Those that are listed in the poll are not incels. It may be how you decide to define it but the world doesn’t. Incel is a loaded word and isn’t going to go back to being about people who just can’t find a partner due to circumstances. Blame the incels for that.
I’m one of the “didn’t vote” in that poll, because i didn’t really want to see any of those people as incels, and the movie sounds depressing. (And I’ve never seen that word have any non-loaded meaning. I’m not convinced it was ever really used except in a loaded way.)
IMO, that was a bad choice on her part. Celibacy is almost 100% about sex.
For someone to say that they were involuntarily celibate sounds to me that they think they deserve sex, just because they’re alive. And whenever I see the term, that is exactly the attitude they seem to have
It’s not clear to me that the “incel” group she created for “late bloomers to talk about dating” is even related to the incel community that later made the news, except for using the same abbreviation. Maybe it is? The article doesn’t say so explicitly.
But i agree that she chose a bad name. She should have gone with the descriptive word she uses today, “late boomer”, which suggests both that it’s about you and that you can (even will) change. Whereas “involuntary celibate” sounds like someone else is forcing you to abstain from sex
The thing my brain did is this: fairies aren’t real, but if they were, showing up on my doorstep would be reasonable. Walruses are real, but there isn’t a zoo for 25 miles, and how would it knock? Also, Craig Stadler lives in Denver, so there’s no loophole available there.
I assumed that when the list was presented as the casting for a movie about incels, the list was for casting a ragtag group of outsiders fighting a shadowy incel terrorist group. The ragtag group, all with backstories told in flashbacks, is led by Elizabeth Debicki.
Yeah, a fairy knocking on my (or anyone’s) door is significantly easier to imagine, because it wouldn’t be particularly unlikely in the right kind of fictional setting.
Furthermore, “You see a fairy” could be interpreted to mean “You see something that looks convincingly like a fairy” (but which is actually a person dressed as a fairy), and that seems less surprising than seeing something that looks convincingly like a walrus.
Why couldn’t it knock with its tusk? It could also just heave itself into the door, though you’d need a pretty sturdy door to survive for the second knock.
I assumed the poll meant that it was actually a fairy: a magical creature. If fairies exist, then our entire understanding of the world is wrong – which it may be in some fashions, but that one seems an unlikely fashion. If the poll had said ‘a being that looks like a fairy’, I might have picked that one; but I picked ‘walrus’ because they actually exist. The only way a walrus could show up on my doorstep would be if some human(s) had brought it there; and I’d presume that that was who had knocked, even if the human(s) involved weren’t visible when I got to the door.
The way I look at it. Knocking on doors is such an unlikely behavior for a walrus it would almost never happen. Knocking on the door and expecting hospitality is much more likely behavior for one of the Fey Folk.
As Dirk Gently said, "Once you eliminate the unlikely, what remains, no matter how impossible, must be the truth.
That makes sense, but you would also have to assume that you had the ability to tell, just by looking, that it was an actual fairy. Because otherwise, if you saw an actual fairy at your door, you would think it was a person dressed as a fairy (or some other non-magical fairy emulator).