Incel terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

Source, please. I have seen the opposite in the research.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... elligence/

I really wouldn't personally regard "newscientist" as a reliable source.

The truth is probably more complex than sociopaths being intelligent or above average, but I can imagine most likely are.

It would/will be a Sisyphean task to make men no longer the more aggressive gender. The only way I can really think of to fix that, like I might have mentioned in other threads when I was talking to shlaifu about human tendencies that aren't future oriented, is progressively rake the human genome with CRISPR Cas-9. Part of the problem as well is that male mass murderers are such a small subsection of men that few know who they are, save maybe the FBI (hopefully) catching as many before they go off the rails as possible. There seem to be growing anti-violence programs, I don't know how much they'll do or whether they'll reach the target audience, but I'd absolutely agree that male aggression absolutely has to be channeled or deferred to positive goals because the alternative is disastrous.

As for the 'terrorist' label, that is something that has a litmus test. If we were going to talk about race or names in this respect, a middle eastern man who shot up a place of work because he lost his job and made zero mention of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or anything like that inspiring him would just be a mass shooter. When he invokes Islam his actions cross the line into the ideological. Similarly if a European of Catholic or protestant heritage shoots up a place for political reasons - if he writes that he did it because he hates capitalism, or because he hates all the non-white people he had to work with or, yes, even because he's enshrined some particular tenets of an incel philosophy that enshrines Elliot Rogers as a martyr, he's a terrorist. To that extent Alek Minassian was arguably a terrorist.

I've strongly suggested that the sympathy/empathy difference needs to be sorted out, ie. one can have empathy with zero sympathy (ie. understanding what might have caused a heinous act and still full desire to punish the offender). If it's wise for us to know what kinds of alienation contribute to things like incel killings it's probably just as wise to know what kinds of alienation contribute to young men embracing radical forms of Islam and either going off to join a group like ISIS or performing lone wolf attacks in their own home country. Something's wrong if trying to get a handle on the causes of radicalization and terrorism is a noble goal when it's Islam but ignoble if it relates to incel.

It absolutely is a gendered issue. Women don't commit these crimes on the same scale that men do. Men pull this crap at significantly higher rates.

And nice try trying to once again blame women by pointing at the mothers.

Thank you for saying this, and I completely agree.

Well, science is whatever you imagine, right? Sources! Who needs them?

Just saying, Newscientist doesn't sound reliable to me. You might be right.

Snipped

The article itself cites various peer-reviewed journals, but I can't link to them.

It's 100% okay to blame men when men commit violence.

If a woman goes on a shooting rampage, I'll gladly hold her accountable instead of looking for a man to blame.

Thanks. I get tired of people trying to blame sh_tty male behavior on women, or calling for sympathy for these incel f_ckwits on the basis that men's feelings are more important than women's lives.

That's understandable but I think you're oversimplifying the issues and creating false dichotomies. The cause of shootings I can be fairly certain is a complicated mix of many factors, inherited and environmental.

Blaming the parent is not shifting the blame to another gender. Generally, the gender of the parent is irrelevant. The reason I used a mother as an example was to show that it is possible for a woman to also be involved in the cause. For example, if they were abusive or negligent. But if we ignore that, because of their gender, then we ignore key roles involved in the development of an aggressive psychology. The gender doesn't matter in this case, what matters is the role they played.

The same goes for abusive fathers in the development of an aggressive woman growing up. This is another example of two genders interacting to form what a quick judgement would believe to be a single gender.

The reason I claim a false dichotomy is that just because another gender is being blamed, doesn't mean the other is faultless. If I suggest a mother may have played a role, that doesn't mean the attacker as a male is faultless. It means we draw a conclusion not based on presumptions about singular genders but as a system in the bigger picture.

Ultimately, it comes down to the complexity of psychology as a field, as a whole. For example, schizophrenia is not well understood due to the fact that many can't yet pin down precisely if the development is inherited (as in a genetic cause) or environmental (via trauma, sometimes coupled with PTSD).

So to separate issues by gender seems to be categorisation forced for no reason other than to point fingers and lay blame, and distracts from the real probable causes of the issues; gun laws and poor mental health care.

Ugh I hate these type of men. I say burn them all!

Sarcasm noted, but it also underscores that simplicity and truth don't always get along.

But if gender is not a factor then why don't women go on spree shootings and men do? Like 99.99% of all mass shootings are committed by men. Surely this is an important factor to consider, if it weren't then just as many shootings would be carried out by women. The fact that women don't mass/spree murder the way some men do is definitely relevant to this discussion about mass/spree killer terrorists. It would be stupid NOT to mention that it's men and not women doing the vast majority of the murdering in these scenarios.