MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > The incel phenomena

The incel phenomena


Good morning/evening/afternoon, ladies and gents. Roll up, roll up, roll up! Welcome to my thread on...you guessed it...the incel phenomena.

The word incel is a curious, painful word. It strips everything down and gets right to it. Involuntary celibacy. Sex can be wonderful, joyous and is a basic human need in order for our race to survive. The fact that someone is involuntary celibate sounds kind of sad... And yet now people fear this word. It doesn't invoke any kind of pity. The word incel causes people to panic. As you know, screenings for Joker are being watched and monitored closely in case of an incel attack... This, to my understanding, is all kinds of madness rolled into one.

First of all, the term itself is a myth. No one is involuntary celibate. People may have boxed themselves into a mental corner thinking that way. And believe me, I understand. I'm a 25 year old guy who's only ever being in one serious relationship and had only ever slept with a couple of women up to the age of 22. I know the pain of self loathing. I've been there and done that. But I've never believed I was cursed and shunned by society and women in general. I know that if I try hard enough, I will eventually get results with women. It may take several attempts and many knock backs, but so what? You see, half of everything is confidence. Since I learned that trick, my results improved. I have now evolved into someone who identifies as MGTOW (men going their own way), a much more tolerant way of thinking (if you cast aside the misogyny that's embedded within MGTOW, as I do). It's just a personal choice because after my first relationship ended just over a year ago, I realised that I'm simply not ready to take that step yet and have avoided pursuing relationships with women since.

Even if someone feels so under confident that they cannot approach several women, there is always the option of escorts (wherever you are in the world, legal or not, hookers are everywhere). And even if that fails you (or the idea irks you), there's always masturbation. Basically, what I'm saying is, I fail to see how the rise of inceldom has come about. It just makes no sense to me. It's a self defeating mindset. It's worrying because incels even have their own language (chads, etc) used to describe others. I do believe, also, that this narrative is being pushed by certain people in the media and with influence for some reason or other. I have my theories but am not willing to discuss them here.

So basically, I am inviting you all (incels and non-incels) to explain to me just what has happened, what has changed in the last few years that has seen the rise of incels to such a great degree. I welcome any and all opinions.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

reply

It's just yet another bullshit internet label used to insult people. Apparently some people, especially Americans, like to label each other with the purpose of insulting, especially when they discuss on the internet, where people also have started to use the term Gay as a general insult, for example. This was never so when the net was primarily used by businesses and universities, it has been downgraded by juvenilia since around the new millennium. Back in the nineties I also never saw the use of "would of", I was actually pretty confused when I first saw that, but people from non-English speaking countries now copy this just because they copy American English thinking that must be the way to communicate on the Net. That in combination with so called memic and viral spreading of often short lived terms make people use such terms.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with US America or Americans, but because the US is dominant on the net, and communication just so happens to be in English, the terminologies usually spread from there. Since the net became a place for everybody, it also allowed people of a young age to participate in discussions on the net and wild spread of stupid insults is the result, because they tend to be quick to copy new trends.

So, basically it does not matter what "Incel" means, it's just yet another tool in internet discussions. It's what you use when you have no real argument in a discussion, and as such is an ad hominem, which is a desperate attempts at a come back against a superior argument.

Basically anyone who uses these kind of words in a discussion, whether on Movie Chat or other places, have already lost the argument, similar to Godwin's law. Unfortunately as the press people also read the internet bullshit, they are influenced by this. Basically journalists in their thirties are influenced by ten-year-olds on the net.

reply

It's just yet another bullshit internet label used to insult people. Apparently some people, especially Americans, like to label each other with the purpose of insulting, especially when they discuss on the internet


You have NO CLUE of what you're talking about.

"Incel" is what men who've been rejected by women not only called themselves but PROUDLY wear as a label.

The reason why it's become an "insult" is that these self-ascribed Incels turned it into one. For example, in the 1990s and early 2000s, people who either hadn't had sex as adults or weren't interested in it called themselves asexuals. That term never became a slur because asexuals weren't derangeed assholes posting stuff like how all women are c*nts who should be raped or all men are pigs who should have their dicks cut off. They were people who simply discussed their sexual status in a neutral manner.

