Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:11 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, 01:14 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Cool! A new wiki to “improve”
  #3  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:16 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,919

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, 01:17 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,367
........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, 01:26 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,323
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, 04:46 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
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.
The moon landing hoaxers scientifically know more about 99% of space flight than I do. It's just a matter of whether they can win society over. So far they have a tough uphill slog.

Unfortunately, I have no grounds to comment because I do not have Ph. D in astrophysics. I guess we'll never know if men landed on the moon.
  #7  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,521
On a related note: 2+2 now equals 5. Where do we go from here?
  #8  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:46 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 01:46 PM.
  #9  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:47 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,448
Science says nothing of the sort. Incel-ism is not a scientific system of thought, and the scientific claims it makes are mostly false.
  #10  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:56 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,919
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
  #11  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:30 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
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.
  #12  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:49 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,312
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.
  #13  
Old 08-24-2019, 06:58 PM
Deltree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 13
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.
  • There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.
  • Statistically the 259th most popular first name.
  • More than 99.9 percent of people with the first name Chad are male.
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.
  • Statistically the 305th most popular first name.
  • 87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.

From this website: http://howmanyofme.com/

Last edited by Deltree; 08-24-2019 at 07:00 PM.
  #14  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:24 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,393
My God, science does say they're right!
  #15  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:32 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.
  • Statistically the 305th most popular first name.
  • 87.68 percent of people with the first name Stacy are female.

From this website: http://howmanyofme.com/
Also: There are 184,811 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacey.

So when you add up the numbers, a helluva lot of Chads are out in the cold if they want to make it with Stacy/Stacey.
  #16  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:32 AM
StarvingButStrong's Avatar
StarvingButStrong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltree View Post
  • There are 272,261 people in the U.S. with the first name Chad.

{snip}
  • There are 227,709 people in the U.S. with the first name Stacy.

There you go, absolute proof the Incels are wrong! Clearly 44.552 Chads will have to settle for non-Stacy's.
  #17  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:56 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,300
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
roflmao
  #18  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:49 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,004
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.
  #19  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:16 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,216
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]
  #20  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:22 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.
  #21  
Old 07-26-2019, 01:55 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,516
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.
  #22  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:19 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,097
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.
  #23  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,521
TheFuture is looking rather dim.
  #24  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:32 PM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 12,588
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.
  #25  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:49 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,788
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
  #26  
Old 08-07-2019, 03:57 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Well, at the very least, we know they're not procreating.
Good!
  #27  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:44 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,367
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.
  #28  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:47 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.
  #29  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:52 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.
  #30  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:06 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,367
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, 03:11 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,097
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, 04:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,249
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
I like that this source was explicitly picked out as being representative, because it highlight just how unlikely it is that any of the science says what the incels think it does.


Incel: Look! All women like white people, so as a non-caucasion I'm doomed! Therefore I'm justified in raping people, and also in whatever other part of my twisted worldview I wish to justify by cobbling together this list of cites!

Science: No, you stupid ass. The study just says there are trends. Even with the trends there are still millions of women who are just fine with your skin color - it's your shitty, bigoted personality they can't stand.
  #33  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
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
This doesn't tell us about inborn/genetic/evolutionary preferences. Culture and media in most of the world has had a Euro-centric standard of beauty for many decades, if not longer.
  #34  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:08 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,852
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
You misrepresented this study. You have to read more than the headline. They asked 50 white people what hue of skin they found most healthy, which was white skin with a slight yellowish tinge. That in no way equates to your assertion that "white/Caucasian skin is generally considered more attractive."

I didn't go to that incel site, but I imagine they did much the same thing by either misunderstanding a study or by figuring no one would check.
  #35  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:26 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 03:27 PM.
  #36  
Old 07-26-2019, 02:56 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,097
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.
  #37  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,546
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.
  #38  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:12 PM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,323
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?
  #39  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:30 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,249
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, 03:57 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 04:01 PM.
  #41  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:59 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,097
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.
  #42  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:04 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 04:06 PM.
  #43  
Old 07-26-2019, 03:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
I am not an incel myself...
Absolute bullshit.
  #44  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:08 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.
  #45  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:12 PM
TheFuture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
Bias because of the killings, you mean? The crazy people and the shootings? Nah.
Well I'm not an expert on this field, so correct me if I'm wrong, but there would be two obvious counterpoints to raise:

1) There have only been 1-4 "incel killers" and their death count is far lower than that of non-virgin male mass murderers. So mass murdering seems to be an equal opportunity activity. I think the few that did go on killings were severely mentally ill with autism or schizophrenia too. Murdering is reprehensible no matter who does it IMO.

