Incels - A Symptom of Sick Social System

[ardour]

Your posts often include naive wishes that "the government" do something to fix problems. Government is nothing but a gang of thugs, a racket. They extort from the productive, keep a large slice for themselves and distribute the rest to the unworthy.

Libertarian foolery full of contradictions. Advocating both slavery and a laissez faire capitalist idea of freedom.

What are corporate "slave owners" doing in that case if not extorting labour out of the disadvantaged and the poor of the developing world, interactions that is anything but "free."

Government and unions are the reason you enjoy reasonable working conditions in the west, and, if you're outside the US, universal healthcare, tertiary education.

Edit: now your arguing for eugenics. Why is that not surprising.

 

[Diogenes]

Libertarian foolery full of contradictions. Advocating both slavery and a laissez faire capitalist idea of freedom.

What are corporate "slave owners" doing in that case if not extorting labour out of the disadvantaged and the poor of the developing world, interactions that is anything but "free."

Government and unions are the reason you enjoy reasonable working conditions in the west, and, if you're outside the US, universal healthcare, tertiary education.

Edit: now your arguing for eugenics. Why is that not surprising.

I'd say you're confused, but you're just dishonest. I never advocated for slavery, I only pointed out that it is, factually, the basis for what we call the benefits of civilization. I did not say it was inevitable or without alternative.

I don't need a label to observe the common sense fact that governments that extort are no better than gang thugs. Taxes are theft, and unnecessary.

Governments and unions produce no benefits, they are simply parasites.

I am also not "arguing" for eugenics. I'm simply pointing out facts and asking questions.
However, for the record, why would you oppose humanity choosing to evolve? Why would you favor the brutal alternatives: war, famine, poverty, pollution and disease?

 

[ardour]

I'd say you're confused, but you're just dishonest. I never advocated for slavery, I only pointed out that it is, factually, the basis for what we call the benefits of civilization. I did not say it was inevitable or without alternative.

I don't need a label to observe the common sense fact that governments that extort are no better than gang thugs. Taxes are theft, and unnecessary.

Governments and unions produce no benefits, they are simply parasites.

I am also not "arguing" for eugenics. I'm simply pointing out facts and asking questions.
However, for the record, why would you oppose humanity choosing to evolve? Why would you favor the brutal alternatives: war, famine, poverty, pollution and disease?

Didn't you just make a case for arranged marriage elsewhere. Wouldn't that give low status men access to women which they shouldn't have in a truly competitive environment where men kill each other off? Or would this be high status pairings, i.e. eugenics, which would have to be mandated by the state.

Perhaps we should hand society over to likes of Elon, who just bought an $11 billion dollar company for 44 billion, fired most of the engineers and broke his own product.

 

[Diogenes]

Didn't you just make a case for arranged marriage elsewhere. Wouldn't that give low status men access to women which they shouldn't have in a truly competitive environment where men kill each other off? Or would this be high status pairings, i.e. eugenics, which would have to be mandated by the state.

Perhaps we should hand society over to likes of Elon, who just bought an $11 billion dollar company for 44 billion, fired most of the engineers and broke his own product.

Your logic is flawed. What family leader would agree to give his daughter to a low status man?

Since current relationship modes are largely a disaster, what do you propose? Or are you just a snide with nothing constructive to offer?

What is wrong with trying to improve the human race? Why would you want people to remain flawed

Is it because weak people will believe that if they accept your slave collar, you'll steal form the rich and give them goodies, as if they were children or animals?

Do you oppose freedom? Do you oppose private property?
Anyone is free not to invest in Musk or to work for him.
A job is the property of an employer. Unless there is a contract otherwise, no one is "owed" a job. If Musk makes errors, someone else can and will take his place when he fails. So what?

 

[ardour]

Your logic is flawed. What family leader would agree to give his daughter to a low status man?

Since current relationship modes are largely a disaster, what do you propose? Or are you just a snide with nothing constructive to offer?

What is wrong with trying to improve the human race? Why would you want people to remain flawed

Is it because weak people will believe that if they accept your slave collar, you'll steal form the rich and give them goodies, as if they were children or animals?

