Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:11 PM
TheFuture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 103

Science says Incels are right about everything. What happens next?


https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

Where do we go from here?
  #2  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:14 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Cool! A new wiki to “improve”
  #3  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:16 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,014

The Moderator Speaks


I’m not seeing a debate but I bet we can get to the Pit pretty quickly.

Good luck.
  #4  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:17 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
........Wow. They really put a lot of research/effort into it.


But, like the other thread, these incels/MRAs aren't scientifically wrong. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over, and so far they have a tough uphill slog.
  #5  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:26 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,373
The Dude has some appropriate words for this situation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDude
You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole.
Of course, these clowns aren't right, either, but whatevs.
  #6  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,956
On a related note: 2+2 now equals 5. Where do we go from here?
  #7  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:46 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
You made me feel dirty clicking that link, but that's largely my fault for not looking at it first.

The chances of them being right about everything is roughly equal to the chance that I'll suddenly sprout wings and be able to fly.

Excuse me while I run every virus scanner I own.

Last edited by Chimera; 07-26-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #8  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:47 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,506
Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.
  #9  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:49 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #10  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:55 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
Where do we go from here?

Hold on, lemme check the register... Hmmm... says here you now get to eat a whole bag of dicks. Hey, don't look at me pal, I don't make the rules. Shall I fetch you a bag, then ; or did you bring your own ?
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #11  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:56 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.
Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM
  #12  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:16 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
We? There's no "we". "I" am going to laugh my ass off. "You" should get some professional mental help.
[/thread]
  #13  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:19 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
We all go to the optometrist to get all of our eyes de-rolled.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #14  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:22 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
I was unfamiliar with the whole Black Pill thing, so I went to wikipedia;


The "black pill" is a set of beliefs that are commonly held amongst members of incel communities, such as biological determinism, fatalism, and defeatism for unattractive people. Someone who believes in the black pill is referred to as "blackpilled". The black pill has been described by Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp as "a profoundly sexist ideology that ... amounts to a fundamental rejection of women’s sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice."


Sounds like an extremely unhealthy attitude to have about life and other humans. Besides being laughably incorrect.
  #15  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,956
TheFuture is looking rather dim.
  #16  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:30 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Now, be reasonable. They’re right about a few things.

Men exist
Women exist
Sometimes women and men have sex
Just not with THEM
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.
  #17  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:32 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 12,929
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.
  #18  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:44 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.
  #19  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:47 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
It's often amazing how some men will insist that they're not getting laid because they're not physically attractive, yet at the same time, make zero attempt to get laid with women who are not physically attractive, because somehow, those women aren't good enough.

If you take the attitude of "I can't get model/playmate quality women to sleep with me, then the problem lies in those women, not me, and no woman wants me" is pretty goddamned stupid.
  #20  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:47 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,785
So the incels made a wiki to justify their 'need' for 12 year old virgins to fuck and discard.

Thinking...no.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #21  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:49 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
There are actually women name Stacy, and there actually used to be at least a couple of men named Chad.
Hell, there’s a whole country named Chad on the western border of Sudan.
  #22  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:49 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.
So how come they still seem to be multiplying?

That said, I'd be afraid to click that link with a sandbox in a sandbox in a sandbox through a VPN filtered through another VPN. But I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the scientific evidence contained within is on par with the evidence which proves aliens are kept at Area 51, we did not land on the moon, vaccines don't work, and the earth is flat.
__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #23  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:52 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 599
Yes, a warning about the dodgy website in the link, for those who don't want to spend the evening reinstalling their browser, would have been nice.
  #24  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:52 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?

Because NO, all of these places are NOT presenting studies that say "Yup, Incels are exactly, 100% right in all of their suppositions." Most likely, they're only saying "Yes, Incels believe this and feel this way" which is not the same thing.
  #25  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:53 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,033
There are lots of ugly and poor dudes with partners.

The difference is social skills, not suffering from depression, and being reasonable about who you can interest and moving on if you can't.

One might also note that even if you're unable to develop the social skills and etc. you have the choice to spend your time bitching about women or learning to use your hand and moving on with life. We don't all always get everything we want.
  #26  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:56 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.
We don't need or care about scientific studies proving they are unfuckable. We know that already from just their attitude. Should they be given sex slaves because of that? No fucking way.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #27  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:59 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,520
There are even ugly, poor dudes with beautiful partners. What do these women see in these men? The way to find out would be to ask them. Unfortunately, that whole business of "talking to people" is beyond the typical incel's level of social skills.
  #28  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.
"Incels are dumb" -- cite, Harvard University research.

