Incels:

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Isn’t it always just a little bit more complicated than that?

What if the ideology is Islam? Does the same comment apply?

I'm not sure what this is even referring to.

But—

If you’re using any religion as justification  to take the rights away from others, or brutalize them fuck you, and your beliefs that says that's okay.

If you’re a Wahabist Muslim in America trying to introduce sodomy laws in California fuck you.

If you’re a Evangelical Christian who’d the same thing fuck you.

I'd like for both to be socially ostracized.

Did you use Islam thinking it’d be a ”gotcha” question? 

Because it's more appropriate to right-wing chuds who’d cry x white-supremchist/incel who’d killed a bunch of people shouldn't have their toxic ideology looked at as a being a significant cause for the violence.

You know like Stefan Molyx, who was very angered to see people ”politicalize” Elliot Roger’s terrorist attack.

 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Did you use Islam thinking it’d be a ”gotcha” question? 

 

I'm just checking the consistency of these statements. I've seen many comments in my time of people who, after an islamic terrorist attack, refuse to scrutinise the philosophy the terrorist was following, instead preferring to cite issues like mental health or deprivation. 

I just want to make sure that if for instance someone beheaded a teacher there would be the same principle at play.

[Knight Of Winter]

I feel like you'd have to define what do you all mean by incels, cos otherwise there will be (and has been) a lot of talking past each other here. Are incels

1) in broadest terms, people who live in involuntary celibate. These include both men and women, although it's significantly more common among the former
2) incel men who exhibit bitterness, frustration and anger due to being involuntary celibate. Subset of 1)
3) incel men who actually attack and hurt women. Subset of 2)

?

Once you clear that out, at least you'll have the common ground to discuss the questions like: do incels deserve symapthy? Should we help them and if yes, how? Etc.

For example, it seems to me that many posters equate "incelship" just with group 3) - which in reality are only a tiny fraction. If you take a look at phenomenon which could be defined as violence by men against women - it's easy to see that incels are not the main perpetrators. In fact, most common culprits are women's former and current partners - non-incels by definition, followed by bosses, coworkers, friends and acquaintances etc. Random angry incels are not near the top of the list. Even if you're talking proportionally i.e. is average incel more likely to hurt women than average non-incel man; or are 3) more represented among 1) than women-bashers are among non-incel men ?  - nothing I've seen would indicate so.

__________________________________

As for mental illness - I think it's an entirely wrong angle to take. Emotions that incels ( 2) ) exhibit - bitterness, sexual frustration, anger, jealousy, resentment are most definitely toxic and unhealthy - first and foremost to incels themselves and then to people around them. In extreme cases ( 3) ) they turn them into dangerous individuals deserving of criminal punishment. But these emotions are also human, all too human. There's nothing mentally ill within them.

So, were I to tackle the problematics of incels (1,2 and 3) of possible solutions, I talk about everyday solutions instead of writing them off as a mental patients. I'd talk about their self-improvement and growth as a person - about becoming men that women are more likely to be attracted compared to than angry and bitter current selves. I'd talk about finding hobbies to vent their frustrations in a socially acceptable way - like martial arts or debate club. I'd talk about removing themselves, for their own benefit, from the company of like-minded angry and frustrated incels, and finding a friend group which will facilitate their growth and warn them (instead of encouraging) should they fall into a trap of bitterness and self-pity. I'd talk about visiting a good therapist - and spending significant amount of time and energy into finding a good therapist. Etc.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

For example, it seems to me that many posters equate "incelship" just with group 3) - which in reality are only a tiny fraction.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment.

Are self-identified Incels a small number of men? 
As of now yes.

Are they a problem?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

In fact, most common culprits are women's former and current partners - non-incels by definition, followed by bosses, coworkers, friends and acquaintances etc. Random angry incels are not near the top of the list.

To be bolded  an incel, or a person who strongly share their world-view can be any of these things, are more likely to treat a “femoid” in their lives poorly, because they see women as objects, that shouldn’t have rights.

I don’t really buy into this notion some put on that they merely watch women get abused and pass judgment on them “liking” it.