Do you oppose freedom? Do you oppose private property?
Anyone is free not to invest in Musk or to work for him.
A job is the property of an employer. Unless there is a contract otherwise, no one is "owed" a job. If Musk makes errors, someone else can and will take his place when he fails. So what?

Isn't it obvious there aren't enough high status men to go around...so polygamy?

The belief that billionaires earn their wealth through hard work involves an almost clownish level of credulity. Take off the ideological blinkers, travel to Europe, even Canada, Australia, any social democracy with high standards of living.

 

[ardour]

 

[TheSkaFish]

Nature doesn't care whether you "believe in it" or not. Evolution is a fact, and the fact is, nature intends there to be very few males, for males to compete and literally kill each other off for the privilege of breeding the mass of females.

Every benefit you enjoy in life, including the device you are reading this on, is the result of cut throat competition. Men may not realize they are inventing or working in order to kill off other man and gain access to all the *****, but that is the essential reality of ambition, and it benefits humanity as a whole. Suffering of males is the basis of everything good in life.

Not liking something doesn't make it untrue.

A strong case can be made that civilization itself, and all of it's benefits, would be impossible without some form of slavery, even up to today, with "wage slaves", factories in China and Amazon warehouses. The Athenians who invented the concept of democracy based their economy on slave labor. Whether harsh or not, the net effect is progress, material wealth, the leisure and capital to build infrastructure and conduct research.

Your posts often include naive wishes that "the government" do something to fix problems. Government is nothing but a gang of thugs, a racket. They extort from the productive, keep a large slice for themselves and distribute the rest to the unworthy.

Well, as The Dude once said, "that's like, your opinion, man".
I disagree with pretty much everything in this post.
I'm not interested in competing, killing off all the other men, and having a harem of women.
I'm interested in exploring, experiencing, enjoying, living and letting live, and having a normal romantic relationship with one woman.

Nature without the rule of law, intelligent thought, or compassion, is uncivilized - it's savagery.
The kind of world that you say nature intends for us live in, is a miserable hellscape of brutality and despair.
The purpose of things like the rule of law, intelligent thought, and compassion, is to offset nature, to counteract it, to give us a buffer zone against it, a more livable alternative where we're more free to choose what we want our lives to be about, and more free to be happy and actually enjoy life before it's over - to make life about enjoying it instead of merely surviving.
Otherwise you just have dumb luck and "might makes right".
I don't think the suffering of anyone is the basis of anything good.
I'd say that if people are still suffering, then things aren't that good yet.

You might think my wishes are naive, but I think it's naive to say that the best or only way for humans to act has already been discovered, and it's just the default way that we were - that the way we are, can't be improved from the way we started. Of course the elites would have people believe that nothing better is possible - they have a vested interest in making sure the people are convinced that we can't do any better than this, to the point that they don't even consider that there might be other possibilities. If people can't even imagine something better, or believe that something better is impossible or nonsense, they won't think to demand a better way. And that's exactly how the elites want it.

It's not just that I don't believe in nature, or that I don't like it - it's that I think we have the capacity to choose to do better, and because we can, we should. The way we were was just the starting point, not the destination. Every time we get further away from the cold brutality and dumb luck of survival of the fittest, the safer, warmer, and happier society as a whole becomes. On the other hand, look at the strongman dictatorships of the world, failed states, or the ghettos of the First World - the kinds of places where there's no compassion, and human life has no inherent value - that's what a pure survival of the fittest environment looks like, and I for one don't want us to regress to that. If it makes me "soft" to believe that life isn't, shouldn't, and doesn't have to be some kind of "tough guy" competition, then so be it, because I feel like the reason I (or most people for that matter) have had any pleasant experiences in life at all is because the modern world has allowed us to live a "soft" life. I feel like nature is, at most, a suggestion. It's not a command, a law, a deity, or the final word. It might try to command us, but we don't have to obey. We're sentient beings, we can choose to act on base instinct or choose a higher road. Either way, we're in control, we're not unthinking or unfeeling machines. We can decide what our nature is for ourselves. Nature can suggest, but as sentient beings we can choose something more civilized and compassionate - something more humane.

Also I know it's possible for us to do better than this, because we've done it in the not-too-distant past, and we can do it again.