Before they cleaned up their acts, Incel forums were filled with vitriol and violence against women. I can't remember the specific forum now (it might have been "incel.me") but there was one that had an entire sub-forum dedicated to coming up with revenge fantasy scenarios about raping and killing women. One Incel--who praised the Incel movement on Facebook--murdered a bunch of people in Canada as part of an "Incel revolution:" https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/toronto-incel-van-attack/558977/

So, when you say this is a term that people "made up" to insult each other, that's crap. And if you're seeing this term cropping up more and more as an "insult" on the internet, it's because there are so many people picking up the toxic behavior and talking points of Incels. Naturally, if you're going to talk and act like an Incel, you're going to get labeled as one, just as people get labeled Nazis if they say the Holocaust never happened or rant that the Rothschilds are to blame for everything. As they say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

reply

Atomicgirl is a radical misandrist, and a racist to boot. She should not be taken seriously.

reply

And the double standard is disgusting.

She talks about violence against women because some bastard in 2018 proclaimed some 'incel revolution' and killed several people. In the meanwhile, you have the Islam organizing several killings every day, but that's OK. They're the good guys, welcome diversity.

In the last month Muslims have murdered in religious killings more than 700 people, in almost 200 killings, included the guy that stabbed and killed 4 people in Paris a couple of days ago because Allah Akbar.
https://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30

But those are isolated cases. What matters it that guy in Canada in April 2018.

reply

that is typical feminists.... they love the violent muslims and the way they treat women

reply

I'd love to dump a plane full of America's most rabid, feminist misandrists into the middle of Afghanistan and see what happens when they preach their gospel there. The only thing they'll agree with, prior to chopping of their arms, would be the hating of the white men part.

Do feminists or LGBTQ people ever criticize any bigotry or misogyny among, say, black American men?

reply

No, they basically follow a racist religion that is based on hating Anglo-Caucasian men.

reply

did you see the video of the 2 women that went to morocco, and decided to sleep in a tent ?

same will happen to the women on that plane

reply

Islam is right about women.

reply

...and don't forget this person uses more sweeping generalizations than all of the racists in history. There is no individual criticism...if you fit into one of her little boxes, in her mind you act the same as everyone else in that little box she has created.

It's constantly "incels act like this, white men act like that".

I almost feel bad for this person with how racist and judgmental she is, when claiming to be fighting for whatever warped view of equality she seems to have. But then again...I don't. Haha.

reply

no doubt, Atomicgirl is a vile feminist keyboard warrior.... too ugly to talk to men, so she lets her hate out on internet forums.

reply

Seriously. She’s an unhinged feminist who tried to tell people what’s funny and what isn’t like she’s some comedy authority in a Dave Chapelle thread. She’s deranged.

reply

Many men have been rejected by some woman at some point. Doesn't make them involuntarily celibate, it's just some bullshit teen angst crap. How can an Incel be involuntarily celibate if they choose to be Incel? Anyone can write anything on the internet and the stupidest thing you can do is taking it seriously - that's how you end up like that shooter, if you take it seriously just because some chick rejected you(I don't mean you, as in you personally).
What you just wrote proves my point in some way: it's just some made up internet label. The problem only exists because some people take the meme seriously. It's complete and utter bullshit. However, you use it as if it's actually something which exists, as if it's an appropriate label to use, which again shows that it has gone from sub-forum obscurity to mainstream use - on the internet and especially in Forum discussions.

Otherwise tell me how it is relevant to this movie? How is Arthur an Incel? Does he participate in internet forums and describe himself as Arthur the Incel? Or do you believe that men become violent monsters just because some woman rejected their advances, lol.

reply

Not sure anyone "chooses" to be incel. As you say, if they were, it wouldn't be involuntary.

