've said that can't be measured simply can't be measured or controlled yet. One of those particular reasons is in part due to ethics I imagine. Nobody wants to start conducting experiments with experimenting in the manipulation of what we define as love. That's some Mengele type shit waiting to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E is for E said:

It's not particularily wise to say never in regards to scientific fields. Everything you've said that can't be measured simply can't be measured or controlled yet. One of those particular reasons is in part due to ethics I imagine. Nobody wants to start conducting experiments with experimenting in the manipulation of what we define as love. That's some Mengele type shit waiting to happen.

In a way, you're right. Someday in the far distant future, probably after we've already figured out intergalactic travel, we may figure out what love is. However, it isn't so much about ethics. It's that the great theory of everything is less complicated then the definition of love and we haven't figured out the great theory of everything yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...