 

[Unsigned]

Basically, for most men to be mentally healthy, they need a female partner in their life.

100% agree.
So, so true.

 

[Unsigned]

I lived my youth in a country with no access to prostitutes ... why do you guys from Western world complain ... are they that expensive? ... you are not aware you are so much luckier than in other parts of the world

I've been using them 100% exclusively for 37 years.
It's a bandaid, not a solution.
It's the same as having a drink to calm down.
Yeah, you calm down, but the problem is not solved.

 

[Hereward87]

The Elites want to breed the White ethnicity out of existence, Sarkozy openly admits it here:

 

[Hereward87]

More blaming women for the feelings of men, essentially.

If a lack of a female partner was such a "serious" mental illness as you claim, then you wouldn't have celibate monks thriving in happiness and stability, living amongst themselves, many having never been around women in their entire lives save for their own mothers.

Instead of speaking about having sympathy towards these incels, why not hold them accountable? Does being lonely and depressed give people the right to wish violence upon an entire gender just because they don't have access to them?

Maybe there's a reason why they are single, and perhaps the problem is with their attitude or personality.

For one, not everyone is entitled to a partner, let alone ***.

Many of these men shouldn't be in relationships at all, until they work on themselves psychologically and spiritually.

Stop making women the crux upon which men need to stand in order to be healthy. A woman's job is not to save a man from his loneliness and sexual frustration, it is to be an equal partner in a relationship, both accommodating the other.

Femcels is becoming a growing problem as well, but in this case the media sympathises with women who are involuntarily celibate.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Femcels is becoming a growing problem as well, but in this case the media sympathises with women who are involuntarily celibate.

I still don't understand how that happens given that they're in the position of accepting/rejecting the advances of men. If men you don't want are the only men approaching you, men are still approaching you, you just don't want them. That's not the same as not getting approached at all or being demographically and algorithmically ruled out into consistent rejection. For tonal clarification purposes (since there's no inflection through text) I guess I should state that I don't really feel anything about this, but it DOES confuse the crap out of me, so if someone could clarify for me how femcels systemically happen, that'd be great.

 

[M_also_lonely]

I still don't understand how that happens given that they're in the position of accepting/rejecting the advances of men. If men you don't want are the only men approaching you, men are still approaching you, you just don't want them. That's not the same as not getting approached at all or being demographically and algorithmically ruled out into consistent rejection. For tonal clarification purposes (since there's no inflection through text) I guess I should state that I don't really feel anything about this, but it DOES confuse the crap out of me, so if someone could clarify for me how femcels systemically happen, that'd be great.

It's like obesity being a suffering. Many starve for days just to get a piece of bread and many who have too much to eat, and even that becomes a source of suffering.

When you are coming from the view of abundance, your standards rise. When you have the power of choice, you start believing that you will choose the ideal. There is no ideal and both, men and women suffer due to the belief that there is one. Man chases a woman because he sees that ideal in her. Woman chooses a man, because she sees that ideal in him. But when reality strikes, when the honeymoon is over, both get a dose of reality.

Women who have unrealistic expectations because of their abundance mindset are bound to suffer because they don't want to lower their standards. It is against their ego. A caring and supportive guy might not be handsome. A handsome guy with all their imagined attributes could be a drug addict. A gentleman could be suffering from poverty. This is hard to accept for some women, that's why they suffer despite millions of men deprived of any chance of getting a potential partner.
Giving a chance to a guy who is any less than their imagined ideal would be a step down, a surrender!! This is the cause of the 'growing problem' mentioned here.

 

[M_also_lonely]

If a lack of a female partner was such a "serious" mental illness as you claim, then you wouldn't have celibate monks thriving in happiness and stability, living amongst themselves, many having never been around women in their entire lives save for their own mothers.

True celibacy is only possible as a transcendence of ***. This is the perhaps the core teaching from Buddha's life. The juice of life has to be tasted, tasted so much that you come to the realization of the worthlessness of it. It can't be 'told'. Any other form of celibacy is an act of pretence. One cannot mimic the daily habits of Buddha and expect to attain what he did.