There are certainly people in the world though who are distasteful enough to others that they can't find anyone who wants to sleep with them, or at least they can't find anyone who they also want to sleep with.

reply

"Incel" is what men who've been rejected by women not only called themselves but PROUDLY wear as a label.


Worth noting that the term "incel" was created by a woman, who identified as such, and who created a message board for like-minded folk.

reply

I wish I was so admired.

reply

FPBP

reply

I don’t know much about the subject to engage discussion, but I do have a question regarding Incels having their own language, in particular what does the chavs mean in regard to them?

I know Chavs are kind of “subculture” of trashy young people from council flats in the UK, notably parodied in the character of Vicky Pollard in Little Britain.

Is there another meaning of the word?

reply

There's no such a thing as 'incels' as some group. It seems that there was some reddit subforum that was banned. It was a f*cking subforum, that's all.

And the the mainstream media used the word to label white males that opposed Diversity or Feminism, and white males that identify with alt-right in general. It's a political insult, nothing more. The problem is that political insults shouldn't be part of newspapers, that's a characteristic of third world cultures, and it's quite worrying that it's happening in western countries. That's the big problem nobody is talking about. But the original term was a f*cking subforum, a subforum that wasn't even political, the subforum wasn't even anti-feminist!

reply

Ok, I get that.

But I wasn’t asking about explanation of what or who is an Incel. I had a vague knowledge of it.

I was just wondering what have Chavs to do with Incels? The OP wrote: “It's worrying because incels even have their own language (chavs, etc) used to describe others.”

So I was asking what does a Chav mean in “Incel Language”? If it means anything at all, it sounds silly that they have a language. 😂 I know what it is in British slang, but it seems here it stands for something different?! Maybe I’ll just google it.

Kuku maybe your reply wasn’t meant for me? Or maybe I clicked to reply and ask my question to the wrong person instead to the OP?! I apologize if that is the case.

EDIT:
I found it, think the OP meant Chad instead of Chav. 🤓 Ok, now I know.
So I can move on with my life. 😂

reply

Chav is a British term.

reply

Yeah I know it is, I even had pleasure knowing some chavs in real life. 😂

That is why I was confused what chavs had to do with incels, as the OP wrote chavs.

Since then, I realized it was probably a typo and he must have meant chads. 🙂

reply

For the sake of clarification, it was a typo yes. Haha.

reply

Good to know. Thanks for clarifying. 😊

reply

I stand corrected then.

reply

No, you're right about chav being a British term, but it doesn't mean the same thing as chad (which I meant to say). A chav is a lower class, loud, brash person who typically dresses in hoodies and tracksuit bottoms. I made the error, not you.

reply

Just FYI, in MovieChat you can simply type "fucking" plainly.

reply

You should read up on the history of the term. It's pretty interesting and more layered that you seem to be aware of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

reply

Don't get me wrong, but when it comes to politics, wikipedia isn't any more trustworthy than mainstream media in general.

The wiki can decorate it as much as they like, but I don't see anything more than a couple of forums for people who can't get laid. Let's take the wiki's description: "Incel communities have increasingly become more extremist and focused on violence in recent years. This has been attributed to various factors, including influence from overlapping online hate groups and the rise of the alt-right and white supremacist groups. The misogynistic and sometimes violent rhetoric"

Keep in mind that description. Now check that famous subforum days before it was banned, in web-archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20171017083237/https://www.reddit.com/r/Incels/

And one before it was banned:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170912051710/https://www.reddit.com/r/Incels/

And two months before it was banned:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170818133843/https://www.reddit.com/r/Incels/

Almost zero references to politics or feminism. Zero references to rape or violence. Neither I see anything that suggests that the users were whiter than the average reddit users. I just see a forum for people that can't get laid and support each other....

...which is why probably it got banned. In modern SJW mindset males are evil, and they shouldn't have any support because of whatever original sin. Not to say that once it's banned, it's gone (you only have some web-archive snapshots) and they can use them to build whatever political narrative they want.

reply

This really is not a subject that I care about at all, I was just pointing out that the term wasn't "a subforum," (Reddit I assume you're referring to) but was actually coined by a woman in the early 90s.

