Incel terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

When a word gets stigmatized, you are going to separate yourself from it to avoid judgment.

Every incels on incel forums are misogynists and bitter and talk about killing them all and blame their singleness on women. That is all I see on the forums. So define yourself as an incel, people are going to judge you and think you are that guy.

Heck some people won't call themselves a pedophile because they will never offend nor act on it despite their sexual attraction to them. To them pedophilia is someone who offends and finds it all okay and think it's something to be accepted.

So don't use labels on yourself that have a bad stigma to them.

I want to see you honestly say you are afraid for your life from feminists, that you genuinely worry they will murder some dudes publicly and your safety might be threatened, and show some evidence of feminists organizing and encouraging each other to commit violence against men on the scale like incels have done, then I might take your argument seriously.

Until then, you have offered no evidence to support your assertion that feminist "terrorists" exist and deserve equal consideration to incel terrorists and your argument is not at all persuasive that they are on the same level as the incel terrorism being discussed in this thread.

You guys' derailing tactics are pretty underwhelming. Sad!

Double post.

Not to mention, it's also not just strictly "incel" spree killers. The last school shooting was inspired partly because he was mad at the girl who rejected him (she was his first victim).

Men in general are much more likely to take out their frustrations via violence towards others, so, in light of that fact, yes, male incels are a much bigger threat than feminists.

No, don't even go there. Just don't. Men are generally more likely to take out frustration by violence than women, so should we perhaps be more suspicious of men or even lock them all up?

You are the only one making the argument we lock anyone up for being "suspiciously male". That's called a straw man. If the suggestion that men in general are more dangerous than women (which all evidence supports) makes you this hysterical, you might not be fit for debate and might want to leave this discussion to the rational adults.

It's a thing. Or a place to go. I mean, we can observe a huge correlation between domestic violence and mass shootings. Half of the time, a mass shooter kills "his woman" first. We have plenty of examples of male mass murderers to study. By contrast, we don't have enough women to realistically draw any inferences.

Does that make stalkers uncomfortable?

No, what makes me uncomfortable about her saying it is the same as the media portraying aspergers as a condition in mass shooters or other kinds of heinous criminals.

If they were serious about cutting up men than Jonathan Swift was serious about eating babies.

More incel violence in Canada:

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/ ... y-celibate

Fentanyl would have been a better solution to his problems as it would have only come to bear on him.

And yet he acted out his issues on others in a violent way, which apparently is becoming part of the incel ideology--that they have the right to act out violently, because society has been so hard on them by denying them the ability to get their dick wet. It's so disgustingly self-indulgent and entitled, and shows what is wrong with the mentality of men like this.

I think this is where we had our disagreement earlier though. Millions of people are holding on to their decency by their very fingertips. If life gets dismal enough they break, in some direction. The overwhelming number of people in such narrative spaces resort to some type of vice or find some other way. A small enough number to make the news cave to the urge to violence, and they do so largely goaded on by the same thing that's tormenting other people (incel or just suffering in other ways) - ie. being raised with the idea that they're precious, that they have inherent value, all to find out as adults - to their horrifying disillusionment, that the value of human life is akin to the value of insect life and that our agreements not to harm other people are largely due to our desire to prevent our own suffering. An insect we just smash without thought, a human being judged to have the value of an insect has a much longer and colder road of life ahead of them. Some people, like this guy, take the line of reasoning that if life is absolutely meaningless and that they're suffering - in a role that the world is going to wipe its arse with them for anyway and throw them in the grave when its through - why not do something truly random, something truly chaotic, if it breaks the constant drumming sensation of absolute life failure that they've been consigned an uneasy and unnegotiated submission to. Some people at the bottom of the article offered that he'll now be involuntarily incelibate when Bubba gets a hold of him - quite likely so, and I doubt he'll look back on what he did fondly.

I do tend to worry that this is a time where we'll really start seeing society's demons coming to the surface. Not sure how it will pan out but I think, in the end, we'll need to deeply reconsider how we relate to one another as a species and we'll realize that if we forfeit human dignity or only reserve it for 'the winners' we'll have a solid dystopia on our hands. People at the top can indeed laugh or brush the sweat off their foreheads and be grateful it's someone else and not them suffering the indignity of being a non-human human or a western untouchable, at least until they get laid off - permanently - and from there they can be homeless, or barely cling to subsistence, get treated like they'd never existed, and it'll be loads of fun as all their dreams, all their grand visions of who they are, crumble.

The new "twinkie defense."

What a twat.

Agreed.