Instead of speaking about having sympathy towards these incels, why not hold them accountable?

Holding them accountable would only make sense if they were assigned a responsibility before and failed to do so.
People who try to encourage them to get up, are mocked.
People who try to listen to them, are mocked.

When you tell someone that they aren't worthy of getting love, you are actually telling them that they're not worthy of giving love.

A man who never experienced intimacy, validation of a woman IS going to have a different way of seeing things than the one who did. Even expecting either one to have beliefs of the other would be RIDICULOUS! A man who was rejected every time, cannot have the same admiration for women as the one who got it easily. That's how things work.

@ardour said it correctly in the thread "Being forever single".

This is why I don't straight out reject the self-imp community of young men for some silly things a random youtuber says. A man who once offered his heart innocently to the woman he admired was told that he isn't worthy enough of giving love, is now attempting to get things sorted for himself. We can't throw this away because some self-imp YTber used the Pepe frog in his video.
----------------------------------------------------------

An incel is not much different than a starving beggar. He is definitely suffering, he doesn't know how to navigate because he has never seen life from the other side. He is deprived of the fundamental comforts that keeps us in good condition. Life seems unfair to him. And yes, obviously, he is going to do some stupid things in an attempt to get out of his misery.
We don't like the beggar because he ruins the view of our beautiful streets. We wish that he didn't exist but not only do we not want to do anything to reduce their suffering, but ridicule anyone attempting to help them get out of it. And expect that they all behave like people who do not suffer like them. How a society deals with an incel reflects how it treats a starving beggar.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

It is against their ego.

That's probably, why I stopped dating, and gradually stopped socializing.
I've kind of always been this way, I've just gotten more comfortable with it in the last 4 years of my life.

I think I was, 12 or 13, when I can earliest remember developing more introverted tendencies?

The way that I learned to deal with egotistical people used to be running from them. But now it's kind of a mass hysteria kind of an issue of both men and women. So, there's no running from it.

I tried something once as an experiment and to my surprise it worked.

I've never liked conflict, because it's uncomfortable and complicated when you're introverted and lack social skills, often feeling like you're at a disadvantage.

I can't remember exactly how it happened, but somewhere between 15 and 16, I started getting into things that weren't considered socially acceptable, some of which was outright illegal given that I had spontaneous and reckless friends. What I learned from this was that the egoic quickly quit following the creatively adventurous at a certain threshold of their own fears.

I met a woman when I was 16, and quickly forgot that highly valuable lesson for the next...8 years of my life, because she quite cleverly figured out how to emotionally manipulate me.

After we broke up, I found that again, and for a short time in my middle and late 20s returned to being my crazy, untamed, highly methodical self during a time period which was of great mental exploration for myself.

I sorted myself out and I'm mostly at peace now but my only ambitions are non-abundant or minimalist survivalism after better understanding myself and where I actually am as opposed to where I would like to be.

Or to put it metaphorically or simply: I finally moved enough stuff around in the messy dark closet that I haven't been into for a while and found the light switch so that I can begin the long process of reorganizing it all.

So the idea of love or a relationship to me now, kinda feels/looks like an Optional DLC to my life, to put it in gamer terms. My usual approach to DLC as a gamer is that I do it AFTER the main story.

Granted, that's only because I've never really wanted a marriage or kids.
If you want a marriage and kids, then yeah, that's different by all accounts.

For me, that's part of why I stopped dating. I realized that there's not much as to my punchline for what I would want out of it other than what I could get out of a casual relationship.

So then I tried casual relationships for a short while.
That didn't work.
Eventually it loses its appeal.

And finally I was like:
"Why am I doing this? This makes no sense."

And then I stopped, and started to better learn to focus and balance myself.
That place that I take myself mentally, I can't take anybody I love there.

I can teach others to do it if they are willing to apply themselves, but the experience is unique to everyone.

 

[Unsigned]

When you tell someone that they aren't worthy of getting love, you are actually telling them that they're not worthy of giving love.

A man who never experienced intimacy, validation of a woman IS going to have a different way of seeing things than the one who did. Even expecting either one to have beliefs of the other would be RIDICULOUS! A man who was rejected every time, cannot have the same admiration for women as the one who got it easily. That's how things work.