I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your post, though. I almost feel guilty for not giving you a more thorough response, but like I said, I don't give a shit. I never even use the term "incel" in conversation.

reply

Don't worry, I don't care about that forum neither. It's just another forum among hundreds.

What I find very interesting is how the media is building a boogeyman around them. The forum is gone, completely gone, and the media can say whatever they want, most of people won't even check it. The media and the wiki can take a forum that was just a bunch of guys feeling depressed because they couldn't get laid and portray it as, according to the wikipedia: "extremist and focused on violence [...] online hate groups [...] rise of the alt-right [...] white supremacist groups [...] violent rhetoric"

It's an imaginary and (very convenient) boogeyman. And since the forum is deleted (not just closed, but fully deleted), it's not there to prove otherwise.

We're living in dark times.

reply

I agree with you. At one time, it was called “love-shyness”. Either term describes the same thing— a crippling form of social anxiety that prevents the formation of romantic/sexual relationships.

reply

In general one should never use wikipedia as a reliable source for information. You get what you pay for and when you use a free database that can be edited by anyone that is willing to spend the time to edit it you can get lots of inaccurate information either because the writer was an idiot or because the writer was trying to spread false information. Wikipedia is a lot like the anarchist's cook book, filled with some legitimate information but also sprinkled in with bad information that can cause some serious problems.

reply

If you suspect something may be incorrect, you can always follow the citations and see what the sources for the information are.

I think there's a lot more good that comes with Wikipedia's existence than bad.

reply

Wikipedia tends to get hard sciences and history right so long as you ignore any bias in the history and stick with the pure things like Pearl Harbor happened on X date... but when you get to things like "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because ______" then you are starting to get into the biased area where your answer in wikipedia is just going to depend on what the last person that edited believed.

And yes you can always go try and check the cites in a piece, but the fact is most people that use wikipedia don't bother... at most they might go look and see if a source is cited but rarely actually go and look at the source material, which means the person that goes into a wikipedia and edits it to give false information can simply leave the original sites that may even contradict what they have written but in most cases no one will ever actually go verify it. I think the last study I saw on wikipedia determined that they were inaccurate 20% of the time... which is really a bit scary given the number of people that use them as if it were some great oracle.

reply

I would be interested in seeing that study on 20%. I think Wiki is more often right than it is wrong. If it was only right 20% of the time it wouldn't even be worth using.

I specifically remember reading about some studies in the past that said Wiki was roughly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (though there does tend to be a left-leaning bias). I'm sure its accuracy becomes less predictable the farther away you get from mainstream topics that have a ample checks and balances in the form of several editors.

reply

http://snap.stanford.edu/soma2010/papers/soma2010_18.pdf

You can find numerous articles that will throw out the 80% accuracy number but who knows where they came from. Even Wikipedia has an thing on accuracy of itself that mentions 80%. But the above is probably one of the few truly legit accuracy reviews you can find.

reply

According to the paper, they've shown "that non–featured articles tend to have high–quality content 74% of the time, while featured articles average 86%." That seems . . . not bad. The details of the paper are a bit too technical for me to take the time to read through, but it does clearly show that Wiki is not "only accurate 20% of the time."

In any case, I do have to say that I miss the old days of print encyclopedias. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that there is no longer a print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. They now have an online version, but I have tried to use it and it is very hit and miss in terms of what topics they actually have articles on and how thorough those articles are. I know that there is still a print version of World Book, but I have flipped through the current edition at the library and many of the articles are just too small to really be valuable.

I guess that's the trade-off with Wikipedia: Wiki, because of its fundamental nature, has the ability to be a vast resource with thorough articles on an exceptionally wide range of topics. But also because of its nature, there will always be accuracy issues.