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

i.e. is average incel more likely to hurt women than average non-incel man; or are 3) more represented among 1) than women-bashers are among non-incel men ?  - nothing I've seen would indicate so.

And the average neo-nazi is less likely to have killed a Jewish person in his/her life time, than an actual Jewish person.

Incels perhaps do not have wife to beat—but they do push for a society that would see that as okay.

They’re not benign, and do pose a threat to women, who’d like to not be made subservient to men.

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I'd talk about their self-improvement and growth as a person - about becoming men that women are more likely to be attracted compared to than angry and bitter current selves. I'd talk about finding hobbies to vent their frustrations in a socially acceptable way - like martial arts or debate club. I'd talk about removing themselves, for their own benefit, from the company of like-minded angry and frustrated incels, and finding a friend group which will facilitate their growth and warn them (instead of encouraging) should they fall into a trap of bitterness and self-pity. I'd talk about visiting a good therapist - and spending significant amount of time and energy into finding a good therapist. Etc.

I think this is a reasonable plan to avoid a slip into such a dangerous mindset.

Incomplete as it doesn’t address things on a social level.

There really shouldn’t be any shame for anyone in regards to the amount of sexual partners they have.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm just checking the consistency of these statements. I've seen many comments in my time of people who, after an islamic terrorist attack, refuse to scrutinise the philosophy the terrorist was following, instead preferring to cite issues like mental health or deprivation. 

I just want to make sure that if for instance someone beheaded a teacher there would be the same principle at play.

And I’ve seen many right wing chuds cry mental illness when a good old white boy kills loads of people due to to their toxic beliefs.

Ex.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/07/562546682/texas-shooters-history-raises-questions-about-mental-health-and-mass-murder
 

But seriously a deflection.

Why are we paying attention to the right-wing, white-supremchists, Incels who kill people, citing their ideological leaning when Islamic terrorism is a thing?

Can’t we just not cry mental illnesses as the only meaningful cause when a man says why the reason why he’s killing loads of people is because he’s a bigot, and hates that the main target of his ire are given rights?

Or treat the gross act of violence 

[Heartofice]

51 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

Why are we paying attention to the right-wing, white-supremchists, Incels who kill people, citing their ideological leaning when Islamic terrorism is a thing?

To quote your irritating posting style: "Eh?"

I'm not deflecting here, I'm trying to establish whether you are consistent. When you said: 

Quote

“He didn’t kill those people because of his  extreme misogyny! He did it because he was crazy!” Some virulent misogynists after a man kills people citing the beliefs they hold.

Its an easy backdrop for them to push any extreme actions as being merely the result of troubled individual.

Because they don’t want the ideology of the killer—if it’s similar to theirs—to be scrutinized."

because I've seen that same defence of a number of different terrorists, including islamic ones. As long as we agree on that then we are fine. 

---

But anyway, I think KoW made some good points, in that 'incels' are not one homogenous group, and they themselves could be classified alongside a number of dissatisfied young male groups, broadly what a lot of people call the 'manosphere'. I'd say Incels were a very extreme fringe, and the violent crazy ones are fringier still. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to it and be worried by it though.

It does mean, like many other of these groups, it's worth trying to understand why anyone joins an Incel community and engages in hateful rhetoric. In the same way it's worth understanding why disaffected young men join islamic groups as a way of preventing mass terrorist incidences. Simply labelling people as 'evil' or 'mentally ill' and thinking that is the answer isn't productive or helpful, as has been mentioned above.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Incels, when I am referring to them, are a very specific group. They proudly identify as such and have their own terms for everything. I’m sure there are other groups you could say are incel like but when I use the term I’m referring to the group of people referenced in the article way back on the first page.

 

I think this is correct. "Incel" might once have been just a descriptive term for someone who wants to have sex and isn't having it, but today it's a label for a particular ideology, whose adherents self-identify as such.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not deflecting here, I'm trying to establish whether you are consistent. When you said: 

But-but what about Islam!?

Is not a valid thing to respond to anything I said.

It’s a deflection. No more salient than going “But her Bengazi butter-mails!” When someone mentions Trump’s corruption and incompetence should be scrutinized.