An incel is not much different than a starving beggar. He is definitely suffering, he doesn't know how to navigate because he has never seen life from the other side. He is deprived of the fundamental comforts that keeps us in good condition. Life seems unfair to him. And yes, obviously, he is going to do some stupid things in an attempt to get out of his misery.
We don't like the beggar because he ruins the view of our beautiful streets. We wish that he didn't exist but not only do we not want to do anything to reduce their suffering, but ridicule anyone attempting to help them get out of it. And expect that they all behave like people who do not suffer like them. How a society deals with an incel reflects how it treats a starving beggar.

This is by far the best analysis and explanation of this topic I have ever seen.
I think it is difficult for females to understand the above because they are just not wired the same way.
For a male, going through life without the validation of females is extremely difficult -- probably the most difficult thing a male can experience other than going hungry or having serious health problems.
Different guys will do different things to cope with this extreme situation.

I recently had an discussion/argument with a guy I know who claimed that he had it tougher than me growing up because as 18 year old, he was "homeless" and living out of this boss's store for a year (not technically homeless and the boss let him do it, so yeah crappy, but not really homeless), whereas I came from a relatively well off family. He admitted that he had girlfriends that would come over to where he was staying and have *** with him. Meanwhile at that same age, I was a virgin (and I suppose an "incel" - although we did not know of that term in the 80s) who had never had a girlfriend, never been on a date, and never had an attractive girl even so much as look at me. I started going to prostitutes at 19 to relieve my "condition", being doing it since, and 37 years later I have still never had a girlfriend or been on a free date. Meanwhile, my "friend" is married to an attractive blonde and has 4 kids. So I say my condition was much worse than his temporary homelessness because that is something that is easily overcome with hard work.

You can always make more money, but you can't do anything to make a female attracted to you. Either they are or they aren't. Perhaps things are different in a 3rd world country where being well off and being able to provide food, shelter and clothing accounts for something? I dunno. All I know is I was born here in the US and that's just the way things are here for guys like me.

 

[user15010]

...I think it is difficult for females to understand the above because they are just not wired the same way...

It's hard for me as a male to understand and relate to these ideas as well. And believe me I'm not really an attractive guy in any way. These all incel related ideologies seem to me really like unfortunate and harmful distortions of reality.

 

[Unsigned]

It's hard for me as a male to understand and relate to these ideas as well. And believe me I'm not really an attractive guy in any way. These all incel related ideologies seem to me really like unfortunate and harmful distortions of reality.

Yes you may be correct when you say "distortions".
I can only go by my own experiences.
So in my case, I was only ever attracted to very pretty girls. 7s and above.
I was never interested in the average looking ones, the overweight ones, etc..
And now, at my age, even women who are 20 or even 25 years younger than me look "old" and unattractive.
So yeah, from an early age I suppose I had an unrealistic view of the type of female I could be with, and it's carried through my entire life. Seeing escorts and paying for exactly the type of women I like my entire adult life only cemented this. It will never change for me.

So yes, you make a good point.
If the "incel" types lower their sites, they would probably have a good chance at finding a girlfriend.
But alas, that is much easier said than done. Especially now in this instagram/tiktok/onlyfans/****hub world in which we live.

 

[Hereward87]

I still don't understand how that happens given that they're in the position of accepting/rejecting the advances of men. If men you don't want are the only men approaching you, men are still approaching you, you just don't want them. That's not the same as not getting approached at all or being demographically and algorithmically ruled out into consistent rejection. For tonal clarification purposes (since there's no inflection through text) I guess I should state that I don't really feel anything about this, but it DOES confuse the crap out of me, so if someone could clarify for me how femcels systemically happen, that'd be great.

There are probably some women who are so undesirable that almost no men approach them.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

There are probably some women who are so undesirable that almost no men approach them.

In retrospective analysis, probably.
But in either case I'm still more inclined to just stay single because it allows me more freedom with less compromising. That's entirely a personal choice though. Everyone else can do whatever. I'm cool with just being on my own. Well, not entirely, but I mean I'm more cool with being entirely on my own than with the factor of my narrative being hijacked.