I don't know what the answer is there.

reply

Typo on my part, yes it is about a 20% inaccuracy not 20% accuracy. Being wrong 20% of the time is too much. Especially since when you are using wikipedia you are trying to find out about something you aren't familiar with so you will never know if you are reading the 80% good stuff or the 20% bad.

reply

As I said, I didn't read the whole paper, but I find the phrase "high-quality content" to be ambiguous and vague. Do we know that in every case it's referring to accuracy? Could it not also be referring to grammatical qualities, organization, completeness, etc?

If it actually does mean factual accuracy then I'll agree that the number is unacceptably low. I would think that any good encyclopedia would be at least 95% accurate. Some errors are inevitable, but the vast majority of the text should be reliable and trustworthy.

reply

I don't think it is referring to grammar and spelling. I know one article on it was comparing encyclopedias to wikipedia and it had a number close to your 95% for the encyclopedias but one of 80% for wikipedia. And to me that is too much of risk, I do know that one of my daughters was using wikipedia in a class once and because wikipedia wasn't correct she got a bad grade on a school paper. It taught her to stop using it for school, which I had warned her about to no avail.

reply

I took another look at the paper and I made a discovery: It does not actually say what it seems to say at first glance.

Consider this key excerpt:

"Using this statistical model, we follow the evolution of content quality and show that the
fraction of time that articles are in a high–quality state has an increasing trend over time. We show that non–featured articles tend to have high–quality content 74% of their lifetime and this is 86% for featured articles. Furthermore, we show that the average article quality increases as it goes through various edits."

They mention later in the paper that "this value increases to 99% if we only consider the last 50 revisions of the articles."

What they did is they pulled a bunch of articles and then looked at various versions of the articles to see how they evolved over time. So they are not saying that any given article is only 74% or 86% accurate. They are saying that the articles they surveyed were high-quality articles for X% of their lifetimes.

Essentially the study shows that articles on Wikipedia start out shaky but then quickly grow to be very reliable as more editors contribute to them. I still don't like that they don't define "high quality content," but instead of being an indictment of Wikipedia's accuracy it actually props the encyclopedia up as a solid information source, at least for mainstream subjects whose articles will have gotten a lot of scrutiny from editors.

reply

Which makes them sound more reliable on a real subject that is followed by many people... But it also means that some pseudo-science topic like "incels" is probably on the weak side of accuracy scale. Remember incels isn't a mainstream topic like schizophrenia.

reply

Well I guess the good news is that if you find some inaccuracy in that article, then you can go in yourself and fix it.

reply

Or if you just want to have fun screwing with people you can just go edit articles and see how long it takes to get fixed. Maybe start with something simply like changing the earth from round to flat and see how long it stays that way an wonder about the grade schoolers that used the site and then got an F on their science report.

reply

It wasn't the media that invented it. They've picked up on it, yes. And misunderstood it like they do most things that are internet culture

I struggled with women when I was young too. LOTS of men have struggled since the dawn of time. But I kept at it and eventually "cracked the code" on talking to them. Which is basically just develop enough all-around social skills that you aren't repulsive. Luckily, I was born just old enough that during my struggling years I didn't stumble upon a self-pitying community and allow myself to stagnate. Anyway, after developing some minor social skills, I stumbled upon this incel culture and found it fascinating. They have online forums where they talk about their frustration

You are looking at things the wrong way. There is a documentary on incels on YT that is pretty fascinating

A young man who can't get laid tends to "put the pussy on a pedestal". These guys just take that to an extreme. Some "factions" focus on how ugly they are. They believe that the main thing preventing them from finding love is their looks and that's really what mating comes down to. In reality, even if they are ugly, they also have many other flaws and they may also be trying to get girls that are just out of their league. Others focus more on being poor or being socially awkward

What they all have in common is stubbornness and zero self-awareness. They are, for the most part, sexist AF. They describe single moms as undesirable despite the fact that they themselves think being found undesirable makes them worthy of sympathy. They tend to view women as one homogeneous group that all thinks and acts the same. I think that it is, in part, a mental disorder. Or at least it is a result of one or more mental disorders. Many of them probably fall on the Autism Spectrum. Many probably have Anxiety issues that they aren't addressing