2) Some muslims blow themselves up in crowds but it doesn't mean everyone who is muslim is a suicide bomber or has radical beliefs.

Last edited by TheFuture; 07-26-2019 at 04:13 PM.
  #46  
Old 07-26-2019, 05:41 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFuture
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.
There’s no such thing as an “involuntary celibate”. Anyone can get laid, including so-called “incels”. They just need to lower their standards. They’re not mad because they can’t get a girl. They’re mad because they can’t get a fuckin’ beauty queen. Their celibacy is entirely self-imposed.
  #47  
Old 07-26-2019, 09:19 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,336
Looking at that a bit, that is interesting they got all those studies together. But those studies only tell part of the story.

Like with women preferring dark triad men. Yes women prefer them, but only for short term mating. My understanding is that for long term mating, dark triad personality traits are a negative and not a positive. Which makes sense.

Either way, by a person's late 30s nearly 80% of people are married or have been married. I'm sure an even higher % have been in committed relationships. So people of all looks and personalities end up in relationships.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #48  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:20 PM
TheFuture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 103
I would also just like to say I've been thinking about the race questions I raised a few days ago and I've come to my own conclusions.

1) I do think it is absolutely racism to exclude an entire race from consideration based solely on their race. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the exact definition of racism - discriminating against a group of people solely based on their race. On other sites, searching for opinions on this question, I have seen people try to claim it is not "racism" but "preference" but that does not change that it fits the definition of racism perfectly. An employer could say it is their "preference" to not hire blacks but they would still get hammered for racism. Whether you say something is a "preference" or not does not change whether or not it is racism. If you are discriminating based on race, it is racism by definition. It doesn't mean you need to be legally punished by it. But you can't claim it is not what it clearly is. This applies equally for both genders of course.

2) If studies consistently show patterns of racial hierarchy for men and women (eg. white men do the best for men, asian/indian/arab men the worst for men, black women do the worse for women), and this keeps repeating in dataset after dataset, then we can end at only one of two places:

(i) We can presume it is all cultural and this is due to media bias. This would imply it is malleable and should be changeable over time. The OKCupid study says though that racial patterns did not improve from 2009 to 2014 but stayed the same or intensified. And we are getting more and more multiracial media every day.

(ii) We can presume it is biological. Eg. Asian men are more feminine (eg. Asian ladyboys make some of the most convincing trannies), black women are more masculine (eg. Serena Williams). With this explanation the trends would be deemed not malleable but rather the result of our evolutionary wiring. This implies the trends will never significantly change and some races are just more attractive than others overall and as different genders.

I am somewhat cynical so I am leaning towards #(ii) here but perhaps another decade or two will prove me wrong. I doubt it. I am sincerely curious, so I would usually ask for other people's opinions at this point but I've already learned my lesson on trying to do that.

Last edited by TheFuture; 08-03-2019 at 11:22 PM.
  #49  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:12 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 599
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...
You nailed that on the head, and kudos to you for returning to the thread. And yes, assuming that enormous amount of text is all true or near true, agree, a very interesting read.

But to answer your question, where to go from here, the only alternatives I see are for straight men to find other outlets for sex than women, or forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to- definitely opposed to the latter, not sure about the former?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 07-26-2019 at 04:13 PM.
  #50  
Old 07-26-2019, 04:15 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
You nailed that on the head, and kudos to you for returning to the thread. And yes, assuming that enormous amount of text is all true or near true, agree, a very interesting read.

But to answer your question, where to go from here, the only alternatives I see are for straight men to find other outlets for sex than women, or forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to- definitely opposed to the latter, not sure about the former?
IMHO, incels generally have four options:

1. Continue the unhappy status quo forever;
2. Go abroad (not that incel-dom isn't a thing abroad, but most of the discussions about it are about American incels; and even an ugly American is usually granted a certain 'status' in some foreign countries);
3. Improve themselves (depending on situation, much easier said than done - for instance, if you have 3rd-degree burn scars over half your body, that's not cheaply or easily fixed)
4. Try to change society's attitudes
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 08:52 PM.

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