That's barely less rigorous than a sampling of the cite in the OP.
  #29  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:05 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair
  #30  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:06 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html
  #31  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:11 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
By and large, yes. For instance, one part claims that white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive. The cited source says as much. https://www.livescience.com/5860-att...kin-color.html
Ok, so what? They should get sex slaves?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #32  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:12 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought.
Seriously? You're going to pull that card?

Major claims require major evidence.

If the topic was blue whale mating rituals, sure, I'll accept a cited claim without extensively questioning or checking the sources. But there's not a toxic internet subculture known for distorting facts and research about blue whales (unless I just created it right now?).

But since there is a toxic internet subculture of incels who are known for distorting facts and research about human sexuality, how about we stop equivocating, playing Devil's advocate, drawing false equivalences, and whatever other logical fallacies and rhetorical chicanery typically get pulled by these jerkwads JAQ'ing off all over the place, eh?
  #33  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:15 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/this-i...-lover-survey/

The survey polled more than 64,000 people in 180 countries, asking them about their ideal match — from religious or political preferences to the importance of height. Most women asked identified as heterosexual, but queer and bisexual women also responded. The survey skews young: Nearly 40,600 of the women are ages 18 to 24, with the 25-to-29 age group the second biggest demo. Just under 3,800 were 40 years or older.

Almost 90% of the women rank kindness highest among desirable qualities, followed closely by supportiveness at 86.5%. Intelligence received about 72% of the vote; level of education had 64.5%; and rounding out the Top 5 is confidence, with a little over 60%.

Notice “attractiveness” did not top the list. That might explain why the “average” body type (looking at you, dad bods!) was vastly preferred over “very muscular” types, with 44.8% versus a marginal 2.5%, respectively.


and...

heterosexual women put average penis as No. 3, followed by large hands and, interestingly, a short head of hair
So, "insecure, creepy as fuck, whiny misogynistic sociopath", was just edged out from a top 5 spot? Bummer.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #34  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:17 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,549
So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.
  #35  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:18 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 696
I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.
  #36  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:19 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So what if science somehow proves them right about what women want in men?

It isn't going to make them or their attitudes suck any less.
And to add insult to injury, women will still refuse to fuck them.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #37  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:26 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,322
Without clicking on the link, I generally have the impression that many of the Incels assumptions seem correct, but incomplete. And that they draw some very strange and twisted conclusions from them.

I can absolutely believe that women prefer sex with the most attractive-looking males, all other things being equal. But I don't believe all other things are equal, or that its the only thing that matters. And I can believe that males with poor looks, depression and poor social skills won't see much casual sex. I just don't believe thats womens fault.
  #38  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:26 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Well, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of that site, but are, by any chance, those citations actually claiming exactly what the incel site is claiming? Or are they distorting the findings to claim they support their position?
They are distorting the findings to claim they support their position.

From what I can see, the actual quotes they claim appear in the citations do appear in the citations. But they are absolutely cherrypicking and building preposterous houses of cards upon those foundations, and peppering their analysis with just outright bullshit as necessary. They would not pass, say, freshman research paper standards with a C+ or higher.

Just on the presumption that someone will want an example:

Quote:
Any sex a woman has after drinking alcohol can be defined as rape by a man under US law
The US Justice department defines rape as:

Rape: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

This definition very specifically requires a person's body to be penetrated in order for it to constitute rape. In the normal activities of heterosexual sex, then, according to the US Justice System, only a man can rape a woman, and a woman cannot rape a man. A woman would only be capable of raping a man if she were to penetrate his mouth or anus with an object, and this is not usually part of heterosexual activities.

Furthermore, US law states that if a person is to any extent intoxicated with alcohol (drunk), they are unable to give consent.

In previous generations it was considered normal that two people might meet at a bar or party while drunk and then have sex. However, the combination of these two legal conditions creates a situation where in every case where this now occurs, the man is automatically guilty of rape, and the woman has the right to press charges. Even if the man was passed out completely, if he had an erection, and the women sat on his erection, the man, not the woman, would be guilty of the crime.

This is an example of what happens when the creation of laws is guided by emotional reasons rather than rational scientific thought. Laws like this open up men to grave legal risk for participating in common mutual social sexual liaisons.

References:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/...12-ag-018.html
https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/...n/?page_id=305
The italicized statements are true. The underlined statements are unmitigated dogshit.

That is not the only such example. It's an embarrassing and terrifying scene, and anybody holding that up as an example of "accuracy" should be proportionally ashamed.

Last edited by Jimmy Chitwood; 07-26-2019 at 04:27 PM.
  #39  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:30 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University


If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.
Incels are lying sacks of shit with a permanent mental bias against all women and all decent men. I don't believe for one instant that the cites say what they think they do.
  #40  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:30 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If we weren't discussing incel-dom, but rather, some other psychological topic such as adolescent education or drug addiction, most Dopers would accept such sources without a second thought. IOW, the reason the sources are being rejected is not because of the sources themselves, but because of the incels citing them.
Only the ones who are shit at science. The quality of a citation, assuming it even backs up the point it's being used to support, is not based on where it is published.
  #41  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:57 PM
TheFuture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 103
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and from what I've evaluated it has been perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You check easily if there is any distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate". There are crazy people among every group or demographic.

I find this information interesting because everyone is always saying "incels are wrong about everything", yet clearly there's an overwhelming amount of science that actually backs them on most of what they say. My impression is now that people just don't like incels so they don't care if they're right or wrong, which is being validated by many of the responses here so far.

Last edited by TheFuture; 07-26-2019 at 05:01 PM.
  #42  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:58 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
I certainly wouldn't trust Velocity's claims.
I don't see why not; he's the board's foremost scholar of inceldom. Author of a long-running apologia for the resentful fuckless fucks and their neverending pity party. One hopes that he is merely a dispassionate observer, but one wouldn't bet one's life on it.
  #43  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:59 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided. I am not an incel myself, but yet I can look at the science and review the articles and find they are perfectly sound. If you have any interest in how human sexuality works, you will find the information interesting at the minimum.

Almost every entry comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Almost all are freely available journal articles on the web if you search on Google "journal article title pdf". You can see easily there is no distortion. At least of all the ones I've clicked through I have found no significant distortions. Each section includes quotes directly from the articles, for example.

I am not sure what being an incel has to do with sex slaves or any other nonsense. The word incel solely means "involuntarily celibate".
What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #44  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
I am not an incel myself...
Absolute bullshit.
  #45  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:04 PM
TheFuture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
What's the end goal of accumulating all these studies?
I have absolutely no idea. Knowledge? Understanding? Discussion? What's the purpose of any field of scientific study? Why did the researchers perform those studies in the first place?

They've been rattling around in my brain ever since someone linked me to that page off Reddit. I can't stop thinking about them. I'm not sure what to do with the information or how to feel about it.

Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.

Last edited by TheFuture; 07-26-2019 at 05:06 PM.
  #46  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:05 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The sources themselves are perfectly solid.

Sources that were cited:

University of Richmond
Pew Social Trends
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
SAGE Journal
Research Gate
National Bureau of Economic Research
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Research Direct
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
BBC
University of Chicago
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stanford University
Well, I am heavily impressed.

Or would be if I wasn't familiar with the tactic of 1) citing an article and then claiming that the journal/academic institution/agency under whose auspices it appears endorses its conclusions, and 2) pointing to a cherry-picked list of articles/statistics as proof of one's assertions while misinterpreting what those sources say, and/or ignoring a vastly greater body of research/statistics that contradict those assertions.
A good example of #2 is "Miller's Critical Vaccine Studies", a book fawned over by the antivax crowd as impeccable Scientific Proof of their beliefs (the book's author also claims he has communicated with extraterrestrials, but one should not doubt his bona fides on that account ).

Some links to relevant articles from Velocity's list would be nice, as I also do not wish to click on the original link.
  #47  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:05 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
I don't know about you, but my tubby, middle-aged, chronically-broke ass is going to go have frequent and vigorous sex with my incredibly hot partner.
  #48  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:07 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
Read them for yourself and tell me if you don't find them interesting.
I haven't read them and I can already tell you that.
  #49  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:08 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,130
I also am blessed with a partner who is brilliant, insightful, and scorching hot. Her intelligence and good taste is evidenced in many, many ways, not least of which is she occasionally peruses the Dope. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #50  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:08 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
It sounds like people have a lot of preconceived biases that are preventing them from even evaluating the evidence provided.
Bias because of the killings, you mean? The crazy people and the shootings? Nah.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017