From what I've witnessed of it, some of them are decent people. They are just lonely and confused. But some are very toxic

reply

Toxic and pathetic in their self-pity. They do not grant others the empathy that they themselves desire. But the media has sensationalized these communities, as they always do. First of all, they are not a particularly organized group. They're not like Proud Boys or any of the weird groups that have sprung up in our weird modern society. They're more like "furries", a group of people loosely connected by one identifying feature, who form in scattered internet communities

Because they're not a single organized group they cannot be, like the media describes them, some kind of terrorist organization. Some may be violent, but that's not a necessary part of the incel culture, at least from what I've seen. Bitterness is a common emotion in those groups, but not all of them believe that they need to take their anger out on the world

And lastly, the Joker character in the movie is not an incel. He has a crush on a woman, but being unable to get laid is not a central part of his character, which is what mainly defines an incel. There are lots of guys who can't get laid out there, but what defines a true incel is that they've allowed their inability to get laid to become a core part of their personality.

The connection between the Joker character is EXTREMELY tenuous, but the media has seized on it because it makes for a provocative story. James Holmes, the so-called "Joker killer", was not an incel. He had had a girlfriend at one point. The Joker character himself is not an incel, he bangs Harley Quinn. Many of the Joker-Incel connections found on the internet are actually ironic memes made by non-incels for comedy purposes

reply

Because they're not a single organized group they cannot be, like the media describes them, some kind of terrorist organization. Some may be violent, but that's not a necessary part of the incel culture, at least from what I've seen.


Revisionist history.

The Incel phenomenon started out exclusively as a subculture marked by a violent hatred towards women. It was an offshoot of the rise of misogynist anti-feminist/female groups like MRA/MGTOW. While MRA and MGTOW were just dumb Al Bundy types complaining about Feminazis, Incels were guys ranting about how much they wanted to rape and kill women as payback for not sleeping with them. Some would even ask for legal advice from other Incels on how to rape a woman they personally knew. Their forums were all over the place but I guess due to public scrutiny, they've been banned. Even Reddit--that bastion of free speech--banned its Incels forum in 2018: https://www.reddit.com/r/Incels/. You can't even find archived posts from sites like Incel.me at Archive.org--that's how evil these sites were.

Here are typical Incel posts:

1. http://i.f1g.fr/media/ext/1900x1900/madame.lefigaro.fr/sites/default/files/img/2018/04/incelspng.png
2.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/FemalesFighting/status/928153194181431296~/news/blogs-trending-41926687
3. https://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/experiment.png?resize=600%2C864
4. https://i.redd.it/o2yjncjf30q01.jpg

When that guy in Canada went on a killing spree, the Incel subculture became exposed to the public for the first time. But instead of everyone hearing about it and saying,"Ew, how disgusting," young men started adopting the name of "incel" for themselves and now are trying to pretend that it was this harmless thing the entire time, with the dangerous sociopaths being the exception. But it was the sociopaths who founded that movement in the first place until they--the Johnny Come Latelies--came along and jumped on the bandwagon.

reply

Huh. Well ok, then. I stand corrected

reply

don't be disheartened. the reason for the confusion that you see across these "incel" threads is b/c it is used more broadly by many. I've seen everything from "adult star wars fan who can't get laid" to the actual origin. It's become a lazy, broad swipe. And you're right about the film. I think actual incels will be sorely disappointed that this version isn't really their patron saint. Those who reviewed it that way are just showing willful blindness.

reply

The Incel phenomenon started out exclusively as a subculture marked by a violent hatred towards women. It was an offshoot of the rise of misogynist anti-feminist/female groups like MRA/MGTOW.

■ 'Incel' was a obscure subforum in reddit for people who couldn't get laid.
■ MRA is just the movement defending the rights of men. It's the modern male equivalent to early feminism.
■ MGTOW are just men that have decided that the inconveniences of a relationship outweigh the benefits, in particular given the current state of laws.

They're completely different things.