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

because I've seen that same defence of a number of different terrorists, including islamic ones. As long as we agree on that then we are fine. 

And I’ve seen a number of disingenuousness right-wing chuds cry “what about Islam!?” when a good ole boy who agrees on them on social/political issues commits a massacre, and failing that cry that the xenophobe/racist/ misogynist, only killed because he was mentally ill,

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Simply labelling people as 'evil' or 'mentally ill' and thinking that is the answer isn't productive or helpful, as has been mentioned above.

Literally I’ve saying couching Incels as just being mentally ill—especially the ones who’d commit great acts of violence— is wrong.
But so yeah, nazis, Incels(who many do typically indulge in white supremacy) can be labeled as bad people.

It’s not helpful to anyone who doesn’t want their bigotry to spread to suddenly make gross dehumanization of swaths of humanity as not something a good person is exempt from doing.

Are they just naturally “evil”?

No.

They can change, they could have went down a different path, and could still do so.

Understanding they’re not just bad people because evil, does not mean it’s wrong to see people who’d brutalize and subjugate others as bad people.

Do you want less gay kids being thrown on the street or tortured by parents who hate that their kids are gay?

Make it socially hazardous to be homophobic.

That is a step in the right direction in the very least.

 

[Guy Kilmore]

On 11/1/2020 at 1:07 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’ve stated I’ve felt it rising in recent years.

Because people—particularly Republicans—have started to show more tolerance for the grossest types of bigotry, particularly because of political gain.

I don’t think most republicans are racist.

If I was pro-life I’d pressed to vote for Trump just on those grounds.

But I do think most are either ignoring, or excusing the worst of his bigotry because he’s proven so effective in terms of fulfilling their goals in other areas.

It isn’t.

I agree to a point

There’s a danger in this type of thinking; that it’s inappropriate to call certain people good or bad based on idealogy.

In that virulent bigots will use it for why they should looked at as bad people when they push for things that would hurt others through actually dehumanize them.

Here’s a question; without a societal imprint of certain people who radically bigoted beliefs being dubbed pariahs, why shouldn’t they see any positive relationship with you merely as a given?

You showing kindness despite their bigotry wouldn’t be as strong a thing if there was no expectation that it’d be perfectly acceptable for you to be “mean”.

I agree.  I too don't think that most Republicans are overtly racist.  I do thing a ton of them have the luxury of really never having to confront racism, which makes it easier for them to look past or ignore the problem in the pursuit of other goals.

I think we are arguing about the margins here. 

I think labeling someone as good and bad is a powerful thing and should be reserved.  I feel you get more mileage out of labeling behaviors as good/bad/unacceptable if your goal is to facilitate a change in that person.  Everyone already feels that they are a good person (if you meet someone that feels that they are a bad person, that is a whole another problem), demonstrating a behavior is bad is much easier than trying to tear into someone's identity as bad, and it is also an easier place to  facilitate a place of change.  The cornerstones of behavioral and cognitive therapies is to set demonstrated behaviors that someone can to do to encourage healthier patterns of life.  Me, calling someone "bad" at best, doesn't give them a paradigm in which to operate, without demonstrating those behaviors.  It is a small thing, to make it about actions and not about the person, but it has large effects.  Again, this is about fostering change.  I do agree there could other reasons where those labels are effective.

Going through these kind of therapies, or engaging in these modalities is much like surgery.  You are "cutting" into a person in vulnerable ways.  The surgical procedure is changing a pattern of behavior.  Like a surgeon, you cut very carefully into the body.  The process is painful and you do it in a controlled environment.  You need trust and comfort with the person doing the surgery.  That is not a given.  It is being "mean" in the right way.

To get to working with me, or someone like one of my colleagues, there is severe disfunction going on.  There is danger of being hospitalized, arrested, or removed from the home.  There is failure in many different areas of functioning.  It is never given that an angst ridden teen wants to have any kind of connection with an adult.

At this point, we are just two random people on the internet arguing.  You can take this where you want it.  I have been in this field for about 20 years now.  Interesting enough, I was going through a file review and my success rate is around 60 to 70 percent in facilitating better growth outcomes, another 20 percent is that the individual aged out of my services and I had to transfer them to a different service.

