When Misogynists Become Terrorists

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Internet communities ranging from NAMBLA, to KKK, and people from Minnesota and Alaska are being tracked by the government.

What happens if you combine incels and NAMBLA?

Well, then you get the government tracking incels, Nambla, and people from Minnesota and Alaska.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Innate"
"Born-that-way"
These are becoming a popular justification for all sorts of deviant human behaviour these days.

Such as?

Men's sexism

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ranging from “men’s rights” forums and incels to “pickup artists”

I love how this article lumps those three things together so casually. That really sets an informed tone for the whole rest of the article.

Are those three groups so exclusive from one another? The "men's rights" movement is hardly a bunch of guys upset about unfair custody and lack of male sexual assault victim support. Incels are... well... apparently completely out of their mind. And I think "pickup artists" means something other than pickup artist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are those three groups so exclusive from one another?

Exclusive? No. Does that mean they should be equated to one another? Also no.

The "men's rights" movement is hardly a bunch of guys upset about unfair custody and lack of male sexual assault victim support.

Yes, many are. Stop drinking the radical feminist coolaid.

Incels are... well... apparently completely out of their mind.

Incels are not all woman haters. Most are just pathetic losers with low self confidence. Others are legitimately messed up, like people born deformed. All incel means is unable to get laid.

And I think "pickup artists" means something other than pickup artist.

Pickup artist means guys who make a sport out of getting laid and putting notches in their bedposts. They are the opposite of Incels, so it is silly to try to group them together.

If the concern of the author is misogyny then why not talk about misogynists rather than sweeping in three different communities with a broad brush?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Part of the problem is that American culture still largely sees men’s sexism as something innate rather than deviant. And in a world where sexism is deemed natural, the misogynist tendencies of mass shooters become afterthoughts rather than predictable...

This is such bullshit. Have these people never travelled to less progressive countries? We are incredibly well off here, including in regard to gender equality. No it isn't seen as natural here to advocate for legalizing rape.... Maybe in the middle east...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The broader the brush, the less precise the painting.

Indeed. And the OP article uses the broadest of brushes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Exclusive? No. Does that mean they should be equated to one another? Also no.

Well, once the article says they are equivalent, then there is a point to be made. In that they specifically note the term "ranging" would indicate it isn't equivalent.

Yes, many are. Stop drinking the radical feminist coolaid.

No, they aren't. In fact, if you ask 100 random guys, I am willing to bet about 90 never even heard of Incel, Men's Rights movement. Of the remaining, maybe half agree.

Incels are... well... apparently completely out of their mind.

Incels are not all woman haters.

#notallincels, got it. If that isn't a formal fallacy, it needs to become one.

Most are just pathetic losers with low self confidence. Others are legitimately messed up, like people born deformed. All incel means is unable to get laid.

Got a Gallup poll?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

#notallincels, got it. If that isn't a formal fallacy, it needs to become one.

Not all Incels. Not all men. Not all Muslims. Not all feminists. Not all blacks. Not all whites.

Not all X is not a fallacy. It is the opposite. Broadbrushing is the fallacy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

#notallincels, got it. If that isn't a formal fallacy, it needs to become one.

Not all Incels. Not all men. Not all Muslims. Not all feminists. Not all blacks. Not all whites.

Not all X is not a fallacy. It is the opposite. Broadbrushing is the fallacy.

#NotAllBroadbrushingIsAFallacy

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

#notallincels, got it. If that isn't a formal fallacy, it needs to become one.

Not all Incels. Not all men. Not all Muslims. Not all feminists. Not all blacks. Not all whites.

Not all X is not a fallacy. It is the opposite. Broadbrushing is the fallacy.

The original statement in the article was: "Over the past decade, anti-women communities on the internet — ranging from “men’s rights” forums and incels to “pickup artists” — have grown exponentially."

That doesn't seem to have been incorrect.

 

[laughing dog]

Internet communities ranging from NAMBLA, to KKK, and people from Minnesota and Alaska are being tracked by the government.

What happens if you combine incels and NAMBLA?

You get conservolibertarians.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Innate"
"Born-that-way"
These are becoming a popular justification for all sorts of deviant human behaviour these days.

Given that in any large population, the distribution of sociopaths is fairly regular, we would expect to find that some of the socially inept men, who find it difficult to find a woman willing to spend time with them, are sociopaths. The fact that their lack of empathy allows them to direct hostility and violence toward women, in particular, doesn't make them different from other sociopaths, except that many sociopaths can be charming, when it suits their needs.

The "innate" and "born that way" labels may apply, but this is not a case of delusion, or mis-perception of reality. Whether their hatred of women makes them unattractive to women, or their lack of attractiveness makes them hate women, is a chicken or egg debate.