Having propaganda that tries to shame political positions or shame movements that defend the civil rights of certain groups, that's nothing new. Early feminists and suffragettes were often portrayed as spinsters who couldn't get a husband. The 'incel' propaganda is just a modern version of this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/0d/9d/be0d9d04bf8c2c8bbfd16abaf470e08f.jpg
https://www.prints-online.com/p/164/suffragettes-who-kissed-14161768.jpg
http://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto,w_728/v1555926121/shape/mentalfloss/suffragette4.jpg

reply

How did it start out "started out exclusively as a subculture marked by a violent hatred towards women" when it was started by a woman?

reply

YOUR LINKING OF THE CRAP YOURE LOVINGLY DESCRIBING ANF AUTISM IS MONSTROUS.

reply

I do not love those freaks. I just don't think that they are as dangerous as the media says they are

reply

there are none...... just a made up word by a few, blown out of proportion by libcunts and feminists

reply

It is a real thing. Incels are the ones who came up with the term incels, not the media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8EAwRauoM

The people in that video met on a website called love-shy. Visit the site for yourself and you'll see that they exist. Very few of them are actually violent, but they do congregate and exchange their fucked up views on society

reply

yeah, but there are not as many of them as the media would like to tell us. media always blows things out of proportions.

i think there are so few of them so giving them a name as a group is ridiculous.

as you say yourself, they all act differently, so putting them all in one bowl and giving them a name is wrong.

reply

The entire ‘manosphere’, whether it’s incels, MGTOW, or PUA’s is made up of entitled, delusional manbabies who think women owe them something. They think women should have their rights taken away so that they have no other choice but to marry and be financially dependent on losers like them. Many are Christian fundies and are the scum of the earth. Their beliefs are in line with backwards radical Islam. The only reason they oppose immigration from third world / developing nations is because they don’t want sexual competition. But they lack the self-awareness to realize how pathetic they are.

And I’ve been to the forums, so don’t try to convince me otherwise.

reply

no reason to oppose immigration.... when muslims take over, these guys will get laid easily...
they will just take it when they want to.
that is the muslim way, women and girls are 2 rate citizens

reply

So their beliefs are in line with manosphere dwellers, as I said.

reply

UGH..THE WAY YOU TALK IS A DISEASE.

reply

So their beliefs are in line with manosphere dwellers, as I said.

Nope. The manosphere use to be quite egalitarian, in a classic liberal sense. It's far from Islam.

What you mean probably is that Modern Left is even farther from Islam. And let's be honest: that's true.

Islam preaches the dominance of Muslim men over women and non-Muslim. Modern Left preaches the surrender and submission of western men to non-western cultures and population. They're very far from another, they lie in opposite sides... but opposites attract. The Modern Left wanting western world to submit to others, and Islam wanting others to submit to them, they happen to be different... but extremely complementary.

reply

It's really annoying... why can't I just be single and happy?

Identity politics has ruined society. You can'e be an individual anymore, you have to belong to some imaginary internet "group" based on any single action taken...it's completely asinine.

reply

A short response, but one that really hits home for me. The theme of individuality in the modern world (and chiefly, the individual against society itself) is expressed so beautifully in my favourite TV show of all time. The Prisoner. It's an old show from 1967, but it really is a gem. Basically, the main plot revolves around a British secret agent who resigns from his job and is swiftly gassed unconscious in his own home and taken to a mysterious village where people are only known as numbers. It was made during the height of the cold war, so those themes are also touched upon along with various spy show cliches. But once you delve deeper you realise that the show is really just one big allegory. We are all prisoners. We are all in the Village.