And the last things, friends come to me for advice.  Before I answer, I ask if they want to talk to Friend Guy or Social Worker Guy.  Anyone that asks to talk to Social Worker Guy, ends up wanting to talk to Friend Guy instead.  These steps of change are very uncomfortable and they are very focused on the one variable you can effect in any situation, you, the individual.

If you are curious about some of the techniques that I am talking about, here is a basic description of one, Motivational Interviewing.  I usually use this approach in building a relationship or if things are stalling out.  I will also say that I am not a therapist, I work with therapists and I am directed by their suggestions. 

ETA:  

People are conflating terminology in this thread.  A mental health concern doesn't always mean a mental illness.  Mental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make choices.  Things that affect mental health are biological factors (such as genes or brain chemistry), life experiences (trauma or abuse), and family dynamics (history of mental health problems).  

Something can be called a mental health concern without it being a mental illness.  It is just recognizing a causal pattern that will highly likely create people who will have a mental health disorder (mental illness). It is like the fact that foods high in fats, sugar, etc. are cheap and easy to have access too which leads to increases in obesity, having obesity can lead to physical health disorders, which is why the first factor would be considered a physical health concern/issue.  (I know I oversimplified obesity, there are many more factors involved.)

Toxic Masculinity and Incels is a mental health concern.  I imagine high percentage of people in that movement probably have some degree of mental health disorder.  Also, their actions inflict traumas on others and themselves with also increases the likelihood of mental health disorders from occurring.  

Lastly, the issues of courts and mental illness is a whole another can of worms.  I hesitate to use a broad brush, but in general, a mental health disorder might be a reason for a particular action.  Part of treatment is accepting the consequences of our actions and part of that is accepting the judgement of 12 of our peers.  (This is a whole conversation in of itself with a huge degree of nuance).

At this point, I am crossing my own boundary between relaxing/getting away from work and talking shop.  If people are really curious of continuing with me, feel free to drop me a message.

 

 

[Fury Resurrected]

8 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I agree.  I too don't think that most Republicans are overtly racist.  I do thing a ton of them have the luxury of really never having to confront racism, which makes it easier for them to look past or ignore the problem in the pursuit of other goals.

 

 

Nope. We need to stop making distinctions between “overt” racism and not. If they are a Republican, they are 100% overtly racist whether they shout the N word wearing a klan hood or not. If you are happy or even willing to vote for a politician who actively does harm to people of color, you are a racist in every way that matters. I don’t care if someone calls me a wagon burner or a spear chucker or a redskin or Pocahontas or a prairie n*gger. I don’t. I care if they elect people to strip me of civil rights. It doesn’t matter if they want to hurt my feelings or not. It matters if they want second class citizenship or worse for people. Nothing else matters.

[Guy Kilmore]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

Nope. We need to stop making distinctions between “overt” racism and not. If they are a Republican, they are 100% overtly racist whether they shout the N word wearing a klan good or not. If you are happy or even willing to vote for a politician who actively does harm to people of color, you are a racist in every way that matters. I don’t care if someone calls me a wagon burner or a spear chucker or a redskin or Pocahontas or a prairie n*gger. I don’t. I care if they elect people to strip me of civil rights. It doesn’t matter if they want to hurt my feelings or not. It matters if they want second class citizenship or worse for people. Nothing else matters.

That is fair.  I think, the only reason I care in making any distinction, is how I approach talking to someone about how harmful their choices and behaviors are.

[Fury Resurrected]

Just now, Guy Kilmore said:

That is fair.  I think, the only reason I care in making any distinction, is how I approach talking to someone about how harmful their choices and behaviors are.

I think if everyone spoke about racism as it being an action rather than a shitty attitude, there might be fewer people who needed it explained to them in the first place.

[Guy Kilmore]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

I think if everyone spoke about racism as it being an action rather than a shitty attitude, there might be fewer people who needed it explained to them in the first place.

Agreed.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 11/3/2020 at 7:57 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

I think labeling someone as good and bad is a powerful thing and should be reserved. 

