Has anyone actually disproved any of the scientific studies on that page or shown them to be misrepresented? We’re on page 7 and so far the only thing anyone has been able to provide any counter-evidence against is the prison rape issue, which unlike almost everything on that page was not from a scientific journal.
I got sick of being trolled by people who just want to talk about nonsense like sex slaves, so I took a week break to see if the bickering would stop and instead someone might post some analysis to counter or agree with the science of the page.
I am not interested in any type of echo chamber for anything at all. Science exists with or without an echo chamber. If the science is real, that is all that matters to me.
I still have found nothing of substance misrepresented in any of the studies linked.
Good question.
The reason you find nothing of substance misrepresented is because you blow off all the misrepresentations when they’re pointed at you. Because you’re a captial-I Incel who is just looking for confirmation of your Incel belief system. Like that business with the asian men or whatever earlier on this page; you are only seeing what you want to see because you are covering your eyes when you look at anything else.
So far, every link on that page that was examined was determined to be misrepresented. (Which hasn’t been many, because throwing a bunch of links at people and saying “read these!” merits nothing more than a hearty Fuck You.) This is because the list of cites was carefully collected to be things that could be twisted to support the Incel worldview, maybe, if your reading comprehension is shitty and you don’t look too closely. And as long as one doesn’t actually read for comprehension, and doesn’t understand science, and doesn’t pay attention to actual reality, it works! You can support any bullshit you want by pointing at a cite and lying about its contents.
In actual fact, of course, the Incel worldview operates on absolutes that no scientific study supports. They believe that if they are not greco-roman gods in appearance they are fucked, and that if they alter themselves into greco-roman gods they will get ALL the sex, even though they are shitty people in every other way. No science supports this, no matter how hard you Gish Gallop.
Has anybody proven that any of the studied on that page were properly represented?
Nope. Nobody has.
Look, TheFuture. If you actually want to have a serious discussion on this subject, try this:
Pick one of those studies to start with. (After that’s been properly dealt with for a while – not immediately --, you could then start a separate thread on another one. And so on.)
Post a link direct to the actual study. Not to a site talking about it. Not to a news article quoting a few bits of it. Not to a video, which takes much longer to watch than it would to read a study and makes it impossible to snip exact quotes. Straight to the study in written form, and not behind a paywall. Surely out of that great long list you started with there’s at least one study you can do that with. (And, if you can’t, then you can’t yourself possibly actually know what all those studies say.)
Along with that link, post a clear description of what claim(s), exactly, that are made by incels which you think is/are backed by the study. It’s impossible to discuss whether a specific study backs a specific claim if you never say what the claim is. (You appear for instance to be claiming that a study which makes it clear that nearly all Asian men in the USA get married (and that they do so at a higher rate than white men) backs claims that – that what exactly? That Asian men in the USA have little hope of getting laid? Little hope of getting long term relationships? Either of those would clearly be nonsense.)
Then, having allowed time for people to read the study and to match it against the specific claim you’re making, read and consider any criticisms you get; and respond to what those criticisms actually say. That might be a discussion worth reading, and worth joining in on. I very much doubt it’s going to come out the way you seem to want it to; but who knows, you might learn something. And/or the rest of us might learn something. And/or some of the people lurking (wise of them, I suspect; I think I’m wasting my time typing this) might learn something.
Who are these men marrying if not women?.. Sex dolls?..Goats?..
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Actually, you were gone less than two days. I guess your math is exactly as good as the rest of your science.
I’m was basically a loser before chatting gave me guts to ask a girl to meet me for sex. Having done just that for nearly 10 years, I will call myself a bionic incel (or used to be.) That Wiki list doesn’t impress me much. Just my leanings:
I’m not much of a looker but I learned this: dress neat and look clean. It can be as effective as looking like Brad Pitt.
You don’t have to act dominant or cuddly cute. Act like you want her in a sincere way.
Got other assets like a sexy phone voice? Then call her often.