Are there any self identified incells who believe their lives are fulfilled, in terms if job satisfaction and quality of life, with the exception of female companionship? I doubt it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think the label of incel has a context that should not be ignored in trying to define it. Just because it stands for involuntary celebates doesn't mean it is EXACTLY that*. The label was self-declared among a group of guys on the internet who couldn't get laid by desirable women and then took to being hateful against the women because the desire is not reciprocal.

*To test the idea that involuntary celebates is an equivalent set to incels consider mathematics, set theory. To prove two sets, A and B are equivalent, you try to show A is contained (a subset) in B and that B is contained in A. Here is a problem: a woman could be an involuntary celebate, but not an incel. That alone and with nothing else shows the terms are not the same. A is not contained in B. I will add that in theory these guys could get laid by each other or even ugly, unwanted women but they voluntarily choose not to. So neither is B contained in A. They are actually voluntary celebates and they are males in particular.

 

[Jobar]

There are smaller subgroups of those subgroups who actually want to emulate them and kill people themselves who are more dangerous still. We can oppose and condemn these latter groups without giving two shits about the broader groups which they're contained in.

As Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I think we can expand that to any sort of strange, distasteful, or uncommon belief; if it's not harming or defrauding anyone else, then we may not need to take any action against them, aside from perhaps openly stating that the belief is strange, distasteful, or uncommon.

But it's true that there are beliefs which tend to inspire harm to other individuals, be they women, atheists, or believers of whatever sort. Does anyone doubt that Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, has caused harm to gay individuals on many fronts, even if none of the members of that church have ever actually assaulted or robbed a single gay person? Words can unquestionably inspire actions, and we have to decide when words become sufficiently hateful to justify legal action against the speaker. The classic example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is plainly actionable; but when the harm caused is further removed from the words inspiring the harm in space and time, then things get murkier. I wonder if there are legal experts who have written at an educated layman's level on this subject?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are smaller subgroups of those subgroups who actually want to emulate them and kill people themselves who are more dangerous still. We can oppose and condemn these latter groups without giving two shits about the broader groups which they're contained in.

As Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I think we can expand that to any sort of strange, distasteful, or uncommon belief; if it's not harming or defrauding anyone else, then we may not need to take any action against them, aside from perhaps openly stating that the belief is strange, distasteful, or uncommon.

But it's true that there are beliefs which tend to inspire harm to other individuals, be they women, atheists, or believers of whatever sort. Does anyone doubt that Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, has caused harm to gay individuals on many fronts, even if none of the members of that church have ever actually assaulted or robbed a single gay person? Words can unquestionably inspire actions, and we have to decide when words become sufficiently hateful to justify legal action against the speaker. The classic example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is plainly actionable; but when the harm caused is further removed from the words inspiring the harm in space and time, then things get murkier. I wonder if there are legal experts who have written at an educated layman's level on this subject?

Here in Canada it has to be a call for an immediate threat of a specific harm to be actionable. Like "Kill the gays!", not like "God hates fags", not like "Gays cause cancer", and not like "I'm glad X died, he was gay, he will burn in hell now".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are smaller subgroups of those subgroups who actually want to emulate them and kill people themselves who are more dangerous still. We can oppose and condemn these latter groups without giving two shits about the broader groups which they're contained in.

As Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I think we can expand that to any sort of strange, distasteful, or uncommon belief; if it's not harming or defrauding anyone else, then we may not need to take any action against them, aside from perhaps openly stating that the belief is strange, distasteful, or uncommon.

But it's true that there are beliefs which tend to inspire harm to other individuals, be they women, atheists, or believers of whatever sort. Does anyone doubt that Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, has caused harm to gay individuals on many fronts, even if none of the members of that church have ever actually assaulted or robbed a single gay person? Words can unquestionably inspire actions, and we have to decide when words become sufficiently hateful to justify legal action against the speaker. The classic example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is plainly actionable; but when the harm caused is further removed from the words inspiring the harm in space and time, then things get murkier. I wonder if there are legal experts who have written at an educated layman's level on this subject?

Here in Canada it has to be a call for an immediate threat of a specific harm to be actionable. Like "Kill the gays!", not like "God hates fags", not like "Gays cause cancer", and not like "I'm glad X died, he was gay, he will burn in hell now".

Or using the wrong pronoun.

 

[repoman]

This is required watching:



Especially the guy talking on his youtube video.

Kyle is actually cute af but after just a few minutes of watching him jitter, twitch, stutter and even hit himself I went from thinking "damn he's cute" to "damn he's gonna murder me". I am writing this not to be mean but to help incels understand. It isn't always your looks but untreated issues that women are repulsed by. Get on some meds, get some therapy, THEN try getting a woman. Just wanted to offer some friendly insight.
edit: To add to this I felt the same way about Elliot Rogers. I first saw him and thought he was really good looking but as he talked and moved every instinct in my body screamed RUN FOR YOUR LIFE...and my instinct was right. It's not the looks guys, it's the untreated mental illness.