Trust me, if you ever find yourself bored and needing something to watch, seek this one out. The whole show is on Youtube. It's only 17 episodes long so it's not too daunting a task.

reply

A GREAT show. “I am not a number! I am a FREE MAN!” McGoohan’s performance cannot be beat. And one of the great parts is the show he starred in before The Prisoner was titled (in the US) Secret Agent, that had this line in its theme song: “Secret agent man, they’ve given you a number/And taken ‘way your name.” Perfect segue.

reply

Really? I didn't know that. I do know of Secret Agent/Danger Man but I've never seen it. Number 6 actually being John Drake is a long running theory, but I'm not sure if it really matters. Ultimately, I think Number 6 represents us all.

reply

That show sounds interesting, will have to check it out. Thanks for recommending it.

reply

It really is a thought provoking show. It's a crime that more people haven't heard of it. I suppose the fact that it's a hidden show is what makes it a cult classic, though. Be warned, though, if you're not used to 60's TV shows some aspects are a little dated. But it has been beautifully restored and it looks great to say that it's over 50 years old.

reply

Thank you (even though the recommendation was not aimed to me).

There's a few ones widely known shows from the 50s-60s: Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Dr.Who, Alfred Hitchcock presents. I never heard of The Prisoner before, though. Could you recommend some other interesting ones?

reply

In terms of what I would recommend, The Twilight Zone is the only other one in regards to interesting, thought provoking shows that comes to mind and you've already listed it.

reply

Thanks.

reply

I've just left the film feeling the best I've felt in a long, long time.

Joker is a love letter for all us low-status males (not necessarily incels!) who suffer under a system ruled by the rich and powerful which idolises women and make men shut up and accept the societal induced failures. They perpetuate this urban myth of privilege and weaponize it to rub it in all our faces. The director Todd Phillips clearly understands this, the overtones throughout the film prove there is a subset of men in Hollywood who despite being afraid to speak up understand the failings of the system and want to liberate us. If the only way of saying they sympathise with us is by dressing it up as a comic book movie then that's fine by me, the message was successfully delivered and as a testament of that I started to well up several times throughout the film.

I just can't stop thinking about it.

reply

Some people can be involuntarily celibate.

I have a relative who has been in a wheel chair most of his life, is paralyzed from the waist down and has very little muscle control above the waist.

reply

Involuntary celibacy is really a lie. There are people out there for anyone. I've seen some of the ugliest people in the world that are married and happy, certainly people that would appear much less likely to ever have a significant other than most of these so called Incel idiots. The reality is these "Incels" don't have a partner because of how they behave and their refusal to change themselves so that they can find someone. Some of them are probably the product of the participation trophy generation that gives little Billy a trophy just for showing up at the ball field even when he can't play and never bothered to even try.

Well when little Billy grows up he seems to think that he is entitled to have gorgeous women come begging him for sex. It doesn't work like that but little Billy never learned that you have to work to get what you want not just sit back and have it come to you. So let's stop using the word "incel" and call it what it is, losers, lazy losers... or since the snowflakes love to just take parts of words to create a new one we'll call them a lazlo... for lazy loser. Now we have a word that actually fits what it is describing.

reply

Involuntary celibacy is really a lie. There are people out there for anyone. I've seen some of the ugliest people in the world that are married and happy, certainly people that would appear much less likely to ever have a significant other than most of these so called Incel idiots.


Even if there wasn't "someone" for everyone, these "Incels" could just have sex the old-fashioned way: escort service or no strings attached sex. That's what men (and women) do when they can't find a partner.

Because these options have always been available to even the most pathetic slob who can't "find someone", I have always had a suspicion that there are more to these "Incels" than miserable young guys not getting laid. I think they're really just your run of the mill criminal sociopaths who've conveniently created this label to make themselves feel more normal than they really are.

reply

"There's someone for everyone, just settle for whatever has a pulse, and if that doesn't work find a junkie whore!"

reply

I have always had a suspicion that there are more to these "Incels" than miserable young guys not getting laid. I think they're really just your run of the mill criminal sociopaths

So now a bunch of males feeling depressed because they can't get laid and sharing it on internet are 'sociopaths'.

That's actually a common reaction in some toxic women. They instinctively despise those nice sub-beta males. But instead of accepting your biological instincts while trying to compensate them using your intelligence, you rationalize it into a moral thing, thinking 'they must be sociopaths, so it's OK to hate them'.

reply

neofeminism is toxic and sociopathic to begin with

reply