The old school wins all the time. Women who don’t like doors being held open for them are bone pickers or have unwanted baggage, IME.
In blind dates men lie about their height, and wealth. Women lie about their age, skin tone, and weight. But get them to talking about sex and they (women) become completely honest about their physical appearance.
I have long stopped judging women by their looks when fully dressed and made up. They simply look different during sex. I look for hints.
You don’t have to be rich. Just moneyed. Some women ask what car you drive off the bat. I tell them my 4-day old, $10,000 Chevy is parked in the Ritz. Above all, show them you’re a stable producer, and a sensible saver.
What I replied to was to this:
You have done the same indeed as creationists, moon landing hoaxers, scientific racists, climate change deniers have done in the past. What you painfully miss (and SlackerInc too as he always does in many other subjects) is what I do agree with many others here: your conclusions do not follow properly because they come from a hodgepodge of disparate studies.
I can say that while most of the research papers (and several are not research papers, that wiki is very deceptive) you point at are done properly, their conclusions are barely related to issue at hand, what I have seen is that when this issue is looked at so far the result is that more research is needed. But what it is clear is that no, saying that science concluded that incels are right about everything is the pseudoscience. It can be that some ideas do match barely related research, but it is asinine to say that all what incels claim has been proven.
I reject that Wiki page because it doesn’t even mention what a girl wants the most: shopping.
The studies are all linked directly on that page. Do you not see that? They each have a references section with links to their relevant studies.
There are probably 130 studies or so in total. You want me to make 130 threads? I will get banned for spam and would swarm this site in doing so.
I am not claiming anything except that those claims incels make on that page seem to be scientifically valid.
I already said that the title of my thread was excessively sensationalistic. But I don’t see how those studies are “deceptive”. Can you clarify what you mean by that? They link all their references very clearly so you can see where each comes from, don’t they? What is deceptive about that?
How would you summarize the subject of say race and dating if you didn’t use a hodgepodge of disparate studies? Do you think one single study can adequately summarize the subject and thus only one should have been used?
The criticism that “too much information is presented” is not a valid criticism if the information has not been misrepresented. And you seem to agree it has not been.
I don’t share your interpretation of the song. To me it is clear that the young lady in question is not at all attractive in the conventional sense, but has tried to gussy herself up with makeup, perfume, elegant clothing, and elocution studies (the thees and thoughs like MM), but the result is literally putting lipstick on a pig failing on all fronts. But if she simply took it all off and was herself she would be much more attractive to the sort of person who would appreciate her.
Fuck off, Nazi-boi.
Pick one idea. Pick one and use the studies to support that idea.
I don’t believe you’re here to actually discuss any of these theories. At least we’ve moved past “men must have sex and society must give it to them”.
There goes my cover. I wonder what tipped her off. :smack:
Okay. Take for example the race data from this study:
Why do you believe this study showed that women judge men by a racial hierarchy of:
White > Latino > Black > Asian > Middle Eastern > Indian
eg.
- Do you believe this is cultural or based on physical traits?
- Do you believe it is malleable?
- Do you believe it constitutes racism?
Also why do you believe women have stricter racial criteria than men and does this constitute greater racism (ie. eliminating an entire group of men based on race would be racism in any other context)?
Please explain your reasoning for each question. I am curious about these sorts of implied questions. If YOU don’t want to discuss these types of things, no one is making you post.
If you don’t want to talk about race, what about height?
ie. Do you think it is significant short men have twice the suicide rate as tall men? Why do you think that is? Do you think anything should be or could be done about it?
I’ve looked at some of this thread. Lots of repeats. At the risk of doing it again…
Guess what ‘Incels’? Some people don’t get laid. Both men and women. You are proving that that’s a good thing.
And yet, you’re still here.
You’ve done part 1. Now you need to show us specifically which data supports your thesis that:
Which data supports this piece:
Then we as a group can discuss whether we agree or disagree with your conclusions.
Please add Part 2: The data. Do not say, “but 130 studies”.