I do too.

I’m not saying call republicans bad people.

Not even all people who have a degree of racial bias.

Just the more open/malicious bigots should be.

This is something such types rail against—seeing a person as bad for the ideas they espouse—in regards to their views.

Because such stigma does hamper their ability proselytize their message.

An incel doesn’t need to literally commit a mass murder before he can be called a bad person.

On 11/3/2020 at 7:57 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

I feel you get more mileage out of labeling behaviors as good/bad/unacceptable if your goal is to facilitate a change in that person.  Everyone already feels that they are a good person (if you meet someone that feels that they are a bad person, that is a whole another problem), demonstrating a behavior is bad is much easier than trying to tear into someone's identity as bad, and it is also an easier place to  facilitate a place of change.

I just think demonstrating a behavior is bad often is aided by a social consequences.

If they’re actively encouraged/tolerated given their bigoted views by members of a community there’s less reason to see change as necessary.

On 11/3/2020 at 7:57 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

Toxic Masculinity and Incels is a mental health concern.  I imagine high percentage of people in that movement probably have some degree of mental health disorder.  Also, their actions inflict traumas on others and themselves with also increases the likelihood of mental health disorders from occurring.  

I find this position reasonable.

And I do understand the need to not generalize all mental health problems as mental illness.

That was a fair point to make, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting on this.

[Fragile Bird]

The trial of the self-professed incel who used his van to target women walking down a busy Toronto street, killing 8 women and t2 men and injuring 16 others, has started. By Zoom, much to the disappointment of family members who wanted to see him live in court. They have apparently started with the police interview/his confession, which is several hours long.

[KingintheNorth4]

On 10/27/2020 at 3:39 PM, larrytheimp said:

The market could offer a solution here if some enterprising ghoul started a dating app designed to match young incels with 30-55 year-old "let me speak to the manager types".  

They'd make a whole generation of Joffreys. That's a nightmare scenario.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 11/10/2020 at 11:36 AM, Fragile Bird said:

The trial of the self-professed incel who used his van to target women walking down a busy Toronto street, killing 8 women and t2 men and injuring 16 others, has started. By Zoom, much to the disappointment of family members who wanted to see him live in court. They have apparently started with the police interview/his confession, which is several hours long.

You know it's unfortunate that this event has been used by virulent misogynists as proof for feminism having gone too far under the guise of mere concern for human life.

”If women weren't allowed to go for assholes this tragedy wouldn't have happened! If women were socially pressured into being with this violent misogynist, maybe he wouldn't have killed people. We have to put pressure on women to settle for these men to sooth their beastly ways.” says a misogynist who agrees with most of the killer’s politics and social views.

I've yet to see a man commit a mass murder because he thought women weren't given enough rights, or respect.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You know it's unfortunate that this event has been used by virulent misogynists as proof for feminism having gone too far under the guise of mere concern for human life.

”If women weren't allowed to go for assholes this tragedy wouldn't have happened! If women were socially pressured into being with this violent misogynist, maybe he wouldn't have killed people. We have to put pressure on women to settle for these men to sooth their beastly ways.” says a misogynist who agrees with most of the killer’s politics and social views.

I've yet to see a man commit a mass murder because he thought women weren't given enough rights, or respect.

What are you referring to specifically here?

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

What are you referring to specifically here?

It seems like he's railing against the people who qualify the murderer's actions by suggesting he is, in any regard, a victim of increased female sovereignty.

[Heartofice]

31 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

It seems like he's railing against the people who qualify the murderer's actions by suggesting he is, in any regard, a victim of increased female sovereignty.

Right, was just wondering if it was something someone had specifically said.. like a quote or something.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Right, was just wondering if it was something someone had specifically said.. like a quote or something.

Oh Peterson  and his horrible followers are an example of course. Though there are plenty others who look at misogynistic murderer killings as reason we’ve gone too far with this whole “let’s not make women subservient to men.” Thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

It seems like he's railing against the people who qualify the murderer's actions by suggesting he is, in any regard, a victim of increased female sovereignty.

Yep. These people posit without a wife, we should expect men to be savage, uncontrollable, beasts.